[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57563-57564]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2489-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Amendment Interconnection Agreement no. 1913 Among
NiMO and Village of Solvay to be effective 6/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120911-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2608-000.
    Applicants: Delmarva Power & Light Company.
    Description: Choptank Construction Agreement to be effective 10/9/
2012.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2609-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Power, LLC.
    Description: Mesquite Power LLC Concurrence to SRSG Participation
Agreement to be effective 12/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/1/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2610-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3393; Queue No. X4-043
to be effective 8/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20120911-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR12-13-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Update to Request of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation for Acceptance of its 2013 Business Plan and
Budget and the Business Plans and Budgets of Regional Entities and for
Approval of Assessments to Fund Budgets.
    Filed Date: 9/10/12.
    Accession Number: 20120910-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/12.

    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: September 11, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22945 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72498-72499]
[DOCID:fr28no08-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1809-DR]

Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1809-DR),

dated November 13, 2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas A. Hall,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this declared disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Michael L. Karl as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-28324 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57494-57495]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20327]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0083; FRL-9409-05-OCSPP]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Active Ingredients (August 2022)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0083, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511M), main telephone number:
(202) 566-1400, email address: [email protected]. The mailing
address for each contact person is Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact
person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is
listed at the end of each application summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4)
(7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of
these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public
participation process for registration actions, there will be an
additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions.
Please see EPA's public participation website for additional
information on this process (https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/public-participation-process-registration-actions).
New Active Ingredients
    1. File Symbol: 94473-R, E, G. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-
0504. Applicant: Crop Enhancement, 2186 Bering Drive, San Jose,
California 95131. Product name: Raw Linseed Oil Technical (technical
grade active ingredient), Cropcoat CX1098 (end use product), and
Cropcoat (end use product). Active ingredient: Linseed oil at 99.7%,
54.0%, and 70.0%. Proposed classification/use: For control of mites and
insects on terrestrial food crops, terrestrial non-food crops, turfs
and ornamentals. Contact: BPPD.
    2. File Symbol: 99269-R. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0743.
Applicant: Columbia River Carbonates, 300 North Pekin Road, Woodland,
Washington 98674. Product name: MICRONA Shield WP. Active ingredient:
Biochemical--Calcium carbonate at 98.8%. Proposed use: For use as a
protective barrier against insects, sunburn, and heat stress. Contact:
BPPD.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 14, 2022.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2022-20327 Filed 9-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam-sodium in Tomato Production (DP
# 337490)

FROM:	Nikhil Mallampalli, Ph.D., Entomologist

Biological Analysis Branch

		Elisa Rim, Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Timothy Kiely, Chief,

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		John Leahy, Senior Policy Advisor

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

BEAD Product Review Panel date: March 7, 2007

Summary

This document describes fumigant usage in tomato production, as well as
the benefits to tomato yields and grower revenues of the use of a group
of soil fumigants currently under registration review. The fumigants in
this group that are used on U.S. tomatoes include chloropicrin, metam
potassium, metam sodium, and methyl bromide. Of these, methyl bromide
and chloropicrin are the most widely used fumigants in fresh tomato
production, in terms of proportion of the national crop treated. In
processed tomatoes, metam-sodium and chloropicrin are the most widely
used fumigants. In this document, BEAD describes major pests targeted by
fumigants, relevant cultural practices, timing of fumigation and the
benefits of soil fumigation for tomato crops in three regions:
California, Michigan, and the southeastern U.S. Fumigant usage for all
USDA-surveyed states producing tomatoes is also presented. In
California, fumigation targets primarily fungi and nematodes; in
Michigan it targets mainly fungi, while in the southeastern U.S. target
pests include fungi, nematodes, and weeds such as nutsedges.

In total, about 70% of the U.S. fresh tomato crop is treated with one or
more fumigants. Fresh market tomato producers rely on fumigants for
disease, weed, and nematode control. In all regions with moderate to
severe pest pressure, the only technically and economically feasible
alternatives are other fumigants or fumigant combinations. The use of
fumigants improves yields by preventing losses from these pests, which
could potentially reduce fresh tomato production by as much as 66% in
terms of volume or 68% of the total value of production.  There are also
over 300,000 acres of processed market tomatoes grown in the U.S.
annually.  Approximately 20% of national processing tomato producing
acreage uses fumigants.  Losses from pests could potentially reduce
processing tomato production by as much as 19% in terms of volume or 18%
of the total value of production.  The total benefits of fumigation to
tomato acreage in California, Michigan, and the Southeastern U.S. could
be as much as $728 million.

Statement of Purpose

As part of the Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants as
a group:  chloropicrin, metam-potassium, metam-sodium, and methyl
bromide.  This document presents the assessment of the benefits to
tomato production that are provided by the soil fumigants, particularly
methyl bromide and chloropicrin, the most widely used of these
chemicals. Conceptually, the benefits of a pesticide like a soil
fumigant include improvements in production and/or reductions in cost
resulting from the pesticide use.  The social benefits of a pesticide
are divided between the users of the pesticide, e.g., tomato producers,
and consumers of tomato and tomato-containing products.  Consumers
benefit because higher production and/or lower costs translate into a
cheaper and more abundant supply of tomatoes. The impact of fumigant
regulation on this consumer benefit is not explicitly evaluated in this
document.

In evaluating the benefits of soil fumigants, this document compares the
current situation in which fumigants are available for use, subject to
existing label restrictions, to the situation that is estimated to occur
were the fumigants not available.  This is somewhat different from other
BEAD assessments of the impacts of regulation, in that no specific
regulatory scheme is considered.

General Background

This assessment focuses on fresh market tomatoes grown in Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.  Tomatoes
in these areas are grown in open fields on plastic tarps, often followed
by various other vegetable crops.  A more detailed discussion of key
fumigant usage, key target pests, and impacts of changes in fumigant
availability is presented for California, Michigan, and the southeastern
US as separate regions.

These regions were selected for examination because (1) they are
representative of tomato cropping systems, pest occurrence, fumigant
use, etc. for western, north-central, and eastern production regions;
(2) some of  these regions produce large quantities of tomatoes and/or
treat large areas with fumigants; (3) growers from these areas submit to
EPA annual requests for methyl bromide under the critical use exemption
process of the Montreal Protocol, and have thus provided a database that
BEAD could draw upon.

The key fresh market tomato production areas as surveyed by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) are described in Table 1 while
the processed market tomatoes are described in Table 2.

Table 1.  Tomato Acreage Grown by State – Fresh Market,  2001 –
2005.

STATE	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Average

Alabama	         1,000 	         1,200 	         1,200 	         1,300
        1,200 	        1,180

Arkansas	         1,400 	         1,300 	         1,300 	         1,400
         1,200 	        1,320

California	       38,000 	       36,000 	       34,000 	       42,500
     43,600 	     38,820

Florida	       44,500 	       43,200 	       43,300 	       42,400
  45,200 	     43,720

Georgia	         2,700 	         2,600 	         5,300 	         6,000
        6,500 	        4,620

Indiana	         1,800 	         1,700 	         1,700 	         1,800
        1,700 	        1,740

Maryland	         2,000 	         2,200 	         1,100 	         1,400
 	        1,675

Massachusetts	            450 	 	 	 	 	           450

Michigan	         1,900 	         1,800 	         2,300 	         2,200
         2,300 	        2,100

New Jersey	         3,500 	         3,400 	         3,200
3,000 	         3,000 	        3,220

New York	         3,200 	         2,800 	         2,400 	         2,500
         2,200 	        2,620

North Carolina	         2,700 	         3,000 	         2,900
2,700 	         2,700 	        2,800

Ohio	         6,400 	         7,000 	         6,900 	         7,000
     6,700 	        6,800

Pennsylvania	         4,200 	         4,800 	         4,700
4,200 	         3,900 	        4,360

South Carolina	         3,300 	         3,300 	         3,400
3,600 	         3,200 	        3,360

Tennessee	         3,600 	         4,200 	         4,900 	         6,400
	         5,600 	        4,940

Texas	         1,300 	         1,000 	         1,500 	         1,300
      1,300 	        1,280

Virginia	         4,000 	         3,900 	         5,500 	         5,700
         5,700 	        4,960

Other States 	            900 	 	 	 	 	           900

US TOTAL	   126,850 	   123,400 	   125,600 	   135,400 	   136,000
129,450

Source: USDA/NASS Vegetable 2003 and 2005 Summary, January, 2004 and
2006.

Table 2.  Tomato Acreage Grown by State – Processed Market,  2001 –
2005.

STATE	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Average

California	     258,000 	     296,000 	     289,000 	     301,000
267,000 	   282,200

Indiana	         8,600 	         8,200 	         8,400 	         8,400
        8,300 	        8,380

Michigan	         3,300 	         3,300 	         3,400 	         3,600
 	        3,400

Ohio	         6,370 	         6,400 	         6,400 	         6,600
     6,200 	        6,394

Other States 	         3,660 	         3,200 	         2,830
1,630 	         4,440 	        3,152

US TOTAL	   279,930 	   317,100 	   310,030 	   321,230 	   285,940
302,846

Source: USDA/NASS Vegetable 2003 and 2005 Summary, January, 2004 and
2006.

Average harvested acreage, annual production and values are provided in
Tables 3 and 4.  Tomatoes average almost $2 billion in total value per
year.  About 17% of production is for the fresh market which contributes
about 68% of the value.  Fresh market tomatoes command an average price
of $0.36 per pound while processed market tomatoes brings in only one
tenth as much.

Table 3. U.S. Fresh Market Tomato Production and Value of Production by
Region and State, 2001~2005 Average

Region and State	Harvested Acreage	Utilized Production	% of U.S.
Production	% of Regional Production	Value of Production

	(Acres)	(1,000 Cwt)	(%)	(%)	($1,000 dollars)

Western Region

California	    38,520 	          11,350 	31%	100%	$    357,742

Regional Total	38,520	11,350	31%	100%	$    357,742

Southeastern Region

Alabama	1,120	305	1%	1%	$         8,680

Arkansas	1,240	314	1%	1%	$       13,020

Florida	42,900	14,747	40%	68%	$    573,458

Georgia	4,340	1,271	3%	6%	$       41,252

Maryland	1,525	196	1%	1%	$         8,556

North Carolina	2,520	808	2%	4%	$       22,923

South Carolina	3,220	878	2%	4%	$       23,678

Tennessee	4,520	1,172	3%	5%	$       39,156

Texas	1,140	159	0%	1%	$         7,202

Virginia	4,720	1,790	5%	8%	$       63,435

Regional Total	67,245	21,639	58%	100%	$       801,359

Midwestern Region

Indiana	1,620	255	1%	10%	$       17,161

Michigan	2,000	476	1%	19%	$       17,915

Ohio	6,500	1,766	5%	71%	$       67,076

Regional Total	10,120	2,497	7%	100%	$    102,152

Other States

Massachusetts 	400	56	0%	3%	$         5,600

New Jersey	3,160	689	2%	37%	$       26,741

New York	2,480	380	1%	20%	$       24,557

Pennsylvania	3,980	549	1%	29%	$       20,465

Other States	850	202	1%	11%	$       11,435

Regional Total	10,870	1,876	5%	100%	$         88,797

US TOTAL	125,450	37,116	100%

$ 1,334,710

Source: USDA/NASS Vegetable 2003 and 2005 Summary, January, 2004 and
2006.

Table 4. U.S. Processed Market Tomato Production and Value of Production
by Region and State, 2001~2005 Average

Region and State	Harvested Acreage	Utilized Production	% of U.S.
Production	% of Regional Production	Value of Production

	(Acres)	(Tons)	(%)	(%)	($1,000 dollars)

Western Region

California	272,800	10,044,028	94%	100%	$     579,227

Regional Total	272,800	10,044,028	94%	100%	$     579,227

Midwestern Region

Indiana	8,100	250,228	2%	47%	$       21,472

Michigan	3,275	112,825	1%	21%	$         9,231

Ohio	6,040	168,024	2%	32%	$       13,393

Regional Total	17,415	531,077	5%	100%	$         44,096

Other States

Other States	3,088	85,816	1%	100%	$         7,323

Regional Total	3,088	85,816	1%	100%	$         7,323

US TOTAL	292,648	10,638,356	100%

$     628,801

Source: USDA/NASS Vegetable 2003 and 2005 Summary, January, 2004 and
2006.

Use of Fumigants

The following section provides a summary of our understanding of the use
of fumigants in tomato production.  In preparing this summary, we
referred to all available pesticide use data for the period 2001 to
2005.  These included data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), The California
Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Use Reports (PUR),
information provided in methyl bromide critical use nomination packages,
and proprietary pesticide use data.  It is worth noting that these
sources are frequently divergent.  For this reason, we have reviewed
each of the sources carefully and have used what we concluded to be the
most appropriate and accurate information.  Thus, the data provided
below reflects an element of professional judgment.  It may therefore be
difficult to independently calculate the same estimates of fumigant use.
 Nonetheless, the information is intended to provide an indication of
the scale of regulatory impacts, not to calculate exact values of these
impacts.

As shown in Table 5, fresh market tomatoes are commonly fumigated with
chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropropene, methyl bromide, metam sodium, or
metam potassium.  Over 10 million pounds of fumigants are used on
tomatoes per year in the U.S.  Metam potassium, metam sodium, and
1,3-dichloropropene each have less than 2% of the acres treated on
tomato acres. Methyl bromide is applied to approximately 35% of the
tomato acreage. Chloropicrin, which is often used in combination with
methyl bromide, metam-sodium, or dichloropropene, is applied to 30% of
the tomato crop.  In total, about 70% of the U.S. tomato crop is treated
with one or more fumigants.

Table 5.  Fumigant Use on Fresh Tomatoes, 2001-2005 Average.

State	Active Ingredient	% Acres Treated1	Acres Treated	Pounds Applied

California	Chloropicrin	5%	2,000	154,100

	Dichloropropene	2%	700	58,200

	Metam Potassium	5%	1,600	335,000

	Metam Sodium	4%	2,100	160,200

	Methyl Bromide	3%	1,300	118,000

Florida	Chloropicrin	67%	29,700	1,780,000

	Dichloropropene	1%	500	82,000

	Methyl Bromide	91%	39,800	6,240,000

Georgia	Chloropicrin	44%	2,800	222,000

	Methyl Bromide	40%	2,600	373,000

Michigan	Chloropicrin	63%	1,300	125,000

	Methyl Bromide	65%	1,400	290,000

North Carolina	Chloropicrin	37%	1,000	55,000

	Methyl Bromide	37%	1,000	117,000

United States2	Chloropicrin	30%	39,100	2,585,000

	Dichloropropene	2%	2,400	220,000

	Methyl Bromide	35%	45,700	6,942,000

	Metam Sodium	1%	1,300	116,000

	Metam Potassium	1%	1,600	335,000

	US TOTAL	70%	90,100	10,198,000

Sources:  NASS Pesticide Use Reports (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/"
http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/ ), California PUR (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm ), and EPA proprietary data.

Note that percent crop treated data and pounds applied were taken from
the above data sources.  Total area treated and pounds applied are
calculated from these.

Percent crop treated is calculated based on acres grown data from Table
1: California, 38,820; Florida, 43,980; Georgia, 6,500; Michigan, 2,100;
and North Carolina, 2,700, US Total: 129,450.

As shown in Table 6, processed market tomatoes are commonly fumigated
with 1,3-dichloropropene or metam sodium.  Almost 3 million pounds of
fumigants are used on processed tomatoes per year in the U.S.
1,3-dichloropropene has less than 1% of the acres treated on tomato
acres. Metam sodium is applied to approximately 19% of the tomato
acreage.  In total, about 19% of the U.S. tomato crop is treated with
one or more fumigants.

Table 6.  Fumigant Use on Processed Tomatoes, 2001-2005 Average.

State	Active Ingredient	% Acres Treated1	Acres Treated	Pounds Applied

California	Dichloropropene	0%	423	35,536

	Metam Sodium	20%	56,350	2,742,000

United States2	Dichloropropene  	1%	2,122	120,000

	Metam Sodium	19%	56,350	2,742,000

	US TOTAL	19%	58,472	2,862,000

Sources:  NASS Pesticide Use Reports (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/"
http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/ ), California PUR (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm ), and EPA proprietary data.

Note that percent crop treated data and pounds applied were taken from
the above data sources.  Total area treated and pounds applied are
calculated from these.

Percent crop treated is calculated based on acres grown data from Table
1: California, 282,200; U.S., 302,846

FUMIGATION CHARACTERISTICS

Target Pests

Table 7 summarizes all major pests targeted by fumigation in the three
representative states, as reported by growers in their annual requests
for critical use exemptions (CUEs) for methyl bromide.

    Table 7. Key diseases, Pests, and weeds

Region 	Key diseases, Pests and weeds

California	Soil borne diseases - Fusarium wilt, Verticillium wilt,
Pythium spp.

Root Knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.)

Michigan	Crown and root rots caused by soil-borne fungus Phytophthora
capsici.

Southeastern US* 	Weeds: yellow & purple nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus &
C. esculentus),

Plant diseases: Fusarium wilt, Phytophthora, Pythium spp.

Nematodes: root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.)

 * Southeastern U.S consists of: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

    Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Use Characteristics

Tables 8, 9, and 10 provide information describing typical fumigant use
in fresh tomato production.  This information was derived in part from
information submitted by tomato growers as part of the annual
nominations prepared by BEAD for methyl bromide Critical Use Exemptions
under the Montreal Protocol.

Table 8.  Fumigant Application Information For Fresh Market Tomatoes
Grown In California.

Application Rate

(lb ai/acre)1	Chloropicrin	75 to  133 pounds per acre

	1,3 - Dichloropropene	79 to  130 pounds per acre

	Metam Sodium	90 to  252 pounds per acre

	Metam Potassium	247 to  348 pounds per acre

	Methyl Bromide	112 to 316 pounds per acre

Acres Treated per Day	 10 to  40 acres per tractor

Time of Fumigation	 Dec – Apr or Oct - Dec

Application Method	Primarily shank injected under tarp

Strip Application	Primarily strip treated with 100% of area treated?

Tarps or Water Caps	HDPE tarp

1. Typical application rate range, based on California Department of
Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Use Reporting,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm .

Table 9.  Fumigant Application Information For Tomatoes Grown In
Michigan.

Application Rate

(lb ai/acre)	Chloropicrin	105 to 114 pounds per acre

	Methyl Bromide	160 to 230 pounds per acre

Acres Treated per Day 	10 to 40 acres per tractor

Time of Fumigation	April

Application Method	Shank injected under tarp

Strip Application 	Primarily strip with 58 % of area treated

Tarps or Water Caps	LDPE with some metalized film

Table 10.  Fumigant Application Information For Tomatoes Grown In
Southeastern US.

Application Rate

(lb ai/acre)	Chloropicrin	75 to  133 pounds per acre

	1,3 - Dichloropropene	79 to  130 pounds per acre

	Methyl Bromide	90 to  252 pounds per acre

Acres Treated per Day 	10 to 40 acres per tractor

Time of Fumigation	Southeastern US	Jan-Feb, or March-April, or June -
Sept

	Georgia	July

	Florida	Aug – Sept (if double-cropped) or

Aug – Jan (if not double cropped).

Application Method	Shank injected under tarp

Strip Application	Primarily strip with 58 % of area treated

Tarps or Water Caps	LDPE with some HDPE and metalized tarps

Southeastern U.S consists of: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia.

Chemical Control Alternatives

In all these regions the chemical alternative to any given fumigant
would probably be another fumigant combination.

Cultural Control Practices

Currently, cultural control practices have not provided technically or
economically effective control of the key pest problems.  Many of the
pests are long lived and crop rotation out of any host crops for several
years is not an economic alternative. A totally organic production
system would not be feasible for areas with moderate to high pest
pressure.  In 2005 only 4.6% of the U.S. vegetable production was grown
organically (USDA ERS 2006).

For regions where Phytophthora capsici is a key pest, crop rotations are
virtually ineffective because the pathogen can survive for several years
in the soil, and can infect more than 50 plant species. Reservoirs for
re-infection are thus difficult to eradicate.

BENEFITS OF FUMIGATION

The subsections below describe studies used by BEAD to explore possible
yield losses due to key pests in specific regions. Table 11 summarizes
the range of yield losses BEAD believes are plausible for tomatoes in
each region. In all regions, a situation where the growers are able to
switch from the most widely used fumigant regime to the next best
available fumigant/herbicide combination constitutes the lower bound of
yield losses estimates. The upper bound of yield loss estimates was
derived from the results from studies where a ‘no fumigation’
treatment was included. The next best fumigant regime varies for each
region and is described in each subsection below.

California

BEAD has been unable to locate research done in tomatoes in this region,
on comparative efficacy of alternatives to methyl bromide + chloropicrin
or metam-sodium (the dominant fumigants of fresh and processed tomatoes,
respectively, in this region). However, the pests targeted are similar
to those listed for southeastern US tomatoes (Table 7), a notable
exception being nutsedges, which are apparently not major pests in
California. Therefore, BEAD used estimates of yield losses derived from
selected studies done in Florida and other southeastern states to
analyze economic impacts of fumigant loss. For a discussion of these
studies and a summary of yield loss estimates, please see the section
for the southeastern US below, as well as Table 11.

In California, growers denied the use of the dominant fumigant regime in
fresh tomatoes, methyl bromide + chloropicrin, are presumed to turn to
metam-sodium + chloropicrin as the next best fumigant regime. Processed
tomato growers are likely to switch from metam-sodium + chloropicrin
(the standard fumigant regime) to 1,3 D + chloropicrin. It is not clear
to what extent this switch is feasible, because California limits the
use of 1,3 D using township-level caps on amounts used. It is unlikely
that processed tomato growers would use methyl bromide in place of
metam-sodium, as the costs of using this material along with the
required plastic tarps is economically infeasible. This infeasibility is
illustrated further in the economic analysis below.

Michigan

Research by Hausbeck in 2006 on Phytophthora root rot tested foliar
applied fungicides on solanaceous and cucurbit crops. Results indicated
that one of the best treatments was mefenoxam, but even with this option
there was a 20 % yield loss. 1,3 D is not a feasible option in this
region because of low soil temperatures typical during the time of
season that fumigation is needed. In the event of a loss of the standard
fumigation strategy (methyl bromide + chloropicrin), most growers would
probably turn to metam-sodium + chloropicrin. If no chemical fumigants
were available, growers would probably try to use the best available
fungicide, mefenoxam, despite the yield losses associated with it.

Southeastern US

Yield losses of 6 to 64% are estimated when fumigation is converted from
methyl bromide to the best available alternative fumigant combination.
If a fumigant combination were not available due to regulatory
constraint the losses would be greater (see Table 11).

In research conducted in Florida (Motis et al 2003) Relative to yields
with no nutsedge, pepper fruit yields in each season were reduced 10%
with fewer than 5 planted tubers/m2. While this research was not
conducted on tomatoes specifically, the results are from a closely
related (Solanaceous) vegetable crop with a similar life history and
pest vulnerability. Yield losses increased more rapidly with an increase
in initial nutsedge density from 0 to 30 than from 30 to 120 tubers/m2.
With 30 nutsedge tubers/m2, large fruit yield was reduced 54 to 74%
compared to that with no nutsedge.  Nutsedge shoots overtopped the
pepper plants as early as 6 wk after treatment when, with 15 planted
tubers/m2, nutsedge interference reduced pepper plant biomass by 10 to
47%. Taken together, these data indicate losses possible if no
fumigation or other effective controls are applied for severe nutsedge
infestations.

In southeastern tomatoes, combinations of fungal pathogens, nematodes,
and nutsedge weeds have also been studied with the goal of quantifying
efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives. Some of these studies also
included untreated controls, which provide some measure of the impact of
these pests in situations where no fumigation occurs. For example,
Santos et al. (2006) used sites with a history of heavy infestations of
Fusarium, nematodes, and nutsedges. In untreated plots, yield losses
(relative to a methyl bromide standard) over 2 years of sampling ranged
from 41.9 % to 91.4 %. In plots treated with 1,3 D + chloropicrin, 0 to
4 % yield losses were observed.

Studies done in southeastern tomatoes using only Fusarium or root knot
nematodes have also been performed. The results of such studies provide
some measure of the impact of these pests without the presence of
nutsedges, and may be used to infer an estimate of the impact of the
pest complex on California tomato production (where nutsedges are not a
major concern).

McGovern et al. (1998) compared the efficacy of methyl bromide +
chloropicrin and metam-sodium where Fusarium spp. were the pest present.
Trials were performed in small plots in fields in commercial Florida
farms. Compared to methyl bromide, the use of metam sodium gave yield
losses of 2.8 to 20 %. In untreated plots, losses due to Fusarium ranged
from 9.9 to 42.9 %.

In a study that illustrated the impact of root knot nematodes on
tomatoes, Noling and Gilreath (2004) compared the efficacy of methyl
bromide + chloropicrin with that of 1,3 D + chloropicrin. In this
small-plot study, losses due to nematodes in untreated fields ranged
from 30.6 to 57.8 % (relative to yields in the methyl bromide
treatment). Yields in the 1,3 D treatment ranged from a  7.6 % loss to a
7.1 % gain.

In the southeastern US, tomato growers who lose methyl bromide +
chloropicrin (the dominant fumigation regime) would probably turn to
either a combination of 1,3 D, chloropicrin, and herbicides, or (in
areas where 1,3 D is prohibited due to soil types present) metam-sodium
+ chloropicrin. Losses in either case would be about 6 %, based on the
studies summarized above and in Table 11. If no fumigation were
possible, losses in untreated fields could be as high as 64 % (Table
11).

Table  11.  tomato Yield Loss Data

Alternative	Type of Pest Tested 	Range of Yield Loss (%)	Best Estimate
of Yield Loss (%)

1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin (with or without additional
herbicides and additional chloropicrin)	Nutsedges, fungal pathogens,
nematodes; southeastern US

 (McGovern et al. 1998; Noling and Gilreath 2004; Santos et al. 2006)	0
– 13 	6

Metam-sodium (with or without chloropicrin)	Nutsedges, fungal pathogens,
nematodes;

southeastern US (McGovern et al. 1998; Noling and Gilreath 2004; Santos
et al. 2006)	0-15 	7

No fumigation	Nutsedge in southeastern US (Motis et al. 2003)	54 to 74
64

No fumigation but with mefenoxam fungicide	Phytophthora root rot in
Michigan (Hausbeck 2006)	5 to 42

20% with mefenoxam	5 to 20

No fumigation	Combination of fungal, nematode and weed pests in
southeastern US (Santos et al.2006)	41 – 91	64

Overall Loss Estimate for All Alternatives to Pests	California 5 to 64 %

Michigan 7 to 20%

Southeast 6 to 64 %

Economic Impacts

In the following section we evaluate the impact of estimated tomato
yield losses on the economic viability of tomato producers.  BEAD uses a
partial budget analysis to estimate the impacts of changes in
production.  That is, we evaluate the consequences on a typical acre of
the crop grown, rather than attempt to assess the impacts in the context
of a whole enterprise, which could include multiple crops under
cultivation.  This approach allows the Agency to compare losses to net
operating revenue, which is defined as the difference between gross
revenue and variable operating costs, on a per-acre basis.  The analysis
ignores fixed costs, which are highly dependent on land ownership and
the size and diversity of the grower’s operation, and therefore
difficult to define on a per-acre basis.  As such, this analysis may
understate the impacts as a percentage of the grower’s income.

Estimated impacts of fumigant regulation in California, Michigan, and
Southeastern U.S. tomato production are summarized in Tables 12, 13, 14,
and 15.

California

Table 12.  Economic Analysis California Tomato, Fresh Market.

	Methyl Bromide + chloropicrin	Metam Sodium

+ chloropicrin	No Fumigation

Estimated Yield Loss	0%	7%	64%

Yield (CWT)	295	274	106

Price  per CWT	$31	$31	$31

Gross Revenue  	$9,222	$8,576	$3,320

Non-Fumigant alternatives cost	$0	$0	$50

Land Preparation and Growing Period Costs  ($/acre)	$6,736	$7,226	$7,276

Harvest Costs  	$917	$853	$330

Total Operating Costs  	$8,800	$8,747	$7,606

Net Operating Revenue  	$421	($171)	($4,286)

Percentage Change in Net Operating Revenue	0%	-141%	-1117%

Source:  California Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination, 2004.

Includes the cost of fumigant and labor.

Without the use of metam sodium or chloropicrin, California tomato
producers would not be able to sustain the losses presented in Table 12.
 This would apply to that part of the California tomato acreage that is
treated with one or more fumigants, or about 20% or 7,700 acres (Table
5).  Halted tomato production on these acres would represent a loss of
about $72 million and over 2 million CWT of tomato production annually
(Table 3).  Given that tomato acreage can be put to a different use,
such as producing a different crop, these losses would ultimately be
somewhat less.

Table 13.  Economic Analysis California Tomato, Processed Market.

	Metam Sodium

+ chloropicrin	1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin +	No Fumigation

Estimated Yield Loss	0%	6%	64%

Yield (Tons)	37	35	13

Price per Ton	$58	$58	$58

Gross Revenue  	 $2,120 	 $1,993	 $763

Non-Fumigant alternatives cost	$0	$0	$50

Total Operating Costs  	$1,159	$1,159	$1,209

Net Operating Revenue  	$961	$833	($446)

Percentage Change in Net Operating Revenue	0%	-13%	-146%

Source:  Sample Costs to Produce Processing Tomatoes: San-Joaquin
Valley, Double-Row Seeded. University of California Cooperative
Extension. Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/2001toms.p
df"
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/2001toms.pd
f

Without the use of metam sodium or chloropicrin, California processing
tomato producers would not be able to sustain the losses presented in
Table 13.  This would apply to that part of the California processing
tomato acreage that is treated with one or more fumigants, or about 20%
or 11,270 acres (Table 6).  Halted tomato production on these acres
would represent a loss of about $116 million and over 2 million tons of
processed tomato production annually (Table 4).  Given that tomato
acreage can be put to a different use, such as producing a different
crop, these losses would ultimately be somewhat less.

Michigan

Table 14.  Economic Analysis  Michigan Tomato, Fresh Market.

	Methyl Bromide + chloropicrin	Metam Sodium	No Fumigation

Estimated Yield Loss	0%	7%	20%

Yield (CWT)	236	219	189

Price  per CWT1	$37	$31	$31

Gross Revenue  	$8,708	$6,803	$5,852

Fumigation costs to control soil borne disease 	$369	$438	$0

Non-Fumigant alternatives cost	$0	$0	$50

Land Preparation and Growing Period Costs  ($/acre)	$3,349	$3,563	$3,563

Harvest Costs  ($/acre)	$1,053	$979	$842

Total Operating Costs  ($/acre)	$4,771	$4,980	$4,455

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	$3,938	$1,823	$1,397

Percentage Change in Net Operating Revenue	0%	-54%	-65%

Source:  Michigan Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination, 2006.

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide include a 16% Price adjustment due to
missed market windows.

Without the use of methyl bromide and chloropicrin, Michigan tomato
producers would not be able to sustain the losses presented in Table 14.
 Because 63-65% of Michigan tomato acreage is fumigated (over 1,300
acres out of 2,100 acres) this conclusion applies to most Michigan
tomato production (Table 5).  Halted tomato production on these acres
would represent a loss of about $12 million and 309 thousand CWT of
tomato production annually (Table 2).  Given that tomato acreage can be
put to a different use, such as producing a different crop, these losses
would ultimately be somewhat less.

Southeastern U.S.

For this region, the economic analysis presented below used Florida
statistics as representative of tomato production. Florida is arguably
the largest producer within this region, and is typical of the region in
terms of pest spectrum.

Table 15.  Economic Analysis Florida Tomato, Fresh Market.

	Methyl Bromide + chloropicrin	1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin +	No
fumigation

Estimated Yield Loss	0%	6%	64%

Yield (CWT)	344	323	124

Price per CWT	$38	$38	$38

Gross Revenue  	$13,210	$12,417	$4,755

Fumigation Costs, Weeds and Soil Borne Disease	$561	$561	$0

Land Preparation and Growing Period Costs  ($/acre)	$3,906	$3,906	$3,906

Harvest Costs  	$4,936	$4,640	$1,777

Total Operating Costs  	$9,403	$9,107	$5,683

Net Operating Revenue  	$3,807	$3,310	 ($927)

Percentage Change in Net Operating Revenue	0%	-13%	-124%

Source:  Southeast U.S. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination, 2006.

Without the use of methyl bromide and chloropicrin, Florida and other
southeastern U.S. tomato producers would not be able to sustain the
losses presented in Table 15.  This would apply to that part of the
southeastern tomato acreage that is treated with one or more fumigants.
An upper bound of this impact is provided by the 91% of Florida acreage
treated with methyl bromide (Table 5), which equates to about 40,000
acres. Halted tomato production on these acres would represent a loss of
nearly $528 million and 13 million CWT of tomato production annually
(Table 3).  Given that tomato acreage can be put to a different use,
such as producing a different crop, these losses could ultimately be
somewhat lower than this upper bound.

National Impacts

There are over 129,000 acres of fresh market tomatoes grown in the U.S.
annually.  If fumigants are no longer available to fresh market tomato
producers who currently rely on them for disease, weed and nematode
control, given the magnitude of expected yield losses, U.S. tomato
production would be severely impacted.  Approximately 70% of tomato
producing acres would be impacted, potentially reducing tomato
production by 66% by volume or 68% of the total value of production.
Again, tomato acreage could be put to a different use, such as producing
a different crop; these losses could be somewhat less on a national
scale as well.

There are also over 300,000 acres of processed market tomatoes grown in
the U.S. annually.  If fumigants are no longer available to processed
market tomato producers who currently rely on them for disease, weed and
nematode control, given the magnitude of expected yield losses, U.S.
tomato production would be severely impacted.  Approximately 20% of
tomato producing acres would be impacted, potentially reducing tomato
production by 19% by volume or 18% of the total value of production.
Again, tomato acreage could be put to a different use, such as producing
a different crop; these losses could be somewhat less on a national
scale as well.

CONCLUSIONs

Of the soil fumigants currently being reviewed by EPA, chloropicrin,
methyl bromide, and metam sodium are all used on tomatoes in the west
(represented by California), Midwest (represented by Michigan), and the
southeast U.S.  Soil pathogens are a driving factor all regions, along
with nematodes in the west and southeast, plus weeds in the southeast.
In all regions with moderate to severe pest pressure, the only
technically and economically feasible alternatives are other fumigants
or fumigant combinations.  Yield losses can range from 5 to 64% in
California, 7 to 20 % in Michigan, and 6 to 64% in the southeast.  In
total, about 70% of the U.S. fresh tomato crop, and about 20% of the
processed tomato acres, is treated with one or more fumigants. Fresh
market tomato producers rely on fumigants for disease, weed, and
nematode control. In all regions with moderate to severe pest pressure,
the only technically and economically feasible alternatives are other
fumigants or fumigant combinations. The use of fumigants improves yields
by preventing losses from these pests, which could potentially reduce
fresh tomato production by as much as 66% in terms of volume or 68% of
the total value of production.  There are also over 300,000 acres of
processed market tomatoes grown in the U.S. annually.  Losses from pests
could potentially reduce processing tomato production by as much as 19%
in terms of volume or 18% of the total value of production.  The total
benefits of fumigation to tomato acreage in California, Michigan, and
the Southeastern U.S. could be as much as $728 million.

Limitations to this assessment

This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided by the
soil fumigants in the production of tomatoes.  The following are
limitations of this analysis:

Social benefits of pesticide use accrue to several groups, e.g., tomato
producers and consumers of tomatoes.  This document considers the
benefits of fumigant use from the perspective of tomato producers and
does not account for economic impacts on other parties.

The assessment does not account for transition to new agronomic
practices such as a conversion to greenhouse production, introduction of
new growing areas, or the introduction of newer as yet unregistered
fumigants.

The assessment is based on partial budget analysis and does not account
for price or income distribution effects resulting from changes in
supply.

REFERENCES

California Pepper Commission.  2005  Yield loss due to Phytophthora
capsici root rot, Red Bell Pepper Yield Loss, Deardorff Jackson Farms,
Ventura CA. 2005.  Letter in support of 2009 California Critical Use
Exemption Request for Peppers.

Hausbeck, M. and B. Cortright.  2004.  Comparing Fumigants for the
Control of Control of Phytophthora capsici in Vegetable Crops in
Vegetable Crops.  Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach presentation in
2004.  Available at:
http://www.mbao.org/2004/PowP/039Cortright%20%2039.pdf

Hausbeck, M.  2006.  Vegetable Crop Advisory Team Alert newsletter.
Vol. 21, No. 13, July 19, 2006.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://ipm.msu.edu/cat06veg/v07-19-06.htm#3"
http://ipm.msu.edu/cat06veg/v07-19-06.htm#3

McGovern, R.J., C.S. Vavrina, J.W. Noling, L.A. Datnoff, and H.D. Yonce.
1998. Evaluation of application methods of metam sodium for management
of Fusarium crown and root rot in tomato in southwest Florida. Plant
Disease 82: 919-923.

May, D. M., B.L. Weir, J. J. Nunez, K. M. Klonsky, R. L. De Moura. 2001.
Sample Costs to Produce Processing Tomatoes: San-Joaquin Valley,
Double-Row Seeded. University of California Cooperative Extension.
Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/2001toms.p
df"
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/2001toms.pd
f

Motis, T. N., S. J. Locasio, J. P. Gilreath, and W. M. Stall.  2003.
Season-Long Interference of Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with
Polyethylene-Mulched Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum).  Weed Technology.
Volume 17:543–549

Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. 2004. Evaluations of chemical
alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control and tomato yield in
field microplots. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach presentation in
2004.  Available at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.mbao.org"
http://www.mbao.org .

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath, T.N. Motis, J.W. Noling, J.P. Jones, and
J.A. Norton. 2006. Comparing methyl bromide alternatives for soilborne
disease, nematode and weed management in fresh market tomato. Crop
Protection 25: 690-695.

USDA ERS.  2006.  Organic Production.  USDA, Economic Research Service.
2006.  Available at :    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/Organic/"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/Organic/

USDA NASS.  2002-2006. Crop Production, Summary.  National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, January, at
HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID
=1047"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=
1047 .

USDA NASS.  2005.  Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2004 Field Crops
Summary.  National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, May, at   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2005/Agri
ChemUsFC-05-18-2005.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2005/AgriC
hemUsFC-05-18-2005.pdf .

 PAGE

Page  PAGE   16


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78808-78810]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0085; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-19-AD;
Amendment 39-16897; AD 2011-26-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) and
Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. (R-RM) Series Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain TCM and R-RM series reciprocating engines. That AD
currently requires replacement of certain magnetos if they fall within
the specified serial number (S/N) range, inspection of the removed
magneto to verify that the stop pin is still in place, and, if the stop
pin is not in place, inspection of the engine gear train, crankcase,
and accessory case. This new AD corrects the range of S/Ns affected,
requires the same replacement and inspections, and adds R-RM C-125, C-
145, O-300, IO-360, TSIO-360, and LTSIO-520-AE series reciprocating
engines to the applicability. This AD was prompted by our awareness of
an error in the previous AD applicability in the range of magneto S/Ns
affected and of the need to include certain engines made by R-RM, under
license of TCM. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine failure and
loss of control of the airplane due to migration of the magneto impulse
coupling stop pin out of the magneto frame and into the gear train of
the engine.

DATES: This AD is effective January 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., PO Box 90, Mobile, AL 36601; phone:
251-438-3411, or go to http://tcmlink.com/servicebulletins.cfm. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita Craft, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR

part 39 to supersede AD 2002-13-04, amendment 39-12792 (67 FR 43230,
June 27, 2002). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37682). That
NPRM proposed to continue to require replacement of certain magnetos if
they fall within the specified S/N range, inspection of the removed
magneto to verify that the stop pin is still in place, and, if the stop
pin is not in place, inspection of the engine gear train, crankcase,
and accessory case. That NPRM also proposed to correct the range of S/
Ns affected and add R-RM C-125, C-145, O-300, IO-360, TSIO-360, and
LTSIO-520-AE series reciprocating engines to the applicability. We are
issuing this AD to prevent engine failure and loss of control of the
airplane due to migration of the magneto impulse coupling stop pin out
of the magneto frame and into the gear train of the engine.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to this comment.

Question on Who the AD Is Written Against

    A commenter, not further identified, asked why the AD was issued
against TCM and not ``Slick.''
    We do not agree. We write ADs against either a product or an
appliance. In the case of this AD, magnetos are part of the engine type
certificate and, therefore, considered part of the product (the
engine). We did not change the AD as a result of this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 100 R-RM C-125, C-145, O-300, IO-
360, TSIO-360, and LTSIO-520-AE series reciprocating engines installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
2 work-hours per engine to perform the inspections, and that the
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $17,000. Our
cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2002-13-04, Amendment 39-12792 (67 FR 43230, June 27, 2002), and adding
the following new AD:

2011-26-07 Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) and Rolls-Royce Motors
Ltd. (R-RM) Series Reciprocating Engines: Amendment 39-16897; Docket
No. FAA-2011-0085; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-19-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 24, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2002-13-04, Amendment 39-12792 (67 FR
43230, June 27, 2002).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to TCM and R-RM C-125, C-145, O-300, IO-360,
TSIO-360, and LTSIO-520-AE series reciprocating engines with
Champion Aerospace (formerly Unison Industries) Slick Magnetos,
models 6314, 6324, and 6364, with magneto serial numbers (S/Ns) of
99110001 through 99129999, inclusive.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an error in the previous AD
applicability in the range of magneto S/Ns affected, and by the need
to include certain engines made by R-RM, under license of TCM. We
are issuing this AD to prevent engine failure and loss of control of
the airplane due to migration of the magneto impulse coupling stop
pin out of the magneto frame and into the gear train of the engine.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within 10 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, unless already done.

(f) Replacement of Magneto

    Replace any magneto that has an S/N of 99110001 through
99129999, inclusive, with a magneto that does not have a serial
number in that range. If a magneto is not in this S/N range, no
further action is required by this AD.

(g) Inspections

    Inspect each removed magneto to verify that the impulse coupling
stop pin is present. If the pin is missing, do the following:
    (1) For C-125, C-145, O-300, IO-360, and TSIO-360 series
engines, do the following:
    (i) Remove magnetos, alternator or generator, and starter
adapter from the accessory case.
    (ii) Remove the accessory case from the crankcase and oil sump.
    (iii) Visually inspect the entire engine gear train for damaged
or broken gears and gear teeth.
    (iv) Inspect visible portions of the engine crankcase and
accessory case for damage due to the stop pin becoming lodged
between the engine gear train and the crankcase or accessory case.

    (v) If the accessory case is damaged, repair or replace the
accessory case.
    (vi) If the engine crankcase is damaged, disassemble the engine,
and repair or replace the crankcase.
    (vii) Inspect the oil pump drive gear teeth and inner cam gear
teeth for damage. Replace any engine drive train component that has
been damaged.
    (viii) Replace any damaged gear, and magnaflux the mating gears
using the applicable engine overhaul manual.
    (2) For LTSIO-520-AE series engines, do the following:
    (i) Remove the starter adapter, fuel pump, vacuum pumps,
accessory drive pads, and both magnetos.
    (ii) Visually inspect the entire engine gear train for damaged
or broken gears and gear teeth.
    (iii) If any damage has occurred, remove the engine from the
airplane, disassemble the engine, and inspect it for damage. If any
damage is found, repair as necessary.
    (iv) Replace any damaged gear, and magnaflux the mating gears
using the applicable engine overhaul manual.
    (v) Inspect the interior portions of the engine crankcase for
damage due to the stop pin becoming lodged between the gear train
and the crankcase. If the crankcase is damaged, repair or replace
the crankcase.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any Champion
Aerospace (formerly Unison Industries) Slick magnetos, model 6314,
6324, or 6364 that have an S/N of 99110001 through 99129999,
inclusive, on any engine.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance

    The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(j) Related Information

    (1) A cross-reference for part numbers (P/Ns) for Champion
Aerospace (formerly Unison Industries) Slick magneto model 6314 (TCM
P/N 653271), model 6324 (TCM P/N 653292), and model 6364 (TCM P/N
649696) can be found in TCM Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB00-6D,
dated November 19, 2010.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Juanita Craft,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate; 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 8, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-32252 Filed 12-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 8600]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02564]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 14f-1; OMB Control No. 3235-0108, SEC File No. 270-127.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved.
    Under Exchange Act Rule 14f-1 (17 CFR 240.14f-1), if a person or
persons have acquired securities of an issuer in a transaction subject
to Sections 13(d) or 14(d) of the Exchange Act, and changes a majority
of the directors of the issuer otherwise than at a meeting of security
holders, then the issuer must file with the Commission and transmit to
security holders information related to the change in directors within
10 days prior to the date the new majority takes office as directors.
We estimate that it takes approximately 18 burden hours to provide the
information required under Rule 14f-1 and that the information is filed
by approximately 172 respondents for a total annual burden of 3,096
hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: January 31, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02564 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5790]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2572]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-49-000]

Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on January 17, 2012, Mississippi Canyon Gas
Pipeline, LLC (MCGP), 1100 Louisiana Street in Houston, Texas filed a
prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and MCGP's blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP97-172, to construct and operate a new receipt point located in
Federal waters offshore Louisiana in West Delta Block 143, all as more
fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Cynthia Hornstein Roney, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Mississippi
Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC, 1100 Louisiana Suite 3300, Houston, Texas
77002 or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: January 31, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2572 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 1 August 6, 2003 For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of the code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

1. Subchapter J is amended by amending Part 312 to read as follows:

Part 312   Standards for Conducting All Appropriate Inquiry Subpart A   Introduction Sec. 312.1 Purpose, applicability, and scope.

Subpart B   Definitions Sec. 312.10 Definitions 312.11 References Subpart C   Standards and Practices Sec. 312.20 Results of an inquiry by an environmental professional. 312.21 Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants of the facility Authority: Section 101( 35)( B) of CERCLA, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 9601( 35)( B).

Subpart A   Introduction § 312.1 Purpose, applicability, and scope. ( a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards and procedures for " all appropriate inquiry" for the purposes of CERCLA § 101( 35)( B).

( b) Applicability. The requirements of this part are applicable to: ( 1) potential innocent landowners conducting all appropriate inquiry under § 101( 35)( B) of CERCLA; ( 2) bona fide prospective purchasers defined under § 101( 40) of CERCLA; ( 3) contiguous property owners under § 107( q) of CERCLA; and ( 4) persons conducting site characterization and assessments with the use of a grant awarded under CERCLA § 104( k)( 2)( B). DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 2 ( c) Scope. ( 1) Persons identified in § 312.1( b)( 1)( 3) must conduct investigations required in this part, including an inquiry by an environmental professional, as required under § 312.21, and the additional inquiries defined in § 312.22, to identify releases or threatened releases, as defined in CERCLA § 101( 22), of hazardous substances, as defined in CERCLA § 101( 14). ( 2) Persons identified in § 312.1( b)( 4) must conduct investigations required in this part, including an inquiry by an environmental professional, as required under § 312.21, and the additional inquiries defined in § 312.22, to identify releases and threatened releases, as defined in CERCLA § 101( 22) of: ( i) hazardous substances, as defined in CERCLA § 101( 14); ( ii) pollutants and contaminants, as defined in CERCLA § 101( 33); ( iii) petroleum or petroleum products excluded from the definition of " hazardous substance" as defined in CERCLA § 101( 14); and ( iv) controlled substances, as defined in Section 802 of Title 21 of U. S. C.

Subpart B  Definitions § 312.10   Definitions ( a) Terms used in this part and not defined below, but defined in either in CERCLA or in 40 CFR Part 300 ( the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan) shall have the definitions provided in CERCLA or 40 CFR Part 300. ( b) When used in this part, the following terms have the meanings provided below:

Environmental Professional means a person who possesses sufficient specific education, training, and experience necessary to exercise professional judgement to develop opinions and conclusions regarding the presence of a release or threatened release ( per § 312.1( c)) to the surface or subsurface of a property. In addition, the person shall: ( a) hold a current Professional Engineer's or Professional Geologist's license or registration from a State, Tribe, or U. S. Territory ( or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico); or ( b) be licensed or certified by a State, Tribe, or U. S. Territory ( or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) to perform environmental inquiries as defined in § 312.21; or ( c) have a Bachelors of Science, Bachelors of Arts, or higher degree in relevant disciplines of science, engineering or geology and the equivalent of five ( 5) years of full time experience with increasing responsibilities after obtaining the Bachelors degree that includes the performance, review, and oversight of environmental site assessments and subsurface environmental investigations to characterize site conditions and determine the likelihood of a release or threatened release at the property. DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 3 § 312.11   References ( a) When used in part 312 of this chapter, the following publications are incorporated by reference:

Subpart C   Standards and Practices § 312.20 All Appropriate Inquiries ( a) " All appropriate inquiries" as required under CERCLA 101( 35)( b) must include: ( 1) An inquiry by an environmental professional ( as defined in § 312.10), as provided in § 312.21; and ( 2) Inquiries conducted by persons identified under § 312.1( b), and as required in § 312.22.

§ 312.21 Results of inquiry by an environmental professional ( a) Persons identified under § 312.1( b) must undertake an inquiry, as defined in § 312.21( b) below, by an environmental professional, or conducted under the direct supervision and responsible charge of an environmental professional, as defined in § 312.10. ( b) The inquiry required to be conducted by, or under the direct supervision and responsible charge of, an environmental professional must include the requirements set forth in § § 312.23 ( interviews with past and present owners...), 312.24 ( reviews of historical sources...), 312.26 ( reviews of government records), 312.27 ( visual inspections), 312.30 ( commonly known or reasonably attainable information), and 312.31 ( degree of obviousness of the presence... and the ability to detect the contamination...). In addition, the inquiry should take into account information provided to the environmental professional as a result of the additional inquiries conducted by persons identified in § 312.1( b) and in accordance with the requirements of § 312.22. ( c) The results of the inquiry into the presence of a release or threatened release as defined in § 312.1( c) should be certified as complete and inclusive of all reasonably ascertainable information about the property by both the environmental professional and the persons to which this part is applicable per § 312.1( b). ( d) The qualifications of the environmental professional that conducted or oversaw the inquiry should be included with the inquiry results.

§ 312.22 Additional Inquiries ( a) Persons identified under § 312.1( b) must conduct, as part of " all appropriate inquiries" the following activities. The results of the activities listed below must be provided to the environmental professional responsible for conducting the activities listed in § 312.21. ( 1) searches for environmental cleanup liens, as required in § 312.25; DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 4 ( 2) specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the defendant, as required in § 312.28; ( 3) the relationship of the purchase price to the [ market] value of the property, if the property was not contaminated, as provided in § 312.29; and ( 4) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property, as required in § 312.30.

§ 312.23 Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants ( a) The goal of any and all interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants of the subject property shall be to gather information regarding: ( 1) releases or threatened releases, as provided in § 312.1( c), at the property; ( 2) a continuous record of ownership and uses of the property; and ( 3) a record of activities, including remedial and corrective action activities, that have been conducted to address past or on going releases a the property. ( b) At a minimum, the environmental professional must interview the current owner or occupant of the property that is the subject of the investigation ( whomever, in the opinion of the environmental professional is best able to provide the information outlined above in § 312.23( a)). ( c) In the case of inquiries conducted at abandoned properties, including properties with an unknown owner, properties where there is evidence of potential unauthorized uses of the property, or properties where there is evidence of uncontrolled access to the property, the environmental professional must interview at least two ( 2) owners or occupants of neighboring or nearby properties from which it appears possible to have observed uses of and releases at such abandoned properties for the purpose of gathering information regarding releases or threatened releases, as defined in § 312.1( c), at the property that is the subject of the inquiry. ( d) In addition, to the extent practicable, and to determine the potential for a release or threatened release at the subject property or to achieve the goals listed above in § 312.23( a), it may be necessary to interview a reasonable number of: ( 1) current and past key facility managers, ( 2) past property owners or operators, and ( 3) employees of current and past occupants of the property. ( 4) non residential past owners for as far back in the history of the property as can be shown that the property contained structures or from the time the property was used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or governmental purposes. ( 5) current owners or occupants of neighboring properties or properties adjacent to the property that is the subject of the inquiry. ( e) In cases where the environmental professional is unable to interview a sufficient number of past and present owners, operators, and occupants of the subject property, or in the case of § 312.23( d), owners and occupants of nearby properties to achieve the goals listed in § 312.23( a), the environmental professional must: ( 1) document efforts undertaken to attempt such interviews; and DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 5 ( 2) to the extent practicable, review alternative sources of information regarding releases or threatened releases at the property and document steps taken to obtain such information.

§ 312.24 Reviews of historical sources of information ( a) To the extent practicable, historical documents and records must be reviewed to determine previous uses and occupancies of the property that is the subject of the inquiry and identify past and on going activities that could contribute to or result in a release or threatened release, as defined in § 312.1( c), at the property. The inquiry must cover a period of time as far back in the history of the property as can be shown that the property contained structures or from the time the property was used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or governmental purposes. The inquiry should include reviews of historical sources and documents that may indicate prior uses of the subject property and site conditions. ( b) Two or more historical documents or sources of information such as chain of title documents, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, building department records, and land use records must be reviewed with the goal of obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the past uses of the property and how such uses may have resulted in a release or threatened release as defined in 312.1( c). The inquiry must cover a period of time as far back in the history of the property as can be shown that the property contained structures or from the time the property was used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or governmental purposes. ( c) In cases where a search for historical documents or sources of information does not result in a comprehensive record of uses and activities at a property for as far back in the history of the property as can be shown that the property contained structures or from the time the property was used for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or governmental purposes the environmental professional must: ( 1) document efforts undertaken to attempt to obtain the necessary historical documentation; and ( 2) to the extent practicable, review alternative sources of information regarding releases or threatened releases at the property ( e. g., contact appropriate state and local officials and request information on land use and activities conducted at the site) and document steps taken to obtain such information.

§ 312.25 Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens ( a) Persons to whom this part is applicable per § 312.22 must determine the existence of recorded environmental cleanup liens against the subject property that are filed under Federal, Tribal, State, or local law. ( b) All information collected regarding the existence of environmental cleanup liens associated with the subject property must be provided to the environmental professional.

§ 312.26 Reviews of Federal, State, and local government records ( a) Publicly available and reasonably obtainable Federal, Tribal, State, and local DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 6 government records for the property must be reviewed by the environmental professional for the purpose of identifying activities conducted at or within one mile of the boundary of the property that have or had a current, past, or potential release or threatened release of a hazardous substance. The search distance may be changed based upon information available to, or based upon the professional judgement of, the environmental professional. Factors the environmental professional may consider in determining the appropriate search distance include: ( 1) type of release ( 2) proximity to the subject property ( 3) geologic setting ( 4) geomorphology ( 5) subsurface geological structural features ( 6) hydraulic conductivity ( 7) rock fracture orientation ( 8) presence and designated use of groundwater ( 9) groundwater flow direction ( 10) depth to groundwater ( 11) groundwater flow velocity.

( b) The review of publicly available and reasonably obtainable Federal, Tribal, State, and local government records ( including searches of publicly available data bases) should include, as appropriate: ( 1) hazardous substance release investigation reports for the property; ( 2) records of activities or incidents likely to cause or contribute to a release or threatened release as defined in § 312.1( c), including landfill and other disposal unit location records and permits, underground storage tank records and permits, hazardous waste handler and generator records and permits, Federal, Tribal and state government listings of sites identified as priority cleanup sites, and spill reporting records; ( 3) environmental records that reflect incidents or activities that are likely to caue or contribute to releases or threatened releases at the property; ( 4) public health records; and ( 5) information on any institutional controls associated with the property that is the subject of the inquiry. ( c) In cases where Federal, Tribal, State, and local government records of activities conducted on or within the general vicinity of the property are not publicly available and not reasonably obtainable, the environmental professional must: ( 1) document efforts undertaken to attempt to obtain the necessary government records; and ( 2) review alternative sources of information regarding releases or threatened releases at the property and document steps taken to attain such information. DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 7 § 312.27 Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining properties ( a) For the purpose of determining the presence of a release or threatened release on the property per § 312.1( c), the inquiry conducted by an environmental professional must include: ( 1) a visual site inspection or observation of the property and all facilities and improvements on the property including a visual inspection of any hazardous substance use, storage, treatment, and disposal practices conducted on the properties; and ( 2) a visual inspection or observation of immediately adjacent properties, including a visual inspection of any hazardous substance use, storage, treatment, and disposal practices conducted on the adjacent properties. ( b) Persons conducting site characterization and assessments with the use of a grant awarded under CERCLA § 104( k)( 2)( B) must include in the scope of the visual inspection or observation, a visual inspection of any use, storage, treatment, or disposal of petroleum and petroleum products, controlled substances, and hazardous pollutants and contaminants. ( c) It is essential that a visual on site inspection of the subject property be conducted as part of the inquiry. In the unusual circumstance where an on site visual inspection or observation of the subject property and/ or immediately adjacent properties cannot be performed because of physical limitations, an inability to obtain access to the property despite significant efforts to obtain such access, the environmental professional must: ( 1) visually inspect or observe the subject property and immediately adjacent properties via another method ( such as by aircraft), or visually inspect or observe the subject property from the nearest accessible vantage point ( such as the property line or public road); ( 2) document efforts undertaken to attempt to obtain access to the subject property and/ or immediately adjacent properties; ( 3) review alternative comparable sources of information regarding the potential for a release or threatened release at the property and document the steps taken to obtain such information.

§ 312.28 Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the defendant ( a) Persons to which this part is applicable per § 312.1( b) must apply to the inquiry and report to the environmental professional their own specialized knowledge of the property that is the subject of the inquiry, the environs of the property, the conditions of adjoining properties, and any other expertise relevant to the investigation, for the purpose of assessing the presence of a release or threatened release at the property, as defined in § 312.1( c). ( b) All appropriate inquiries, as outlined under § 312.20, are not complete unless the results of the inquiries include all relevant and applicable specialized knowledge and experience of the persons responsible for undertaking the inquiry ( as described in § 312.1( b)). DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 8 § 312.29 The relationship of the purchase price to the [ market] value of the property, if the property was not contaminated ( a) Persons to which this part is applicable per § 312.1( b) must evaluate whether the purchase price of the property that is the subject of the inquiry reasonably reflects the [ market] value of the property, if the property were not contaminated. ( b) Persons who conclude that the purchase price of the property that is the subject of the inquiry does not reasonably reflect the [ market] value of that property, if the property were not contaminated, should consider whether or not the differential in purchase price and [ market] value is due to the fact that the property contains releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. ( c) Persons conducting site characterization and assessments with the use of a grant awarded under CERCLA § 104( k)( 2)( B) and who conclude that the purchase price of the property that is the subject of the inquiry does not reasonably reflect the [ market] value of that property, if the property were not contaminated, should consider whether or not the differential in purchase price and [ market] value is due to the fact that the property contains releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, petroleum and petroleum products, controlled substances, and/ or hazardous pollutants and contaminants.

§ 312.30 Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property ( a) Persons to which this part is applicable per § 312.1( b) and environmental professionals conducting an inquiry of a property shall take into account commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property throughout the conduct of the inquiry and consider such information when determining whether or not there is a release or threatened release, as defined in § 312.1( c), at the subject property. ( b) Commonly known information includes information obtained by the person to whom this part applies per § 312.1( b) and the environmental professional about releases or threatened releases at the property subject to the inquiry that is incidental to or in addition to the information obtained intentionally or otherwise by design or inquiry under this part.

§ 312.31 The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation ( a) Persons to which this part is applicable per § 312.1( b) and environmental professionals conducting an inquiry of a property on behalf of such persons must consider all obvious indications of the presence of a release or threatened release at the property and should document compliance with the criteria of this part prior to purchasing the property. ( b) If, after completing the inquiries required under § § 312.23 through 312.30 above, the results of the inquiries indicate, to a significant degree of obviousness, that there is a release or threatened release, as defined in § 312.1( c), or a high potential of a release or threatened release at the property that is the subject of the inquiry, then the results of inquiry should include the DRAFT THIS IS NOT A PROPOSED OR FINAL REGULATION DRAFT*** DRAFT*** For Discussion Purposes Only*** Do Not Cite*** DRAFT** DRAFT 9 environmental professional's recommendations regarding additional appropriate investigations ( e. g., sampling and analysis of soils, groundwater, or air) that may be necessary to detect any releases or threatened releases at the property for the purposes of undertaking appropriate or reasonable care should the property be purchased.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 120 (Monday, June 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37413-37414]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10066]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 282

[EPA-R06-UST-2018-0704; FRL-10009-04-Region 6]

Texas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program
Revisions and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State of Texas Underground Storage Tank (UST)
program submitted by the State. This action is based on EPA's
determination that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for
program approval. This action also proposes to codify EPA's approval of
Texas's State program and to incorporate by reference those provisions
of the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements
for approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and
enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA subtitle I
and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

DATES: Send written comments by July 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, identified by EPA-R06-UST-2018-0704 by
one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-UST-
2018-0704. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The Federal https://www.regulations.gov
website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the 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 the EPA
without going through https://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, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment. If
the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties, and
cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 submission methods, please contact Audray
Lincoln,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The index to the docket for this action is available electronically
at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Audray Lincoln,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the
public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there
will be a delay in processing mail and no courier or hand deliveries
will be accepted. Please call or email the contact listed above if you
need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the
docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct
final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential Business Information, Hazardous substances, Incorporation
by reference, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Oil pollution,
Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety
bonds, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  This rule is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

    Dated: May 5, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-10066 Filed 6-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P