[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51888-51891]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20659]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30973; Amdt. No. 3604]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight
rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective September 2, 2014. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination--

    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/
codeoffederalregulations/
ibrlocations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec.  97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This
amendment also identifies the

airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and
timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only
specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all
these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30
days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs
and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure
before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 1, 2014.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC
on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:
    * * *

Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC Date           State             City                 Airport          FDC No.      FDC Date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-Sep-14.............  CA           Santa Rosa..........  Charles M. Schulz--        4/0400     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig.
                                                            Sonoma County.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City CG          4/0862     07/17/14  VOR/DME RWY 28, Amdt 1A.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City CG          4/0863     07/17/14  VOR/DME RWY 19, Amdt 10E.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City CG          4/0864     07/17/14  VOR/DME RWY 10, Orig-D.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City CG          4/0865     07/17/14  NDB RWY 10, Orig-F.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City Cg          4/0866     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-B.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City CG          4/0867     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-A.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City CG          4/0869     07/17/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 1.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Elizabeth City......  Elizabeth City Cg          4/0870     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1A.
                                                            Air Station/Rgnl.
18-Sep-14.............  KY           Sturgis.............  Sturgis Muni........       4/0921     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  KY           Sturgis.............  Sturgis Muni........       4/0923     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Florence............  Florence Rgnl.......       4/1071     07/17/14  VOR OR TACAN A, Amdt 6.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Florence............  Florence Rgnl.......       4/1072     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Florence............  Florence Rgnl.......       4/1073     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Florence............  Florence Rgnl.......       4/1080     07/17/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 12.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Florence............  Florence Rgnl.......       4/1086     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  AZ           Flagstaff...........  Flagstaff Pulliam...       4/1775     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  AZ           Flagstaff...........  Flagstaff Pulliam...       4/1778     07/22/14  VOR/DME RWY 21, Orig-C.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Wilson..............  Wilson Industrial          4/1779     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1A.
                                                            Air Center.
18-Sep-14.............  NY           Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       4/1853     07/25/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  NY           Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       4/1855     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  NY           Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       4/1856     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  WA           Seattle.............  Seattle-Tacoma Intl.       4/1891     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R, Amdt 2B.

18-Sep-14.............  NV           Las Vegas...........  North Las Vegas.....       4/2060     07/22/14  GPS RWY 12R, Orig-D.
18-Sep-14.............  TN           Chattanooga.........  Lovell Field........       4/2277     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  TN           Chattanooga.........  Lovell Field........       4/2278     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  FL           Orlando.............  Orlando Sanford Intl       4/2302     07/25/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 9L, Amdt 4.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Wilson..............  Wilson Industrial          4/2351     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-B.
                                                            Air Center.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Wilson..............  Wilson Industrial          4/2354     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A.
                                                            Air Center.
18-Sep-14.............  NJ           Caldwell............  Essex County........       4/2357     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  DE           Wilmington..........  New Castle..........       4/2362     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  DE           Wilmington..........  New Castle..........       4/2397     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           St Marys............  St Marys Muni.......       4/2401     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           St Marys............  St Marys Muni.......       4/2402     07/25/14  LOC/DME RWY 28, Amdt 4A.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           St Marys............  St Marys Muni.......       4/2403     07/25/14  VOR RWY 28, Amdt 7.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Raleigh/Durham......  Raleigh-Durham Intl.       4/2407     07/25/14  VOR RWY 32, Amdt 3C.
18-Sep-14.............  MA           Chatham.............  Chatham Muni........       4/2408     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) B, Orig-A.
18-Sep-14.............  MA           Chatham.............  Chatham Muni........       4/2409     07/25/14  NDB A, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           Reading.............  Reading Rgnl/Carl A        4/2411     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig.
                                                            Spaatz Field.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           Reading.............  Reading Rgnl/Carl A        4/2412     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig.
                                                            Spaatz Field.
18-Sep-14.............  NJ           Caldwell............  Essex County........       4/2415     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  NJ           Caldwell............  Essex County........       4/2441     07/17/14  LOC RWY 22, Amdt 3.
18-Sep-14.............  NJ           Caldwell............  Essex County........       4/2456     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Erwin...............  Harnett Rgnl Jetport       4/2513     07/29/14  NDB RWY 23, Amdt 2A.
18-Sep-14.............  MA           Great Barrington....  Walter J. Koladza...       4/2699     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  FL           Tampa...............  Peter O Knight......       4/2742     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  NY           Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       4/2932     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  WV           Parkersburg.........  Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl       4/3460     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  WV           Parkersburg.........  Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl       4/3461     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  WV           Parkersburg.........  Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl       4/3462     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  WV           Parkersburg.........  Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl       4/3463     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 2A.
18-Sep-14.............  GA           Jekyll Island.......  Jekyll Island.......       4/3560     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  GA           Jekyll Island.......  Jekyll Island.......       4/3564     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  ME           Pittsfield..........  Pittsfield Muni.....       4/3566     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-B.
18-Sep-14.............  WY           Casper..............  Casper/Natrona             4/3995     07/29/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 25A.
                                                            County Intl.
18-Sep-14.............  WA           Olympia.............  Olympia Rgnl........       4/4127     07/17/14  VOR A, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  WA           Olympia.............  Olympia Rgnl........       4/4129     07/17/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt 12.
18-Sep-14.............  WA           Olympia.............  Olympia Rgnl........       4/4130     07/17/14  VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 12A.
18-Sep-14.............  WA           Puyallup............  Pierce County--Thun        4/4161     07/17/14  GPS RWY 34, Orig-B.
                                                            Field.
18-Sep-14.............  NY           Buffalo.............  Buffalo Airfield....       4/4167     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  NY           Buffalo.............  Buffalo Airfield....       4/4168     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  FL           Palm Coast..........  Flagler County......       4/4237     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A.
18-Sep-14.............  FL           Palm Coast..........  Flagler County......       4/4239     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Cold Bay............  Cold Bay............       4/4395     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 2A.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Cold Bay............  Cold Bay............       4/4398     07/17/14  LOC/DME BC RWY 33, Amdt 10A.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Cold Bay............  Cold Bay............       4/4399     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Cold Bay............  Cold Bay............       4/4400     07/17/14  VOR RWY 15, Amdt 15.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Cold Bay............  Cold Bay............       4/4404     07/17/14  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 15, Amdt 18.
18-Sep-14.............  AL           Alexander City......  Thomas C Russell Fld       4/4458     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Kenai...............  Kenai Muni..........       4/4494     07/17/14  VOR RWY 19R, Amdt 19.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Kenai...............  Kenai Muni..........       4/4496     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Kenai...............  Kenai Muni..........       4/4497     07/17/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 19R, Amdt 4.
18-Sep-14.............  CT           Willimantic.........  Windham.............       4/4544     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  CT           Willimantic.........  Windham.............       4/4547     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  MS           Bay St Louis........  Stennis Intl........       4/4555     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  FL           Punta Gorda.........  Punta Gorda.........       4/4618     07/17/14  VOR RWY 22, Amdt 4A.
18-Sep-14.............  FL           Punta Gorda.........  Punta Gorda.........       4/4619     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Dillingham..........  Dillingham..........       4/4748     07/29/14  VOR/DME RWY 19, Amdt 7B.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Dillingham..........  Dillingham..........       4/4749     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2C.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Dillingham..........  Dillingham..........       4/4750     07/29/14  LOC/DME RWY 19, Amdt 6C.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Deering.............  Deering.............       4/4880     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-B.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Deering.............  Deering.............       4/4881     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-B.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Klawock.............  Klawock.............       4/4883     07/17/14  NDB/DME RWY 2, Amdt 1B.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           Erie................  Erie Intl/Tom Ridge        4/5229     07/25/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1.
                                                            Field.
18-Sep-14.............  AL           Troy................  Troy Muni Airport At       4/5239     07/29/14  RADAR-1, Amdt 10.
                                                            N. Kenneth Campbell
                                                            Field.
18-Sep-14.............  VA           Richmond............  Richmond Intl.......       4/5273     07/29/14  RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 16, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  VA           Richmond............  Richmond Intl.......       4/5277     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 20, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  VA           Richmond............  Richmond Intl.......       4/5279     07/29/14  RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 34, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Point Hope..........  Point Hope..........       4/5305     07/17/14  NDB RWY 19, Amdt 2A.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Point Hope..........  Point Hope..........       4/5306     07/17/14  NDB RWY 1, Amdt 2A.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           Butler..............  Butler County/K W          4/5715     07/29/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 8.
                                                            Scholter Field.

18-Sep-14.............  PA           Butler..............  Butler County/K W          4/5716     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1.
                                                            Scholter Field.
18-Sep-14.............  PA           Butler..............  Butler County/K W          4/5717     07/29/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1.
                                                            Scholter Field.
18-Sep-14.............  MS           Madison.............  Bruce Campbell Field       4/5958     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  MS           Bay St Louis........  Stennis Intl........       4/6058     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  MS           Bay St Louis........  Stennis Intl........       4/6059     07/22/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  AK           Fairbanks...........  Fairbanks Intl......       4/6700     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2R, Orig-A.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Jacksonville........  Albert J Ellis......       4/6772     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Cheraw..............  Cheraw Muni/Lynch          4/7888     07/22/14  VOR/DME RWY 8, Amdt 3A.
                                                            Bellinger Field.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Cheraw..............  Cheraw Muni/Lynch          4/7889     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1A.
                                                            Bellinger Field.
18-Sep-14.............  SC           Cheraw..............  Cheraw Muni/Lynch          4/7897     07/22/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig.
                                                            Bellinger Field.
18-Sep-14.............  CA           Paso Robles.........  Paso Robles Muni....       4/8020     07/17/14  VOR/DME RWY 19, Amdt 4.
18-Sep-14.............  CA           Hanford.............  Hanford Muni........       4/8346     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) A, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  AZ           Chandler............  Stellar Airpark.....       4/8348     07/17/14  VOR OR GPS A, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  CA           Hanford.............  Hanford Muni........       4/8349     07/17/14  VOR A, Amdt 9B.
18-Sep-14.............  CA           Hanford.............  Hanford Muni........       4/8350     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1A.
18-Sep-14.............  MS           Pascagoula..........  Trent Lott Intl.....       4/8818     07/17/14  ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt 2.
18-Sep-14.............  GA           Toccoa..............  Toccoa Rg Letourneau       4/8855     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1A.
                                                            Field.
18-Sep-14.............  MS           Pascagoula..........  Trent Lott Intl.....       4/8857     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  NC           Asheboro............  Asheboro Rgnl.......       4/9088     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  AL           Mobile..............  Mobile Rgnl.........       4/9089     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1.
18-Sep-14.............  ME           Rockland............  Knox County Rgnl....       4/9496     07/17/14  NDB RWY 31, Orig-B.
18-Sep-14.............  VA           Richmond/Ashland....  Hanover County Muni.       4/9564     07/17/14  LOC RWY 16, Amdt 3B.
18-Sep-14.............  VA           Richmond/Ashland....  Hanover County Muni.       4/9568     07/17/14  VOR RWY 16, Amdt 2B.
18-Sep-14.............  VA           Richmond/Ashland....  Hanover County Muni.       4/9569     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-B.
18-Sep-14.............  AL           Prattville..........  Prattville--Grouby         4/9596     07/17/14  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A.
                                                            Field.
18-Sep-14.............  NY           Seneca Falls........  Finger Lakes Rgnl...       4/9619     07/17/14  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig.
18-Sep-14.............  TN           Rogersville.........  Hawkins County......       4/9621     07/17/14  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-20659 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66775-66778]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28001]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84860; File No. SR-GEMX-2018-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market
Makers Trading in Non-Appointed Options Classes

December 19, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 12, 2018, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 805(b) relating to Market
Makers \3\ trading in non-appointed options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market Makers''
and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Rule 100(a)(33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to amend Rule 805(b) relating to
Market Makers trading in non-appointed options classes.
    Rule 805(b) presently governs the submission of orders by Market
Makers in non-appointed options classes. Subparagraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) place limitations on the overall percentage of executions that
can occur in the non-appointed options classes. Specifically,
subparagraph (b)(2) limits a Competitive Market Maker's (``CMM'') total
number of contracts executed in non-appointed options classes to 25% of
the CMM's total number of contracts executed in its appointed options
classes and with respect to which it was quoting pursuant to Rule
804(e)(1), and subparagraph (b)(3) limits a Primary Market Maker's
(``PMM'') total number of contracts executed in non-appointed options
classes to 10% of the PMM's total number of contracts executed in its
appointed classes.
    The Exchange now proposes in subparagraph (b)(3) to increase the
overall percentage of executions that can occur in a PMM's non-
appointed options classes from 10% to 25% to align with the CMM
allowance as well as other options exchanges, including its affiliated
options market, BX Options.\4\ The Exchange adopted the

10% volume limitation for PMMs as part of its application to be
registered as a national securities exchange, and initially restricted
PMMs in this manner because as a nascent exchange, it sought to promote
PMM activity in their appointed options classes in order to encourage
liquidity on the Exchange. Since then, there has been a proliferation
of options classes added to the Exchange for trading, and the Exchange
therefore believes that the 10% limitation is restrictive in light of
the current environment. The Exchange does not believe that its
proposal will adversely impact the quality of the Exchange's market or
lead to a material decrease in liquidity. As noted above, other options
exchanges are operating today with similar or more generous allowances
for its market makers without sacrificing market quality, and the
Exchange believes that its proposed increase will likewise not result
in a decrease of market quality.\5\ Furthermore, Market Makers and in
particular, PMMs, will continue to be subject to the highest standard
applicable on the Exchange to provide liquidity. For instance as set
forth in Rule 804(e)(2), PMMs are held to the highest quoting standards
on the Exchange. Specifically, PMMs are required to provide two-sided
quotations in 90% of the cumulative number of seconds for which that
PMM's appointed options class is open for trading.\6\ Furthermore, PMMs
are required to quote in certain options series of their appointed
classes that are excluded from the quoting requirements of CMMs (i.e.,
Quarterly Options Series, Adjusted Options Series, and long-term
options). In addition, the Exchange can announce a higher percentage
than the current 90% quoting requirement if doing so would be in the
interest of a fair and orderly market.\7\ PMMs are also required to
enter quotes in their appointed options classes and participate in the
Opening Process.\8\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
foregoing obligations will continue to ensure that PMMs will provide
liquidity in their appointed options classes notwithstanding the
proposed increase in the trading allowance in non-appointed classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ BX Options Market Makers (including Lead Market Makers) can
execute no more than 25% of their total volume outside of their
registered options classes. See BX Options Rules, Chapter VII,
Section 6(e). In addition, CBOE Rule 8.7, Interpretations and
Policies .03 provides that 75% of a Market-Maker's total contract
volume must be in classes to which the Market-Maker is appointed.
Accordingly, only 25% of a CBOE Market-Maker's contract volume can
be in non-appointed classes. CBOE Rule 8.7 applies equally to Lead
Market-Makers and Designated Primary Market-Makers in the same
manner as Market-Makers. The Exchange also notes that NYSE Arca
Options does not impose a strict percentage limitation on its market
makers for transacting in non-appointed classes. See NYSE Arca
Options Rules 6.37-O(d) and 6.37B-O.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See Rule 804(e)(2).
    \7\ See Rule 804(e)(2). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 84581 (November 14, 2018), 83 FR 58657 (November 20, 2018) (SR-
GEMX-2018-37).
    \8\ See Rule 701(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed increase in
the overall percentage from 10% to 25% will bring GEMX in line with
other options exchanges, and permit its Market Makers to effectively
compete with market makers on other options exchanges. Moreover,
applying requirements that are substantially similar to other options
exchanges will remove a significant compliance burden on market makers
who provide liquidity across multiple options exchanges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it
reduces an outdated restriction on PMMs, and simplifies the application
of the rule by imposing the same 25% volume limitation on all Market
Makers. The purpose of limiting the number of contracts executed in
non-appointed classes to a small percentage of contracts executed in
appointed classes was to encourage Market Makers to provide liquidity
in their appointed classes. As discussed above, the Exchange initially
adopted the 10% volume limitation for PMMs because as a nascent
exchange, it sought to promote PMM activity in their appointed options
classes in order to encourage liquidity on the Exchange. Since then,
there has been a proliferation of options classes added to the Exchange
for trading, and the Exchange therefore believes that the 10%
limitation is restrictive in light of the current environment. Other
options exchanges are operating today with similar or more generous
allowances for its market makers without sacrificing market quality,
and the Exchange therefore believes that the proposed increase will not
result in a decrease of quality on its own market.\11\ In addition, the
Exchange believes that the heightened obligations for PMMs to
participate in the Opening Process and provide intra-day quotes will
continue to ensure that PMMs provide liquidity in their appointed
options classes notwithstanding the proposed increase in the trading
allowance in non-appointed classes.\12\ As discussed above, the
proposed rule change will also conform GEMX's Market Maker obligations
to the requirements of other options markets, which will promote the
application of consistent compliance standards for market makers who
provide liquidity across multiple options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See note 4 above.
    \12\ See notes 6--8 above, with accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, such volume limitations were traditionally put in
place and especially important at ``floor-based'' exchanges, since
market makers were limited in the number of classes in which they could
physically make markets, and it was in the floor-based exchange's
interest that market makers focus their market making abilities on
their appointed classes.\13\ Although limitations on trading in non-
appointed classes may be less important on a fully electronic exchange
since electronic quoting and trading systems allow market makers to
make markets and provide liquidity in many more options classes than on
a floor-based exchange, GEMX still believes focusing its Market Makers
on trading in their appointed classes is important for providing
liquidity in those classes. In this respect, the Exchange believes that
its proposal would continue to meet that objective because the proposed
limitation for PMMs would still require that a substantial percentage
(i.e., 75%) of a PMM's transactions be effected in their appointed
classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35786 (May
31, 1995), 60 FR 30122 (June 7, 1995) (SR-Amex-94-51) (order
approving proposal by American Stock Exchange, Inc. relating to the
in person trading volume requirement for registered options
traders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in determining to revise requirements for its Market
Makers, the Exchange is mindful of the balance between the obligations
and benefits provided to Market Makers. While the proposal will change
obligations currently in place for Market Makers, the Exchange does not
believe that these changes reduce the overall obligations applicable to
Market Makers. In this respect, the Exchange still imposes many
obligations on Market Makers to maintain a fair and orderly market in
their appointed classes, which the Exchange believes eliminates the
risk of a material decrease in liquidity.\14\ In addition, Market
Makers are required to abide by quoting requirements in their appointed
options classes in order to maintain the status of a Market Maker,

and PMMs in particular are held to the highest quoting standards on the
Exchange.\15\ As further discussed above, PMMs are also required to
enter quotes and participate during the Opening Process, pursuant to
Rule 701. Lastly, the Exchange also notes that for non-appointed
options classes of Market Makers, Rule 803(d) would continue to
prohibit a Market Maker from engaging in transactions for an account in
which it has an interest that are disproportionate in relation to, or
in derogation of, the performance of its obligations as specified in
Rule 803(b) with respect to its appointed options classes. In
particular, Market Makers would be prohibited from (1) individually or
as a group, intentionally or unintentionally, dominating the market in
options contracts of a particular class and (2) effecting purchases or
sales on the Exchange except in a reasonable and orderly manner.\16\
Accordingly, the proposal supports the quality of the Exchange's
markets by helping to ensure that Market Makers and in particular,
PMMs, will continue to be obligated to and have incentives to provide
liquidity in their appointed classes. Ultimately, the benefit that the
proposed rule change confers upon PMMs by increasing the percentage of
contracts executed in the PMM's non-appointed classes from 10% to 25%
is offset by the PMM's continued responsibilities to provide
significant liquidity to the market to the benefit of market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 803(b)(1)-(4).
    \15\ See notes 6 and 7 above, with accompanying text.
    \16\ See Rule 803(d)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that its proposal will impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because it will align the percentage limitations for both
PMMs and CMMs to 25% of their non-appointed classes, and will treat all
Market Makers uniformly in this respect. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can send order flow to competing exchanges if
they deem trading practices at a particular exchange to be onerous or
cumbersome. The proposal to increase the limitation on the percentage
of contracts executed in a PMM's non-appointed classes from 10% to 25%
will serve to better align the Exchange's requirements with those in
place at other options exchanges, which enhances the ability of its
Market Makers to effectively compete with market makers on other
options exchanges.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 4 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \20\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \21\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. GEMX has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay
contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). The Commission believes that waiver
of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The proposal raises no novel issues.
As the Exchange notes, other options markets require their market
makers to a 25% restriction for trading in non-appointed classes.
Further, pursuant to the proposal, PMMs' obligation to their appointed
classes would remain unchanged. Accordingly, the Commission waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2018-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-42. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments

received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-42 and
should be submitted on or before January 17, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28001 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 4901]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02629]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0003]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on November 26, 2018, Canadian
National Railway Company (CN) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 232.305,
Single car air brake tests. Specifically, CN requests relief from Sec.
232.305(b)(2), regarding the requirement to conduct a single car air
brake test (SCT) on a car when it is placed on a repair track for any
reason, and the car has not had a SCT in the previous 12 months.
    CN seeks this relief for its operation in Fulton, KY, a purpose-
built facility that would utilize a drop table to safely and
efficiently replace defective wheelsets while keeping the train intact.
CN's proposed in-train wheelset replacement program would identify and
replace wheelsets with minor defects falling between Association of
American Railroads standards and FRA requirements, which will assist in
reducing the number of wheel, bearing, impact, and broken rail-caused
derailments, as well as associated injuries.
    CN states that rigid enforcement of 49 CFR 232.305(b)(2) threatens
the viability of CN's in-train wheelset replacement initiative because
CN cannot feasibly perform SCTs on all cars receiving wheelset
replacements or all cars that are placed on that track which have not
received a SCT in the previous 12 months. CN provides an example of how
rigid enforcement would impact this operation: a train made up of 100
cars that have received a SCT 24 months ago would be required to have
all 100 cars receive a SCT simply because they are on a track where
wheelset change-outs are conducted. The wheelset can be changed out in
10 minutes; however, the SCT would be a minimum of 45 minutes per car.
    CN notes that FRA has recognized SCTs associated with in-train
wheelset replacements are not always critical to ensuring railcar and
braking system safety, as:

--FRA regulations do not require SCTs for cars undergoing wheelset
replacements less than 12 months following their previous SCT;
--FRA requires a SCT only once every five or eight years for rail cars
that do not undergo repairs;
--FRA does not require SCTs following wheelset changes on cars at
intermodal loading ramps; and
--FRA has granted this relief to other railroads (see Docket Number
FRA-2007-28454).

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by April 5, 2019 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-02629 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76015-76016]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30799]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008; FRL-9939-70-OSWER]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Consolidated
Superfund Information Collection Request (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1487.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0179) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This notice is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30,
2016. This ICR is a continuing consolidation of the following previous
ICRs: OMB Control Number 2050-0179 (Cooperative Agreements and
Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions), OMB Control
Number 2050-0095 (Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System
(HRS)), and OMB Control Number 2050-0096 (National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)). An Agency may not conduct
or sponsor and a

person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2004-
0008, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Knudsen, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Assessment and Remediation Division, (5204P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 703-
603-9102; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will collect are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR covers the following: The collection of
information under 40 CFR part 35, subpart O, which establishes the
administrative requirements for cooperative agreements funded under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) for state, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments, and
political subdivision response actions; the application of the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) by states as outlined by section 105 of CERCLA
(1980 and 1986) that amends the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) to include criteria prioritizing
releases throughout the U.S. before undertaking remedial action at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; and the remedial portion of the
Superfund program as specified in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA)
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). For Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts
for Superfund Response Actions, the information is collected from
applicants and/or recipients of EPA assistance and is used to make
awards, pay recipients, and collect information on how federal funds
are being utilized. EPA requires this information to meet its federal
stewardship responsibilities. Recipient responses are required to
obtain a benefit (federal funds) under 40 CFR part 31, ``Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to
State and Local Governments'' and under 40 CFR part 35, ``State and
Local Assistance.'' For the Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard
Ranking System, the states will apply the HRS by identifying and
classifying those releases or sites that warrant further investigation.
The HRS score is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to
determine whether a site is eligible to be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Only sites on the NPL are eligible for
Superfund-financed remedial actions. For the NCP information
collection, some community involvement activities covered by this ICR
are not required at every site (e.g., Technical Assistance Grants) and
depend very much on the community and the nature of the site and
cleanup. All community activities seek to involve the public in the
cleanup of the sites, gain the input of community members, and include
the community's perspective on the potential future reuse of Superfund
NPL sites. Community involvement activities can enhance the remedial
process and increase community acceptance and the potential for
productive and beneficial reuse of the sites.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State, Local or Tribal Governments;
Communities; US Territories.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain benefits
(for the Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts under 40
CFR part 35); Required to Obtain Benefits (for the Superfund Site
Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System ICR under section 105 of the
CERCLA, 1980 and 1986); and Required to Obtain Benefits (for the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan under
CERCLA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 12,131 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 308,458 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $481,661.59 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no anticipated change of hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. The estimates are expected to substantially stay the
same because there have been no significant changes in respondents and
the scope of the activities listed under this ICR remains unchanged.

    Dated: November 24, 2015.
James E. Woolford,
Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2015-30799 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Nominating Party: The United States of America

FILE NAME: USA CUN13 Soil Strawberry Fruit Open Field

Brief descriptive Title of Nomination:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields (Submitted in 2011 for the 2013
Use Season)

Crop name (open field or protected): Strawberry Fruit Open Field

Quantity of methyl bromide Nominated:

Table 1: Quantity of Methyl Nominated

Year	Nomination Amount

2013	531,737 kg

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS:

Contact Person:	John Thompson

Title:	Division Director

Address:	Office of Environmental Policy

	U.S. Department of State

	2201 C Street, N.W. Room 2658

	Washington, D.C. 20520

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1) The United
States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this
Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of
methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market
disruption.     .                 ■ Yes  	     ( No

Signature			       	Name					Date

Title:

(Details on this page are requested under Decision Ex. I/4(7), for
posting on the Ozone Secretariat website under Decision Ex. I/4(8).)

This form is to be used by holders of single-year exemptions to reapply
for a subsequent year’s exemption (for example, a Party holding a
single-year exemption for 2005 and/or 2006 seeking further exemptions
for 2007).  It does not replace the format for requesting a critical-use
exemption for the first time.

In assessing nominations submitted in this format, TEAP and MBTOC will
also refer to the original nomination on which the Party’s first-year
exemption was approved, as well as any supplementary information
provided by the Party in relation to that original nomination.  As this
earlier information is retained by MBTOC, a Party need not re-submit
that earlier information.

CONTACT OR EXPERT(S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS:

Contact/Expert Person:	Jack Housenger

Title:	Director

Address:	Biological and Economic Analysis Division

	Office of Pesticide Programs

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mailcode 7503P

	Washington, D.C. 20460

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION
PACKAGE:

1.  PAPER DOCUMENTS:

Title of paper documents and appendices	No. of pages	Date sent to Ozone
Secretariat

USA CUN13 Soil Strawberry Fruit Open Field	14

	2.  ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS:

*Title of each electronic file (for naming convention see notes above)
No. of kilobytes 	Date sent to Ozone Secretariat

USA CUN13 Soil Strawberry Fruit Open Field

* Identical to paper documents

METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE RENOMINATION FOR Preplant Soil Use (OPEN
FIELD OR PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT)

STRAWBERRY FRUIT

SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE

This nomination is for the critical use of methyl bromide for the
production of strawberries in California (Table 1).  Strawberry growers
have been replacing methyl bromide and reducing its use rates in all
production areas, but a critical need remains for areas where
alternatives are not effective, have not been tested, or not allowed due
to regulatory restrictions.

California growers have a critical need for methyl bromide to treat
fields where alternatives are not available due to regulations or to
complete a fumigation program that includes a once per three year
treatment with methyl bromide to manage two new diseases.  Alternative
fumigants include 1,3-D/chloropicrin and iodomethane (methyl iodide),
which has been newly registered in California (as of December, 2010).
Use of methyl bromide has been reduced over the years (approximately
one-third of strawberry land was treated with methyl bromide in 2006
(NASS, 2007; Table 2).

The U.S. Government (USG) has reviewed all factors affecting transition
rates in this sector.  Based on this assessment the transition rate has
been greatly increased for this sector.  For the area covered in this
nomination, the USG believes that the narrative discussion included in
this document is technically valid.  The USG has nominated amounts of
methyl bromide based only on those sub-sectors that cannot transition
away from methyl bromide at the accelerated rate.

2.	summarize why key alternatives are not feasible

Alternatives are considered not feasible where 1) they have not been
sufficiently tested or protocols have not been sufficiently developed
for their use, 2) costs are excessive, 3) application difficulties exist
due to such factors as hilly terrain or equipment requirements, 4) areas
of environmental sensitivity or characteristics reduce their efficacy,
5) regulatory restrictions prevent their use, 6) pest pressure is to
such an extent that alternatives are not effective.

Approximately two-thirds of strawberry land in California use
alternatives to methyl bromide (Table 2).  In California, township caps
currently restrict the use of the most thoroughly studied alternative,
1,3-D.  Restrictions could affect approximately 40-62% of total
strawberry land (California Strawberry Commission, 2008).  Township caps
restricting the use of 1,3-D (Trout, 2005) may affect between 5,700 and
9,000 hectares by 2011 (California Strawberry Commission, 2008, see
Appendix JJ.11).

Now that iodomethane has been registered in California, it may help to
relieve township cap overages of 1,3-D.  However, iodomethane has not
been tested extensively on large-scale production land at the low rates
specified on the California label. Furthermore, California requires much
larger buffer zones (5 to 10 times those on the federal label).
Research using higher rates (comparable to those on the federal label)
generally indicates good efficacy (see “Research” section below).
The new fumigant should be available in several formulations with
chloropicrin, but impacts of buffer restrictions and use rate efficacy
in California will be unclear until experience with the formulations and
its activity against various pests is known.

3.	is the use covered by A certification STANDARD?

There is no certification standard for strawberry fruit production.

4.	PROPORTION OF CROP USING METHYL BROMIDE

Table 2. Proportion of Crop Using Methyl Bromide

Region where methyl bromide use is requested	Total crop area (ha)	Area
nominated for methyl bromide use in 2012 (Ha)	Proportion1 of total crop
area to be treated with methyl bromide (%)

California	14,5002	4,856	33

1 Based on the amount of methyl bromide nominated for the 2012 use
season for strawberry fruit production.

2 NASS, 2007. 2006-season data.

3 Based on estimates from various recent extension publications of
states associated with the requesting consortium.

5.	If part of the crop area is treated with methyl bromide, indicate the
reason why methyl bromide is not used in the other area, and identify
what alternative strategies are used to control the target pathogens and
weeds without methyl bromide there.

The USG has reviewed all factors affecting transition rates in this
sector.  Based on this assessment the transition rate has been greatly
increased for most portions of this sector.  For the area covered in
this nomination, the USG believes that the narrative discussion included
in this document is technically valid.  The USG has nominated amounts of
methyl bromide based only on those sub-sectors that cannot transition
away from methyl bromide at the accelerated rate.

Pest problems vary, and therefore, no one strategy is appropriate for
the variety of pests and growing conditions in strawberry production.
Alternatives are used on two-thirds of strawberry production land in
California.  For example, “Methyl bromide is often being used in
rotation with alternative fumigants.  Many growers will use alternative
fumigants for 2-3 years then rotate back to methyl bromide to clean up
emerging weed and disease problems.  While, in some locations, local
permit conditions may not allow the use of methyl bromide due to the
proximity of sensitive sites such as schools or housing, thus
alternative fumigants such a s Inline are used.  In these locations,
growers may accept lower returns over time due to higher weeding costs
and reduced yields or they will cease growing strawberries in those
fields if soil borne disease losses and weed density gets too high”
(California Strawberry Commission, 2008).

Furthermore, in California, the choice of fumigant “is influenced by a
number of factors including the regulatory situation for a particular
ranch, their financial situation—can they afford methyl bromide, the
type of crop they are producing (summer plantings typically do not use
methyl bromide because they have a short production season while growers
in the northern district are more likely to use methyl bromide since
they have a very long season), the prevalence of disease or weed
problems, etc...” (Legard, personal communication, 2008).  Land
currently requiring methyl bromide may be able to transition to
iodomethane, but it is unclear how much, if any, fruit production will
be affected.

6.	Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods to cover at
least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl bromide? What
changes would be necessary to enable this?

In California, expansion of alternative methods to critical areas may be
likely with the registration of iodomethane, but it is not clear what
might be the impact of iodomethane on the emergence of charcoal rot
(Macrophominia phaseolina) and Fusarium wilt (F. oxysporum)—two
diseases that have caused problems in fields not exposed to methyl
bromide in recent years.  However, research with virtually and totally
impermeable films in California suggests that sequential treatments of
fumigants such as iodomethane, 1,3-D and metam potassium could provide
effective pest management and acceptable yields (Othman et al., 2009).

The California Strawberry Commission has funded Farming Without
Fumigants Initiative whose goal is to develop strawberry fruit
production methods that can avoid the complexities of highly regulated
fumigants.  This research includes collaboration with the University of
California and USDA (see section “Summary of Recent Research”
below).

7.	SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH

1) There was no significant difference in the mean of strawberry yield
from soil treated with methyl bromide and soil treated with DMDS +
chloropicrin (Othman et al., 2010).  Efficacy against Pythium and
problem weeds, such as annual grasses and pigweed, were also comparable
to methyl bromide treatments.

2) Macrophimina and Fusarium have been said to be increasing in
incidence in recent years (personal communication, 2008).  Outbreaks of
both pathogens have been associated with wilting, stunting, and dying
plants in coastal and inland strawberry production areas (Koike et al.,
2009).  Some growers have returned to using a methyl bromide treatment
after two years treatment with alternatives in order to “clean-up”
the soil contaminated with both emerging pathogens and weeds.  Koike et
al. (2009) found cultivar differences in susceptibility to the two
diseases.

3) Norton (2008) reported that excellent weed and disease control have
been achieved with drip-applied 1,3-D/chloropicrin (InLine) followed 5-8
days later by metam-sodium.  Weed control was highly dependent on
optimal fumigant placement, which has not always been applied.

4) Research continued regarding steam treatment of soils (Fennimore and
Samtani, 2010). Estimated costs for labor, fuel, and equipment are
$3848/acre.  While efficacy and flexibility appear to make steam worthy
of further research, disadvantages include high consumption of fuel,
carbon emissions, the need for large numbers of expensive steam
applicators, and water treatments.  Results suggests that some
treatments with steam manage various weed populations comparably to
methyl bromide soil treatments and yields after steam treatments are
similar to yields after methyl bromide (Gilbert et al., 2009; Daugovish
et al., 2009; Fennimore et al., 2009; Fennimore and Goodhue, 2009).
Field demonstrations were used to demonstrate the latest in experiments
in fumigation and non-fumigation methods for strawberry production
(Fennimore et al., 2009).  Treatments also included various low- or
non-permeable tarps.  Steam was the only non-chemical fumigant that had
comparable weed control compared to methyl bromide.  Costs of steam
treatments were discussed by Fennimore and Goodhue (2009) with regard to
orchard replant and ornamental nursery beds.  Yellow nutsedge was more
successfully managed with steam in fall treatments (Daugovish et al.,
2009).  Physical barriers (paper and plastic mulches) appeared to reduce
populations of nutsedge.  A combination of steam and physical barriers
may be effective.  Work is continuing on steam treatment for strawberry
production.

5) Methods of strawberry production were conducted to test the efficacy
of production with non-soil substrates (Fennimore and Samtani, 2010;
Fennimore et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010).  Advantages are comparable
or higher yields compared to fumigated soils and the lack of need for
fumigants.  Disadvantages are limitations in the volume of material
(such as coir and peat) necessary for production, and the need for
in-place irrigation and sensors making crop rotation with vegetables
difficult. Small-scale plots tested various substrates including peat
and peat with perlite or rice hulls, and coconut coir used with green
mulch or skunk mulch (Gabriel et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009).  Initial
results indicated that most of the soilless treatments provided greater
yields than the field soil-grown strawberry plants and water use, while
variable, might be within acceptable parameters.  Pathogen populations
of Verticillium dahliae, Phytophthora cactorum, and Colletotrichum spp.
were apparently affected by various treatments, but results were
inconclusive at the early stages of testing (Gerik et al., 2009).

6) Anaerobic soil disinfestation is being studied as a possible means of
soil pest management (Shennan et al., 2010).  This involves creating
anaerobic conditions through solarization, soil amendment with organic
matter, and high soil moisture to impede the growth of aerobic
organisms.  Initial experiments in pots indicate that Verticillium
dahliae populations decreased significantly in some experiments.
However, the level of control was not consistent among all studies and
treatments.

7) Ongoing field demonstration trials (Noling et al., 2010c; Noling,
2009a; Noling 2009b) in Florida indicate generally positive results
regarding alternatives.  In the trials, “most alternative fumigants
evaluated produced yields which were statistically equivalent to that of
methyl bromide chloropicrin, and are being recommended to growers, with
caveat, as viable alternatives to methyl bromide.”  One caveat,
however, is that application problems with some alternatives resulted in
significant yield declines compared to methyl bromide treatments.
Treatments included chisel applied 50:50 and 67:33 methyl
bromide:chloropicrin, 79:21 DMDS:chloropicrin, Pic Clor 60, Telone C35 +
herbicide.  In addition, drip applications were provided with Pic Clor
60 and Telone InLine.

8) Sting nematode infestation of strawberry fields impacts approximately
40% of Florida fields, resulting in plant stunting if left uncontrolled
(Noling et al., 2010b).  Remote sensing technology was used to compare
strawberry yields with plant size and relate plant size to fumigant
treatments.  Relative yields determined from the ground truth survey of
plant sizes were correlated with remote sensing information of canopy
cover.  Nematode-induced crop losses were derived from end of season
plant size assessments and remote sensing.  This information is provided
to growers to assess methyl bromide alternatives for nematode
management.

9) Trials with Pic Clor 60, Telone C35, and DMDS + chloropicrin at two
locations in Florida resulted in comparable yields to methyl
bromide-treated soils (Noling, 2010b).  While VIF film retained
fumigants significantly more than LDPE film, yield improvement was not
observed.

10) The USDA Areawide project for large-scale field demonstrations in
Florida evaluated several drip fumigants for efficacy, yield, and risk
mitigation to reduce buffer zone distances that (Noling, 2010a).  The
feasibility of using two drip tapes per bed was examined.  In addition,
there was an examination of the feasibility of double cropping
strawberries by drip-applied fumigant through previous year’s plastic
film.  Impacts of double cropping were not evaluated due to unseasonable
cold winter weather in 2009-2010.  In general, two drip tapes likely
increased plant density suggesting a higher yield.

11) Experiments examining fumigant diffusion and soil retention of
fumigants were conducted within various moisture gradients (Noling et
al., 2010a).  In 2008, no differences in gas concentrations were
observed for Telone C35 or iodomethane (50:50) with VIF, while in 2009,
significant differences in soil gas concentrations, plant size
distributions, and strawberry yield were observed with Pic Clor 60 and
Telone C35.

12) During the 2009 growing season in Florida, refinements were made in
soil application technologies for 1,3-D to address inconsistent soil
application.  In addition, integrated methods are being phased-in as
growers learn to take a broad view of pest management strategies.
Transition to alternatives requires growers to integrate new fumigant
application methods, and new tillage and irrigation practices to reduce
emissions. (Noling, 2009b).

13) Trials with TIF and various alternative fumigants continued in North
Carolina (Welker et al., 2010).  In addition, activities for outreach to
growers are helping communicate new information.  Mustard seed-amended
soil was tested to determine its efficacy to suppress weed populations
and provide acceptable yields (Deyton et al., 2010).  The latest results
from ongoing experiments indicate that mustard seed meal provided
greater yield than water sealed plots.  In addition, mustard seed meal
gave similar weed control to dazomet.

14) At a research station in North Carolina, various rates of
iodomethane were tested (Poling et al., 2009).  MIDAS
(iodomethane:chloropicrin) at 200 kg/ha of 50:50 with standard tarps and
at 135 kg/ha with virtually impermeable film had the highest marketable
yields in the study and statistically similar to methyl bromide at 196
kg/ha with virtually impermeable film.  The MIDAS rate of 135 kg/ha
provided greater yields than higher rates of the product under virtually
impermeable film.  Researchers concluded that “the net benefit of
using Midas 50:50 at 120 lb/A [135 kg/ha] with VIF could easily exceed
$10,000 per acre in extra profits for the grower compared to no
fumigation.  This much economic benefit from fumigation would not likely
be observed on sites where good crop rotation is possible, but on sites
where rotation is not possible, a serious crop reduction may occur for
growers who do not fumigate.”

15) In the southeast area-wide USDA-funded trials, researchers reported
(Welker et al., 2009) “we have had great success with the alternatives
and yield data has shown comparable yields to methyl bromide fumigation
from at least one alternative.”  However, the trials showed that
“alternatives are not nearly as forgiving as methyl bromide under less
than ideal environmental conditions.”

8.	ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES

In this study net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating
costs.  This is a good measure to describe the direct losses of income
that may be suffered by the users.  The net revenue does not represent
net income to the users.  Net income, which indicates profitability of
an operation of an enterprise, is gross revenue minus the sum of
operating and fixed costs.  Net income should be smaller than the net
revenue measured in this study.  Fixed costs were not included because
it is often difficult to measure and verify.

Summary of Economic Feasibility

The economic analysis of strawberry fruit production compared data on
yields, crop prices, revenues and costs using methyl bromide and using
alternative pest control regimens in order to estimate the loss of
methyl bromide availability.  For California, the primary alternative is
1,3-D/chloropicrin followed by metam sodium.

The economic factors that drive the feasibility analysis for fresh
market strawberry fruit use of methyl bromide are increased production
costs, which may be due to the higher-cost of using an alternative,
additional pest control requirements, and/or resulting shifts in other
production or harvesting practices and yield losses.

Crop budgets were analyzed for pre-plant sectors to determine the likely
economic impact if methyl bromide were unavailable.  Various measures
were used to quantify the impacts, including the following:

(1) Loss per Hectare.  For crops, this measure is closely tied to
income.  It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to
interpret in isolation.

(2) Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide.  This measure indicates the
value of methyl bromide to crop production.

(3) Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue.  This measure has the
advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over
some unit, e.g., a hectare of land or a storage operation.  However,
high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also
entail high costs.  Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues
could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity.

(4) Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue.  Net cash revenues
are defined as gross revenues minus operating costs.  This is a very
good indicator of the direct losses of income that may be suffered by
the owners or operators of an enterprise.  However, operating costs can
often be difficult to measure and verify.

(5) Operating Profit Margin.  Operating profit margin is defined as net
operating revenue divided by gross revenue per hectare.  This measure
would provide the best indication of the total impact of the loss of
methyl bromide to an enterprise.  Again, operating costs may be
difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult, therefore
fixed costs were not included in the analysis.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic
feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry fruit
producers.  Because producers (suppliers) represent an integral part of
any definition of a market, the threshold of significant market
disruption is met if there is a significant impact on commodity
suppliers using methyl bromide.  The economic measures provide the basis
for making that determination.

For California strawberry producers, there is no change in impacts from
the previous year estimates as iodomethane is not yet registered.  The
loss to gross revenue for growers using alternatives to methyl bromide
is estimated to remain about 14% as compared to the use of methyl
bromide.  Table 3 illustrates the 2008 economic impact assessment for
California strawberry fruit growers.

Now that iodomethane (trade name Midas) is available for California
strawberry producers, there is a change in impacts from the previous
year estimates.   Iodomethane is used in combination with chloropicrin
in 33/67 formulation at a rate of 224 kg/ha .  The loss to gross revenue
for growers using alternatives to methyl bromide is estimated to range
from 6 - 14% as compared to the use of methyl bromide.  Table 3
illustrates the 2010 economic impact assessment for California
strawberry fruit growers.

Table 3. California : Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives

California 	Methyl Bromide	Iodomethane	PIC + MB	1,3 D + PIC

Production  Loss (%) 	0%	0%	15%	14%

   Production per Hectare 	49,410	49,410	41,999	42,475

* Price per Unit (us$)	$ 1.37	$ 1.37	$ 1.37	$ 1.37

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$ 67,537	$ 67,537	$ 66,020	$ 58,057

- Operating Costs per Hectare (us$)**	$ 66,849	$ 71,426	$ 57,432	$
66,100

= Net Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$ 688	$ (3,889)	($ 8,614)	($ 8,042)

	*Loss Measures *

1. Loss per Hectare (us$)	$ 0	$ 4,576	$ 9,302	$ 8730

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$ 0	$ 22.81	$ 46.36	$ 43.51

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	7%	14%	13%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue (%)	0%	685%	1352%	1269%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	4%	-6%	-15%	-14%

**Note that the measures in the tables above  must be interpreted
carefully.  Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue
equals gross revenue minus operating costs.

9.  RESULTANT CHANGES TO REQUESTED EXEMPTION QUANTITIES

The USG has applied an aggressive transition rate, which is reflected in
the nomination amount and detailed in Table 4.

Table 4. Nomination Amount:

SECTOR	STRAWBERRY FRUIT

	 California Strawberry Commission 	 Sector Total / Average

Quantity Requested for 2012:	Amount (kgs)	                    751,596
                     751,596

Quantity Recommended by MBTOC/TEAP for 2012 :	Amount (kgs)
      673,085 	                       673,085

Quantity Approved by Parties for 2012:	Amount (kgs)
673,085 	                       673,085

	Area (ha)	                        4,421
4,421

	Rate	                           152 	                              152

Transition from 2012 Baseline Adjusted Value	Percentage (%)	-21%	-21%

Quantity Required for 2013 Nomination:	Amount (kgs)	531,737	531,737

	Area (ha)	4406	4406

	Rate	170	170

Citations

Boyd, V. 2010. New soil-borne pest control. Citrus and Vegetable.
Sept-Oct 2010.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.citrusandvegetable.com/PastIssues/ArticleLanding/tabid/70/De
fault.aspx?tid=1&cid=839107&issueid=792"
http://www.citrusandvegetable.com/PastIssues/ArticleLanding/tabid/70/Def
ault.aspx?tid=1&cid=839107&issueid=792

California Strawberry Commission. 2008. Request for a critical use
exemption for methyl bromide on strawberries for the 2011 use season.

Daugovish, O., Mochizuki, M., and Fennimore, S. 2009. Yellow nutsedge
management with chemical, physical and thermal treatments. International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/014DaugovishOSummaryNutsedge.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/014DaugovishOSummaryNutsedge.pdf

Deyton, D. E., Sams, C. E., Kopsell, D. A., and Cummins, J. C. 2010.
Using mustard seed meal to biofumigate strawberry soil. International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions (2010). ;   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/079SamsC.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/079SamsC.pdf

Fennimore, S. and Samtani, J. 2010. Strategies to sustainably produce
strawberry without fumigants. International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010).
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/078FennimoreSsteamposter.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/078FennimoreSsteamposter.pdf .

Fennimore, S., Ajwa, H., Subbarao, K., Daugovish, O., Martin, F.,
Browne, G., Samtani, J., Serohijos, R., Wang, D., Sjulin, T., Greene,
I., Legard, D. 2010. facilitating adoption of alternatives to methyl
bromide in California strawberries.   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/032FennimoreSAreawidestrawberry.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/032FennimoreSAreawidestrawberry.pdf

Fennimore, S., Ajwa, H., Subbarao, K., Martin, F., Browne, G., and
Samtani, J. 2009. Facilitating adoption of alternatives to methyl
bromide in California strawberries. International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/016FennimoreSprogressreportstrawbe
rryAWP81709.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/016FennimoreSprogressreportstrawber
ryAWP81709.pdf

Fennimore, S. and Goodhue, R. 2009. Estimated costs to disinfest soil
with steam. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/003FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteambusi
ness.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/003FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteambusin
ess.pdf

Gabriel, M. Z., Wang, D., Gerik, J., and Gartung, J. 2009. Strawberry
production in soil-less substrate troughs—plant growth. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/098GabrielMMBAO2009MagdalenaRaBetp
lants.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/098GabrielMMBAO2009MagdalenaRaBetpl
ants.pdf

Gerik, J., Wang, d., Gabriel, M. Z., and Gartung, J. 2009. Strawberry
production in soil-less substrate troughs—pathology. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/099GerikJMBAO2009Pathology.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/099GerikJMBAO2009Pathology.pdf

Gilbert, C., Fennimore, S., Subbarao, K., Hanson, B., Rainbolt, C.,
Goodhue, R., Weber, J. B., and Samtani, J. 2009. Systems to disinfest
soil with heat for strawberry and flower production. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/015FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteamSola
r82809.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/015FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteamSolar
82809.pdf

Gilreath, J., Santos, B., Mirusso, J., Noling, J., and Gilreath, P.
2005c. Application considerations for successful use of VIF and
metalized mulches with reduced fumigant rates in tomato.  U. Florida
Extension publ. HS287.   HYPERLINK
"http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS27000.pdf"
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS27000.pdf

Koike, S., Gordon, T., Ajwa, H., Daugovish, O., Bolda, M., Legard, D.
2009. Fumigant and strawberry variety evaluations in Macrophomina and
Fusarium fields.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/013DaugovishOSummaryPathogens.pdf"
 http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/013DaugovishOSummaryPathogens.pdf

Legard, D. 2008. Personal communication, email 24 September, 2008.

NASS (National Agriculture Statistics Service), 2007. Agricultural
Chemical Usage 2006 Vegetable Summary.   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsVeg/AgriChemUsVe
g-07-25-2007_revision.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsVeg/AgriChemUsVeg
-07-25-2007_revision.pdf )

Noling, J. W. 2010a. USDA ARS areawide project: Large scale field
demonstrations in Florida strawberry 2009-10. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/036NolingJAreaWide.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/036NolingJAreaWide.pdf

Noling, J. W. 2010b. USDA CSREES: Methyl bromide transitions in Florida
strawberry 2008-10. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/042NolingJTranistionsFloridaStrawb
erry.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/042NolingJTranistionsFloridaStrawbe
rry.pdf

Noling, J. W., Thomas, J., and Cody, M. 2010a. VIF mulches, optimized
irrigation and tillage practices for fumigant use in Florida strawberry.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/016NolingJVIFMoistureCompaction.pd
f"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/016NolingJVIFMoistureCompaction.pdf

Noling, J. W., Schumann, A. W., and Cody, M. 2010b. Assessing field
distribution, crop impact and sting nematode management in Florida
strawberry. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/046NolingJRemoteSensing.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/046NolingJRemoteSensing.pdf

Noling, J. W., Botts, D. A., and MacRae, A. W. 2010c. Alternatives to
methyl bromide soil fumigation for Florida vegetable production.
University of Florida Publ. SP170-23. May, 2010.   HYPERLINK
"http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV29000.pdf"
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV29000.pdf .

Noling, J. W. 2009a. Large scale field demonstration validation trials
in Florida strawberry. Individual research program, CSREES-USDA grant,
FLA-LAL-04553;   HYPERLINK
"http://ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=411977&fy=20
09"
http://ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=411977&fy=200
9 )

Noling, J. W. 2009b. Grower field demonstration trialing of gas
impermeable plastic mulches, reduced rates of soil fumigants, and
optimized irrigation and cultural practices. CSREES-USDA grant,
FLA-LAL-04776.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/215116.html"
http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/215116.html )

Norton, J. A. 2008.  Metam combinations as alternatives to methyl
bromide in US-grown strawberries and mulched vegetables. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions (2008).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2008/046Norton.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2008/046Norton.pdf

Othman, M., Ajwa, H., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K., and
Hunzie, J. 2010. Dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin as methyl bromide
alternative for strawberry production. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions
(2010).    HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/004OthmanM.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/004OthmanM.pdf ;   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/4Othman.pdf"  http://mbao.org/2010/4Othman.pdf

Othman, M., Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K.,
Browne, G., and Hunzie, J. 2009. Strawberry production with reduced
rates of methyl bromide alternatives applied under retentive film.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/055OthmanMAbstract2009Strawberrypr
oductionwithReducedRatesofMethylBromideAlternatives.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/055OthmanMAbstract2009Strawberrypro
ductionwithReducedRatesofMethylBromideAlternatives.pdf

Poling, E. B., Schiavone, R., and Franck, C. T. 2009. Influence of MIDAS
50:50 and MIDAS 98:2 on strawberry plasticulture yields in North
Carolina. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/113PolingBsummary.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/113PolingBsummary.pdf

Poling, E. B. and Schiavone, R. 2008. Strawberry plasticulture research
with MIDAS 50:50 and MIDAS 98:2 in North Carolina, 2007-2008 (Central
Crops Research Station, Clayton).   HYPERLINK
"http://ncsu.edu/enterprises/strawberries/files/2009/09/poling-report200
7_2008.pdf"
http://ncsu.edu/enterprises/strawberries/files/2009/09/poling-report2007
_2008.pdf

Shennan, C., Muramoto, J., Koike, S., Bolda, M., Daugovish, O.,
Mochizuki, M., Rosskopf, E. N., Kokalis-Burelle, N., Butler, D. 2010.
Optimizing anaerobic soil disinfestations for strawberry production in
California. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/023ShennanC.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/023ShennanC.pdf

Trout, T. 2005. Impact of township caps on Telone use in California.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions (2005).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/127TroutT%20mb-pest-use-telone-rpt05
-mbao.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/127TroutT%20mb-pest-use-telone-rpt05-
mbao.pdf

Wang, D., Gerik, J., Gartung, J., Sjulin, T., Fennimore, S., Rowe, D.,
Greene, I, Legard, D. 2010. Yield and water assessment of strawberry
production in raised-bed troughs. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions
(2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/041WangDStrawberryRaisedBeds.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/041WangDStrawberryRaisedBeds.pdf ).

Wang, Gartung, J., Vaughan, P., Gerik, J., Gabriel, M. Z., and Legard,
D. 2009. Strawberry production in soilless substrate troughs—water
management. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/017WangDMBAO2009RaBetwater.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/017WangDMBAO2009RaBetwater.pdf

Welker, R. M., Driver, J. G., Rivard, C. L., Louws, F. J. 2010. Outreach
and new approaches for methyl bromide alternatives through the USDA
areawide project. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/040LouwsF.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/040LouwsF.pdf

Welker, R. M., Driver, Rivard, C. L., and Louws, F. J. 2009. Research
and extension efforts to enable successful transition away from methyl
bromide fumigation. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/041WelkerRMBAOProceedings2009.pdf"
 http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/041WelkerRMBAOProceedings2009.pdf

/

0

2

p

v

|

1

2

3

V

X

x

z

|

㜀$␸䠀$

葝﹈

h

h

㜀$␸䠀$

/ HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/009WelkerRMBAOAREAWIDEFJL.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/009WelkerRMBAOAREAWIDEFJL.pdf

USA CUN13 Soil Strawberry Fruit Open Field		Page   PAGE  1  of
NUMPAGES  15