[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65590-65592]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26267]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567; FRL-9902-36--Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Indiana PM2.5 NSR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's state
implementation plan as requested by the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) to EPA on July 12, 2012, and December
12, 2012. The revisions to Indiana's state implementation plan (SIP)
implement certain EPA regulations for particulate matter smaller than
2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) by establishing definitions related
to PM2.5, defining PM2.5 increment levels, and
setting PM2.5 class 1 variances. The revisions also
incorporate definitions and regulations that recognize nitrogen oxides
(NOX) as an ozone precursor.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0567, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0567. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Michael Langman, Environmental
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Langman, Environmental
Scientist, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background information for this action?
    A. PM2.5-Related Actions
    B. Ozone-Related Actions
    C. Indiana's Actions
III. What are the revisions that the State submitted for approval?
    A. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-1, Definitions
    B. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-4, Air Quality Analysis; Requirements
    C. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-6, Increment Consumption; Requirements
    D. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-14, Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas;
Additional Requirements
    E. Rule 326 IAC 2-3-1, Definitions
    F. Rule 326 IAC 5-1-5, Violations
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background information for this action?

    IDEM has requested EPA's approval of several revisions to Indiana's
SIP. These revisions were made to comply with regulations enacted to
address the PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and also to include NOX as a precursor to ozone.
These revisions implement the new source review (NSR) and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program, as required by EPA's
regulations.

A. PM2.5-Related Actions

    On April 25, 2007, EPA published (72 FR 20586) as a final rule in
the Federal Register the ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation
Rule''. This action provides rules and guidance for the Clean Air Act
requirements for SIPs to implement the 1997 fine particle NAAQS. As
part of this rulemaking, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z
``Provisions for Implementation of PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards''. 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z outlines the
requirements that a state SIP must meet to implement and comply with
the PM2.5 NAAQS. The final rule became effective on May 29,
2007.
    On May 16, 2008, EPA published (73 FR 28321) as a final rule in the
Federal Register the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR)
Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)''. These regulations establish the PM2.5
NSR program. Among the finalized elements of the PM2.5 NSR
program are provisions establishing the PM2.5 major source
threshold, significant emissions rate, and applicability of NSR to
PM2.5 precursors. This final rule became effective on July
15, 2008.

B. Ozone-Related Actions

    On November 29, 2005, EPA published (70 FR 71612) in the Federal
Register the ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2''. Part of this rule established,
among other requirements, NOX as a precursor to ozone. The
final rule became effective on January 30, 2006.

C. Indiana's Actions

    In response to EPA's actions regarding PM2.5 and ozone,
Indiana began the process to revise its state environmental rules to
comply with the new regulations. During the rulemaking process, Indiana
promulgated ``emergency rules'' designed to implement the regulations
required by EPA's PM2.5- and ozone-related actions. These
emergency rules mirrored in substance the regulations Indiana intended
to adopt. On June 11, 2012, Indiana adopted regulations implementing
the required PM2.5 and NOX ozone precursor
regulations. The revisions to Indiana's environmental regulations
became effective on July 11, 2012.
    On July 12, 2012, IDEM sent a letter to EPA requesting EPA's
approval of parts of the revisions made to Indiana's SIP. These changes
define ``direct PM2.5,'' addresses precursors to ozone and
PM2.5, and revises existing definitions within Indiana's SIP
to reflect these changes. In the same letter, Indiana requested EPA's
approval to revisions made to its title V operating permit program.
    On December 12, 2012, IDEM submitted a second letter to EPA
requesting approval of additional revisions to Indiana's SIP beyond
those requested on July 12, 2012. The requested revisions modify
provisions related to PM2.5 class I variances, increment
consumption, and baseline dates.
    Indiana also made other revisions to its state environmental
regulations such as adding language intended to make some regulations
clearer while maintaining their current meaning. Since IDEM did not
submit these revisions to EPA for approval into the SIP, EPA will not
be taking action on them.

III. What are the revisions that the state submitted for approval?

    The revisions IDEM submitted for EPA's approval implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS, PM2.5 NSR program and regulations
related to NOX as a precursor to ozone. The submittal
includes a request to approve revisions made to Indiana's state
regulations at 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 326 IAC 2-2-1, 326
IAC 2-2-4, 326 IAC 2-2-6, 326 IAC 2-2-14, 326 IAC 2-3-1 and 326 IAC 5-
1-5.
    As part of this submittal, Indiana also requested revisions to 326
IAC 2-1.1-3 establishing exemptions that may apply to new sources,
modifications to existing sources, and revisions of existing operating
permits. However, these revisions are for regulations EPA had not
previously approved into Indiana's SIP. Since these regulations were
not previously approved into the SIP and are not being proposed as a
new addition to the SIP, EPA will not be taking action on 326 IAC 2-
1.1-3(d)(2)(A), 2-1.1-3(e)(1)(A), and 2-1.1-3(h)(2)(B)(xi)at this time.
    Indiana also requested EPA to approve changes to Indiana's title V
program found at 326 IAC 2-7. However, revisions to the title V program
should be included as part of a separate title V program submission and
not part of a SIP approval. For this reason, EPA will not be taking
action on revisions to 326 IAC 2-7-1(21)(E)(vi) and 2-7-
1(42)(C)(ii)(FF) in this proposal.
    A description and analysis of the SIP revisions for approval
follows.

A. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-1, Definitions

    Indiana has revised several definitions at 326 IAC 2-2-1. The
revisions are summarized in the following paragraphs.
    The definition of ``major source baseline date'' at 326 IAC 2-2-
1(ee)(3) adds October 20, 2010, as the major source baseline date for
PM2.5. This is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c).
    The definition of ``baseline area'' at 326 IAC 2-2-1(f)(1) was
revised to explicitly identify pollutant air quality impacts that would
define a baseline area where a minor source baseline date is already
established. This revision is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i).
    Indiana's revision of ``minor source baseline date'' at 326 IAC 2-
2-1(gg)(1)(c) establishes October 20, 2011, as the trigger date for
PM2.5. This is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c).
    The previously listed revised definitions are consistent with
definitions found at 40 CFR 51.166(b). EPA finds the revisions to 326
IAC 2-2-1 approvable.

B. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-4, Air Quality Analysis; Requirements

    Indiana revised 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(A)(vi) requiring ozone ambient
air quality data to be provided if the net increase of NOX
is more than 100 tons per year. Because this revision is consistent
with 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(f), EPA approved it on October 29, 2012 (77
FR 65478). However, this revision was incorrectly cited as 326 IAC 2-2-
4(b)(2)(vi). EPA is correcting the citation with this action.
    Indiana also revised 326 IAC 2-2-4(c)(4) by allowing an owner or
operator of a proposed major stationary source or major modification of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) or NOX who satisfies all
conditions of 40 CFR part 51, appendix S, section IV, to provide post-
approval monitoring data for ozone in lieu of preconstruction data.
This revision differs from the regulation found at 40 CFR
51.166(m)(1)(v), which allows a SIP to authorize the submission of
post-approval monitoring data for ozone in lieu of providing
preconstruction data for VOC but not NOX . However,
NOX and VOC are both considered ozone precursors under PSD
regulations.\1\ 326 IAC 2-2-4(c)(4), as revised, allows the submission
of both VOC and NOX post-approval monitoring

data only when evaluating their impact as ozone precursors. This
revision does not create an exclusion for NOX with regard to
preconstruction monitoring for other applicable NAAQS, such as the
NO2 NAAQS or the PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the option
to provide NOX post-approval data in lieu of preconstruction
monitoring data is narrowly restricted to its role as an ozone
precursor, EPA finds this revision to be approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, in the preamble to ``Final Rule To Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2'' (70
FR 71612), EPA includes NOX as an ozone precursor, citing
its role in ozone formation and transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-6, Increment Consumption; Requirements

    Indiana has revised 326 IAC 2-2-6(b) by adding allowable
PM2.5 increments as listed in 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1). Other
revisions to 326 IAC 2-2-6(b) which do not change the overall meaning
of the regulation include changing the word ``such'' to ``the'' and
abbreviating ``particulate matter'' as ``PM.'' EPA finds this revision
to be approvable.

D. Rule 326 IAC 2-2-14, Sources Impacting Federal Class I Areas;
Additional Requirements

    Indiana revised 326 IAC 2-2-14(e) by adding class I variances for
PM2.5. This revision is consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(p)(4).
EPA finds this revision to be approvable.

E. Rule 326 IAC 2-3-1, Definitions

    The definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' at 326 IAC 2-3-
1(mm)(3) identifies ozone and PM2.5 precursors in
nonattainment areas. This change is consistent with 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii). EPA finds this revision to be approvable.
    The definition of ``significant'' at 326 IAC 2-3-1(pp) has also
been revised by adding the significant emission rate for
PM2.5 and by changing the phrase ``oxides of nitrogen'' to
``nitrogen oxides.'' This change is consistent with 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x). EPA finds this revision to be approvable.

F. 326 IAC 5-1-5, Violations

    326 IAC 5-1-5(b)(1)(E) requires owners and operators to submit, as
part of the petition requesting alternate opacity limits, applicable
particulate matter limits. Under the currently approved SIP, the only
applicable particulate matter limits are those associated with PM and
PM10, but not PM2.5. Indiana has revised 326 IAC
5-1-5(b)(1)(E) to require owners and operators of sources and
facilities seeking alternate opacity limits to submit PM,
PM10, or PM2.5 limits. EPA finds this revision
approvable because the revised SIP provision is more stringent since it
now requires PM2.5 limits to be submitted with petitions
requesting alternate opacity limits.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Indiana's SIP that
implements a portion of the PM2.5 requirements and also
incorporates NOX as an ozone precursor. These revisions were
made to meet EPA's requirements for Indiana's PSD and NSR program and
are consistent with Federal regulations. Specifically, EPA is proposing
to approve the following:

(i) 326 IAC 2-2-1(ee)(3);
(ii) 326 IAC 2-2-1(f)(1);
(iii) 326 IAC 2-2-1(gg)(1)(c);
(iv) 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(A)(vi);
(v) 326 IAC 2-2-4(c)(4);
(vi) 326 IAC 2-2-6(b);
(vii) 326 IAC 2-2-14(e);
(viii) 326 IAC 2-3-1(mm)(3);
(ix) 326 IAC 2-3-1(pp); and
(x) 326 IAC 5-1-5(b)(1)(E).
    EPA is taking no action with respect to 326 IAC 2-1.1-3(d)(2)(A),
326 IAC 2-1.1-3(e)(1)(A), and 326 IAC 2-1.1-3(h)(2)(B)(xi) because
Indiana requested EPA to take action on revisions made to the state's
regulations that were not previously approved into Indiana's SIP. If
Indiana requests in the future that EPA take action with respect to
these regulations as part of a separate SIP submission, EPA will do so
at that time.
    EPA is taking no action with respect to the revisions made to
Indiana's title V program at 326 IAC 2-7-1(21)(E)(vi) and 326 IAC 2-7-
1(42)(C)(ii)(FF) because the title V program is approved as a program
separate from Indiana's SIP. EPA will take action on the revisions to
Indiana's title V program as part of a title V program submission.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-26267 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34570-34573]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0171]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Pro Hydro-X Tour, Lake Dora; Tavares,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the waters of Lake Dora in Tavares, Florida, during the Pro Hydro-X
Tour, a series of high-speed personal watercraft races. The event is
scheduled for Saturday and Sunday, June 1-2 and June 8-9, 2013. This
special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of life on
navigable waters of the United States during the races. The special
local regulation establishes two areas during each weekend of its
enforcement: A race area, where all persons and vessels, except those
participating in the races, are prohibited from entering; and A buffer
zone around

the race area, where all persons and vessels, except those enforcing
the buffer zone or authorized participants and vessels transiting to
the race area, are prohibited from entering, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule will be enforced with actual notice from 9 a.m. on
June 1, 2013, until June 10, 2013. This rule is effective in the Code
of Federal Regulations from June 10, 2013 until 5:30 p.m. on June 9,
2013. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. daily on
June 1-2 and on June 8-9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0171]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Robert Butts, Sector Jacksonville
Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (904) 564-
7563, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 17, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; Pro Hydro-X Tour,
Lake Dora; Tavares, FL in the Federal Register (78 FR 22808). The Coast
Guard received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard did not receive
the necessary information with regard to this event in time to provide
both an NPRM and a delayed effective date. As such, any delay in the
effective date for the rule would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest because the first race will begin on June 1, 2013. As a
result, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this
rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the
rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United
States during the Pro Hydro-X Tour.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule,
and no changes were made to the regulatory text.
    On Saturday and Sunday, June 1-2 and June 8-9, 2013, H2X Racing
Promotions will host the Pro Hydro-X Tour, a series of high-speed
personal watercraft races. The Pro Hydro-X Tour will be held on Lake
Dora in Tavares, Florida. Approximately 75 vessels are anticipated to
participate in the races. No spectator vessels are expected to attend
the Pro Hydro-X Tour. The rule will establish a special local
regulation that encompasses certain waters of Lake Dora in Tavares,
Florida. The special local regulation will be enforced from 9 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m. on June 1-2 and June 8-9, 2013. This special local
regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of life on navigable
waters of the United States during the races. The special local
regulation will consist of the following two areas during each weekend
that it is enforced: (1) a race area, where all persons and vessels,
except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed
personal watercraft races, are prohibited from entering, transiting,
anchoring, or remaining; and (2) a buffer zone around the race area,
where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels
enforcing the buffer zone, or authorized participants transiting to and
from the race area, are prohibited from entering, transiting,
anchoring, or remaining unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone by
contacting the Captain of the Port Jacksonville by telephone at (904)
564-7513, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the race area or buffer zone is granted by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. The
Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulations by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced
for only 34 hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or
buffer zone without being an authorized participant or enforcing the
buffer zone, or receiving authorization from the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative, they may operate in the
surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) nonparticipant
persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the race area or buffer zone if authorized by the Captain
of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) the
Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local
regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners
and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the

potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking.
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments
from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small
entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Lake Dora
encompassed within the special local regulation from 9 a.m. until 5:30
p.m. on June 1-2, 2013 and June 8-9, 2013. For the reasons discussed in
the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

 6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in
conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) and 35(b) of Figure
2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T07-0171 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0171  Special Local Regulations; Pro Hydro-X Tour, Lake
Dora, Tavares, FL.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated areas are established
as a

special local regulation. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race Area. All waters of Lake Dora encompassed within an
imaginary line connecting the following points: starting at Point 1 in
position 28[deg]47'57'' N, 81[deg]43'39'' W; thence south to Point 2 in
position 28[deg]47'55'' N, 81[deg]43'39'' W; thence east to Point 3 in
position 28[deg]47'55'' N, 81[deg]43'22'' W; thence north to Point 4 in
position 28[deg]47'58'' N, 81[deg]43'22'' W; thence west back to
origin. All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels
participating in the high-speed personal watercraft races, are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the race area.
    (2) Buffer Zone. All waters of Lake Dora, excluding the race area,
encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points:
starting at Point 1 in position 28[deg]47'59'' N, 81[deg]43'41'' W;
thence south to Point 2 in position 28[deg]47'53'' N, 81[deg]43'41'' W;
thence east to Point 3 in position 28[deg]47'53'' N, 81[deg]43'19'' W;
thence north to Point 4 in position 28[deg]47'59'' N, 81[deg]43'19'' W;
thence west back to origin. All persons and vessels except those
persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, or authorized
participants transiting to or from the race area, are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
buffer zone.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from:
    (i) Entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the race area unless participating in the race.
    (ii) Entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining
within the buffer zone, unless enforcing the buffer zone or an
authorized race participant transiting to or from the race area.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated areas may contact the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas to
the public by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners,
and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m. on June 1-2, 2013, and June 8-9, 2013.

    Dated: May 22, 2013.
T.G. Allan, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2013-13663 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 51203]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4139-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4139-DR), dated August 2,
2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 2, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Hampshire resulting from severe storms, flooding, and
landslides during the period of June 26 to July 3, 2013, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of New Hampshire.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cheshire, Grafton, and Sullivan Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of New Hampshire are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-20271 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18616-18617]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07242]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-49-000]

Calpine Corporation, Dynegy Inc., Eastern Generation, LLC, Homer
City Generation, L.P., NRG Power Marketing LLC, GenOn Energy
Management, LLC, Carroll County Energy LLC, C.P. Crane LLC, Essential
Power, LLC, Essential Power OPP, LLC, Essential Power Rock Springs,
LLC, Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P., GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc.,
Oregon Clean Energy, LLC and Panda Power Generation Infrastructure
Fund, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on March 21, 2016, pursuant to sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2012), and Rule
206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2015), Calpine Corporation,
Dynegy Inc., Eastern Generation, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P., NRG
Power Marketing LLC, GenOn Energy Management, LLC, Carroll County
Energy LLC, C.P. Crane LLC, Essential Power, LLC, Essential Power OPP,
LLC, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P.,
GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc., Oregon Clean Energy, LLC and Panda
Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC (collectively, Complainants)
filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(Respondent) alleging the Respondent's Open Access Transmission Tariff
is unjust and unreasonable because it does not include provisions to
prevent the artificial suppression of prices by existing generation
resources that are the beneficiaries of out-of-market revenues.
    Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for Respondent, as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a
party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests
must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer,
motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 11, 2016.

    Dated: March 22, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07242 Filed 3-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Proposed Permit Fee Incentive Rulemaking

Conference Call with ASIWPCA - 12/8/06 - 4:00pm

EPA Participants:

Leonard Bechtel

Lena Ferris

Benjamin Grumbles

ASIWPCA Participants:

Linda Eichmiller

Marcia Willhite, Illinois EPA, President of ASIWPCA

ASIWPCA raised the issue of their continuing concern regarding the
change in the Section 106 allocation and that funds continue to be
designated outside the formula.

Benjamin Grumbles articulated his commitment to follow through on the
language in the President’s budget in a modest and incremental way.
EPA is committed to gathering more information before the Agency goes
final and we look forward to a very robust comment period.

Commitment made by EPA to follow-up with States during the comment
period.

Proposed Permit Fee Incentive Rulemaking

Meeting with Fred Andes – 12/14/06 – 4:30pm

Fredric P. Andes, Esq.

Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Suite 4400

One N. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL  60606-2809

EPA Participants:

Leonard Bechtel

Lena Ferris

James Hanlon

Robert Moyer

Paul Versace

Additional Participants Included Representatives From:

AISI

Dow Chemical

EEI

Ken Kirk, NACWA

U.S. Steel

The participants voiced their concerns over the upcoming proposed
rulemaking.  Specifically, their discussion focused on States that do
not have authority to apply permit fees, and how this proposed rule
would impact their ability to receive a portion of Section 106 funds.
Issues covered in the discussion also included:  EPA’s authority to
issue this rulemaking; what the Agency means by “incentive” program;
and also what the Agency means by “adequate permit fee program.”
All these issues were addressed generally, with specifics being withheld
until the publication of the proposed rulemaking.

Commitment made by EPA to follow-up with industry and States during the
comment period, through public meetings or workshops.

Proposed Permit Fee Incentive Rulemaking

Conference Call with Katie Williams (with Senator Ted Steven’s Staff,
AK) – 12/15/06 – 11:00am

EPA Participants:

Leonard Bechtel

Tom Dickerson

Lena Ferris

Paul Versace

Senator Steven’s staff expressed their concerns over the upcoming
proposed permit fee rulemaking.  Discussion focused on the definitions
of “incentive” and “adequate permit fee program.”  EPA provided
some general background on the evolution of the proposed rulemaking, its
current status, and the intent and purpose of the proposed rule.

EPA indicated that once the rule was proposed, the Agency was committed
to providing for workshops and public meetings to better inform industry
and States about the impact of the rule, and to follow-up with Senator
Steven’s staff, should they have more specific questions once they
read the proposed rule.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


Bob Gunn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>03/12/2009 04:35 PM	To
	Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>	bcc

	Subject
	THC Mill On/Mill Off Vairibility

	History:
		This message has been replied to.

Dear Keith,

Per our past discussions, we have found that significant variation exists
in THC test results related to the operation of the inline mill.    We
attribute this 35% variation to organics being released from the limestone
while it is crushed, dried and preheated.  Accordingly, those THCs are not
coming from the kiln and we believe that this variation must be addressed
in the EPA notice.  Here are the results of a number of tests that show
the effect we have seen during normal operations.  Let me know if you have
any questions.

Bob Gunn
Manager of Environmental Affairs
National Cement Company of Alabama
205-472-2191 ext 4472


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53240]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP10-930-001.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Electronic Original Volume No. 2 to
be effective 11/12/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-80-000.
    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: eTariff filing per 1430: FERC Form No. 501-G Report.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-81-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: eTariff filing per 1430: 101218 Petition for Waiver of
Form 501-G Filing.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-82-000.
    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: eTariff filing per 1430: Form No 501-G Filing.
    Filed Date: 10/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20181012-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-83-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement-
Castleton Commodities--TempCapRelease to be effective 10/13/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/15/18.
    Accession Number: 20181015-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22949 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U. S. A. CUN2003/ 062  TOMATO   FIELD TOMATOES GROWN OUTDOORS ON PLASTIC MULCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 Critical Need for Methyl Bromide............................................................................................... 2 Response to Questions from MBTOC/ TEAP .............................................................................. 4 Historical Emission Reduction Tables & MB Dosage Rates...................................................... 10 Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) Tarps .................................................................................. 11 Market Window Information..................................................................................................... 13 Definitions: ............................................................................................................................... 15 References: ............................................................................................................................... 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Region, Key Pests, and Critical Need for Methyl Bromide ........................................... 2 Table 2. Measures of Economic Impact on Fresh Market Tomatoes in the U. S........................... 3 Table 3. Historical Use of Methyl Bromide in the Tomato Sector............................................... 6 Table 4. Calculation of the Nominated Amount of Methyl Bromide in the Tomato Sector.......... 7 Table 5. Herbicides Registered in the United States to Control Nutgrass in Tomatoes ................ 9 Table 6. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Polyethylene Mulched Tomato ( Locascio et al., 1997) ................................................................................................................... 10 Page 2 INTRODUCTION The U. S. nomination for tomato fields ( CUN2003/ 062) is a critical need only for an amount of methyl bromide ( MB) associated with moderate to severe pest pressure ( principally nutsedge for Florida, Georgia, Southeastern USA, and Virginia and Phytophthora for Michigan) ( see Table 1) because there are no feasible alternatives and farmers face economic harm in relying solely on alternatives. Alternatives for tomatoes fail to provide necessary pest control for moderate to severe pest pressure. The nomination also notes that applying alternatives is further complicated when plant back restrictions prevent farmers from meeting marketing windows ( e. g. winter or early spring) when tomato sale prices are as much as 100% higher than during the rest of the year ( see Market Window Information). The nomination notes tremendous progress in adopting emission reduction technologies and changing formulations and application rates to reduce MB dosage rates to some of the lowest in the world, and that further trials are being conducted to test ways of overcoming constraints in further lowering MB dosage rates using more impermeable barriers.

CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE U. S. Region / State Key Pests Critical Need for Methyl Bromide Florida ( CUE 02 0046)

Georgia ( CUE 02 0047)

Southeastern U. S. ( CUE 02 0040) Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee Virginia ( CUE 02 0012) Diseases: Phytophthora, Pythium, Verticillium, Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Sclerotium rolfsii Nematodes: Root knots ( Meloidogyne spp., Pratylenchus, Rotylenchus, Belonolaimus).

Weeds: Purple and yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus spp.), nightshades ( Solanum spp.) and broad leaf weeds. At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control the target pests ( especially nutsedge) found in the southeast U. S. In addition, for some areas in Florida the use of alternatives is limited because the soil overlays a vulnerable water table ( karst topography). Finally, regulatory restrictions such as mandatory buffers around inhabited structures also limit the use of alternatives. MB applications in tomatoes are typically made using 67: 33 mixture with chloropicrin ( or lower where feasible) under plastic mulch.

Michigan ( CUE 02 0004) Diseases: Phytophthora capsici Wilts: Verticillium spp., and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Lycopersicae. At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control the target pests in Michigan. Under Michigan climatic conditions, the alternatives do not effectively control the dominant pest, Phytophthora capsici. MB applications in tomatoes are typically made using 67: 33 mixture with chloropicrin ( or lower where feasible) under plastic mulch.

California ( CUE 02 0006) Application withdrawn Page 3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS In order to determine whether a proposed alternative to MB is considered to be ` economically feasible' for those situations where technically feasible alternatives exist, the United States took a ` weight of the evidence' or ` portfolio' approach. Rather than rely on a single indicator or even a series of indicators, each with a ` bright line', the situation of the applicant with respect to five measures was assessed. The five measures selected for consideration were: loss per hectare; loss per kilogram of MB; loss as a percent of gross revenue; loss as a percent of net cash returns; and change in profit margins. These measures were selected because the information was fairly readily available, they describe different aspects of potential loss and are independent of each other. In cases where information was not available for one or more of the measures, the remaining measures were used. In cases where a stream of benefits was derived from a MB application, net present value was used in the calculations.

When evaluating the case made by each application, expert economic judgment was used to determine whether each loss ( or change in profit margin) was significant, not significant, or borderline within the context of the applicant's market. Once decisions on individual measures were reached, an overall assessment was made which included the individual measures.

The original U. S. nomination presented data showing that the next best alternative to MB is not economically feasible in the circumstances of each of the nominated states/ regions. In Michigan, the economics of the next best alternative 1,3 D and chloropicrin was analyzed and showed a $ 97 loss per kilogram MB replaced. Other economic measures also show that the adoption of the alternative would lead to significant impacts on economic profitability. In the Southeast region including Florida, Georgia, and Virginia, the economic loss based on up to 15% yield loss was estimated $ 30.55 per kilogram of MB replaced. The economic measures of gross revenue and net cash return also demonstrate that a substantial decline in the growers' economic profitability would occur. Given the competitive nature of fresh tomato production in the United States, these economic impacts render the use of alternatives economically infeasible for U. S. fresh tomato producers.

TABLE 2. MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT ON FRESH MARKET TOMATOES IN THE U. S.

Loss Measure Michigan** Southeast including FL, GA and VA Direct Yield Loss 20   30% 5  15%

Loss Per Hectare $ 10,550 $ 950   $ 6,721 likely $ 2,230 Loss Per Kilogram MB $ 97 $ 11.10   $ 30.55 likely $ 13.70 Loss as % of Gross Revenue 31% 7  16% likely 9%

Loss as % of Net Cash Returns 160% 87   112% likely 109% ** The economic measures were calculated for the projected yield loss of 25%. Analysis for Michigan is based on using 1,3 D and Chloropicrin as the MB alternative treatment. Analysis for Southeast ( including FL, GA and VA) region is based on using 1,3 D, chloropicrin, and pebulate as the MB alternative. However, pebulate is no longer available, and without an effective herbicide, losses are expected to be much more substantial than those noted above. In both cases, these data demonstrate that the best available alternatives to MB are economically infeasible. Page 4 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC/ TEAP 1. The Party is requested to detail the reasoning and assumptions used to calculate the nominated amount.

The details of the reasoning and assumptions used to calculate the nominated amount are shown in Table 4.

The methodology used by the U. S. carefully scrutinized applications from the user community and took out ( 1) double counting; ( 2) any requested growth beyond historical acreage planted, and ( 3) requested amounts that fall under QPS. Furthermore, the United States adjusted the requests from the user community, when they had not already done so, to change the amount of MB nominated to account for ( 1) only the area where pest pressure cannot be controlled by alternatives, ( 2) the area where regulatory constraints limit adoption of alternatives, such as buffers near inhabited areas, and ( 3) the area where soil/ geological features limit use of alternatives, such as groundwater contamination in areas with karst topography. The nominated amount incorporates minimum efficacious use rates, mixtures of MB with chloropicrin, and the use of tarps to improve efficacy and reduce emissions.

2. Also to list the registration of herbicides for this crop and provide data on why these are not suitable for nutgrass control ( the main reason why MB is used in the southeastern USA).

The herbicides with activity against nutsedge species that are currently registered for use in the United States are provided in Table 5. These herbicides are phytotoxic to tomatoes under certain conditions and impose severe crop rotation restrictions on subsequent crops ( for full description please see pages 9 and 10).

3. As the CUN specifically requests MB for areas where nutgrass exists as heavy infestations, the Party is requested to clarify the exact amount of MB required for this use and to validate the amount of MB required for those areas where 1,3 D is not available through local restrictions ( e. g., township caps, karst topography).

The steps to calculate the nominated amount are shown in Table 4, and the details of the reasoning and assumptions and the citations for these conclusions are explained in Question 1 and the text following the table.

4. It is also requested that the Party consider recalculating the quantity nominated, consistent with the use of emission control technologies coupled with minimizing MB dosages, such as when applied in conjunction with chloropicrin where feasible.

The U. S. nomination accounts for the historical efforts by tomato growers to reduce emissions and to reduce MB dosages as described in the section " Historical Emission Reduction and MB Dosage Rates" shown below, and therefore does not need to be recalculated. The section demonstrates notable success in the United States at efficiently using MB at low dosages with emission control technologies to control key pests. As the Page 5 2002 MBTOC report states, " in some countries ( e. g., the USA) the potential for reducing MB dosages for soil fumigation compared to many other countries will be less because dosages are already low."

Growers requesting this exemption have routinely used plastic tarpaulins since the 1980s to reduce MB emissions and maximize MB effectiveness. Recent efforts have continued to try to maximize each quantity of MB, using formulations of MB/ Pic with lower MB proportions and continued testing of VIF tarps. The difficulties and impediments in adopting VIF tarps are being investigated in the United States and are described on page 11. The U. S. nomination assumes that growers will continue to use a 67: 33 mixture of MB with chloropicrin, therefore we have not recalculated the nomination amount because the U. S. nomination already took into account the application of minimal doses and the use of emission control technologies.

5. MBTOC is unable to recommend a CUE on the basis of the available information, but notes that control of nutgrass is difficult where herbicides or other measures cannot be used and there are areas where alternatives are not available through local restriction ( e. g., township caps).

The amounts of MB nominated are for areas where there is moderate to severe key pest pressure ( nutsedge for Florida, Georgia, the southeast, and Virginia; Phytophthora for Michigan) and control cannot be achieved without MB. Details of the analysis are presented in Table 4.

6. It is also requested that the Party calculate the revised amount consistent with the use of low dosages of MB in formulations such as MB/ Pic ( 67: 33 or 50: 50).

U. S. growers continue to test formulations with lower MB, as well as test practices with VIF. Other emission reducing strategies, such as the use of LDPE and HDPE plastic tarps, are in routine use. As the 2002 MBTOC report states, " in some countries ( e. g., the USA) the potential for reducing MB dosages for soil fumigation compared to many other countries will be less because dosages are already low." In past trials when MB and chloropicrin are used in a 50: 50 combination it tends to increase plant vegetative growth at the expense of fruit/ vegetable production. This characteristic is desirable for orchard replant but highly undesirable for annual crops ( personal communication with Sally Schneider, Agricultural research Service, US Department of Agriculture; and Michael V. McKenry, University of California. Riverside, Parlier, California). Although many sectors continue to test the 50: 50 combination, this formulation has not given good results in tested cropping conditions because it provides less weed control and there is increased vegetative growth by the weeds that survive.

7. The nomination noted that a range of alternatives was considered technically feasible for areas of low inoculum levels of pathogen and weeds ( e. g., 1,3 D/ Pic and metham sodium). Formulations of metham sodium are proving effective at least in some regions.

We agree, and as a consequence, MB was requested only for areas of moderate to severe key pest pressure where alternatives will not work because they do not control the pests and/ or because they are restricted due to regulatory or soil considerations. 1,3 Page 6 dichloropropene is restricted from use in soils underlain by karst topography and sandy ( porous) sub soils, because these geological features  common in the parts of the Southeastern United States  could lead to ground water contamination. See the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) for 1,3 D ( U. S. EPA 1998).

A field study on tomatoes in Florida ( see Table 6 below) with high nutsedge pressure ( 300 plants/ m ² for the nontreated control) showed that yield losses of 30 percent could be expected with 1,3 D + 17 % chloropicrin as compared to the MB + chloropicrin formulation ( 67: 33). In the same study, nutsedge populations were also significantly higher for 1,3 D + chloropicrin ( 340 nutsedge plants/ m ² ) , as compared to MB + chloropicrin ( 90 nutsedge plants/ m ² ) . It should be noted that this study also contained a treatment with 1,3 D + chloropicrin + pebulate and that the results in yields that were not significantly different from MB + chloropicrin, indicating that 1,3 D + chloropicrin may be feasible once a suitable herbicide alternative is found and registered on the affected crops ( Locasio et al., 1997). However, pebulate is no longer registered in the United States.

The combination of 1,3 D and metam sodium is not widely used in the U. S. because: ( a) mixing 1,3 D with metam sodium does not control any of the key pest species that 1,3 D alone will not control, ( b) heavy soil and karst topography in Florida limit the use of 1,3 D, whether this chemical is used alone or in combination with metam sodium ( c) adding metam sodium to 1,3 D will not provide affective disease control, in areas where there is only a single drip irrigation tape used, in those cases 1,3 D needs to be shank injected with metam sodium sprayed on the surface of the bed and then mechanically incorporated ( a multi step process), and ( d) there are different moisture requirements for 1,3 D and metam sodium.

TABLE 3. HISTORICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE TOMATO SECTOR*.

Historical Use Average Use Rates ( kg/ ha) Total Amount ( kg) Area Treated ( ha)

1997 201 3,891,129 18,054 1998 200 4,191,405 19,664 1999 173 3,750,983 20,443 2000 164 3,544,988 20,869 2001 155 5,172,080 32,366 * Acres ( fresh market) planted in U. S. are 130,520 ( 52,819 ha). Percent of U. S. fresh market tomato acreage requested in the U. S. CUE nomination is 34% of total acreage ( 17,917/ 52,819= 34%). Source: Rates, amounts, and area treated are from applicants' information. Percent of U. S. acreage is from USDA, 2001. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics 2001.

. Page 7 Table 4. CALCULATION OF THE NOMINATED AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE TOMATO SECTOR Calculation of Nominated Amount 0004   Michigan Solanaceous 0006   California Tomato Commission Application Withdrawn 0012   Virginia Tomato Growers 0040   Southeastern Tomato Commission 0046   Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association   Tomato 0047   GA Fruit and Vegetable Grower Association   Tomato Hectares ( ha) 435   2,428 6,010 21,230 2,412 % of Regional hectares ( ha)( A) 41   150 124 118 100 Applicant Request for 2005 Kilograms ( kg) of MB 52,348   453,592 902,603 3,326,644 362,257 Double Counted hectares ( ha)( B)             Growth / Increasing Production hectares ( ha)( C) ( 33)   390     196 Quarantine and Pre Shipment hectares ( ha)( D)

            Adjustments to Request Adjusted Hectares Requested ( ha)( E)

435   2,038 6,010 21,230 2,216 Key Pest Impacts (%)( F) 100   30 15 50 50 Regulatory Impacts (%)( G) 0   0 0 1 0 Soil Impacts (%)( H) 0   0 0 40 0 Impacts to Adjusted Hectares Total Combined Impacts (%)( I) 100   30 15 70 50 Qualifying Area ( ha)( J) 435   612 901 14,861 1,108 Use Rate ( kg/ ha)( K) 120   187 150 157 150 CUE Amount Nominated ( kg)( L) 52,348   114,237 135,390 2,328,650 166,389 % Reduction from Initial Request ( M) 0   75 85 30 54 Sum of all CUE Nominations in Sector ( kg)( N) 2,797,015 Multiplier for Margin of Error ( O) 1.0244 Total U. S. Sector Nomination ( kg)( P) 2,865,262 Page 8 Footnotes for Table 4:

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

A. Percent of regional hectares is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. B. Double counted hectares is the area counted in more than one application or rotated within one year of an application to a crop that also uses MB. There was no double counting in this sector. C. Growth / increasing production hectares is the amount of area requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated or treated at a higher use rate. Values in parentheses indicate negative values and are shown to demonstrate a trend, but are not used in further calculations. Two applicants included growth, which was removed. D. Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the area in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Not applicable in this sector. E. Adjusted hectares requested is the hectares in the applicant's request minus the acreage affected by double counting, growth / increasing production, and quarantine and pre shipment. F. Key pest impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. Key pests in Michigan affect 100% of the acreage because Michigan has only applied for acreage where Phytophthora is endemic. For the remainder of the applications the key pest is nutsedge. G. Regulatory impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps) pursuant to state and local limits on the use of alternatives intended for the protection of human health or the environment. The small regulatory restriction for the Florida application is due to the 30 meter buffer around inhabited structures. H. Soil impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance). Florida has approximately 40% karst topography where 1,3 D cannot be used due to potential for groundwater contamination. I. Total combined impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, or soil impacts. In each case the total area impacted is the area that is impacted by one or more of the individual impacts. For each application the assessment was made by biologists familiar with the specific situation and able to make judgments about the extent of overlap of the impacts. For example, in some situations the impacts are mutually exclusive   in heavy clay soils 1,3D will not be effective because it does not penetrate these soils evenly, but none of the heavy soil areas will be impacted by township ( regulatory) caps because no one will use 1,3D in this situation, so this soils impact must be added to the township cap regulatory impact in a California application. In other words there is no overlap. In other situations one area of impact might be a subset of another impact. In these cases, the combined impact is equal to the largest individual impact. J. Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares requested by the total combined impacts. K. Use rate is the requested use rate for 2005. This rate may be adjusted downward based on historical use patterns. L. CUE amount nominated is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. M. Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. N. Sum of all CUE nominations in sector. Self explanatory. O. Multiplier for margin of error. This amount is one percentage point of the original ( 1991) baseline amount. This factor is intended to compensate for the compounding influence of using the low end of the range for all input parameters in the calculation of the US nomination ( i. e., using the lowest percent impact on the lowest number of acres at the lowest dosage is likely to result in values that are unrealistically too small). The U. S. nominated included some sectors for 100% of the amount requested, therefore the portion of the multiplier from these sectors were added equally across all other sectors resulting in a final multiplier of 1.0244, or a 2.44% increase from the calculated amount, to these remaining sectors. P. Total U. S. sector nomination is calculated by multiplying the summed sector nominations by the margin of error multiplier. Page 9 TABLE 5. HERBICIDES REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES TO CONTROL NUTGRASS IN TOMATOES Herbicide U. S. Registration Status* Major Comments Halosulfuron methyl Yes Potential crop injury; plant back restrictions Pebulate No Was registered for use in tomatoes but registration lapsed December 31, 2002 S metolachlor Yes Not registered in some states of concern; does not control purple nutsedge Glyphosate Yes Non selective; will not control nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide residual control Paraquat Yes Non selective; will not control nutsedge in the plant rows; does not provide residual control Rimsulfuron Yes Only suppresses nutsedge; rotational restrictions Trifloxysulfuron No Registration pending for tomatoes * Yes = Registered for use; No = Not registered for use.

Additional notes on specific herbicides listed: Halosulfuron methyl In December 2002, halosulfuron methyl ( Sandea ® ) was registered for weed control ( including nutsedge) in tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, and cucurbits. This recent registration was not on the list of alternatives from MBTOC and several years are needed to see if it will be adopted. Historically, in the United States it has taken three to five years for an herbicide to be adopted by a significant number of vegetable crop growers.

Halosulfuron methyl has a number of limitations which may affect its widespread adoption, that include: ( 1) phyto toxicity with moderate rainfall immediately after application; ( 2) cool temperatures, ( 3) susceptible varieties, and ( 4) plant back restrictions. Specifically:   Rainfall or sprinkler irrigation greater than 2.5 cm, soon after a pre emergent application of halosulfuronmethyl may cause crop injury. Sudden storms with greater than 2.5 cm of rainfall are common in Florida and other areas of the southeastern United States. In addition, rainfall within four hours after a postemergence application of halosulfuron methyl may reduce effectiveness and cause crop injury.   Under cool temperatures that can delay early seedling emergence or growth, halosulfuron methyl can cause injury or crop failure. This is especially likely to occur during the first planting of the season. In addition, not all hybrids/ varieties of tomatoes have been tested for sensitivity to halosulfuron methyl. Halosulfuron may also delay maturity of treated crops.   Halosulfuron methyl plant back restrictions are up to 36 months. Many of the vegetable crops fall within the 4 to 12 month range, although some are longer. There are label limitations for halosulfuron methyl. As per product label, halosulfuron methyl should not be applied if the crop or target weeds are under stress due to drought, water saturated soils, low fertility, or other poor growing conditions. This herbicide can not be applied to soil that has been treated with organophosphate insecticides. Foliar applications of organophosphate insecticides may not be made within 21 days before or 7 days after halosulfuron methyl application.

Note: All the limitations above are listed in the US registration label for halosulfuron, which in turn is based on proprietary data submitted to EPA by the registrant company. Pebulate It is no longer registered in the United States. Page 10 S metolachlor It was registered for use in tomatoes in April 2003. However, it is not registered in states of concern, and does not control purple nutsedge or nightshade species. Further, it does not provide commercially acceptable weed control in plasticulture systems. Glyphosate It is a non selective herbicide used to control weeds in row middles. Application to the rows would cause injury to the tomato crop. As a preplant treatment glyphosate will not provide season long control of yellow and/ or purple nutsedge in tomatoes. Paraquat Paraquat is a non selective herbicide that controls annual weeds in row middles. It may also be applied preemergence to the crop. Application to the rows would cause injury to the tomato crop. For perennial weeds, such as nutsedge, it will burn down the top portion of the plant but the tubers remain viable, allowing the weed to grow again. Therefore, paraquat will not provide season long control because the weed can regrow during the growing season. Rimsulfuron There is evidence that rimsulfuron only provides suppressive control of yellow nutsedge ( 40 to 70 percent control) ( Nelson et al, 2002). In addition, the label warns against tank mixing with organophosphate insecticides because injury to the crop may occur. Also, for most of the vegetable crops besides tomatoes there is a 12 month plant back restriction. This plant back restriction can seriously compromise the needed rotational interval needed for IPM programs.

TABLE 6. FUMIGANT ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR POLYETHYLENE MULCHED TOMATO ( LOCASCIO ET AL., 1997)

Chemicals Rate (/ ha) Nutsedge (#/ m2) Yield ( ton/ ha) % Yield Loss ( compared to MB)

Nontreated  300 a c 20.1 f 59.1%

MeBr + Pic 67 33 390 kg 90 e 49.1 a

Telone + Pic ( C 17) 327 L 340 a 34.6 bc 29.5%

Telone + Pic ( C 17) + Peb* 327 L + 4.5 kg 150 de 42.5 ab 13.4%

Notes: Numbers followed by the same letter ( in columns) are not significantly different at the 0.05% level of probability. For details please original citation listed in references.

The U. S. nominations have attempted to differentiate between low to moderate and moderate to severe pest infestations. For example, season long interference between nutsedge and tomatoes resulted in a marketable yield loss of 10 percent at nutsedge density of 25 nutsedge plants/ m2. In addition, to avoid yield losses above 5%, the crop must be yellow and purple nutsedge free during the period of 2 to 10 weeks after transplanting. To avoid yield losses above 10%, yellow nutsedge must be suppressed during the period of 4 to 9 weeks after transplanting, and for purple nutsedge, the period of 3 to 6 weeks after transplanting ( Stall and Morales Payan, 2003). In a greenhouse study, yield loss was 44% for tomato at a purple nutsedge density of 200 plants/ m ² ( Morales, et al., 1997).

HISTORICAL EMISSION REDUCTION & MB DOSAGE RATES All states/ regions are continuing to test formulations with lower proportions of MB, as well as methods for using higher barrier tarps ( see VIF discussion below).

In Florida, the MB dosage rate under tarped beds in 1997 was 220 Kg/ ha. By 2002, the MB dosage rate under tarped beds had dropped to 160 Kg/ ha. All areas in Florida inject MB+ Pic formulation 31   46 centimeters below the soil surface and beds are built above the soil surface Page 11 and tarped, so the formulation is injected 46   61 centimeters below the surface of the tarped bed. The success in lowering the dosage rate is due principally to a switch from a 98: 2 formulation to a 67: 33 formulation, but is also due to a reduction in application rates.

In the Southeastern U. S., the MB dosage rate under tarped beds in 1997 was 210 Kg/ ha. By 2002, the MB dosage rate under tarped beds had dropped to 150 Kg/ ha. All areas growing tomatoes in the Southeastern U. S. inject MB+ Pic formulation 31   46 centimeters below the soil surface and beds are built above the soil surface and tarped, so the formulation is injected 46   61 centimeters below the surface of the tarped bed. The success in lowering the dosage rate is due principally to a switch from a 98: 2 formulation to a 67: 33 formulation.

In Georgia, data was gathered on the MB dosage rate under tarped beds since 1992. In 1992, the MB dosage rate below tarped beds was 340 Kg/ ha. By 2002, the MB dosage rate under tarped beds had dropped to 150 Kg/ ha. All areas growing tomatoes in the Georgia inject MB+ Pic formulation approximately 30 centimeters below the surface of the tarped bed. The success in lowering the dosage rate is due principally to a switch from a 98: 2 to a 67: 33 formulation, but also was accomplished through a reduction in application rates since 1992.

In Virginia, the MB dosage rate under tarped beds has been approximately 230 kg/ ha between 1997 and 2002. Farmers growing tomatoes in Virginia knife the MB+ Pic formulation approximately 23 centimeters below the soil surface and beds are built above the soil surface and tarped, so the formulation is injected about 41 centimeters below the surface of the tarped bed. In 1997, 100% of tomato growers were using a 98: 2 formulation, by 2001 and 2002 all had shifted to a 67: 33 formulation, with some testing the 50: 50 formulation.

In Michigan, 95% of vegetable growers nominated were already using a 67: 33 formulation of MB+ Pic in 1997 and the remaining were using a 98: 2 formulation. By 2000, 5% of growers were using the 50: 50 formulation with the remaining 95% using the 67: 33 formulation. Although there was a shift to formulations with lower MB, growers found they needed to increase application rates due to the explosion of Phytophthora capsici. In Michigan, the MB dosage rate for all fresh vegetables has been between 380  480 Kg/ ha in the period since 1997, when the Phytophthora capsici population exploded. The MB+ Pic formulations are injected approximately 31 centimeters below the tarped beds that are used to grow all fresh vegetables in Michigan.

VIRTUALLY IMPERMEABLE FILM ( VIF) TARPS Although many sectors are continuing to test VIF tarps in trials throughout the country, at this time VIF tarps are generally not technically and economically feasible for the following reasons:

Disposal Issues

Landfill disposal of VIF and VIF burning have come under increasing restrictions in some jurisdictions ( e. g., California, Department of Pesticide Regulation, 00 001; Florida   62 256.300 F. A. C.)

Both landfilling and disposal are labor intensive and costly. Page 12

Ingredients in VIF limit recycling into end use products.

Cost

Average cost of VIF tarps is $ 580/ acre, whereas average cost of low density polyethylene ( LDPE) tarps is $ 275/ acre, and high density polyethylene ( HDPE) tarps is $ 393/ acre.

Farmers in some regions report VIF tarp removal and disposal costs of more than $ 240 per acre compared to removal and disposal costs of approximately $ 60 per acre for tarps used in flat fumigation.

Environmental Consequences

Inorganic bromide residues in soil are higher when VIF tarps are used; further, the hydrolysis of MB in water may result in the accumulation of bromide ions, thus increasing the chances for groundwater contamination.

Evidence suggests that VIF tarping could actually lead to increased levels of emissions when the tarps are removed, thus increasing exposure to workers and nearby structures.

VIF Supply & Demand Logistics

VIF tarps are currently manufactured only in Europe, and current VIF tarp production capacity in Europe is not high enough to meet U. S. demands.

VIF tarps manufactured in Europe do not meet U. S. application size and criteria.

European firms are unlikely to make the investment necessary to ensure a viable supply of adequate VIF tarps to U. S. farmers before the 2005 phase out date.

VIF Challenges to Agricultural Practices

A glue to join sheets of VIF is still not available.

Increasing cover times with VIF to between 10 20 days can disrupt double cropping schedules and cause growers to miss optimum marketing windows.

Photo degradation of VIF makes it brittle and ineffective at controlling weeds over months of double cropping systems ( current non VIF tarps remain on beds for 12 15 months after one MB fumigation) Page 13 MARKET WINDOW INFORMATION The series below indicate the importance of considering market windows, and the concomitant large difference in prices that accompany them, when deciding if alternatives to MB are economically feasible. Although such detailed series are not available for all crops, both tomatoes and strawberries demonstrate large fluctuations in prices over three week intervals from peak price to the midseason price. This pattern is also observable for other fresh fruit and vegetable crops.

Prices received by strawberry growers rapidly decline from their early season peak. The average price received by Florida Strawberry growers dropped 30% between February and March in 1999, 37% in 2000, and 40% in 2001. In California strawberry prices declined in this time period 19% in 1999, 29% in 2000, and 23% in 2001.

The existence of these sharp declines in prices which occur after a short period of high prices ( a period know as ` the market window') ensure that revenue losses caused by the longer plant back periods required when using certain alternatives will not be proportional to the lost production time but will, rather, be amplified by the lower commodity price of the post` market window'. The result is a decline in crop revenue, which in the case of Florida strawberries would be approximately 40% of gross revenue apart from any losses due to reduced production.

Fresh strawberries ( winter and spring), prices received per cwt, monthly, 2001 Source, NASS Annual Price Report 2002 $ 0.00 $ 20.00 $ 40.00 $ 60.00 $ 80.00 $ 100.00 $ 120.00 $ 140.00 $ 160.00 $ 180.00 $ 200.00 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec 01 FL CA Page 14 Fresh strawberries ( winter and spring), prices received per cwt, monthly, 1999  2001 Source, NASS Annual Price Report 2002 $ 0.00 $ 20.00 $ 40.00 $ 60.00 $ 80.00 $ 100.00 $ 120.00 $ 140.00 $ 160.00 $ 180.00 $ 200.00 Jan 99 Mar 99 May 99 Jul 99 Sep 99 Nov 99 Jan 00 Mar 00 May 00 Jul 00 Sep 00 Nov 00 Jan 01 Mar 01 May 01 Jul 01 Sep 01 Nov 01 FL CA Though the pattern is not as well defined, prices for tomatoes follow a similar cycle. Three weeks is the added plant back time required when using 1,3 D or chloropicrin. When using MITC generators, recommended plant back can increase to six weeks.

Fresh tomatoes, prices received per cwt, monthly, 2001 Source, NASS Annual Price Report 2002 $ 0.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 50.00 $ 60.00 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec 01 FL CA Page 15 Fresh tomatoes, prices received per cwt, monthly, 1999  2001 Source, NASS Annual Price Report 2002 $ 0.00 $ 10.00 $ 20.00 $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 50.00 $ 60.00 Jan 9 9 Mar 99 May 99 Jul 99 Sep 99 Nov 99 Jan 00 Mar 00 May 00 Jul 00 Sep 00 Nov 00 Jan 01 Mar 01 May 01 Jul 01 Sep 01 Nov 01 FL CA DEFINITIONS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS CUN Source of yield loss estimates Where published studies of yield losses under conditions of moderate to severe key pest pressure were not available ( the situation for which the United States is requesting continued use of MB), the United States developed such estimates by contacting university professors conducting experiments using MB alternatives in the appropriate land grant institutions. The experts were asked to develop such an estimate based on their experience with MB and with alternatives. The results of this process were used when better data were not available.

Source of buffer restriction implications for methyl bromide use Estimates of the impact of buffers required when using some MB alternatives on the proportion of acreage where such alternatives could be used were developed from confidential information submitted to EPA in support of a registration application for a MB alternative. Because at the time of the analysis, a request to reduce the size of the required buffer for some alternatives was under consideration, a smaller buffer was selected for the analysis. Since that time the size of the regulatory buffer has been reduced so that it now conforms to the buffer selected for the analysis.

Source of area impacted by key pests estimates One of the important determinants of the amount of methyl bromide requested has been the extent of area infested with ` key pests', that is, pests which cannot be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide when such pests are present at moderate to severe levels. Because there are few surveys that cover substantial portions of the areas for which methyl bromide is requested, we have relied on a variety of sources in addition to the surveys. These sources include websites of land grant universities; discussions with researchers, both those employed by USDA in the Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) and those at land grant universities; discussions with growers whose operations cover widely different locations encompassing different incidences of key pests; information from pesticide applicators; and, information taken from the applications themselves.

Source of area impacted by regulations estimates There are two main sources used to develop the estimate of area impacted by regulations. First, for the impact of Township caps in California we have used a series of papers by Carpenter, Page 16 Lynch, and Trout, cited below, supplemented by discussions with Dr. Trout to ensure that any recent regulatory changes have been properly accounted for. Second, the estimate of the area impacted by buffers, is described above.

Source of area impacted by soil type estimates First, for the area impacted by karst topography, estimates were developed and mapped by he Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The area of California used for agriculture and which is made of clay soils unsuitable for pest control with a methyl bromide alternative has been determined by discussions with agricultural researchers and agricultural extension agents in California, and discussion with other knowledgeable individuals such as pesticide applicators. The estimates for California understate the areas in which alternatives to methyl bromide are not suitable because no effort was made to estimate the extent of hilly terrain where currently available substitutes cannot be applied at uniform dosages.

Source of area impacted by combined impacts estimate Combined impacts were determined on a case by case basis for each specific crop/ location combination after consultation with individuals knowledgeable with the specific circumstances. The nature of the individual impacts is such that in some situations they are independent of each other, in some they are mutually exclusive, and in some cover identical areas. It was not, therefore, possible to have a formula that would arrive at an appropriate estimate of combined impacts. A more complete description is found in the footnotes to the ` calculation' table.

REFERENCES:

Banks, H. J. 2002. 2002 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, 2002 Assessment.

Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 D will Impact Adjustment to Methyl Bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3.

Locascio, S. J., J. P. Gilreath, D. W. Dickson, T. A. Kucharek, J. P. Jones, and J. W. Noling. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene mulched tomato. HortScience 32 ( 7): 1208 1211.

Morales, J. P., B. M. Santos, W. M. Stall, and T. A. Bewick. 1997. Effects of Purple Nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) on Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum) and Bell Pepper ( Capsicum annuum) Vegetative Growth and Fruit Yield. Weed Technol. 11 672 676.

Nelson, Kelly A. and Karen A. Renner. 2002. Yellow Nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) Control and Tuber Production with Glyphosate and ALS Inhibiting Herbicides. Weed Technology, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 512 519.

Stall, W. M., and J. P. Morales Payan. 2003. The Critical Period of Nutsedge Interference in Tomato, Florida. Web address: http:// www. imok. ufl. edu/ liv/ groups/ IPM/ weed_ con/ nutsedge. htm Page 17 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) 1,3 Dichloropropene. Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ REDs/ 0328red. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 26, 1998," Feasibility of Using Gas permeable Tarps to Reduce Methyl Bromide Emissions Associated with Soil Fumigation in the United States."


[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 23759]
[DOCID:fr04my10-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-11-000]

Frequency Regulation Compensation in the Organized Wholesale
Power Markets; Notice of Technical Conference

April 27, 2010.
    Take notice that Commission staff will hold a technical conference
to elicit input on issues pertaining to Frequency Regulation
Compensation in the ISO/RTO Markets. The technical conference will take
place on May 26, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time. The
conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. All interested persons are invited to participate in the
conference.
    Those interested in speaking at the conference should notify the
Commission by May 3, 2010 by completing an online form describing the
topics that they will address: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/
registration/markets-05-26-speaker-form.asp. Due to time constraints,
we may not be able to accommodate all those interested in speaking. A
detailed agenda, including panel speakers, will be published at a later
date.
    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the
conferences will be immediately available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646). The transcripts will
be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the
Calendar of Events approximately one week after the conference.
    There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866)-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For further information about the conference, please contact:

Tatyana Kramskaya (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Eric Winterbauer (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel--
Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10356 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P