1.

2.

3.

4.

Light x Medium Heavy 0 to 2% x 2 to 5 % over 5%

5.

6. Specialty ( check one)

7. Bob Weimer agronomic X 8. economic 9. Daytime phone 10. FAX 11.

List an additional contact person if available. Specialty ( check one)

12. agronomic 13. economic 14. 15. FAX 16. For EPA Use Only ID#

Contact name Address Daytime phone E mail Location ( Enter the state, region, or county. Provide more detail about the location if relevant to the feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide.)

Crop/ commodity ( Include all crops/ commodities that benefit from the application of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle. A fumigation cycle is the period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.)

Climate ( Individual users should enter their climate zone designation by reviewing the U. S. climate zone map. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each climate zone. This map is located at the end of this workbook or it can be reviewed online at http:// www. usna. usda. gov/ Hardzone/ ushzmap. html).

9a PO Box 366 Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide requested and the contact person for this request. It is important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional information during the review of the application.

Other geographic factors that may affect crop/ commodity yield ( e. g., water table).

Sweet Potato Council of California California Sweetpotato Soil Type:

Organic Matter: Soil type Check the box( es) for the soil types and percent organic matter that apply to your area. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each soil type.

Consortium name Livingston, CA 95334 weimer@ elite. net 209 358 2750 Contact name Address 209 358 1685 E mail Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information 17. 495,000 lbs.

17a. Acres units 18. Yes X No 18a.

19.

20.

20a.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 If applying as a consortium for many users of methyl bromide, please define a representative user . Define exactly, issues such as size of the operation ( acres treated with methyl bromide for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications), whether the representative user owns or rents the land or operation, intensity of methyl bromide use ( treat regularly or only when pest reaches a threshold), pest pressure, etc. Target Pest( s) or Pest Problem( s): ( Be as specific as possible about the species or classes of pests relevant to the feasibility of alternatives.) If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for question 17 and 17a. should be the total for the consortium.

In the question below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Are you requesting methyl bromide for additional years beyond 2005?

165 lb. ai/ acre 165 lb. ai/ acre 2007 In the table below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Year How much active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide are you requesting for 2005?

California sweetpotato production is localized primarily in two adjacent counties in the Central Valley, with the greatest productio occuring in Merced County. MeBr users are therefore a very homogenous population with no major differences. Average size farm is about 100 acres with the majority of sweetpotato produced on leased property. Fumigation occurs on 65  70% of acreage. How much area will this be applied to? Please list units. 3,000 For EPA Use Only ID#

Explain why this user represents the typical user in the consortium. 3,000 Acres Continued use requested until viable alternatives are available 2006 Quantity ai ( lb.) of Methyl Bromide 495,000 Area to be Treated 3,000 Acres If yes, please list year and quantity active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide requested in the table below and explain why you need authorization for multiple years.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data below should be the total for the consortium.

495,000 Unit of Area Treated Root Knot Nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.)  Primary Target Col A: Formulation of Methyl Bromide Col B, E, H, K: Actual Area Treated Col C, F, I, L: Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Col D, G, J, M: Actual Average lbs. ai Applied per Area A B C D E F G H I J K L M Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area over 95% methyl bromide 5,500 766,041 139.280182 4,000 541,923 135.48075 3,000 445,731 148.577 2,308 338,469 146.650347 75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All formulations of methyl bromide 139.280182 135.48075 148.577 146.650347 Source: CDPR Pesticide Use Report.

Comments: Typical use rate ranges from 150  175 lbs. ai/ acre.

Use declined due to cost increases of MeBr and due to efforts to implement alternatives.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Use 1997 2000 Enter the appropriate data in Col B M for each formulation, if known, and/ or the totals and averages for all formulations. If you enter only the total and averages for all formulations in the last row of the table, please describe in the comments section the formulations typically used, or the approximate proportions of the formulations used.

If a consortium is submitting this application, all data should reflect the actual data for the consortium.

The average application rates in pounds ai of methyl bromide per area are automatically calculated from the previous 2 columns. 2000 Enter the total actual area treated. Note: This number should be the total actual area treated by the individual user or total actual area for the entire consortium, for the year indicated.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Formulation of Methyl Bromide Enter the actual total pounds active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide applied. Note: This number should be the total pounds ai applied by the individual user or the entire consortium, for the year indicated.

1997 1998 1999 For EPA Use Only ID#

A C D E F Year Methyl Bromide was Applied Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( cwt./ acre) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per acre)

1997 hundredweight ( cwt.) 205 $ 22.50 $ 4,612.50 1998 hundredweight ( cwt.) 220 $ 19.35 $ 4,257.00 1999 hundredweight ( cwt.) 240 $ 21.60 $ 5,184.00 2000 hundredweight ( cwt.) 250 $ 18.08 $ 4,520.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 4,612.50 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 4,257.00 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 5,184.00 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 4,520.00 Average Revenue Per Year $ 4,643.38 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Sweetpotato B Sweetpotato Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Sweetpotato Sweetpotato Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Average Revenue per Year: The average revenue per year is calculated automatically using the summary data you enter for each year.

Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

The purpose of this worksheet is to estimate the gross revenue for 1997  2000 when using methyl bromide. Post harvest and structural users may work with EPA to modify this form to accommodate differences in operations when providing gross revenue data.

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Source: NASS NOTE: California reports what shipper receives for commodity; grower receives about 25% less. Above figures have been adjusted.

Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

Enter the average prices received by the users for the year and crop/ commodity indicated ( 1997 2000).

This number is calculated automatically using the values you entered in Cols. D and E. You may override the formula to enter a different revenue. Please explain why the revenue amount is different in the comment section below.

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ commodities in the fumigation cycles from 1997 to 2000. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year methyl bromide was applied.

Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in each fumigation cycle. ( For example, if normally methyl bromide is applied and tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers without an additional treatment of methyl bromide, then both tomatoes and peppers would be part of the same fumigation cycle.) See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. B: Price Factors Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue A B C D E F Crop/ Commodity Price Factors ( grade, time, market) Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per acre) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area)

Sweetpotato Market ( supply/ demand) cwt. 230 $ 23.17 $ 5,329.10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue $ 5,329.10 Comments: Source: NASS OMB Control # 2060 0482 The purpose of this worksheet is to estimate the gross revenue for 2001when using methyl bromide. Post harvest users may modify this form to accommodate differences when providing gross revenue data. If 2001 was not a typical year for the individual or for the representative user of a consortium, the applicant may provide additional data for a different year. However, all applicants must complete this worksheet for the year 2001 regardless. Please explain in the comment section at the bottom of the worksheet why 2001 is not considered a typical year, if that is the case. Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning with the treatment of methyl bromide in 2001. If multiple crops are grown during the interval between fumigations ( e. g. tomatoes followed by peppers in a single growing season, or strawberries followed by lettuce over 2 or 3 years) include all of the crops during the entire interval. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 2001 NOTE: California reports what shipper receives for commodity; grower receives about 25% less. Above figures have been adjusted.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

Enter average 2001 prices received by the users for that crop/ commodity and price factor.

Revenue is automatically calculated using the data you entered for yield and price. If revenue is not equal to yield times price, you may override the formula and enter a different revenue amount. Please explain why this revenue amount is different in the comment section below.

Enter factors that determine prices ( e. g., grade, time, market). If you received different prices for your crop/ commodity as a result of quality,

grade, market ( e. g. fresh or processing), timing of harvest, etc., you may itemize by using more than one row. Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate in making the case that the use of methyl bromide affects these price factors.

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodity produced per area for that price factor. Col. A: Formulation of Methyl Bromide Col B: Average lbs. active ingredient ( ai) of Methyl Bromide Applied per Area Cols. C, D, E, G: Prices and Costs Col. F: Actual Area Treated A B C D E F G Formulation of Methyl Bromide Lb. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied per Area ( 2001 Average) Price per lb. ai of Methyl Bromide ( 2001 Average) Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area ( 2001 Average) Other MBr Costs ( e. g. tarps,

etc.) per Area ( 2001 Average) Total Actual Area Treated in the Consortium Cost per Area over 95% methyl bromide 165 $ 4.00 $ 40.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 700.00 75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin $ 0.00 67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin $ 0.00 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin $ 0.00 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin $ 0.00 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin $ 0.00 $ 0.00 All formulations of methyl bromide 165 $ 4.00 $ 40.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 700.00 Comments: MeBr was not used in 2001 due to increased price of material. Column G represents Cost per Area if MeBr was used.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

If 2001 was not a typical year for the individual or for the representative user of a consortium, the applicant may provide additional data for a different year. However, all applicants must complete this worksheet for the year 2001 regardless. If you provide an additional year's data, please explain in the comment section at the bottom of the worksheet why 2001 is not considered a typical year.

If the methyl bromide is custom applied then put the cost per area in Column G and fill in the average lb ai of methyl bromide applied per area ( Col B) and the Total Actual Area Treated ( Col F).

Worksheet 2 D. Methyl Bromide  Use and Costs for 2001 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data in Cols. B, C, D, and E should reflect the representative user in the consortium. The data in Col. F should reflect the actual area treated by all users in the consortium.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Enter the appropriate data in Col B G for each formulation, if known, and/ or the totals and averages for all formulations of methyl bromide. If you just enter data in the bottom row in the table ( All formulations of methyl bromide), please describe in the comments, the relative usage of the various formulations, to the extent known.

Enter the average pounds active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide applied per area.

Enter the average price per pound active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide in Col. C and the average cost of applying methyl bromide per area treated in Col. D. In Col. E, enter the average other costs per area associated with applying methyl bromide ( e. g., tarps). Column G will be calculated automatically using the values you entered in columns B E. If methyl bromide is custom applied, enter the cost per area in Col. G and fill in Cols. B and F.

Enter the actual area treated. Note: This number should be the total area treated by all users in the consortium. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col A: Operation Col B: Custom Operation Cost Col C: Material Cost per Area Col D: Labor Cost per Area Col E: Total Cost per Area Col F: Typical Equipment Used A B C D E F Material Cost per Area Labor Cost per Area Total Cost per Area Typical Equipment Used Land Prep $ 225.00 $ 225.00 Irrigation installation $ 120.00 $ 140.00 $ 260.00 Drip Tape Irrigation $ 150.00 $ 150.00 Hot bed cost $ 550.00 $ 550.00 Plastic Planting $ 450.00 $ 450.00 Tractor/ transplanter Cultivation $ 225.00 $ 225.00 Tractor + cult. Equipment Weed Hoeing $ 400.00 $ 400.00 Hoes Chemicals $ 100.00 $ 100.00 Aerial application Fertilizer $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Harvest $ 800.00 $ 800.00 Storage $ 150.00 $ 150.00 Bin rental $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Fumigation $ 300.00 $ 0.00 Total Custom per Area $ 300.00 User Total per area $ 3,560.00 OMB Control # 2060 0482 Operation Done by User Worksheet 2 E. Methyl Bromide  Other Operating Costs for 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Custom Operation Cost per Area Operation If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Do not include methyl bromide costs.

Identify the typical equipment used for operations done by user. Please be specific, such as tractor horsepower. No cost data is required in this column.

If you do not incur custom operation costs, enter the material cost per area.

The total cost per area is calculated automatically from the values you enter in Cols. C and D.

If you do not incur custom operation costs, enter the labor cost per area.

Enter all operating costs except methyl bromide costs incurred during the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning in 2001. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. Enter these costs in Col B for custom operations, or in Col C and D for operations done by user.

Identify in Col A the operations ( except methyl bromide) to which the costs apply. For growers, these operations should include but are not limited to ( 1) prepare soil, ( 2) fertilize, ( 3) irrigate, ( 4) plant, ( 5) harvest, ( 6) other pest controls, etc. You must include all other operating costs.

If you incur custom operation costs, enter those costs in Col. B.

Submit crop budgets for each crop, if available. You may submit crop budgets electronically or in hard copy. If your costs are significantly different than the crop budgets,

please explain in the comments. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col A: Cost Item Col B: Description Col C: Allocation Method Col D: Cost per Area A B C D Cost Item Description Allocation Method Cost per Area Land Rent Actual area planted $ 350.00 Water Tax Fixed amount $ 25.00 Water Cost Actual amount used $ 125.00 Management $ 100.00 Depreciation $ 125.00 Accounting/ Bookeeping $ 15.00 Total $ 740.00 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 F. Methyl Bromide Fixed and Overhead Costs in 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Identify in Col. A the cost items. These items should include, but are not limited to: ( 1) land rent, ( 2) interest, ( 3) depreciation,

( 4) management, and ( 5) overhead such as office and administration.)

Please describe the cost in more detail.

Please describe how you estimated the portion of total fixed cost of the farm or entity that applies to this crop/ commodity.

Enter the cost per area of methyl bromide treated.

Enter all fixed and overhead costs incurred during the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning in 2001. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) For EPA Use Only ID#

For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide None In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area. For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

BACKGROUND If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

None listed in US Matrix In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area. There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996. If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed. Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes NA No NA 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) X If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet This alternative is not economically feasible. Land owners will not allow land to be taken out of production. Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as applicati The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and othe There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide None In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives pro For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative,

BACKGROUND If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

Crop Rotation/ Fallow In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each resear For EPA Use Only ID#

For EPA Use Only ID# Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No X 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 There are no relevant research studies for this not in kind alternative. Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss.

Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. Col. B: Target Pests Col. C: Active Ingredients Col. D: Formulation Col. E, F, G: Application Rate Col. H, I, J: Prices and Costs Col. K: Area Treated Col. L: # of Applications per Year Col. M: Cost per Area in 2001 Dollars Non chemical Control A B C D E F G H I J K L M lbs. ai per Area per Application Units of product per Area per Application Product Unit ( e. g., lbs.,

gals) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Non Chemical Pest Control Target Pests Description Cost/ area Total $ 0.00 Comments:

If you do not have the quantitative data for additional crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comment section.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

Use one row for each active ingredient ( ai). For example, if a product contains 2 ai's use 2 rows for that product. Once a row is completed for a given product, then only Col.

B ( if applicable), C, and E need to be completed for additional rows regarding the same product.

Enter the number of applications in a fumigation cycle comparable to methyl bromide for this alternative pest control regimen. Since this number is an average, it does not need to be a whole number.

Enter the formulation or the % of active ingredient. Cost per Area ( 2001$)

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Name of Product Price per Unit of the Product Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area Other Costs per Application Worksheet 3 B. Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs for Alternative: None Applicable Enter the area receiving at least one application of the pesticide.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Enter all alternatives and non chemical pest control that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. If multiple crops are grown during the interval between fumigations ( e. g. tomatoes followed by peppers in a single growing season, or strawberries followed by lettuce over 2 or 3 years) include all of the pesticides that replace methyl bromide for the entire interval. Do not include pesticides that are used along with methyl bromide enter only the additional pest control if methyl bromide were not available.

Be as specific as possible regarding the species or classes of pests controlled by the active ingredient or pesticide product.

Col. A: Name of Product and Non chemical Control If someone other than the applicant previously benefited from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

As a cross check, EPA is requesting both the amount of active ingredient in Col. E and product applied per area in Col. F. Indicate the unit of the product in Col. G.

Use 2001 prices and costs. If the product is custom applied you may enter the total cost in the last column ( Col. M) and override the formula. If a pesticide is applied by the user, enter the price of the product in Col. H and the cost of applying it in Col. I. Enter any other costs associated with applying this product in Col. J, specifying what they are in the comments section at the bottom of this sheet.

Enter the cost per area in 2001 dollars. Col. M will be calculated automatically using the data you have entered for a chemical pest control, or, the formula in Col. M can be overridden if the cost per area is known because the product was custom applied. Area Treated at Least Once Enter data near the bottom of the form. Identify the control in Col. A. Enter the target pests in Col. B. Describe the non chemical pest control Col. B L. Enter the costs in Col. M in 2001 dollars. # of Applications per Year Application Rate Formulation of Product Target Pests Active Ingredients ( ai) in Product For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. B: Price Factors Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Gross Revenue A B C D E F Crop/ Commodity Price Factors ( grade, time, market) Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per area) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue $ 0.00 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Enter the number of units of crop/ commodity produced per area for that price factor identified.

Enter the average 2001 prices received by the users for that crop/ commodity and price factor.

The purpose of this worksheet is to identify the gross revenue for units ( crop, commodity, structure) when using an alternative compared to gross revenue when using methyl bromide.

Postharvest and structural users may modify this form to accommodate differences in operations when providing gross revenue data.

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Worksheet 3 C. Alternatives  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for Alternativ None in US Matrix If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

In the electronic version, revenue is automatically calculated below using the data you entered for yield and price. If revenue is not equal to yield times price, you may override the formula and enter a different revenue amount. Please explain why this revenue amount is different in the comment section b l Enter the unit of measurement for your crop/ commodity.

Enter all crops/ commodities that can be grown/ treated during the same interval of time comprising a methyl bromide fumigation cycle. Please discuss changes in crop cycles resulting from alternative use in the comments. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

Enter in Col. B any factors that determine prices ( e. g., grade, time, market). If you received different prices for your crop/ commodity as a result of quality, grade, market ( e. g., fresh or processing), timing of harvest, etc., you may itemize by using more than one row. Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate in making the case that the use of alternatives affects these price factors. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. A: Operation or Cost Item Col. B: Custom Operation Cost Col. C, D, E: Costs per Area Col. F: Typical Equipment Used A B C D E F Material Cost per Area Labor Cost per Area Total Cost per Area $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Custom per Area $ 0.00 User Total per area $ 0.00 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Enter in Col. C and D, material and labor costs per area that change for operations done by user. The total cost per area is calculated automatically from the values you enter in Cols. C and D. Typical Equipment Used Operation Done by User None in US Matrix Worksheet 3 D. Alternatives  Changes in Other Costs for Alternative:

Custom Operation Cost per Area Operation or Cost Item Enter data only for costs ( other than the cost of alternative pest control) that change as a result of using the alternatives instead of methyl bromide. Enter the whole cost, not just the incremental changes. Enter the cost in Col. B for custom operation costs, or in Col. C and D for operations done by user.

Identify changes in the typical equipment used by the user as a result of not using methyl bromide. Please be specific such as tractor horsepower. No cost data are required in this column.

Identify the operations or cost items that change as a result of not using methyl bromide.

Enter custom operation costs that change in Col. B.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user . 1. Name of study:

2. Researcher( s):

3. Your test is planned for:

4. Location:

5. Name of alternative to be tested:

6. Yes X No 7.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Fumigation and Cover Crop Trial on Sweetpotatoes Scott Stoddard, University of California Cooperative Extension, Merced County Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. ( All available methyl bromide alternatives from the alternatives list should have been tested or have future tests planned.) There is no need to complete a separate worksheet for future research plans for each alternative  you may use this worksheet to describe all future research plans.

If additional testing is not planned, please explain why. ( For example, the available alternatives have been tested and found unsuitable, an alternative has been identified but is not yet registered for this crop, available alternatives are too expensive for this crop, etc.) Merced County, California Ongoing  began December 2001 Cover crops ( radish, vetch, barley) alone and in combination with chemicals ( Vapam, Telone II, Mocap).

Will crop yield be measured in the study? For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 4. Alternatives  Future Research Plans 1.

1a. Check all methods you will use Nothing Tarpaulin ( high density polyethylene)

Virtually impermeable film ( VIF) X Cultural practices ( please specify)

1b. Will you use other pesticides to reduce use of methyl bromide? Yes No X If yes please specify.

1c. Other non chemical methods: ( please specify):

2. Yes No X If yes, how many pounds? lbs.

3. Yes No X If yes, how many pounds? lbs.

4.

$

5.

6.

When do you expect these to occur?

7.

0 10 acres 10 25 acres 25 50 acres 50 100 acres 100 200 acres 200 400 acres over 400 acres Worksheet 5. Additional Information For EPA Use Only ID#

5 Depth of application; compact soil 20 15 15 Do you anticipate that you will have any methyl bromide in storage on January 1, 2005? after application to seal surface.

None in the forseeable future. Identify what factors would allow you to stop or reduce your use of methyl bromide ( e. g. registration of particular pesticide; completion of research plan; capital outlay). What is the cumulative amount spent to date by the user or consortium on research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide ( beginning in 1992)? How will you minimize your use and/ or emissions of methyl bromide?

Crop rotation and resistant varieties.

Do you have access to recycled methyl bromide?

10 Not Significant 10 3 Range of acres farmed by growers included in this application? ( insert number of users in each category) Other investments, if any, made to reduce your reliance on methyl bromide. Describe each investment and its associated cost.

None. This is a very small and fragmented industry, making it difficult to obtain funds. Rely on University research. Worksheet 5. Additional Information ( continued)

8.

0  5,000 sq. ft. 5,001  10,000 sq. ft. 10,001  20,000 sq. ft. 20,001  40,000 sq. ft. 40,001  80,000 sq. ft. 80,001  160,000 sq. ft. 80 over 160,000 sq. ft.

I certify that all information contained in this document is factual to the best of my knowledge.

Signature Date Print Name Title Signature Date Print Name Title OMB Control # 2060 0482 Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number. Range of square feet of the area to which applicants included in this application will apply methyl bromide? ( insert number of users in each category)

Bob Weimer President Bob Weimer President Information in this application may be aggregated with information from other applications and used by the United States government to justify claims in the national nomination package that a particular use of methyl bromide be considered " critical" and authorized for an exemption beyond the 2005 phaseout. Use of aggregate data will be crucial to making compelling arguments in favor of critical use exemptions. By signing below, you agree not to assert any claim of confidentiality that would affect the disclosure by EPA of aggregate information based in part on information contained in this application. For EPA Use Only ID# 1. 2. 3. 4. Pounds of Methyl Bromide Requested 2005 450,000 5. Area Treated with Methyl Bromide 2005 3,000 Acres units 6. If methyl bromide is requested for additional years, reason for request:

2006 450,000 lbs. Area Treated 3,000 acres units 2007 450,000 lbs. Area Treated 3,000 acres units Not Technically Feasible Not Economically Feasible X For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 6. Application Summary This worksheet will be posted on the web to notify the public of requests for critical use exemptions beyond the 2005 phase out for methyl bromide. Therefore, this worksheet cannot be claimed as CBI.

Name of Applicant:

Location:

Crop: Bob Weimer, President, Sweet Potato Council of California To continue use until viable alternatives become available. Use of MeBr has already been reduced significantly.

Livingston, CA Sweet Potato Significant financial loss occurs when fields are left fallow; not acceptable to land owner.

Reasons Potential Alternatives Crop Rotation ( follow sweetpotato with grain, then leaving field fallow during summer)

Place an " X" in the column( s) labeled " Not Technically Feasible" and/ or " Not Economically Feasible" where appropriate. Use the " Reasons" column to describe why the potential alternative is not feasible.


[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 70756-70757]
[DOCID:fr18no10-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63309; File No. SR-MSRB-2010-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendments to Rule G-5, on Disciplinary
Actions by Appropriate Regulatory Agencies, Remedial Notices by
Registered Securities Associations; and Rule G-17, on Conduct of
Municipal Securities Activities

November 12, 2010.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``the Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 1, 2010, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``Board'' or ``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB is filing a proposed rule change consisting of amendments
to Rule G-5, on disciplinary actions by appropriate regulatory
agencies, and Rule G-17, the Board's basic fair practice rule, to apply
the rules to municipal advisors. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the MSRB's Web site at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-
Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2010-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Rule G-5 currently provides that brokers, dealers, and municipal
securities dealers (``dealers'') may not engage in municipal securities
activities in contravention of restrictions imposed on them by the
Commission, a registered securities association, or another appropriate
regulatory agency. The purposes of the portion of the proposed rule
change consisting of amendments to Rule G-5 are to remove a reference
to an outdated NASD rule and to provide that municipal advisors and
their associated persons may not engage in the municipal advisory
activities described in Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act in
contravention of restrictions imposed upon them by the Commission.
    Rule G-17 currently provides that, in the conduct of its municipal
securities activities, each dealer shall deal fairly with all persons
and shall not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice.
The purpose of the portion of the proposed rule change consisting of
amendments to Rule G-17 is to apply the MSRB's core fair dealing rule
to municipal advisors in the same manner that it currently applies to
dealers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act, which provides that:

The Board shall propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes of
this title with respect to transactions in municipal securities
effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers and
advice provided to or on behalf of municipal entities or obligated
persons by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and
municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial products, the
issuance of municipal securities, and solicitations of municipal
entities or obligated persons undertaken by brokers, dealers,
municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors.

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides that the rules of the MSRB
shall:

be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2) of
the Act, because it provides that: (i) Municipal advisors shall deal
fairly with all persons and not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or
unfair practice and (ii) municipal advisors and their associated
persons shall not conduct the activities described in Section
15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act in contravention of restrictions
imposed upon them by the Commission.
    Section 15B(2)(L) of the Act requires that rules adopted by the
Board

not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is
not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against fraud.

    The proposed rule change is necessary for the robust protection of
investors against fraud. Many municipal advisors play a key role in the
structuring of offerings of municipal securities and the preparation of
offering documents used to market those securities to investors. In
some cases, they advise on the appropriateness of derivatives entered
into by municipal issuers, the effectiveness of which may have a
substantial impact on the finances of those issuers. In other cases,
they solicit public pension fund investment advisory business that, if
not conducted according to the highest standards, may have a
substantial effect on the finances of the State and local governments
that control those funds. Investors, therefore, have a substantial
interest in municipal advisors conducting their municipal advisory
activities fairly, not engaging in fraudulent conduct, and not engaging
in municipal advisory activities contrary to

disciplinary actions imposed by the SEC.

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act, since it would apply equally to all
municipal advisors. In particular, the MSRB believes that the
amendments to Rule G-5 impose no regulatory burden on any municipal
advisor because Section 15B(c) of the Act already permits the SEC to
limit the activities of municipal advisors in the manner provided for
in amended Rule G-5. Further, the MSRB believes that the amendment to
Rule G-17 imposes no regulatory burden on any municipal advisor not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
since most municipal advisors already comport themselves in accordance
with the standards of behavior required by Rule G-17 and no municipal
advisor has a legitimate interest in engaging in behavior that is
fraudulent or otherwise unfair.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2010-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2010-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the MSRB's offices. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-MSRB-2010-16 and should be submitted on or before
December 9, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29077 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:22 AM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Scheetz, Jonelle S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michalik, Sarah K<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: [External]-missing email

Good morning Donna Lee,

Looking back through our records, the revised reports were submitted via CEDRI, so I've attached the submission email.  I am also attaching the two revised TSO tables for B Battery Combustion Stack and 7A Quench Tower.

Have a nice day,

Brett Tunno, DrPH, CPH
Environmental Affairs
United States Steel Corporation
Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<< FW External-CDX CEDRI Dataflow - Submission was successfully signed and has reached the CDX for UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION.msg >>
<< B Battery Table 1 (Revised 11-11-19).pdf >>
<< 7A Quench Table 12 Revised (11-11-19).pdf >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:39 AM
To: Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Scheetz, Jonelle S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michalik, Sarah K<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: [External]-missing email

Brett- The reviewed Enclosure 2 excel data had a comment in the excel file about an email you supposedly sent me on 11/12/19. I never received it. Could have gone to my junk mail.

The actual comment was made in Column BK "Facility Review Comments"

Cells BK3, BK4, BK5 for combustion testing
Cells BK303, BK304, BK305 for quench tower testing

"TSO table was revised and submitted to USEPA on 11/12/2019, so emission rates need to be revised (TSO lb/hr average changed from 0.49 lb/hr to 0.50 lb/hr)."

Can you please resend?

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register: September 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 45221]
[DOCID:fr01se09-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0050]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Importer's Entry Notice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Importer's Entry Notice'' has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 28, 2009 (74
FR 25554), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0046.
The approval expires on August 31, 2012. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: August 26, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-21097 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20776]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0227]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Shaw Cove, New London, CT,
Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Amtrak Bridge across Shaw Cove, mile 0.0, at New London, Connecticut.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to
facilitate scheduled maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on April 25, 2010
through 6 a.m. on April 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0227 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0227 in the
``Keyword'' and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amtrak Bridge, across Show Cove at mile
0.0, at New London, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed
position of 3 feet at mean high water and 6 feet at mean low water. The
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.223.
    The owner of the bridge, the National Passenger Rail Corporation
(Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to
facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance, gear box repairs and main
drive shaft repairs at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation the Amtrak Bridge may remain in the
closed position from 6 p.m. on April 25, 2010 through 6 a.m. on April
26, 2010 and from 10 p.m. on April 26, 2010 through 6 a.m. on April 27,
2010.
    The North Channel under the bridge will be blocked from 10 p.m. on
April 26, 2010 through 6 a.m. on April 27, 2010, by a work barge during
the main drive shaft repairs. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in
the closed position may do so at any time through the South Channel.
    Waterway users were advised of the requested bridge and channel
closure and offered no objection.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 5, 2010.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-9124 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10348-10350]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0962; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-028-AD;
Amendment 39-17760; AD 2014-04-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DORNIER
LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model 228-212 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as main landing gear axle failure caused by initial fatigue
cracking and small pre-damage by corrosion. We are issuing this AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 1,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0962; or in person at 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 service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG
Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253,
82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49-(0)8153-30-2280; fax: +49-
(0)8153-30-3030; Internet: http://www.ruag.com/en/Aviation/Aviation_Home. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<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 add an AD that would apply to DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model
228-212 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
November 19, 2013 (78 FR 69320). That NPRM proposed to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    An event of a main landing gear (MLG) axle break during
touchdown has been reported. The results of the subsequent technical
investigation indicated that improper restoration of corrosion
protection was the likely cause of the initial fatigue cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the main landing gear axle, possibly resulting in a
runway excursion with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury
to the occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, RUAG Aerospace
Services GmbH issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-228-300, Rev. 1.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection of the MLG axle and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0962-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 69320, November 19,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 69320, November 19, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 69320, November 19, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect 2 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 160 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $27,200, or $13,600 per product.

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 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 this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0962; 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 the NPRM (78 FR 69320, November 19, 2013), the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

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 adding the following new AD:

2014-04-02 Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Amendment 39-17760; Docket No.
FAA-2013-0962; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-028-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 1,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model 228-212
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as improper
restoration of corrosion protection as the likely cause of initial
fatigue cracking of the main landing gear (MLG) axle. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct possible corrosion and cracking of the
MLG axle, which could lead to failure of the MLG axle resulting in a
runway excursion with consequent damage to the airplane and injury
to the occupants.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) of this AD:
    (1) Inspect the MLG axle following the Accomplishment
Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, at the
time specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If, as of April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), the
main landing gear (MLG) has 6,000 or more hours time-in-service
(TIS) since new or is 10 years old or is more than 10 years old:
Within the next 400 hours TIS after April 1, 2014 (the effective
date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after April 1, 2014
(the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
    (ii) If, as of April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD),
the MLG has less than 6,000 hours TIS since new or is between 5 to
10 years old: Before or upon accumulating 6,400 hours TIS or within
6 months after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs first.
    (2) If, during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, any discrepancies are found outside the limits specified in
RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB-
228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, before further flight,
make all necessary corrective actions following the Accomplishment
Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0209, dated September 10, 2013, for related information. The
MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0962-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin
No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH service information
identified in this AD, contact RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier
228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling, Germany;
telephone: +49-(0)8153-30-2280; fax: +49-(0)8153-30-3030; Internet:
http://www.ruag.com/en/Aviation/Aviation_Home.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 10, 2014.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-03424 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P