[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18841-18842]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7389]

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

 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1238]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1238, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
www.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets/2010/srp_fs.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Lewis County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.bakeraecom.com/index.php/kentucky/lewis/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Concord........................  City Hall, 12913 West KY-8,
                                          Vanceburg, KY 41179.
City of Vanceburg......................  Visitors Center, 151 3rd
                                          Street, Vanceburg, KY 41179.
Unincorporated Areas of Lewis County...  Lewis County Emergency
                                          Management Annex, 36 Court
                                          Street, Vanceburg, KY 41179.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Greenville County, South Carolina, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/flood/comaps.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Greenville.....................  City Hall, 206 South Main
                                          Street, Greenville, SC 29602.
City of Greer..........................  City Hall, 106 South Main
                                          Street, Greer, SC 29650.
City of Mauldin........................  City Hall, 5 East Butler Road,
                                          Mauldin, SC 29662.
City of Simpsonville...................  City Hall, 118 Northeast Main
                                          Street, Simpsonville, SC
                                          29681.
City of Travelers Rest.................  City Hall, 6711 State Park
                                          Road, Travelers Rest, SC
                                          29690.
Town of Fountain Inn...................  Town Hall, 200 North Main
                                          Street, Fountain Inn, SC
                                          29644.
Unincorporated Areas of Greenville       Greenville County Codes
 County.                                  Department, 301 University
                                          Ridge, Suite 4100, Greenville,
                                          SC 29601.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-7389 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


U. S. A. CUN2003/ 059  STRAWBERRY FRUIT   FIELD STRAWBERRIES GROWN OUTDOORS UNDER PLASTIC MULCH FOR FRUIT TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 Critical Need for Methyl Bromide............................................................................................... 3 Economic Impacts....................................................................................................................... 3 Response to Questions from MBTOC/ TEAP .............................................................................. 5 Historical Emission Reductions & MB Dosage Rates................................................................ 14 Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) Tarps .................................................................................. 14 Market Window Information..................................................................................................... 15 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 16 References ................................................................................................................................ 18 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Region, Key Pests, and Critical Need for Methyl Bromide ............................................ 3 Table 2. Measures of Economic Impact of 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Use in Place of Methyl Bromide + Chloropicrin on Strawberries in the U. S. In Areas of Moderate To Severe Pest Pressure................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3. Effects of Soil Fumigation with Methyl Bromide/ Chloropicrin ( MB/ CP) vs. Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin ( DP/ CP) on Yields ( grams/ plant) of Strawberry in 10 Studies ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 4. Historical Use of Methyl Bromide in the Strawberry Sector*..................................... 12 Table 5. Calculation of the Nominated Amount of Methyl Bromide in the Strawberry Sector .. 12 Table 6. Herbicides Registered in the United States to Control Nutsedge in Strawberries ......... 14 Appendix: Table 3. from Nomination Chapter: Not in kind Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by MBTOC for Strawberry Field Production. ..................................................... 19 Page 2 INTRODUCTION The United States ( U. S.) nomination for strawberry fruit field ( CUN2003/ 059) is a critical need for an amount of methyl bromide ( MB) in areas with moderate to severe pest pressure ( see Table 1), because currently there are no technically feasible alternatives and farmers would face severe economic hardships in the absence of MB. Suggested alternatives for strawberry fruit production fail to provide the necessary degree of pest control or their use is not easily adoptable due to state imposed restrictions designed to safeguard health or the environment. The nomination also notes that applying alternatives is further complicated when plant back restrictions prevent farmers from meeting marketing windows ( e. g., winter or early spring) when strawberry sale prices are as much as 100% higher than during the rest of the year ( see Market Window Information). The nomination notes significant progress in adopting emission reduction technologies and changing formulations and application rates to reduce MB dosage rates to some of the lowest in the world, and that further trials are being conducted to evaluate new alternatives and to test ways of overcoming constraints in further lowering MB formulations and adopting even more impermeable barriers. Page 3 CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE Region Key Pests Critical Need for Methyl Bromide California Strawberry Commission ( CUE 02 0024) Diseases: Black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.), fruit and crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum).

Nematodes: Sting ( Belonolaimus spp.), and rootknot ( Meloidogyne spp.).

Weeds: Common purslane ( Portulaca oleracea), chickweed ( Stellaria media), mallow ( Malva spp.), and stinging nettle ( Urtica dioica). At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control the target pests found in California. Uses of alternatives are limited by regulatory restrictions such as the township caps on the amount of 1,3 dichloropropene that can be used. MB applications in strawberries are typically made using 67: 33 or, where feasible, 57: 43 mixtures with chloropicrin under plastic mulch. Related dosage rates of 202 kg/ ha are below the threshold in the MBTOC 2002 Report, making further reduction difficult to achieve without compromising pest management.

Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association  Strawberry ( CUE 02 0053) Diseases: Black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.), fruit and crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum).

Nematodes: Sting ( Belonolaimus spp.), and rootknot ( Meloidogyne spp.).

Weeds: Purple and yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus and C. rotundus) and ryegrass ( Lolium spp.). At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control the target pests found in Florida. In addition, the use of alternatives are limited in some areas because the soil overlays a vulnerable water table ( karst topography). Finally, there are other areas where regulatory restrictions such as mandatory buffers around inhabited structures make alternatives infeasible. MB applications in strawberries are typically made using 67: 33 or, where feasible, 50: 50 mixtures with chloropicrin under plastic mulch. Related dosage rates of 202 kg/ ha are below the threshold in the MBTOC 2002 Report, making further reduction difficult to achieve without compromising pest management.

Southeastern Strawberry Consortium ( CUE 02 0037) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, and New Jersey. Diseases: Black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.).

Nematodes: Rootknot ( Meloidogyne spp.).

Weeds: Purple and yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus and C. rotundus). At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control nutsedge found in the southeast U. S. Regulatory restrictions such as mandatory buffers around inhabited structures make the use of alternatives infeasible for many Southeast locations. MB applications in strawberries are typically made using 67: 33 or, where feasible, 50: 50 mixtures with chloropicrin under plastic mulch. Related dosage rates of 150 kg/ ha are below the threshold in the MBTOC 2002 Report, making further reduction difficult to achieve without compromising pest management.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS To determine whether a proposed MeBr alternative was economically feasible in those situations Page 4 where technically feasible alternatives exist, the U. S. took a ` weight of the evidence' or ` portfolio' approach. Rather than rely on a single indicator or even a series of indicators, each with a ` bright line', the situation of the applicant with respect to five measures was assessed. The five measures selected for consideration were: loss per hectare; loss per kilogram of MB; loss as a percent of gross revenue; loss as a percent of net cash returns; and change in profit margins. These measures were selected because information to support their use was fairly readily available, because they describe different aspects of potential loss and finally, because they are independent of each other. In cases where information was not available for one or more of the measures, the remaining measures were used. In cases where a stream of benefits was derived from a MB application, net present value was used in the calculations.

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

The original U. S. nomination presented data showing that the next best alternative to MB, 1,3 D plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium, is economically feasible in California under conditions of light to moderate pest pressure and where regulatory constraints do not limit the use of 1,3 dichloropropene. In Florida and other southeastern states, 1,3 dichloropropene plus chloropicrin might be effective against low nutsedge infestations, but the pest pressures in the specific areas covered in this CUN, particularly nutsedge, are more severe and this alternative is not viable. Given this caveat, an economic analysis of 1,3 dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metamsodium as an alternative for key pests in California and an economic analysis of 1,3 dichloropropene plus chloropicrin as an alternative for nutsedge in Florida and the other southeastern states were conducted. Based on the results of this analysis shown in Table 2, the U. S. concluded that the use of the " next best" alternatives to MeBr was not economically feasible in areas of moderate to severe pest pressure.

TABLE 2. MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 1,3 D + CHLOROPICRIN USE IN PLACE OF METHYL BROMIDE + CHLOROPICRIN ON STRAWBERRIES IN THE U. S. IN AREAS OF MODERATE TO SEVERE PEST PRESSURE Loss Measure California ( CUE 02 0024) + Metam Sodium Florida ( CUE 02 0053) Southeastern US ( CUE 02 0037)

% Yield Losses likely* 14% Up to 25% Likely* 5% Up to 60% likely* 5% Loss* Per Hectare US$ 4,901 5,952 US$ 6,900 10,600 US$ 3,500 7,200 Loss* Per Kg MB US$ 33 74 US$ 37 57 US$ 24 48 Loss* as a % of Gross Revenue 16 20% 7 10% 7 14%

Loss* as a % of Net Cash Returns Not Available Not Available 17 34% * Loss estimates are based on likely yield loss. In the ranges above, the higher losses and lower profits margins are for: California   as a result of using metam sodium after 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin; Florida and Southeastern U. S.   higher costs for extra weed control, which is assumed to be sufficient to control the weed pressure while maintaining yield loss of 5 percent. The California yield loss number is different from the nomination package and is based on the work of Shaw and Larson ( 1999) presented in Table 3. Page 5 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC/ TEAP 1. The Party is requested to detail the reasoning and assumptions used to calculate the nominated amount.

The details of the reasoning and assumptions used to calculate the nominated amount are shown in Table 5.

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

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

A list of herbicides, with activity against nutsedge species, which are currently registered for some or all U. S. strawberry crops, is provided in Table 6. There are currently no herbicides registered in the U. S. that can selectively and effectively control nutsedge under conditions of moderate to severe weed pest pressures in strawberries. Furthermore, as strawberries in the U. S. are grown over plastic mulch to keep the fruit from being in direct contact with the soil and thus being exposed to pathogens, the use of conventional herbicides is not practical after planting.

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

The CUN requests MBR only for areas where nutsedge exists in moderate to severe infestations. The steps to calculate the nominated amount are shown in Table 5, and the details of the reasoning and assumptions and the citations for these conclusions are explained in the text following the table, as well as in the responses the two MBTOC/ TEAP comments immediately following. The extent of the nutsedge infestation of concern is noted in the line on Table 5 labeled " key pest impacts".

We have reviewed related documentation and confirmed the validity of levels of MB required for those areas where 1,3 D is not available because of local restrictions. Page 6 4. MBTOC found it difficult to provide a recommendation on this CUN as the table on alternatives ( Table 3) related to runner, not fruit production, so the performance of some alternatives could not be correctly evaluated. Whilst this nomination considered a number of alternatives the lack of references and comparative data made it difficult for MBTOC to determine the performance of many of these alternatives. The Party is requested to supply a revised Table 3 and to provide comparative performance data ( technical and economic) to allow evaluation of alternatives.

Table 3 in the nomination was mislabeled. It should have read: " Table 3. Not in kind Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by MBTOC for Strawberry Field Production." However, it is correct and has been attached to the end of this document. For a discussion of comparative data see Question 5 below.

5. As confirmed by the CUN, MBTOC suggests that 1,3 D combined with either chloropicrin or metham sodium are feasible alternatives to MB in the circumstances of the nomination. To date over 10% of the industry has already converted to the use of formulations of 1,3 D/ Pic in some regions. MBTOC recognizes that application issues, plant back times and reliability restrict adoption of other fumigant alternatives by the industry.

While it is true that 1,3 D mixtures have been used by over 10% of the industry, those using these combinations are generally not faced with moderate to severe nutsedge infestations, or are constrained by such things as township caps, buffer zones or karst topography. In areas where such pest pressures or constraints are present, these 1,3 D mixtures are not feasible alternatives. The U. S. CUE request includes only those areas where the use of these alternatives is not feasible.

General comments regarding 1,3 D + chloropicrin 1, 3 D is used primarily as a nematicide, and by itself, chloropicrin supplies good disease control, but poor nematode and weed control. The 1,3 D + chloropicrin combination offers good nematicidal and fungicidal capabilities, but would still require herbicide applications to control weeds such as nutsedge. However, in the U. S. there are no registered herbicides that selectively and effectively will control weeds such as nutsedge under moderate to severe weed pressure, and the use of herbicides to control nutsedge actually stimulates further nutsedge growth ( see response to Question 2). Sequential application of each one of these chemicals requires significantly more time than using MB alone, and growers must wait longer after fumigation to put the strawberry transplants in the ground.

In addition, current buffer requirements, longer pre plant intervals, and personal protective equipment ( PPE) requirements for 1,3 D make using 1,3 D infeasible for growers in some circumstances ( U. S. EPA, 1998). Shank applied 1,3 D requires a 30 meter ( 100 feet) buffer zone the first year it is applied and a 91 meter ( 300 feet) buffer zone for the next two years. Page 7 There are also PPE requirements for 1,3 D application, which limit the ability of farmers to use the chemical in tropical and subtropical climates. The hot weather in California, and the hot and humid weather in Florida and other southern states presents a health risk from possible heat exhaustion and heat stroke to field workers if they wear the required PPE. For example, these PPE restrictions require applicators to wear fully sealed suits, with respirators. Such suits usually do not have refrigeration components, and under conditions of high heat and humidity rapidly become unbearable for a typical applicator. Although these requirements have recently been eased somewhat so that fewer people are subject to use the full complement of PPE ( U. S. EPA, 1998), workers who come in close contact with the liquid formulation must still wear heavy layers of protective equipment, as described above.

1,3 dichloropropene is restricted from use in soils underlain by karst topography and sandy ( porous) sub soils, because these geological features  common in the southeastern U. S.  could lead to ground water contamination. See the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) for 1,3 D ( U. S. EPA, 1998).

Another constraint for using 1,3 D is long pre planting intervals because of its persistence in the soil, forcing growers to delay planting and/ or modify their production schedules. See " Market Window Information" on page 15 for more information.

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

The U. S. is aware that approximately 10 percent of strawberry growers in many regions have adopted the 1,3 D + chloropicrin combination as a MB alternative and this information was taken into consideration when this sector's CUE request was calculated.

California A major impediment to the broader adoption of 1,3 D fumigation in California strawberry production areas is the state regulations regarding township caps. Regulatory constraints on 1,3 D products impact approximately two thirds of California strawberry production areas when this product is not available as an alternative fumigant. Current restrictions in the State of California limit total 1,3 D use within 36 square mile areas, known as townships. This ( maximum) amount depends on the depth and timing of the applications, with a total of 90,250 pounds per township allowed if applications are made to a depth greater than 18 inches between February and November. The limit is reduced if applications are made at shallow depths or during December or January. Applied at 140 lbs/ A ( 160kg/ ha) a maximum of 645 acres per township, just under 3% of a Page 8 township's acreage, may be legally fumigated with 1,3 D in a year.

The combination of 1,3 D and chloropicrin is being used in California on a limited basis and may be technically feasible, provided that an adequate means of weed control is used in addition to this chemical combination. However, yields for 1,3 D + chloropicrin treated strawberry fields in California are consistently lower than fields treated with MB + chloropicrin, as demonstrated by Shaw and Larson ( 1999) through a meta analysis of strawberry yield responses involving 9 of 10 individual California studies examined ( see Table 3 below). They report an average percent yield loss of over 14% from using 1,3 D + chloropicrin, and Table 2 displays the significant economic impacts on California farmers when using alternatives.

TABLE 3. EFFECTS OF SOIL FUMIGATION WITH METHYL BROMIDE/ CHLOROPICRIN ( MB/ CP) VS. DICHLOROPROPENE/ CHLOROPICRIN ( DP/ CP) ON YIELDS ( GRAMS/ PLANT) OF STRAWBERRY IN 10 STUDIES ( FROM SHAW AND LARSON 1999). MB: CP treated DP: CP treated Study No Reps. Mean Yield SD Mean Yield SD Percent Increasez ty py dy 2 6 992 177 856 109 15.9 1.60 0.070 0.93 5 6 1331 40 1046 55 27.2 10.27 < 0.001 5.93 7 5 1096 110 687 62 59.5 6.76 < 0.001 4.28 21 6 886 71 914 48  2.9  0.78 0.727  0.45 31 4 655 65 647 54 1.0 0.15 0.443 0.11 58 6 871 56 836 11 4.3 1.52 0.077 0.88 64 36 1381 146 1180 185 17.0 5.12 < 0.001 1.21 65 10 1742 131 1489 141 17.0 4.16 < 0.001 1.86 66 6 994 88 981 97 1.3 0.37 0.355 0.15 67 4 610 46 591 46 3.2 0.58 0.291 0.41 z Unweighted percent increase in yield for the MB: CP treatment over the DP: CP treatment group. y t is Student's t test value, p is a one tailed probability ( requires P< 0.025 for conventional significance), and d is the standardized effect size. Average Percent Increase across all studies is 14.35%.

Currently, 85 90 percent of strawberry ground is broadcast fumigated with MB/ chloropicrin. Broadcast fumigation with1,3 D/ chloropicrin is not a feasible alternative for a majority of the hectares due to regulatory and economic constraints. Most of the strawberries in California are grown in coastal urban/ agricultural areas where buffer zones are a major consideration during the fumigation permitting process. Buffer zones on the California 1,3 D/ chloropicrin labels are 300 feet ( 91 meters) for broadcast applications when used on annual crops such as strawberries. A new federal label reducing the buffer zones to 100 feet ( 30 meters) is expected to be submitted soon for consideration by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. ( Original estimates in the U. S. nomination were also based on the 100 foot buffer zone.) Additionally, the significantly higher cost of broadcast fumigation with 1,3 D/ chloropicrin ($ 1400/ acre broadcast vs. $ 900/ acre drip) has severely limited its use as an alternative to MB.

In California, drip applications of 1,3 D/ chloropicrin are less expensive and require smaller buffer zones than broadcast applications, making drip the main method used to Page 9 apply this alternative. Currently, 90 percent of the 1,3 D/ chloropicrin treated strawberry hectares is through drip application, while 10 percent is through broadcast application. However, in both cases, production costs are significantly higher due to the need for increased herbicide applications and hand weeding operations. Recent studies in California found that the cost of drip or shank applications of 1,3 D/ chloropicrin were 25 36% higher than MB/ chloropicrin ( Goodhue et al., 2001). Costs of chloropicrin alone were comparable to MB but chloropicrin fails to control nematodes.

There are also significant technical barriers to drip applied 1,3 D/ chloropicrin for California strawberry growers. For many farms their irrigation systems are not efficient enough to be used for drip fumigation. There are also serious technical challenges to using drip irrigation systems to uniformly and effectively fumigate slopes and hillsides, where significant portions of California's strawberries are grown. It will require a significant investment of capital and time to find solutions to the technical limitations inherent in the adoption of drip applied 1,3 D/ chloropicrin.

In California, the use of 1,3 D has resulted in longer delays between fumigation and planting. In many cases this forces growers to abbreviate their growing season in order to prepare the ground for the following season in areas where strawberries are not rotated with other crops. The timing of rotation with lettuce/ vegetable crops is also affected due to the need to fumigate up to three weeks earlier than with MB/ chloropicrin. There have also been reports of phytotoxicity on strawberry from 1,3 D.

Chloropicrin has been determined to be a toxic air contaminant by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. This compound may be subject to future regulatory constraints, including increased buffer zones. Effective rates for chloropicrin of 228 kilograms per hectare or greater are prohibited or strongly discouraged in most strawberry producing counties. Because of the range of economic, environmental, and regulatory difficulties described here, the United States deemed 1,3 D + chloropicrin was not a feasible alternative in areas of moderate to severe pest pressure.

The combination of 1,3 D and metam sodium is not being used in California, because: ( a) mixing 1,3 D with metam sodium does not control any of the key pest species from California that 1,3 D alone will not control, ( b) township caps limit the use of 1,3 D, whether this chemical is used alone or in combination with metam sodium ( c) adding metam sodium to 1,3 D will not provide affective disease control, in areas where there is only a single drip irrigation tape used 1,3 D needs to be shank injected with metam sodium sprayed on the surface of the bed and then mechanically incorporated ( a multi step process), ( d) there are different moisture requirements for 1,3 D and metam sodium, and ( e) California is reviewing metam sodium as a potential air pollutant and because future use may be constrained, many researchers and growers are not actively evaluating this product.

Florida The 1,3 D + chloropicrin alternative is also being used in Florida on a limited basis and is technically feasible only in areas of light to moderate nutsedge pressure. Data associated Page 10 with 1,3 D + chloropicrin show a range of yield loses from 0 25 percent compared to strawberry fruit production using MB.

Additionally, 1,3 D + chloropicrin is not being extensively used in Florida because of the concerns with buffers, PPE requirements, and pre planting intervals. Also, use of 1,3 D in Florida is prohibited in areas characterized by karst topography because of groundwater contamination. Research suggests that when chloropicrin is mixed with other chemicals at a level higher than 35 percent and applied at typical rates, it can increase vegetative growth at the expense of strawberry fruit production. This characteristic is desirable for orchard replant but highly undesirable for annual crops ( personal communication with Sally Schneider, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture; and Michael V. McKenry, University of California. Riverside, Parlier, California). When 1,3 D is used in combination with chloropicrin, growers experience limited flexibility in scheduling fumigation operations. This is important in Florida where rainstorms can deposit too much water on the strawberry beds or completely wash out the beds. This causes delays in fumigation and planting. Growers may be forced to set all of their transplants out at one time instead of spacing out the plantings to avoid having to harvest all the berries at one time. This could also eliminate the planting and harvest of early cultivars, which are often the cultivars of great demand and high value in the strawberry market. Also, delays in planting often decrease the yield and quality of the fruit.

The 1,3 D and metam sodium combination is not considered a viable alternative in Florida because: ( a) mixing 1,3 D with metam sodium does not control any of the key pest species from Florida that 1,3 D alone will not control, ( b) adding metam sodium to 1,3 D will not provide affective disease control, in areas where there is only a single drip irrigation tape used 1,3 D needs to be shank injected with metam sodium sprayed on the surface of the bed and then mechanically incorporated ( a multi step process), ( c) there are different moisture requirements for 1,3 D and metam sodium, and ( d) 1,3 D is restricted to areas without karst topography as would a combination of 1,3 D and metam sodium.

Southeastern U. S. The 1,3 D and chloropicrin combination is being used in the Southeastern U. S. on a limited basis. This combination, however, is technically feasible only where nutsedge is not prevalent under moderate to severe pressure pest situations, which is approximately 30 percent of the area. An effective companion herbicide is needed for the remaining 70 percent where nutsedge is a major problem. However, as discussed above, no such herbicide is currently available in the United States The yield loss estimate associated with 1,3 D/ chloropicrin combination ranges up to 60 percent compared to strawberry fruit production with MB. The Southeastern U. S. growers can also experience the same weather related delays and concerns as the growers in Florida.

Requirements for a 91 meter buffer zone ( now changing to a 30 meter buffer zone at the national level, although the revised buffer is not accepted by all states) and PPE that must still be used by those coming in contact with the substance may make it impractical to adopt 1,3 D. For small farms in the Southeastern U. S., the buffer requirements eliminate Page 11 a large portion of the area around the field perimeter, reducing the total area available for strawberry production. The typical size of a strawberry field in the southeastern U. S. is four hectares or less, or is a " you pick" operation located close to inhabited structures. 1,3 D cannot be used on up to 90% of the hectares due to these regulatory buffer zone restrictions.

The combination of 1,3 D and metam sodium is not widely used in the southeast U. S. because: ( a) mixing 1,3 D with metam sodium does not control any of the key pest species that 1,3 D alone will not control, ( b) heavy soil in any growing area limits the use of 1,3 D, whether this chemical is used alone or in combination with metam sodium ( c) adding metam sodium to 1,3 D will not provide affective disease control, in areas where there is only a single drip irrigation tape used, in those cases 1,3 D needs to be shank injected with metam sodium sprayed on the surface of the bed and then mechanically incorporated ( a multi step process), and ( d) there are different moisture requirements for 1,3 D and metam sodium. Page 12 TABLE 4. HISTORICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE STRAWBERRY SECTOR*

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

1997 236 2,637,817 10,470 1998 233 2,755,404 11,185 1999 203 3,039,117 12,510 2000 189 2,617,237 12,307 2001 175 2,690,102 14,643 * Strawberry acres planted in U. S.: 47,400 ( 19,182 ha). Percent of U. S. strawberry acreage requested: 77% Source: Rates, amounts, and area treated are from applicants' information. Percent of U. S. acreage is from USDA, 2001. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics 2001 TABLE 5. CALCULATION OF THE NOMINATED AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE STRAWBERRY SECTOR Calculation of Nominated Amount 0024   California Strawberry Commission 0037   Southeastern Strawberry Consortium 0053   Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association   Strawberry Hectares ( ha) 10,117 1,817 2,873 % of Regional hectares ( ha)( A) 95 112 109 Applicant Request for 2005 Kilograms ( kg) of MB 2,041,164 272,908 579,691 Double Counted hectares ( ha)( B) 0 0 0 Growth / Increasing Production ( ha)( C) ( 58) 0 0 Quarantine and Pre Shipment hectares ( D) 0 0 0 Adjustments to Request Adjusted Hectares Requested ( ha)( E) 10,117 1,817 2,873 Key Pest Impacts (%)( F) 89 30 40 Regulatory Impacts (%)( G) 64 90 1 Soil Impacts (%)( H) 0 0 40 Impacts to Adjusted Hectares Total Combined Impacts (%)( I) 89 90 60 Qualifying Area ( ha)( J) 9,004 1,635 1,724 Use Rate ( kg/ ha)( K) 202 150 202 CUE Amount Nominated ( kg)( L) 1,816,637 245,617 347,814 % Reduction from Initial Request ( M) 11 10 40 Sum of all CUE Nominations in Sector ( kg)( N) 2,410,068 Multiplier for Margin of Error ( O) 1.0244 Total U. S. Sector Nomination ( kg)( P) 2,468,873 Page 13 Footnotes for Table 5: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. A. Percent of regional hectares is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA national Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not al2ways correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nominations ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. B. Double counted hectares is the area counted in more than one application or rotated within one year of an application to a crop that also uses MB. There was no double counting in this sector. C. Growth / increasing production hectares is the amount of area requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated or treated at a higher use rate. Values in parentheses indicate negative values and are shown to demonstrate a trend, but are not used in further calculations. No growth was requested in this sector. D. Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the area in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Quarantine and pre shipment is not applicable to this sector. E. Adjusted hectares requested is the hectares in the applicant's request minus the hectares affected by double counting, growth / increasing production, and quarantine and pre shipment. F. Key pest impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For Florida and the Southeastern U. S. the key pest is nutsedge, for California the key pest is Phytophthora. G. Regulatory impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps). For California, the regulatory constraint is the township cap. In the southeast and Florida the required buffer to inhabited structures is the regulatory constraint. The buffer constraint has a much bigger impact in the southeast than in Florida due to the very small average size of operations in the southeast. H. Soil impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance). Approximately 40% of the strawberry growing areas in Florida have karst topography and the 1,3 D cannot be used due to the potential for groundwater contamination. I. Total combined impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, or soil impacts. In each case the total area impacted is the area, which is impacted by one or more of the individual impacts. For each application the assessment was made by biologists familiar with the specific situation and able to make judgments about the extent of overlap of the impacts. For example, in some situations the impacts are mutually exclusive   in heavy clay soils 1,3 D will not be effective because it does not penetrate these soils evenly, but none of the heavy soil areas will be impacted by township ( regulatory) caps because no one will use 1,3 D in this situation, so this soils impact must be added to the township cap regulatory impact in a California application. In other words there is no overlap. In other situations one area of impact might be a subset of another impact. In these cases, the combined impact is equal to the largest individual impact. J. Qualifying area is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares requested by the total combined impacts. K. Use rate is the requested use rate for 2005. This rate is typically based on historical averages. In some cases, the use rate has been adjusted downward to reflect current conditions. L. CUE amount nominated is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. M. Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. N. Sum of all CUE nominations in sector. Self explanatory. O. Multiplier for margin of error. This amount is one percentage point of the original ( 1991) baseline amount. This factor is intended to compensate for the compounding influence of using the low end of the range for all input parameters in the calculation of the US nomination ( i. e., using the lowest percent impact on the lowest number of acres at the lowest dosage is likely to result in values that are unrealistically too small). The U. S. nominated included some sectors for 100% of the amount requested, therefore the portion of the multiplier from these sectors were added equally across all other sectors resulting in a final multiplier of 1.0244, or a 2.44% increase from the calculated amount, to these remaining sectors. P. Total U. S. sector nomination is calculated by multiplying the summed sector nominations by the margin of Page 14 error multiplier. TABLE 6. HERBICIDES REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES TO CONTROL NUTSEDGE IN STRAWBERRIES Herbicide U. S. Registration Status* Major Comments Glyphosate Yes Non selective; only temporarily suppresses nutsedge and may promote further nutsedge growth by releasing tubers from dormancy; rotation restrictions Paraquat Yes Non selective; suppresses nutsedge only temporarily and may promote further nutsedge growth by releasing tubers from dormancy; rotation restrictions Terbacil Yes Suppresses nutsedge temporarily and may promote additional nutsedge growth by releasing tubers from dormancy; rotation restrictions * Y = Registered for use; N = Not registered for use Additional notes on specific herbicides listed: Glyphosate Glyphosate is a non selective herbicide that usually only suppresses but does not control nutsedge development. Additionally, glyphosate provides no residual weed control. Glyphosate may be applied prior to planting or ONLY between vegetable rows. Contact of glyphosate with the crop will likely cause severe injury. Row middle application use is limited because of the potential of glyphosate drift to the crop causing severe injury. Paraquat Paraquat is a non selective herbicide that provides poor control of nutsedge. Additionally, paraquat does not provide residual weed control. Paraquat may be applied prior to planting or ONLY between vegetable rows. Contact of paraquat with the crop can cause severe injury. Terbacil Terbacil is registered for use in strawberries in Florida and the Southeast, but is not registered in California. According to the label, this herbicide provides partial control of yellow nutsedge. By only suppressing yellow nutsedge, terbacil does not provide adequate control of nutsedge under moderate to high pressure conditions. Other limitations to this herbicide include rotational restrictions of one to two years, depending on the crop, and it may not be applied to soils with less that 0.5 percent organic matter.

HISTORICAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS & METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE RATES The U. S. strawberry fruit production sector has been a leader in testing and adopting emission reduction technologies, such as tarps and soil injection, to reduce emissions and increase the effectiveness of each unit of MB used. In addition, this sector has shifted to formulations with lower MB concentrations and continues to test other formulations with even lower proportions of MB. In California, the MB dosage rate in 1997 was 270 kg/ ha and declined to 240 kg/ ha in 2002   with the reduction being due to lowered overall application rates during this period, as well as a significant shift to a 57: 43 formulation ( by up to 50% of California strawberry growers).

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

Disposal Issues

Landfill disposal of VIF and VIF burning have come under increasing restrictions in some jurisdictions; both are labor intensive and costly. Page 15

Ingredients in VIF limit recycling into end use products.

Cost

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

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

Environmental Consequences

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

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

VIF Supply & Demand Logistics

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

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

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

VIF Challenges to Agricultural Practices

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

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

Photo degradation of VIF makes it brittle and ineffective at controlling weeds over months of double cropping systems ( current non VIF tarps remain on beds for 12 15 months after one MB fumigation).

MARKET WINDOW INFORMATION The series below indicate the importance of considering market windows, and the concomitant large difference in prices that accompany them, when deciding if alternatives to MB are economically feasible. Although such detailed series are not available for all crops, both tomatoes and strawberries demonstrate large fluctuations in prices over three week intervals from peak price to the mid season price. This pattern is also observable for other fresh fruit and vegetable crops. The existence of these sharp declines in prices which occur after a short period of high prices ( a period know as ` the market window') ensure that revenue losses caused by the longer plant back periods required when using certain alternatives will not be proportional to the lost production time but will, rather, be amplified by the lower commodity price of the post ` market window'. The result is a decline in crop revenue, which in the case of Florida strawberries would be approximately 40% of gross revenue apart from any losses due to reduced production. Page 16 Prices received by strawberry growers rapidly decline from their early season peak. The average price received by Florida Strawberry growers dropped 30% between February and March in 1999, 37% in 2000, and 40% in 2001. In California strawberry prices declined in this time period 19% in 1999, 29% in 2000, and 23% in 2001.

Plant back restrictions could cause growers to completely miss critical, short lived market windows when products reach their peak market prices; forcing producers to sell at significantly lower prices. Missing a market window could, therefore, turn a profitable year into an unprofitable one for the affected growers.

Fresh strawberries ( winter and spring), prices received per cwt, monthly, 2001 Source, NASS Annual Price Report 2002 $ 0.00 $ 20.00 $ 40.00 $ 60.00 $ 80.00 $ 100.00 $ 120.00 $ 140.00 $ 160.00 $ 180.00 $ 200.00 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec 01 FL CA Fresh strawberries ( winter and spring), prices received per cwt, monthly, 1999  2001 Source, NASS Annual Price Report 2002 $ 0.00 $ 20.00 $ 40.00 $ 60.00 $ 80.00 $ 100.00 $ 120.00 $ 140.00 $ 160.00 $ 180.00 $ 200.00 Jan 99 Mar 99 May 99 Jul 99 Sep 99 Nov 99 Jan 00 Mar 00 May 00 Jul 00 Sep 00 Nov 00 Jan 01 Mar 01 May 01 Jul 01 Sep 01 Nov 01 FL CA DEFINITIONS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS CUE Source of yield loss estimates Where published studies of yield losses under conditions of moderate to severe key pest pressure were not available ( the situation for which the United States is requesting continued use of MB), the United States developed such estimates by contacting university professors conducting experiments using MB alternatives in the appropriate land grant institutions. The experts were asked to develop such an estimate based on their experience with MB and with alternatives. The results of this process were used when better data were not available. Page 17 Source of buffer restriction implications for MB use Estimates of the impact of buffers required when using some MB alternatives on the proportion of acreage where such alternatives could be used were developed from confidential information submitted to EPA in support of a registration application for a MB alternative. Because at the time of the analysis, a request to reduce the size of the required buffer for some alternatives was under consideration, a smaller buffer was selected for the analysis. Since that time the size of the regulatory buffer has been reduced so that it now conforms to the buffer selected for the analysis.

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

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

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

Source of area impacted by combined impacts estimate Combined impacts were determined on a case by case basis for each specific crop/ location combination after consultation with individuals knowledgeable with the specific circumstances. The nature of the individual impacts is such that in some situations they are independent of each other, in some they are mutually exclusive, and in some cover identical areas. It was not, therefore, possible to have a formula that would arrive at an appropriate estimate of combined impacts. A more complete description is found in the footnotes to the ` calculation' table. Page 18 REFERENCES Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 D will Impact Adjustment to Methyl Bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3.

Carpenter, Janet and Lori Lynch. 1999. Impact of 1,3 D Restrictions in California after a Ban on Methyl Bromide. Presentation at the 1999 Annual International Conference of Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) 1,3 Dichloropropene. Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ REDs/ 0328red. pdf Goodhue, Rachael E., Steven A. Fennimore, and Husein Ajwa. 2001. Economic Feasibility of Methyl Bromide Alternatives: Field Level Cost Analysis. University of California, Davis. Unpublished report.

Shaw, Douglas V. and Kirk . D. Larson. 1999. A Meta analysis of Strawberry Yield Response to Preplant Soil Fumigation with Combinations of Methyl Bromide Chloropicrin and Four Alternative Systems. HortScience 34( 5): 839 845.

SoilZone, 1999. Ozone Gas as a Soil Fumigant. 1998 Research Program. Electric Power Research Institute.

USDA. 1999. Crop Profile for Strawberries in California. http:// pestdata. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/ docs/ castrawberries. html USDA. 2002. Crop Profile for Strawberry in Florida. http:// pestdata. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/ docs/ FLstrawberries. html U. S. EPA. 1998. Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED), 1,3 Dichlorpropene http:// www. epa. gov/ REDs/ 0328red. pdf Page 19 APPENDIX: TABLE 3. FROM NOMINATION CHAPTER: NOT IN KIND METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED BY MBTOC FOR STRAWBERRY FIELD PRODUCTION.

Methyl Bromide Alternative Technically Feasible Economically Feasible Nematicides No No Ozone No No Biofumigation No No Solarization No No Steam No No Biological control No No Cover crops/ Mulching No No Crop rotation/ Fallow No No Flooding/ Water management No No General IPM ( Integrated Pest Management) No No Grafting/ Resistant rootstock/ Plant breeding No No Organic amendments/ Compost No No Organic production No No Resistant cultivars No No Soilless culture No No Substrates/ Plug plants No No Nematicides. Nematicides are not technically feasible alone because they do not control diseases and weeds. Additionally, there are no nematicides registered for use on fruit bearing strawberries in California.

Ozone. Ozone is not being used and it is not technically feasible. Early research showed promise ( SoilZone, 1999.) but researchers have abandoned this line of investigation. Ozone is a very unstable and short lived molecule and the inconsistent results obtained by researchers are assumed to be a consequence of the difficulty of keeping an ozone molecule in contact with the soil long enough to be effective.

Biofumigation. Biofumigation is not technically feasible because of the quantity of Brassica crop that would be needed to control target pests in strawberries. Approximately three hectares of Brassica would be required for every hectare of strawberry production. Further, incorporation of Brassica at these levels are likely to have allelopathic effects on the target crop. In the eastern U. S., production field trials with cabbage residue and tomato produced inconsistent and inadequate efficacy, and poor yields in two years out of three. Additionally, summer Brassica are not available in Florida.

Solarization. Solarization, as a stand alone pre plant fumigation alternative, is not technically feasible because it does not provide adequate control of a wide range of soil borne diseases and pests. Solarization is a weather sensitive process that requires ideal soil moisture and sunlight conditions. Solarization treatment is most successful Page 20 in regions with continuous high temperature periods during summer. As part of an IPM program, soil solarization is compatible with raised bed, plastic mulch production systems, and can be an effective tool for the management of many economically important pests and diseases, with the exception of nutsedge. The response of nutsedge to solarization is sporadic and not well understood. Data show solarization to provide, at best, some suppression of nutsedge populations ( Chase et al., 1998; Egley, 1983). Field studies indicate that raising and maintaining soil temperatures throughout the soil profile to levels shown to control nutsedge is extremely difficult. Nutsedge has shown the ability to emerge from deep in the soil profile and to re infest from areas outside the solarization zone, so solarization alone will not be an effective and dependable control method for nutsedge.

In California, use of solarization is not practical due to the depth of heating required to eliminate viable weed seed. It is only performed in areas where clear plastic is used over beds. In Florida, this alternative is not being used and it is not technically feasible. The yield loss range could be as much as 10 percent to 50 percent. Several solarization studies by various researchers have failed to produce consistent and/ or adequate efficacy results. Although temperatures and solar radiation in the Southeast are adequate for solarization, deep heating for nematode control is not achieved. Unpredictable, stormy summer weather still creates risks and may damage mulch. This alternative could be valuable when used in combination with other treatments to enhance disease control. The Southeast is similar to Florida except that in one Southeast field trial, solarization gave yields in two years out of three with a loss ranging from 0 percent to 40 percent compared to MB.

Steam. Steam, as a stand alone pre plant fumigation alternative for strawberry fruit production, is not technically feasible because it is not operationally practicable due to slow application speed and high energy requirements. For example, when treating with steam, it could take from 1 to 3 weeks to treat one hectare to a depth of about 20 cm in sandy soil. To treat more hectares, it would require more time and/ or more equipment. Results with steam often vary because of differences in terrain and soil density. Since the use of steam requires significantly more time than using MB alone, growers actually delay planting for several weeks, which will extend their production schedule. This directly impacts cultivar options, IPM practices, timing of fruit harvest, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules. As previously mentioned, growers that lease land for rotation into vegetable production could experience extra expenditures for land rent, shorter intervals between crops that may make it impossible to practice crop rotation, and yield and/ or quality reduction in the vegetable crops that are produced.

Biological Control. Some strawberry producers are already using biological control of some target pests as part of an IPM program. However, it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for MB because it does not provide adequate control of the target pests. There are a very limited number of biological organisms that can be used to effectively manage soil borne diseases and pests. Biological control agents are usually very specific in regards to the organisms they control and their successful establishment is highly dependent on environmental conditions. California growers use biological control organisms primarily for insects that this industry routinely employs. Any choice of alternative fumigants must be evaluated for compatibility with this important component of their existing IPM system.

Cover Crops/ Mulching. Cover crops/ mulching is already being used by strawberry producers as a part of an integrated pest management. By itself, the use of cover crops/ mulching does not provide adequate control of the target pests.

Crop Rotation/ Fallow. Crop rotation/ fallow is already being used in many strawberry production areas, but does not adequate control the target pests. In California, crop rotation is used as an effective pest management technique that helps keep strawberry productivity 50 percent higher per hectare than the national average. In Florida, current strawberry production is concentrated in areas where there is inadequate land available for multi year crop rotation. In the Southeast where production areas per grower is small, rotation does not always work since easy access to fields, and more importantly, visibility of the fields from passing cars is especially important for U pick operations.

Flooding and Water Management. Flooding and water management are not currently being used and are not technically feasible. The limited water resources and the uneven topographic features of many production areas prevent the use of these alternatives in California. In Florida, and many eastern states, sandy soils in the strawberry production areas would not retain the flood for an adequate time period to control the target pests. Page 21 General IPM. General IPM is being already being used in strawberry production, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for MB. IPM practices that are commonly practiced in strawberries include monitoring for pests, field sanitation, crop rotation to provide non host periods, and developing disease resistant varieties. IPM practices do not offer adequate pest control by itself.

Grafting/ Resistant Rootstock/ Plant Breeding. Grafting/ resistant rootstock/ plant breeding is not being used and it is not technically feasible because grafting is not possible given the physical characteristics of strawberry plants. Breeding for resistance to pathogens is valuable as a long term endeavor and the U. S. continues work in this area. At this point in time, plant breeding has not resulted in a cultivar that is sufficiently resistant to the major target pests.

Organic Amendments/ Compost. Organic amendments/ compost is already being used in certain regions of the U. S., but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for MB. Composting is management intensive and it does not offer adequate pest control by itself. Yield loss are estimated to range from 0 percent to 50 percent. In the eastern U. S., current trials are testing managed composts and composts inoculated with biological control agents in production fields. Where nutsedge is not prevalent and disease pressures are moderate, composts have resulted in good yields despite the weak disease suppression.

Organic Production. In certain regions of the U. S. some organic production of strawberries occurs. However, as a stand alone replacement for MB it is not a technically feasible alternative because of reduced yields. Production systems completely reliant on non chemical methods for pest control comprise less than 1 percent of the commercial strawberry production in the U. S. Growers that choose to convert to certified organic production realize significantly lower yields from their crop but command a higher price. It is not feasible for all strawberry production in the U. S. to convert to organic production because as more growers convert, the price of organic strawberries will decline with increased availability ( they will loose their scarcity rent). To receive the monetary benefits, the farm must receive an organic certification. The conversion to certified organic production requires a considerable investment of time, many changes in production practices, new record keeping, and different pest control strategies.

Resistant Cultivars. Resistant cultivars are already being used in certain regions of the U. S., but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for MB.

Soilless Culture. Soilless culture is not being used and it is not technically feasible because it requires a complete transformation of the U. S. production system. There are high costs associated with this as compared to current production practices. Limited information was provided by the applicants on soilless culture.

Substrates/ Plug Plants. Substrates/ plug plants are currently being used, but are not technically feasible as a standalone replacement for MB. Plug plants, as compared to bare root transplants, have actually proven to be more vigorous and provide increased yields over bare root transplants in several research trials. However, it is unknown what pathogens will be controlled and to what degree in nurseries producing plug transplants. This method of production would require extensive retooling by the industry and considerably more research in order to determine the feasibility of nurseries converting to the system. A change to this system would not be possible for all growers. A complete change to plug plant production would require many changes in production schedules. Amplification of pest problems that occur in the nursery is highly likely. In California, only 1 percent of transplants are produced as plugs plants in soilless media. The use of plug plants is more extensive in the southeast U. S.


[Federal Register: November 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 69104]
[DOCID:fr29no06-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-426-004]

Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Notice of Compliance Filing

November 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 15, 2006, Destin Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Destin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 136.01, to be effective
December 1, 2006.
    Destin states copies of this filing are being served on all parties
in the above proceeding, affected shippers, and applicable state
regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20190 Filed 11-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="07/07/2008 11:44:59 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 208 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66060-66063]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27345]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76225; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
the Obvious Error Pilot Program

October 22, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 20, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC

(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program regarding
Exchange Rule 1047(f)(v), which provides for how the Exchange treats
obvious and catastrophic options errors in response to the Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or the
``Plan'').\3\ The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period to
coincide with the pilot period for the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,
including any extensions to the pilot period for the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69141 (March 15, 2013),
78 FR 17262 (March 20, 2013); and 69344 (April 8, 2013), 78 FR 22001
(April 12, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In April 2013,\4\ the Commission approved a proposal, on a one year
pilot basis, to adopt Exchange Rule 1047(f)(v) to provide for how the
Exchange will treat obvious and catastrophic options errors in response
to the Plan, which is applicable to all NMS stocks, as defined in
Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(47).\5\ The Plan is designed to prevent
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of specified
Price Bands.\6\ The requirements of the Plan are coupled with Trading
Pauses to accommodate more fundamental price moves (as opposed to
erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69344 (April 8, 2013),
78 FR 22001 (April 12, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-29).
    \5\ The Plan was extended until February 20, 2015. The Plan was
initially approved for a one-year pilot period, which began on April
8, 2013. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71649 (March 5, 2014),
79 FR 13696 (March 11, 2014).
    \6\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange extended the operation of Rule 1047(f)(v), which
provides that trades are not subject to an obvious error or
catastrophic error review pursuant to Rule 1092(c) or (d) during a
Limit State or Straddle State in 2014,\7\ and again in 2015.\8\ The
current pilot period expires October 23, 2015. Currently, the pilot
period for the Plan is proposed to be extended until April 22, 2016.\9\
The Exchange now proposes to extend the pilot program for an additional
pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan, including any extensions to the pilot period for the Plan.
The Exchange believes conducting an obvious error or catastrophic error
review is impracticable given the lack of a reliable National Best Bid/
Offer (``NBBO'') in the options market during Limit States and Straddle
States, and that the resulting actions (i.e., nullified trades or
adjusted prices) may not be appropriate given market conditions. Under
the pilot, limit orders that are filled during a Limit State or
Straddle State have certainty of execution in a manner that promotes
just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to, and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system. Moreover, given that options prices during brief Limit States
or Straddle States may deviate substantially from those available
shortly following the Limit State or Straddle State, the Exchange
believes giving market participants time to re-evaluate a transaction
would create an unreasonable adverse selection opportunity that would
discourage participants from providing liquidity during Limit States or
Straddle States. On balance, the Exchange believes that removing the
potential inequity of nullifying or adjusting executions occurring
during Limit States or Straddle States outweighs any potential benefits
from applying those provisions during such unusual market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71901 (April 8, 2014),
79 FR 20955 (April 14, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-21).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74337 (February 20,
2015), 80 FR 10536 (February 26, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-19).
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75917 (September 14,
2015), 80 FR 56515 (September 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from the
pilot program should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with the
operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan. The Exchange believes that
continuing the pilot will protect against any unanticipated
consequences and permit the industry to gain further experience
operating the Plan.
    The Exchange will conduct an analysis concerning the elimination of
obvious and catastrophic error provisions during Limit States and
Straddle States and agrees to provide the Commission with relevant data
to assess the impact of this proposed rule change. As part of its
analysis, the Exchange will: (1) Evaluate the options market quality
during Limit States and Straddle States; (2) assess the character of
incoming order flow and transactions during Limit States and Straddle
States; and (3) review any complaints from members and their customers
concerning executions during Limit States and Straddle States.
Additionally, the Exchange agrees to provide to the Commission data
requested to evaluate the impact of the elimination of the obvious and
catastrophic error provisions, including data relevant to assessing the
various analyses noted above. No later than five months prior to the
expiration of the pilot period, including any extensions to the pilot
period for the Plan,\10\ the Exchange shall provide to the Commission
and the public assessments relating to the impact of the operation of
the obvious error rules during Limit and Straddle States as follows:
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ If the Plan extension is approved, the next data assessment
will be due no later than December 18, 2015.
    \11\ The Exchange submitted a pilot report on September 30, 2014
and May 29, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Evaluate the statistical and economic impact of Limit and
Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the options markets.
    2. Assess whether the lack of obvious error rules in effect during
the Straddle and Limit States are problematic.
    Each month the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the
public a dataset containing the data for each Straddle and Limit State
in optionable stocks that had at least one trade on the Exchange during
a Straddle

or Limit State. For each of those options affected, each data record
should contain the following information:

 Stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the Straddle
or Limit State, an indicator for whether it is a Straddle or Limit
State,
 For activity on the Exchange:
 Executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-
weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average quoted
depth at the offer,
     high execution price, low execution price,
     number of trades for which a request for review for error
was received during Straddle and Limit States,
     an indicator variable for whether those options outlined
above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's
Limit or Straddle State compared to the last available option price as
reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle State (1 if
observe 30% and 0 otherwise). Another indicator variable for whether
the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving
the Limit or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from
the price before the start of the Limit or Straddle State.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange agreed to provide similar data in the original
proposal. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69344 (April 8,
2013), 78 FR 22001 (April 12, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-29) at notes 4 and
12. However, that data included two additional filters pertaining to
the top 10 options and an in-the-money amount, which no longer
apply. The Exchange provided historical data in the new form
pursuant to this proposed rule change, going back to the beginning
of the original pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, which requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because it should continue to
provide certainty about how errors involving options orders and trades
will be handled during periods of extraordinary volatility in the
underlying security. The Exchange believes that it continues to be
necessary and appropriate in the interest of promoting fair and orderly
markets to exclude transactions executed during a Limit State or
Straddle State from certain aspects of Rule 1092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is operational, the Exchange
believes that maintaining the pilot will help the industry gain further
experience operating the Plan as well as the pilot provisions.
    Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to
market participants should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with
the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on
competition, because it will apply to all members. Nor will the
proposal impose a burden on competition among the options exchanges,
because, in addition to the vigorous competition for order flow among
the options exchanges, the proposal addresses a regulatory situation
common to all options exchanges. To the extent that market participants
disagree with the particular approach taken by the Exchange herein,
market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to
competing venues. The Exchange believes this proposal will not impose a
burden on competition and will help provide certainty during periods of
extraordinary volatility in an NMS stock.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue
uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating
under the Plan, and avoid any investor confusion that could result from
a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-86 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-86. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-86, and should be
submitted on or before November 18, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27345 Filed 10-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1441-1442]
[DOCID:fr11ja10-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61279; File No. SR-ISE-2009-110]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Options on the Brazilian Real

January 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 22, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to change the modifier for the Brazilian real.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Pursuant to Commission approval, ISE began trading options on
foreign currency pairs on April 17, 2007.\3\ The Brazilian real is one
of the 19 underlying currencies that have been approved by the SEC for
trading.\4\ The purpose of this proposed rule change is to allow the
Exchange to use a different modifier for calculating the underlying
value of the Brazilian real than the one that was originally assigned.
In the FX Options Filing, the Exchange had assigned modifiers of 1, 10
or 100 to calculate the underlying values for each of the 19 underlying
currencies,\5\ with the Brazilian real being assigned a modifier of 10
based on the exchange rate at that time. Since then, however, the U.S.
dollar has declined considerably relative to the Brazilian real. As a
result, the Exchange believes a modifier of 100 would be more
appropriate. ISE does not currently list options on the Brazilian real
but expects to do so shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55575 (April 3,
2007), 72 FR 17963 (April 10, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-59) (the ``FX
Options Filing'').
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ See Exhibit 3 of the FX Options Filing. Modifiers used for
creating underlying values are also posted on the Exchange's Web
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act's \7\ requirements that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder. The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2009-110 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-110. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-110 and should be
submitted on or before February 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-194 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P