UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with Chloropicrin
in Tobacco Production (DP# 337490)

FROM:	Sunil Ratnayake, Biologist

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Elisa Rim, Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503 P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Timothy Kiely, Chief

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503 P)

TO:		John Leahy, Senior Policy Advisor

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508 P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL DATE:  April 11, 2007

Summary

This assessment measures the benefit of chloropicrin use in tobacco
production in the Southern U.S., which comprises about 94% of total U.S.
production acreage.  The request to use methyl bromide in tobacco was
denied in 2006 critical use exemption process.  However, there is some
small remaining use of methyl bromide from existing stocks.  Metam
(metam sodium or metam potassium), chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropropene,
and their combinations, are available as fumigants for tobacco growers.
Currently, the usage of metam is less than 1%.  Application of metam
sodium is not acceptable for early transplanting of tobacco due to the
long period of aeration required to avoid phytotoxicity.  Nationally,
chloropicrin is used in approximately 15% of tobacco production, which
is typically applied in combination with 1,3-dichloropropene (13% of
crop treated).

Fumigants are mainly used to control a mix of nematodes and plant
pathogens.  The fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene is effective on nematodes,
but it is less effective on soil pathogens.  In contrast, chloropicrin
is effective on soil pathogens and it is less effective on controlling
soil nematodes.

This analysis focuses on the benefits of chloropicrin as an effective
pre-plant fumigant to control major soil pathogens for field grown
tobacco growers. Yield losses due to plant diseases are estimated to be
from 6 to 7%. This estimate may vary depending on the severity of the
diseases.  Although tobacco nursery seedling production also uses
fumigants, such as methyl bromide, chloropicrin, and
1,3-dichloropropene, there is limited information on usage, yield
effects, revenues, and production costs of using these fumigants.  Thus,
the benefits on nursery production was not analyzed.  In North Carolina
alone (the largest user of fumigants), total cost savings are nearly $9
million annually for producers.  On a national level, there are
approximately 300,000 acres of field grown tobacco in the U.S. annually
and chloropicrin is applied to about 14% or over 58,000 acres.  The
total benefits of fumigation could be as much as $12 million/year in
improved yields on treated acres.   A significant portion of these
benefits accrue to consumers in the form of a more abundant supply and
lower prices.

Statement of Purpose

As part of the Reregistration 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 field
grown tobacco production that is provided by the soil fumigants,
particularly chloropicrin, the most widely used of these chemicals.
Conceptually, the benefits of a pesticide like a soil fumigant are
comprised of the 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., tobacco producers,
and consumers of tobacco and tobacco-containing products.  Consumers
benefit because higher production and/or lower costs translate into a
cheaper and more abundant supply of tobacco. 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 field grown tobacco grown in the Southern
U.S. (North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Georgia). Tobacco is the seventh largest cash crop in the United States.
 North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Georgia are the major tobacco growing States (Table 1).  Tobacco
averages $1.6 billion in total value per year.  About 94% of production
is from the six major tobacco producing Southern States and these states
contribute about 91% of the value.  Tobacco in this region is grown in
open fields on plastic tarps.  A more detailed discussion of key
fumigant usage, key target pests, and impacts of changes in fumigant
availability is presented below.  Because of the small amount of
fumigant use in nursery tobacco production and limited data on that use,
this document does not evaluate nursery tobacco production systems.

Field grown tobacco production in the U.S has been reduced due to the
legislative termination of the tobacco marketing quota and price
support.  According to a survey conducted by the USDA Economic Research
Service, the number of farms growing tobacco in the United States has
dropped from 512,000 in 1954 to 56,977 in 2002.  The average farm size
producing tobacco was  7.5 acres in 2002, compared with 9 acres in 1997
(1). Also, nationally, harvested tobacco acreage has dropped from
432,290 acres in 2001 to 298,080 acres in 2005 (Table 1).

The key tobacco production areas based on data from the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), are described in Table 1.
According to the 2005 figures, there are approximately 298,000 acres of
tobacco grown in the U.S.  Typical U.S. tobacco production is described
in Table 2.  Harvested acreage, yield per acre, total production,
percent of U.S. production, price, and value of production are given by
selected states and for the U.S.  The table covers more than 94% of U.S.
tobacco production.

Table 1. Field Tobacco Acreage Grown by Selected State and U.S. Total,
2001 – 2005

STATE	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Average

Georgia	26,100	26,500	27,000	23,000	16,000	23,720

Kentucky	115,700	111,100	111,650	114,950	79,700	106,620

North Carolina	161,700	168,300	159,700	156,100	126,000	154,360

South Carolina	32,000	30,500	30,000	27,000	20,000	27,900

Tennessee	39,690	35,900	31,140	30,260	22,950	31,988

Virginia	29,500	30,000	25,110	29,680	17,040	26,266

US TOTAL*	432,310	428,710	411,150	408,050	298,020	395,648

* Includes other field grown tobacco producing states which account for
6% of total tobacco acreage in the U.S.: Connecticut, Florida, Indiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
and  Wisconsin.

Source: USDA/NASS Crop Production 2003 and 2005 Summary, January, 2004
and 2006 (7). Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2006/CropPr
odSu-01-12-2006.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2006/CropPro
dSu-01-12-2006.pdf  and
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2004/CropPro
dSu-01-12-2004.pdf

Table 2. Field Tobacco Harvested acreage, yield, production, percent of
U.S. production, price, and value of production by Selected State,
2001~2005 Average

STATE	Harvested Acreage	Average

Yield/Acre	Production	% of US Production	Price Per Pound	Value of
Production

	(Acres)	(Pounds)	(1,000 pounds)	(%)	($/Pound)	($1,000 dollars)

Georgia	23,720	2,105	50,741	6%	$    1.765	$       91,495

Kentucky	106,620	2,073	220,990	26%	$    1.954	$    435,098

North Carolina	154,360	2,159	332,859	40%	$    1.770	$    593,281

South Carolina	27,900	2,190	61,265	7%	$    1.744	$    108,250

Tennessee	31,988	2,161	68,967	8%	$    2.039	$    141,014

Virginia	26,266	2,090	54,753	7%	$    1.791	$       99,401

US TOTAL*	395,648	2,120	838,811	100%	$    1.899	$ 1,604,963

* Includes other field grown tobacco producing states which account for
9% of total tobacco value of production in the U.S.: Connecticut,
Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, and  Wisconsin.

Source: USDA/NASS Crop Values Annual Summary 2003 and 2005, February
2006 and March 2004.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu//2000s/2006/CropVa
luSu-02-15-2006.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu//2000s/2006/CropVal
uSu-02-15-2006.pdf  and
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu//2000s/2004/CropVal
uSu-03-31-2004.pdf

Use of Fumigants

The following section provides a summary of our understanding of the use
of fumigants in field grown tobacco 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),
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 following data provides insight into the extent and
general importance of fumigants in tobacco production.

State	Active Ingredient	% Acres Treated	Acres Treated	Pounds Applied

North Carolina	Chloropicrin	28%	              42,900 	         1,185,400

	1,3 Dichloropropene	20%	              30,600 	         2,441,900

	Methyl Bromide	5%	                7,100 	            347,900

Kentucky	Chloropicrin	Less than 1%	                    100
   1,900

	Methyl Bromide	Less than 1%	                     100
3,900

Tennessee	Chloropicrin	5%	                1,654 	            132,900

	Dichloropropene	Less than 1%	Less than 100	                2,900

South Carolina	Chloropicrin	34%	                9,500
269,400

	1,3Dichloropropene	31%	                8,600 	            601,100

	Methyl Bromide	1%	                   300 	              16,500

	Metam	2%	                   600 	              36,600

Virginia	Chloropicrin	9%	                2,400 	              53,600

	1,3Dichloropropene	6%	                1,600 	            119,800

	Methyl Bromide	2%	                   500 	              18,300

	Metam	2%	                   600 	              43,700

Georgia	Chloropicrin	3%	                   800 	              10,600

	1,3 Dichloropropene 	31%	                7,500 	            511,700

	Methyl Bromide	1%	                   400 	                5,100

United States	Chloropicrin	15%	              58,600 	         3,700,000

	1,3Dichloropropene	13%	              50,900 	         1,400,000

	Methyl Bromide	Less than 1%	                2,800 	            200,000

	Metam	Less than 1%	                   600 	              40,000

	US TOTAL1	15%	58,600	         5,340,000

Table 3 provides an overview of fumigants used on tobacco.  Over 5
million pounds of fumigants are used on tobacco per year in the U.S.
Metam sodium and methyl bromide each have less than 1% of the acres
treated in the U.S.  1,3-dichloropropene is applied to approximately 13%
of the tobacco acreage. Nationally, chloropicrin, which is often used in
combination with methyl bromide, metam-sodium, or 1,3-dichloropropene,
is applied to 15% of the tobacco crop acreage.  In total, approximately
15% of the U.S. tobacco crop is treated with one or more fumigants.

Table 3.  Fumigants Usage on Field Tobacco (2001-2005)

1% US total takes into consideration the overlapping of fumigants used
on acres.

Source: EPA Proprietary Data (5), NASS Pesticide Use Reports (8)
USDA/NASS Crop Production 2003 and 2005 Summary, January, 2004 and 2006.
Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2006/CropPr
odSu-01-12-2006.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2006/CropPro
dSu-01-12-2006.pdf  and   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2004/CropPr
odSu-01-12-2004.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2004/CropPro
dSu-01-12-2004.pdf

Tobacco is very sensitive to pathogenic interactions and as such, yields
can be reduced by minor interactions.  Leaf aesthetics are very
important in the values of the crop since the sale of the crop is
dependant upon the visual appearance at tobacco auctions.  Fumigants are
applied at two occasions and in two places during tobacco production.
First, fumigants are applied in nursery seedling beds and second in the
fields, where transplants are to be planted.

Nursery Production

About 85% of field grown tobacco is transplanted into the field as
seedlings produced in greenhouses or in plastic-covered outdoor plant
beds (2).  Most transplant production has switched to a float system for
tobacco seedlings which has reduced the use of soil fumigants in tobacco
production.  Methyl bromide is the only fumigant used in float systems.
The use of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant was phased out in the U.S.
in 2005 except for critical use exemption holders.  Furthermore, the
requests to use methyl bromide in nursery tobacco for float systems and
nursery beds were not allowed since the 2006 methyl bromide critical use
exemption.   Therefore, methyl bromide will not be available for the
nursery seedling tobacco growers, although there is no data on current
fumigation practices or alternative fumigation practices.  Seed bed
seedling production occurs on relatively small areas of land.  In a farm
with 4 acres of tobacco production, about 0.06 acres of land is
allocated for the seedling production (6).  Approximately, 60 square
feet of greenhouse space produce enough plants for transplanting a one
acre area in the field.  However, an area of 720 square feet of outdoor
plant beds is needed to produce plants for planting of one acre area in
the field (2).  Since, usage and production information on nursery
seedbeds is difficult to differentiate from normal field production, an
analysis was not performed.

Field Production

Tobacco is grown on a wide variety of soils, from very sandy to clay.
However, the maximum yields are obtained in sandy loam soils with high
organic content (2).  Nitrogen content in soil must be low after
flowering, for a successful, high quality tobacco production.
Approximately 90 percent of the crop is grown at least with a two-year
crop rotation (2).  Flue-cured tobacco is grown on a high, wide row beds
to allow good drainage and aeration and most of the burley tobacco is
grown on leveled fields.

In tobacco field production, fumigants are applied in the fields to
control nematodes, weeds, and soil pathogens.  Soil pathogens cause
major diseases such as black rot, black shank, fusarium, and grainville
wilt (2).  Once the planting beds are prepared in the Spring, soil
fumigants are shank injected to the soil at recommended rates and beds
are covered with polyethylene to increase the efficacy and to reduce the
emission to the environment.  Fumigants are shank injected into soil.
Generally, seedlings are transplanted in the field in April to May and
once the seedlings are transplanted in the field developing flower heads
are removed (topped) to increase yield and leaf quality. This may be
done by hand or mechanically. Since tobacco is a terminally dominant
plant, removal of flower heads induces growth of lateral shoots
(suckers). Mostly, sucker production is controlled chemically, but some
manual clean-up is usually required. Harvest of flue-cured tobacco is
accomplished 2 to 3 times per crop cycle. The ripest (lowest) leaves are
removed mechanically or by hand.

Regions described

This assessment will assess the benefit of fumigant use on field grown
tobacco in the Southern U.S. (Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia).  Although tobacco nursery seedling
production also uses fumigants, such as methyl bromide, chloropicrin,
and 1,3-dichloropropene, there is limited information on usage and yield
effects using these fumigants, as well as revenue and production cost
information, thus the benefits on nursery production will not be
analyzed.

fumigation characteristics

Target Pests

Fumigants are used alone or in combination in the Southern U.S. to
control mainly, the following diseases and nematodes in field grown
tobacco production (Table 4).

Table 4. Key diseases and Pests

Region 	Key diseases, and Pests

Southeast U.S.

(North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Georgia)

Soil Pathogens:  Rhizoctonia spp., Phythium spp., Phytophthora
parasitica nicotianae

Soil Nematodes: M. incognita, M. Javainca. M. arenaria

Source (2, 3, 4)

Use Characteristics

Table 5 provides information on the general pests controlled by
fumigants and fumigant combinations.  Table 6 provides information
characterizing typical fumigant use in field grown tobacco production.
Currently, 1, 3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin, metam sodium and their
combinations are available for tobacco growers. Chloropicrin is
generally not used alone it is mixed with other fumigants such as
1,3-dichloropropene.  In the southern U.S. the primary fumigant is
1,3-dichloropropene mixed with chloropicrin (Table 3).

Table 5. Characteristics of Fumigants and Fumigant Combinations

Chemical	Characteristics

1, 3 dichloropropene 	Effective against nematodes less effective against
fungal plant pathogens.

Metam sodium	Effective against fungal pathogens, but needs a longer
aeration period.

Chloropicrin	Effective against many soil pathogens, not effective
against nematodes when applied alone.

1,3 dichloropropene + Chloropicrin	Effective against nematodes and
fungal pathogens.

Source (6)

Table 6.  Fumigant Application In Field Grown Tobacco Production

Application Rate

(lb ai/acre)	Chloropicrin 	102 pounds  per acre

	1,3 – Dichloropropene 	89.5 pounds per acre

	Metam Sodium	90 to  252 pounds per acre

Acres Treated per Day	 10 to  40 acres per tractor

Time of Fumigation	 Oct – Dec

Application Method	Primarily shank injected under tarp

Method of Application	Primarily strip

Tarps or Water Caps	HDPE tarp

Source (6, 8)

Chemical Control Alternatives

Chemical Control Practices

In the Southern U.S., the chemical alternatives to chloropicrin would be
1,3-dichloropropene or metam sodium.  Application of metam sodium is not
acceptable for early transplanting of tobacco due to the long period of
aeration required to avoid phytotoxicity.  This could lead to a late
planting of seedlings in the field exposing the crop for diseases.
Generally, 1,3-dichloropropene is effective on nematodes, but it is less
effective on soil pathogens. In contrast, chloropicrin is effective on
soil pathogens and it is less effective in controlling soil nematodes.
Therefore, if chloropicrin were unavailable, an effective pre-plant
fumigant to control major soil pathogens would not be available for
tobacco growers.

Cultural Control Practices

Solarization of soil: Consistent effectiveness is not achieved by this
method and effectiveness depends upon meteorological conditions.
Generally, an adequate sunlight condition does not exist prior to
seedbed preparation. Therefore, solarization must be done in the
previous summer or fall.

Steam sterilization of soil: Not readily available for farm use and the
equipment is expensive.

Crop rotation/fallow:   Strongly recommended and usually practiced.
However, crop rotation alone is not adequate to control the fungal
pathogens Pythium and Rhizoctonia spp.  Rotated sites also can be
recontaminated.

Physical removal/sanitation: Not effective and completely disease free
beds are required for a successful crop production

Resistant cultivars:  Already used but not sufficient enough to control
all the soil pathogens found in field conditions.

Benefits of Fumigaton

Yield and Quality

Yield loss information due to soil pathogens in the field production of
tobacco is limited in the literature. In North Carolina, diseases caused
an average yield loss of 6 to 7 % in 1996 and 1997 (2).  Depending on
the environmental conditions and disease pressure this estimate can vary
significantly and may not represent the yield losses due to soil
pathogens in other tobacco producing areas.

Economic Benefits

In the following section we evaluate the benefits of chloropicrin on the
economic viability of tobacco 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.  BEAD used North Carolina as a
representation of all areas that grow tobacco because it is the largest
producer of field grown tobacco.

Benefits of chloropicrin in North Carolina tobacco production are
summarized in Table 7.

Table 7.  Economic Analysis of North Carolina Tobacco Production

	1,3-Dichloropropene + chloropicrin	1,3-Dichloropropene

Estimated Yield Loss	0%	7%

Yield (pounds)	2,159	2,008

Price per pound	$2	$2

Gross Revenue  	$4,102	$3,815

Total Operating Costs  	$2,687	$2,687

Net Operating Revenue  	$1,415	$1,215

Percentage Change in Net Operating Revenue	0%	-14%

Source:  NC State University: Flue-Cured Tobacco – Machine Harvest
East - 2006. Available at:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/agecon/tobacco_econ/budgets/Tobmach-2006.p
df

Without the use of chloropicrin, North Carolina tobacco producers may
experience the losses presented in Table 7.  This would apply to that
part of the North Carolina tobacco acreage that is treated with one or
more fumigants, about 28% or 42,900 acres (Table 3).  Chloropicrin use
on these areas represents benefits of about $9 million
($200/acre*42,900acres) or over 6 million pounds (151*42,900 acres) of
tobacco production annually (Table 2).  Given that tobacco acreage can
be put to a different use, such as producing a different crop, these
benefits may ultimately be somewhat less.

National Benefits

There are approximately 300,000 acres of tobacco grown in the U.S.
annually.  Approximately 15% of tobacco producing acres uses
chloropicrin.  Chloropicrin use on these areas represents benefits of
almost $12 million ($200/acre*58,600acres) in total value of production
or over 9 million pounds (151 lbs/acre*58,600acres) of field grown
tobacco.  Again, tobacco acreage could be put to a different use, such
as producing a different crop; these benefits could be somewhat less on
a national scale as well.

CONCLUSIONS

There are over 300,000 acres of tobacco harvested in the U.S. annually.
From these acres, over 800 million pounds of tobacco are harvested,
worth approximately $1.6 billion.  Tobacco producers rely on fumigants,
or in this case chloropicrin, for disease control.  These pests can be
very damaging, and fumigation prevents yield losses from these pests.
Approximately 15% of tobacco producing acreage relies on fumigants to
maintain current yield levels.  The annual value of fumigant use in U.S.
tobacco production is estimated to be $12 million, which is the
resulting increase in total value of production from fumigant use in
tobacco production.  This benefit is shared by tobacco producers and
consumers.  Again, since tobacco acreage could be put to a different
use, such as producing a different crop, these benefits could be
somewhat less.

Limitations to this assessment

This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided by
chloropicrin in the production of tobacco.  The following are
limitations of this analysis:

Compared with other tobacco producing States, North Carolina has the
highest tobacco production acreage treated with soil fumigants. In this
assessment, due to lack of information form other states, potential
yield loss estimates of using 1,3-dichloropropene alone collected from
North Carolina were used to assess the yield losses of other states.
These estimates may not be precise enough for the yield loss estimates
in other States. Pest problems and pest pressure found in North Carolina
may not be exactly similar to other states. Therefore, BEAD is
requesting the information listed in the Appendix 1 during the comment
period.

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

The assessment does not account for transition to new agronomic
practices such as a conversion to float tray system 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

1)  Capheart, 2004. Trends in U.S. Tobacco Farming.  Out Look, United
States Department of Agriculture.  Accessible at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tbs/nov04/tbs25702/tbs25702.pdf"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tbs/nov04/tbs25702/tbs25702.pdf  .

2)  Crop profile for tobacco in North Carolina.  1999.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/nctobacco.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/nctobacco.html .

3)  Crop profiles for tobacco in Virginia 2001.    HYPERLINK
"http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/vatobacco.html"
http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/vatobacco.html .

4)  Crop profile for tobacco in Kentucky.  2003.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/KYtobacco.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/KYtobacco.html .

5)  EPA Proprietary Data (2001-2005)

6)   Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption. 2005. United States
Environment  Protection Agency.

7)  USDA NASS.  2002-2006. Crop Production, Summary.  National
Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
January, Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2006/CropPr
odSu-01-12-2006.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2006/CropPro
dSu-01-12-2006.pdf  and
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2004/CropPro
dSu-01-12-2004.pdf.

8)  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 .

APPENDIX I.  Information BEAD Expects to Collect During the Comment
Period.

1) 	Information on tobacco yield losses with or without fumigants due to
soil pathogens, nematodes, or weeds from tobacco producing States.

2) 	Information on severity of soil pathogens and nematodes in tobacco
producing states.

3)      	Percentage of growers using floating and seed bed seedling
production systems and the information on the effectiveness and problems
involved with alternative fumigation methods such as use of steam, dry
heat, and other disinfectants.

4)      	Research information on the use of metam-sodium and other
chemicals as potential soil fumigants from major tobacco producing
States.

5)       	Research information on aeration time and best application
timing of metam to avoid phytotoxicity and residual effects in soilbed
tobacco seedling production.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


Response to Comments  -  EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0509  -  Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Comment: The commenter stated that EPA must confirm that no additional SSI units exist or have been constructed since the time of Philadelphia's certification letter, citing the amount of time between receipt of the negative declaration and the proposed approval.

Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's assertion that EPA must ensure that no additional SSI units have been constructed since Philadelphia AMS submitted the negative declaration in order to finalize this action.  As stated in the technical support document for the NPR and in the EG for existing SSI units (40 CFR 60, subpart MMMM), the designated facilities to which the EG apply are SSI units that: 1) commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010; 2) meet the definition of a SSI unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.5250; and 3) are not exempt under 40 CFR 60.5065.  Thus, for EPA approval of Philadelphia AMS' negative declaration regarding existing SSI, Philadelphia only needed to assert no SSI units exist that commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010.  Because Philadelphia's negative declaration was submitted on March 28, 2012  -  after the October 14, 2010 deadline to be considered an existing SSI unit  -  there is no need to revisit the initial determination of Philadelphia AMS that no existing SSI units exist within the jurisdictional boundaries of the local air pollution control agency.  Prior to Philadelphia's submission, EPA worked with Philadelphia AMS and reviewed Philadelphia's inventory of sources to ensure no existing SSI units existed within Philadelphia, and the commenter has not provided any information to the contrary that would cause EPA to reconsider the assessment of Philadelphia AMS's negative declaration.  EPA's acceptance of Philadelphia's negative declaration therefore is appropriate.  SSI units constructed after the above cited date (i.e., October 14, 2010) would be considered "new," as opposed to "existing," and therefore would be subject to a separate rule - 40 CFR 60 subpart LLL, "Standards of Performance for new Sewage Sludge Incineration Units."  EPA is therefore finalizing the negative declaration for existing SSI units in this action.


4467 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2003 / Notices and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about 18 hours per response. 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Tribal water systems and tribal certification providers. Estimated Number of Respondents: 271. Frequency of Response: Annually. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,597. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 71,526, includes $ 82 annualized capital or O& M costs.

Dated: January 16, 2003. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   2036 Filed 1   28   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA   2002   0013; FRL   7445   2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 1901.02 ( OMB No. 2060   0424) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Title: Emission Guidelines Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units, ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBBB), OMB Control No. 2060   0424 and EPA ICR No. 1901.02, expiration date February 28, 2003. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 28, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Chandler, Compliance Assistance and Sector Program, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, Mailcode 2224A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202   564   707; fax number: 202   564   0009; e mail address: chandler. joyce@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 20, 2002 ( 67 FR 41981), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA   2002   0013, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement & Compliance Docket Information Center ( ECDIC) in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the ECDIC is ( 202) 566   1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: Emission Guidelines Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units ( MWC), ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBBB) ( OMB Control No. 2060   0424, EPA ICR Number 1901.02). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2003. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: This addresses information collection activities that would be imposed by the `` Emission Guidelines Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units MWC,'' 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB. This information collection is required as a result of the implementation of the emission guidelines that are being developed under the authority of sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). Reporting and recordkeeping requirements would apply to existing MWC units that have the capacity to combust greater than 35 tons per day ( tpd) but less than 250 tpd of municipal solid waste. This ICR will enable EPA to monitor compliance with emission standards for regulated pollutants. Owners and VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 18: 08 Jan 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29JAN1. SGM 29JAN1 4468 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2003 / Notices operators of small MWCs are required to measure, record, and report emission rates and operating parameters, follow good combustion practices. The responses to this Emission Guideline is mandatory. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 404 hours per response. 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Small Municipal Waste Combustors. Estimated Number of Respondents: 39. Frequency of Response: Initial, Quarterly, Semi annual, Annual. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 186,374 hours. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 17,351,247, includes $ 3,337,600 annualized capital and O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 185,077 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the conducting of initial performance tests, annual performance tests, and the installation of continuous emission monitoring systems and their operation and maintenance.

Dated: January 15, 2003. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   2037 Filed 1   28   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0049; FRL   7280   6 Rodenticides; Availability of Preliminary Comparative Ecological Assessment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for nine rodenticides, which included those addressed in the Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs) for the the rodenticide cluster ( brodifacoum, bromadiolone, bromethalin, chlorophacinone, diphacinone,) and zinc phosphide, as well as three other rodenticides, warfarin, difethialone, and cholecalciferol. This notice also starts a 60   day public comment period for the preliminary comparative ecological risk assessment. Comments are to be limited to issues directly associated with the nine rodenticides that are included in the risk assessment which has been placed in the docket and should be limited to issues raised in the document. By allowing access and opportunity for comment on the preliminary ecological assessment, EPA is seeking to strengthen stakeholder involvement and help ensure our decisions are transparent and based on the best available information. The Agency cautions that this assessment is a preliminary assessment only and that further refinements of the assessment may be appropriate for the nine rodenticides. This document reflects only the work and analysis conducted as of the time it was produced and it is appropriate that, as new information becomes available and/ or additional analyses are performed, the conclusions it contains may change. DATES: Comments, identified by the docket ID number OPP   2002   0049, must be received on or before March 31, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8195; e mail address: pates. john@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0049. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. In addition, copies of the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for the nine rodenticides may also be accessed at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ rodenticidecluster. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 18: 08 Jan 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29JAN1. SGM 29JAN1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85752]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28770]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-267, OMB Control No. 3235-0272]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 11a-2

    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 (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 11a-2 (17 CFR 270.11a-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) permits certain registered insurance
company separate accounts, subject to certain conditions, to make
exchange offers without prior approval by the Commission of the terms
of those offers. Rule 11a-2 requires disclosure, in certain
registration statements filed pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) of any administrative fee or sales load imposed
in connection with an exchange offer.
    There are currently 676 registrants governed by Rule 11a-2. The
Commission includes the estimated burden of complying with the
information collection required by Rule 11a-2 in the total number of
burden hours estimated for completing the relevant registration
statements and reports the burden of Rule 11a-2 in the separate
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'') submissions for those registration
statements (see the separate PRA submissions for Form N-3 (17 CFR
274.11b), Form N-4 (17 CFR 274.11c) and Form N-6 (17 CFR 274.11d). The
Commission is requesting a burden of one hour for Rule 11a-2 for
administrative purposes.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the PRA, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a
representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules or
forms. With regard to Rule 11a-2, the Commission includes the estimate
of burden hours in the total number of burden hours estimated for
completing the relevant registration statements and reported on the
separate PRA submissions for those statements (see the separate PRA
submissions for Form N-3, Form N-4 and Form N-6). The information
collection requirements imposed by Rule 11a-2 are mandatory. Responses
to the collection of information will not be kept confidential.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 22, 2020.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28770 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50846-50849]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28930]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

September 25, 2009.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
September, 2009. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each application will be
issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request
a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the
address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the
request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by
the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on October 20, 2009, and should be accompanied by
proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the
issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may
request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>, SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

Keystone Tax Exempt Trust [File No. 811-4334]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about March 1, 1996, applicant
transferred its assets to Keystone Tax Free Fund, based on net asset
value. Expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization were
paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 3, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone Hartwell Growth Fund [File No. 811-1380]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about July 31, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets Keystone Omega Fund, based on net asset value.
Expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 3, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Eagle Growth Shares, Inc. [File No. 811-1935]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On June 17, 2009, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $82,682 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by applicant. Applicant has retained
approximately $36,384 in cash to pay certain remaining liabilities.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 10, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 1200 North Federal Hwy., Suite 424, Boca
Raton, FL 33432.

Surgeons Diversified Investment Fund [File No. 811-21868]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 20, 2009, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $53,816 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by Surgeons Asset Management, LLC, applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 20, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: Surgeons Asset Management, LLC, 633 North St.
Clair St., Chicago, IL 60611.

Keystone Precious Metals Holdings, Inc. [File No. 811-2303]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Precious Metals Fund, a series of
Evergreen International Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 20, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone Omega Fund [File No. 811-1600]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Omega Fund, a series of Evergreen
Equity Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 20, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Ralph Parks Portfolios Trust [File No. 811-21845]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On June 29, 2009, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $12,764 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by applicant and Ralph Parks Investment Group, applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: Meadowgate Office Park, 101 Sully's Trail,
Bldg. 10, Pittsford, NY 14534.

Pioneer Independence Plans [File No. 811-8551]

    Summary: Applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On June 22,
2007, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its planholders,
based on net asset value. Applicant incurred no expenses in connection
with the liquidation.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 9, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 60 State St., Boston, MA 02109.

Pioneer Growth Shares [File No. 811-1604]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On December 7, 2007, applicant transferred
its assets to Pioneer Independence Fund, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $221,761 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by applicant, the acquiring fund, and Pioneer
Investment Management, Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 9, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 60 State St., Boston, MA 02109.

Keystone Strategic Development Fund [File No. 811-8694]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Natural Resources Fund, a series of
Evergreen International Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 1, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone World Bond Fund [File No. 811-4830]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about July 31, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Keystone Strategic Income Fund, based on net
asset value. Expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 1, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone Strategic Growth Fund (K-2) [File No. 811-97]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Strategic Growth Fund, a series of
Evergreen Equity Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses incurred in
connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 31, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone International Fund Inc. [File No. 811-1231]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen International Growth Fund, a series
of Evergreen International Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 17, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Western Asset/Claymore U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
Fund 3 [File No. 811-21559]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 14, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 385 East Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91101.

Keystone Liquid Trust [File No. 811-2521]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about July 31, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Money Market Fund, a series of
Evergreen Money Market Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 19, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone Strategic Income Fund [File No. 811-4947]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about December 22, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Strategic Income Fund, a series of
Evergreen Fixed Income Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 20, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Waddell & Reed Advisors Vanguard Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-1806]

Waddell & Reed Advisors International Growth Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
2004]

Waddell & Reed Advisors Continental Income Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
2008]

Waddell & Reed Advisors Retirement Shares, Inc. [File No. 811-2263]

Waddell & Reed Advisors Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-2552]

Waddell & Reed Advisors New Concepts Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3695]

Waddell & Reed Advisors Asset Strategy Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-7217]

Waddell & Reed Advisors Tax-Managed Equity Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
9789]

Waddell & Reed Advisors Select Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-10135]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On January 30, 2009, each applicant
transferred its assets to Waddell & Reed Advisors Funds, based on net
asset value. Expenses of approximately $120,269, $62,712, $29,428,
$34,751, $584,038, $117,640, $192,396, $14,266 and $135,564,
respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid
by each applicant.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on August 27, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: 6300 Lamar Ave., Shawnee Mission, KS 66202-
4200.

Kayne Anderson Canadian Energy Income Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-21945]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 17, 2009, and
amended on September 2, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 717 Texas Ave., Suite 3100, Houston, TX 77002.

Keystone Emerging Markets Fund [File No. 811-7551]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of
its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage
in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 28, 2009, and
amended on September 2, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

Keystone Balanced Fund II [File No. 811-7679]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about July 17, 1997, applicant
transferred its assets to Evergreen Foundation Trust, based on net
asset value. Expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 27, 2009, and
amended on August 31, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Berkeley St., Boston, MA 02116.

AIM Core Allocation Portfolio Series [File No. 811-21792]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Each series of applicant was liquidated at
net asset value through a series of shareholder redemptions that was
completed on February 26, 2009. Expenses of approximately $422 incurred
in connection with the liquidation were paid by Invesco Aim Advisors,
Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 14, 2009, and
amended on September 17, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 100, Houston, TX
77046-1173.

E*TRADE Funds [File No. 811-9093]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 30, 2009 and April 27, 2009,
applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders, based on
net asset value. Expenses of $50,000 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by E*TRADE Asset Management, Inc., applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 20, 2009.
    Applicant's Address: 4500 Bohannon Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025.

Servus Life Insurance Company Separate Account One [File No. 811-9031]

Servus Life Insurance Company Separate Account Two [File No. 811-9043]

    Summary: Applicants seeks an order declaring that they have ceased
to be investment companies. Applicants request deregistration based on
abandonment of registration. Applicants have not commenced operations
and are not now engaged, or intending to engage, in any business
activities other than those necessary for winding up their affairs.

    Filing Date: The applications were filed on July 23, 2009.
    Applicants' Address: Seaview House, 70 Seaview Avenue, Stamford, CT
06902-6040.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23669 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50966-50969]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20780]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0929; FRL-9718-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration
portion of the attainment plan submitted by the State of Maryland
through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) as a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that demonstrates attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE, moderate
nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area) by the applicable attainment
date of June 2011. EPA has determined that Maryland's SIP revision
meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This
action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 24,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0929 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0929, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Planning Program, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0929. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following is provided to aid in locating information in this
preamble.

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the CAA requirements for a moderate 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area?
IV. What is included in Maryland's SIP submittal?
V. What is EPA's review of Maryland's modeled attainment
demonstration and weight of evidence analysis for the Philadelphia
area?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration element of
a SIP revision submitted by MDE to EPA on June 4, 2007. The June 4,
2007 SIP revision consisted of Maryland's attainment plan for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area. The ozone attainment plan
submitted on June 4, 2007 included the attainment demonstration for the
Philadelphia Area and its associated motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) used for transportation conformity purposes in Cecil County,
Maryland. The Maryland attainment plan also included a 2002 base year
emissions inventory, an analysis of the reasonably available control
measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), the 2008
rate of progress (ROP) plan and its associated MVEBs, and contingency
measures. The ROP plan and its MVEBs, 2002 base year emissions
inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, and contingency measures (elements of
the June 4, 2007 attainment plan) were approved on June 11, 2010 (75 FR
33172). Therefore, in this action, EPA is only proposing to approve
Maryland's attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the Philadelphia Area.
    In a separate and concurrent process, EPA is conducting a process
to find the MVEBs for Cecil County associated with the Maryland
attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia Area adequate.
Concurrently with EPA's proposal to approve the SIP, a notice will be
posted on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm for the purpose of opening a 30-day public
comment period on the adequacy of the MVEBs for Cecil County in the
June 4, 2007 SIP revision's attainment demonstration for the
Philadelphia Area. That notice will inform the public of the
availability of the Maryland SIP revision on MDE's Web site. Interested
members of the public could access Maryland's June 4, 2007 SIP revision
on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0929.
Following EPA's public comment period, responses to

any comments received will be addressed.
    EPA has determined that Maryland's attainment demonstration meets
the applicable requirements of the CAA because it demonstrates
attainment by the applicable date of June 15, 2011.\1\ EPA's analysis
and findings are discussed in this proposed rulemaking. In addition, a
technical support document (TSD) for this proposal entitled ``Technical
Support Document for the Modeling and Weight of Evidence Portions of
the Cecil County, Maryland 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan,''
dated June 22, 2012 (referred to herein as the Attainment TSD) is
available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2008-
0929. The Attainment TSD provides additional explanation on EPA's
analysis supporting this proposed approval of the attainment
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As explained in detail in Section II, EPA approved on
January 21, 2011 a one-year extension of the Philadelphia Area's
attainment date from June 2010 to June 2011. 76 FR 3840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    On June 4, 2007, MDE submitted a comprehensive SIP revision to meet
the requirements for an attainment plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the Philadelphia Area. On May 8, 2009 (74 FR 21599), EPA proposed
to disapprove the ozone attainment demonstration element of the June 4,
2007 attainment plan of the comprehensive SIP revision. EPA proposed to
disapprove the attainment demonstration of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS for
the Philadelphia Area because EPA determined that the photochemical
modeling did not demonstrate attainment, and the weight of evidence
analysis used to support the attainment demonstration did not provide
sufficient evidence that the Philadelphia Area would attain the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by the June 2010 deadline for the ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate. On December 9, 2011 (76 FR 76929), EPA
withdrew the May 8, 2009 proposed disapproval of the attainment
demonstration for the Philadelphia Area based on ambient air quality
monitoring data demonstrating attainment.
    Moderate areas are required to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by no later than six years after designation. Therefore, the
Philadelphia Area was to attain by June 15, 2010. See 40 CFR 51.903 and
69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). However, the Philadelphia Area qualified
for a one year extension of its attainment date, based on the complete,
certified ambient air quality data for the 2009 ozone season. See 40
CFR 51.907. On January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3840), EPA approved a one year
extension of the Philadelphia Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010
to June 15, 2011, based in part on air quality data recorded during the
2009 ozone season.
    On March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17341), EPA published two determinations
regarding the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area. First,
EPA made a clean data determination that the Philadelphia Area had
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination was based upon
complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
that showed the Philadelphia Area had monitored attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2008-2010 monitoring period. Ambient air
monitoring data for the 2009-2011 monitoring period is consistent with
continued attainment. Second, pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the
CAA, EPA made a determination of attainment that the Philadelphia Area
had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date of June
15, 2011.

III. What are the CAA requirements for a moderate 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area?

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA
set the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the
1997 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health,
especially for children and adults who are active outdoors, and
individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June
15, 2004. In addition, on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA promulgated
its Phase 1 Implementation Rule which provided how areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard would be classified.
Among those nonattainment areas is the Philadelphia Area. The
Philadelphia Area includes all three counties in Delaware, five
counties in eastern Pennsylvania, one county in Maryland, and eight
counties in southern New Jersey. Therefore, the Philadelphia Area
includes Cecil County in Maryland. EPA's Phase 2 Implementation Rule
published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) specifies that states must
submit attainment demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to EPA
by no later than three years from the effective date of designation,
that is, by June 15, 2007. See 40 CFR 51.908(a).
    Pursuant to the Phase 1 Implementation Rule, an area was classified
under subpart 2 of Title I of the CAA based on its 8-hour design value
if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.12 ppm. Based on this
criterion, the Philadelphia Area was classified under subpart 2 as a
moderate nonattainment area. The Phase 2 Implementation Rule addressed
the control obligations that apply to areas classified under subpart 2.
Among other things, the Phase 1 and 2 Implementation Rules outline the
required SIP elements and deadlines for those various requirements in
areas designated as moderate nonattainment.

IV. What is included in Maryland's SIP submittal?

    On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted a comprehensive attainment plan
as a SIP revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The SIP revision
included an attainment demonstration with MVEBs, the ROP plan with
MVEBs, a RACM/RACT analysis, the 2002 base year emissions inventory,
and contingency measures. The attainment demonstration of the June 4,
2007 SIP submittal is the only subject of this proposed rulemaking. In
a separate and concurrent process, EPA is proposing an adequacy
determination for the 2009 MVEBs associated with the ozone attainment
demonstration for Cecil County in Maryland. The other elements of the
June 4, 2007 SIP submittal were approved by EPA on June 11, 2010 (75 FR
33172).

V. What is EPA's review of Maryland's modeled attainment demonstration
and weight of evidence analysis for the Philadelphia area?

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires states to prepare air
quality modeling to show how they will meet ambient air quality
standards. EPA determined that areas classified as moderate or above
must use photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method
determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective to
demonstrate attainment of the ozone health-based standard by the
required attainment date (November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612, and 40 CFR
51.908). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951 and 40

CFR 51.903), EPA specified how areas would be classified with regard to
the 8-hour ozone standard set by EPA in 1997. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23858), EPA followed these procedures and classified the Philadelphia
Area as moderate, and the nonattainment area was required to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone standard by June 2010. Because the attainment date
was June 2010 for moderate areas, states had to achieve emission
reductions by the ozone season of 2009 in order for ozone
concentrations to be reduced and show attainment during the last
complete ozone season before the 2010 deadline.

A. EPA Guidance for Using Models To Determine Attainment

    EPA's photochemical modeling guidance is found at Guidance on the
Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002,
April 2007. The photochemical modeling guidance is divided into two
parts. One part describes how to use a photochemical grid model for
ozone to assess whether an area will come into attainment of the air
quality standard. A second part describes how the user should perform
supplemental analyses, using various analytical methods, to determine
if the model over predicts, under predicts, or accurately predicts the
air quality improvement projected to occur by the attainment date. The
guidance indicates that states should review these supplemental
analyses, in combination with the modeling analysis, in a ``weight of
evidence'' assessment to determine whether each area is likely to
achieve timely attainment.
    A description of how the attainment demonstration from the June 4,
2007 SIP revision addresses this EPA modeling guidance for a modeled
attainment demonstration can be found in the Attainment TSD, available
on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0929.
    In the June 4, 2007 SIP revision, the photochemical grid model used
projected emissions for 2009, including emission changes due to
regulations Maryland and its neighboring states were planning to
implement and expected growth by the 2009 ozone season. Meteorological
conditions from 2002, the same as the base year modeling, were used in
the projection modeling for 2009. Using the base case meteorology
allows the effect of changes in states' emissions to be determined
without being influenced by yearly fluctuations in meteorology and is
consistent with EPA guidance.
    The attainment test used in the Philadelphia Area modeling
demonstration involved the application of model-based relative response
factors (RRFs) to base year design values at each monitor to produce
projected future year design values (2009). The projected 2009 design
values represent design values that should result from emission
controls Maryland and other states planned to have in place in 2009. As
discussed in the Attainment TSD, the 2009 design values should be less
than or equal to 84 parts per billion (ppb) at all monitoring stations
to meet the attainment test. The SIP modeling predicts that in 2009,
the Philadelphia Area will not pass the attainment test since design
values are projected to be over the 84 ppb standard.
    In summary, the basic photochemical grid modeling presented in the
Maryland SIP revision meets EPA's guidelines and when used with the
methods recommended in EPA's modeling guidance, is acceptable to EPA.
However, when EPA's attainment test is applied to the modeling results,
the 2009 ozone design value is predicted to be 91 ppb in the
Philadelphia Area. Thus, based on EPA's modeled attainment test, the
Philadelphia Area has not demonstrated that it will reach attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the attainment year with the modeled
emission reduction strategies committed to by Maryland and the
neighboring states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Therefore, a
weight of evidence (WOE) analysis was used by Maryland and reviewed by
EPA to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the
Philadelphia Area.

B. Weight of Evidence Demonstration

    EPA's modeling guidance describes how to use a photochemical grid
model and additional analytical methods to complete a WOE analysis to
estimate if emissions control strategies will lead to attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A WOE analysis is a supporting analysis that
helps to determine if the results of the photochemical modeling system
are correctly (or not correctly) predicting future air quality.
    The WOE analysis presented in the Maryland SIP revision describes
the analyses performed, databases used, key assumptions and outcomes of
each analysis, and why the evidence, viewed as a whole, supports a
conclusion that the Philadelphia Area will attain the NAAQS despite the
model prediction that some monitors' future design values exceed the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA's review of the WOE analysis in the Attainment TSD included the
following: (1) A comparison of model-predicted 2009 ozone design values
to monitored design values for 2006-2011; (2) an analysis of recent
ozone trends in the Philadelphia Area; and (3) alternative methods for
calculating the 2009 ozone design value. As discussed in detail in the
Attainment TSD, the 2009 model over predicted ozone design values for
2006-2011 for most cases. Further, in the Attainment TSD, EPA's
analysis concurs with Maryland's analysis of significant declining
trends in the Philadelphia Area ozone design values. The Attainment TSD
concluded that additional emissions reductions have continued to occur
due mostly to local controls in each nonattainment area and to a few
reductions in major sources due to initiatives in the OTR. The
Attainment TSD noted that monitored ozone design values for each of the
Philadelphia Area monitors continued to decline and to show attainment
in 2010 and 2011.
    As discussed in detail in the Attainment TSD, Maryland's attainment
demonstration also asserted an alternative baseline concentration could
be used to demonstrate attainment. However, EPA determined in the
Attainment TSD that the modeling would still show nonattainment even
with this alternative baseline value. Likewise, EPA determined in the
Attainment TSD that Maryland's recalculation of 2009 modeled ozone
design values with a relative response factor in Maryland's June 4,
2007 SIP revision reduced the modeled 2009 ozone design values slightly
but the model still over predicts the actual monitored 2009 design
values. In conclusion, in the Attainment TSD, EPA determined with the
benefit of 2009 monitored design values that the model in Maryland's
June 4, 2007 SIP revision overpredicts actual concentrations even when
model adjustments are made as discussed herein to attempt to account
for model over prediction.
    EPA has determined that the Maryland photochemical grid modeling
results predict a 2009 projected design value well above the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area. However, after taking into
account WOE arguments regarding model over prediction of the 2009
monitored design values and recent ozone design value trends, which
show attainment of the standard by 2010, EPA determined that the
Maryland SIP has demonstrated attainment of the ozone standard by the
extended attainment date of June 2011 as discussed in detail in the
Attainment TSD.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment
demonstration, included in Maryland's June 4, 2007 attainment plan SIP
revision, as demonstrating attainment for the Philadelphia Area by the
applicable attainment date of June 15, 2011. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia Area submitted by
Maryland on June 4, 2007, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 8, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-20780 Filed 8-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11018]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-323-000]

Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the
filing, to become effective April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4357 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18880]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 35 and 37

[Docket Nos. RM05-17-000 and RM05-25-000; Order No. 890]

Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission
Service

Issued April 6, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final Rule; Notice of Technical Conferences.

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

SUMMARY: On February 16, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issued Order No. 890, which amended the regulations and the pro forma
open access transmission tariff (OATT). The Commission's staff is
convening technical conferences to review and discuss the ``strawman''
proposals regarding the processes for transmission planning required by
the Final Rule.

DATES: Conference dates:
    June 4-7, 2007, Little Rock, Arkansas.
    June 13, 2007, Park City, Utah.
    June 28-29, 2007, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Daniel Hedberg (Technical Information), Office of Energy Markets
and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    W. Mason Emnett (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Technical Conferences

    Take notice that Commission staff will convene technical
conferences on the following dates in the following cities to review
and discuss the ``strawman'' proposals regarding processes for
transmission planning required by the Final Rule issued in this
proceeding on February 16, 2007.\1\ Staff expects all transmission
providers and/or regional representatives to participate in the
technical conference for their particular region, although all
interested persons, including other transmission providers, are invited
to attend each conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (March 15, 2007),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241 at P 443 (2007), reh'g pending.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                              Location               Transmission provider participants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 4-7, 2007..........................  Little Rock, AR............  Entities located in the states
                                                                        represented in the Southeastern
                                                                        Association of Regulatory Utility
                                                                        Commissioners (SEARUC) and entities
                                                                        located in the Southwest Power Pool
                                                                        footprint, presenting on June 4-5 and 6-
                                                                        7, respectively.
June 13, 2007...........................  Park City, Utah............  Entities located within the ColumbiaGrid
                                                                        and Northern Tier Transmission Group
                                                                        footprints and other northern WECC
                                                                        regions.\2\
June 28-29, 2007........................  Pittsburgh, PA.............  Entities located within the Midwest ISO,
                                                                        PJM, New York ISO, and ISO New England
                                                                        footprints and adjacent areas.
TBD.....................................  TBD........................  Entities located in the West other than
                                                                        those attending the June 13, 2007
                                                                        conference in Park City, Utah.\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A further notice with a detailed agenda for each conference will be
issued in advance of the conferences. In the event a transmission
provider is uncertain as to which technical conference is the
appropriate forum for discussion of its ``strawman'' proposal, such
transmission providers should contact Commission staff in advance to
discuss the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Staff also requests that a representative of WECC's
Transmission Expansion Planning Policy Committee attend these
technical conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information about these conferences, please contact:
    W. Mason Emnett, Office of the General Counsel--Energy Markets,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Daniel Hedberg, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7085 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P