[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37713]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting: Special Committee 229 (SC 229)

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

ACTION: Fifth meeting notice of Special Committee 229.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
fifth meeting of the Special Committee 229.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 1st-3rd from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Sophie Bousquet, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-
330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 229. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday, September 1, 2015 (09:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.)

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda overview and approval
3. Minutes Hamburg meeting review and approval
4. Review Action Items from Hamburg Meeting
5. ``Phasing in'' RTCA/DO-204B, EUROCAE/ED-62B requirements--discussion
6. Briefing of ICAO and COSPAS-SARSAT activities
7. WG 1 to 5 status and week's plan
8. Other Industry coordination and presentations
9. WG meetings (rest of the day)

Wednesday, September 2, 2015 (09:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.)

1. WG 1 to 5 meetings

Thursday, September 3, 2015 (09:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.)

1. WG 1-5 meetings (if needed)
2. WGs' reports
3. Action item review
4. Future meeting plans and dates
5. Industry coordination and presentations (if any)
6. Other business
 7. Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-16243 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1.

2.

3.

4.

Light 33% Medium 33% Heavy 33%

0 to 2% X 2 to 5 % over 5%

5.

6. Specialty ( check one)

7. Alexander J. Ott agronomic X 8. economic 9. Daytime phone 10. FAX 11.

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

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

Contact name Address Daytime phone E mail Fresno, CA 93711 6953 559.447.2127 559.436.0692 144 Peace River Drive gobenauf@ agresearch. nu Location ( Enter the state, region, or county. Provide more detail about the location if relevant to the feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide.)

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

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

9a ( 50%), 9b ( 54%)

1540 E. Shaw, Suite 120 Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide requested and the contact person for this request. It is important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional information during the review of the application.

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

California Grape & Tree Fruit League California Stone fruit ( nectarine, peach, cherry, plum, prune)  replant Soil Type:

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

Consortium name Fresno, CA93710 8000 Aott@ cgtf. com 559.222.8326 Contact name Address 559.226.6330 E mail Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information 17. 1,579,500 lbs.

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

19.

20.

20a.

8100 acres X 65% treated area ( strip fumigated) X 300 lbs. per acre = 1,579,500 lbs.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Current alternatives are not as effective as MeBr and some lack commercially available means to effectively deliver material. One application of methyl bromide will provide benefits over a 20  25 year period, during the life of an orchard. It has been estimated that a 25% loss in production efficiency will occur with the loss of methyl bromide ( Dr. Mike McKenry, University of California, Riverside; " The Replant Problem and Its Management". ( See comment in 20a)

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

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

Are you requesting methyl bromide for additional years beyond 2005?

acres acres 2007 Replant Disorder ( unknown disorder thought to result from a complex of major and minor soil borne organisms). How much active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide are you requesting for 2005?

How much area will this be applied to? Please list units. 8100 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data below should be the total for the consortium.

1,579,500 Unit of Area Treated In the table below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications. For EPA Use Only ID#

COMMENT. PUR data does not appear to accurately report normal use rates. Methyl Bromide request based on following: Owner of 80 100 acres of land on which any particular stone fruit commodity is planted on only a portion. Methyl bromide is used when replanting trees or orchards, the life of which is 20  25 years.

Explain why this user represents the typical user in the consortium.

Typical profile by University of California Cooperative Extension sample costs to establish various orchards. 8100 2006 Quantity ai ( lb.) of Methyl Bromide 1,579,500 Area to be Treated 8100 If yes, please list year and quantity active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide requested in the table below and explain why you need authorization for multiple years.

Root knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.), Ring nematode ( Criconemella xenoplax), Dagger nematodes ( Xiphinema spp.),

Root lesion nematode ( Pratylenchus vulnus), Citrus nematode ( Tylenchus semipenetrans). Year Col A: Formulation of Methyl Bromide Col B, E, H, K: Actual Area Treated Col C, F, I, L: Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Col D, G, J, M: Actual Average lbs. ai Applied per Area A B C D E F G H I J K L M Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area over 95% methyl bromide 8489.19 645057 75.9856947 6956.41 480934 69.135373 8703.79 514872 59.1549199 4256.79 117678 27.64 75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin 67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin All formulations of methyl bromide 75.9856947 69.135373 59.1549199 27.64 Comments: Source  California Pesticide Use Report. Above reflects combined data for peach ( freestone), nectarine, cherry, plum and prune.

NOTE: The rate is typically 300 to 350 lbs per acre. The PUR does not appear to accurately report actual useage.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

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

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

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

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

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

1997 1998 1999 For EPA Use Only ID#

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

1997 Tons 10.5 $ 266.00 $ 2,793.00 1998 Tons 9.8 $ 316.00 $ 3,096.80 1999 Tons 10.2 $ 320.00 $ 3,264.00 2000 Tons 10.27 $ 314.00 $ 3,224.78 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 2,793.00 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 3,096.80 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 3,264.00 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 3,224.78 Average Revenue Per Year $ 3,094.65 Comments: Source  NASS OMB Control # 2060 0482 Peach ( freestone)

Peach ( freestone)

Peach ( freestone)

Peach ( freestone) B Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

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

Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

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

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

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

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

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

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area.

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

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

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

1997 Tons 2.72 $ 1,290.00 $ 3,508.80 1998 Tons 0.82 $ 1,550.00 $ 1,271.00 1999 Tons 4.2 $ 866.00 $ 3,637.20 2000 Tons 2.15 $ 1,570.00 $ 3,375.50 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 3,508.80 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 1,271.00 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 3,637.20 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 3,375.50 Average Revenue Per Year $ 2,948.13 Comments: Source: NASS OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

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

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

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ commodities in the fumigation cycles from 1997 to 2000. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year me Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in each fumigation cycle. ( For example, if normally methyl bromide is applied and tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers without an additional treatment of methyl bromide, then bo Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area.

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

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

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

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

Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Cherry Cherry Cherry B Cherry For EPA Use Only ID#

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

1997 Tons 5.86 $ 312.00 $ 1,828.32 1998 Tons 4.48 $ 529.00 $ 2,369.92 1999 Tons 4.72 $ 419.00 $ 1,977.68 2000 Tons 5.18 $ 442.00 $ 2,289.56 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 1,828.32 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 2,369.92 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 1,977.68 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 2,289.56 Average Revenue Per Year $ 2,116.37 Comments: Source  NASS OMB Control # 2060 0482 Plum Plum Plum Plum B Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

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

Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

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

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

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ commodities in the fumigation cycles from 1997 to 2000. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year me Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in each fumigation cycle. ( For example, if normally methyl bromide is applied and tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers without an additional treatment of methyl bromide, then bo Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area.

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

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

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

1997 Tons 2.07 $ 883.00 $ 1,827.81 1998 Tons 0.99 $ 764.00 $ 756.36 1999 Tons 1.7 $ 861.00 $ 1,463.70 2000 Tons 2.17 $ 770.00 $ 1,670.90 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 1,827.81 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 756.36 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 1,463.70 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 1,670.90 Average Revenue Per Year $ 1,429.69 Comments: Source  NASS OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

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

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

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ commodities in the fumigation cycles from 1997 to 2000. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year me Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in each fumigation cycle. ( For example, if normally methyl bromide is applied and tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers without an additional treatment of methyl bromide, then bo Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area.

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

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

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

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

Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Prune Prune Prune B Prune For EPA Use Only ID#

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

1997 Tons 7.33 $ 375.00 $ 2,748.75 1998 Tons 6.31 $ 471.00 $ 2,972.01 1999 Tons 7.72 $ 411.00 $ 3,172.92 2000 Tons 7.52 $ 398.00 $ 2,992.96 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 2,748.75 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 2,972.01 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 3,172.92 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 2,992.96 Average Revenue Per Year $ 2,971.66 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Nectarines Nectarines Nectarines Nectarines B Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

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

Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

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

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

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ commodities in the fumigation cycles from 1997 to 2000. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year me Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in each fumigation cycle. ( For example, if normally methyl bromide is applied and tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers without an additional treatment of methyl bromide, then bo Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area.

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

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

Col. B: Price Factors Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue A B C D E F Crop/ Commodity ( 1) Price Factors ( grade, time, market) Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per acre) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per acre)

Peach ( freestone) Grade, Market ( ave. price) Tons 9.91 $ 352.00 $ 3,488.32 Cherry Grade, Market ( ave. price) Tons 2.217 $ 1,560.00 $ 3,458.52 Plum Grade, Market ( ave. price) Tons 5.68 $ 316.00 $ 1,794.88 Prune Grade, Market ( ave. price) Tons 1.53 $ 750.00 $ 1,147.50 Nectarine Grade, Market ( ave. price) Tons 7.53 $ 464.00 $ 3,493.92 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue ( 2) $ 2,676.63 Comments: Source: NASS ( est.)

( 2) Represents average revenue per acre for stone fruit.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 ( 1) Commodities are itemized to determine mean Total Revenue per acre for stone fruit; these are not presented as commodities benefitting from a single MeBr application.

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

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

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

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

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

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

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

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

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

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

etc.) per Area ( 2001 Average) Total Actual Area Treated in the Consortium Cost per Area over 95% methyl bromide 200 $ 4.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,000.00 75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin $ 0.00 67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin $ 0.00 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin $ 0.00 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin $ 0.00 __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin $ 0.00 $ 0.00 All formulations of methyl bromide $ 1,000.00 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Col A: Operation Col B: Custom Operation Cost Col C: Material Cost per Area Col D: Labor Cost per Area Col E: Total Cost per Area Col F: Typical Equipment Used A B C D E F Material Cost per Area Labor Cost per Area Total Cost per Acre Typical Equipment Used Planting $ 974.00 $ 577.00 $ 1,551.00 Cultural $ 367.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Custom per Area $ 0.00 User Total per area $ 1,918.00 Peach/ Nectarine operating costs are used as representative of stone fruit establishment costs. Source: University of California Cooperative Extension NOTE: THESE ARE FIRST YEAR COSTS ONLY, NOT FOR FUMIGATION CYCLE WHICH CAN BE FOR A 20 YEAR PERIOD.

METHYL BROMIDE USED ONLY PRIOR TO PLANTING.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Operation Done by User Worksheet 2 E. Methyl Bromide  Other Operating Costs for 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

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

Do not include methyl bromide costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Col A: Cost Item Col B: Description Col C: Allocation Method Col D: Cost per Area A B C D Cost Item Description Allocation Method Cost per Area Interest Operating Capital 10.71% $ 199.00 Cash Overhead Office, Insurance, taxes, Actual costs $ 182.00 Noncash overhead Land, shop, irrigation equipment Capital recovery costs $ 515.00 Total $ 896.00 Comments:

Peach/ Nectarine operating costs are used as representative of stone fruit establishment costs. Source: University of California Cooperative Extension METHYL BROMIDE USED ONLY PRIOR TO PLANTING.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 NOTE: THESE ARE FIRST YEAR COSTS ONLY, NOT FOR FUMIGATION CYCLE WHICH CAN BE FOR A 20 YEAR PERIOD.

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

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

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

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

Please describe the cost in more detail.

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

Enter the cost per area of methyl bromide treated.

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

Alternative: Study:

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

1a. Full use permitted 1b. Township caps X 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet The Replant Problem and Its Management Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as applicati The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and othe There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website 1,3 D EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives pro For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative,

BACKGROUND If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8. In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each resear Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet. For EPA Use Only ID#

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

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

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

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

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Can be found at www. uckac. edu/ nematode/

1,3 D Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Michael V. McKenry, Ph. D.

regulations. Highest use rate allowed is 35 GPA, which is too low when applied to soils with high moisture content as required by regulations. These restrictions limit effective use of 1,3 D to coarser textured soils. The Replant Problem and Its Management; July 1999 California Township caps and other use restrictions ( rate and high soil moisture content requirements) limits the widespread use and long lasting benefits of 1,3 D. Most growers will have to rent sprinkler pipe to obtain proper soil moisture. Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. Lowest rate for success is 40 GPA; application to dry soil is key to reducing use rate, but this is in conflict with Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

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

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

For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area. For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

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

1,3 D, Chloropicrin In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

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

Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area. There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996. If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

The Replant Problem and Its Management Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

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

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

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 See Worksheet 3 A. Removing use restrictions ( remove township caps, increase use rates and remove soil moisture requirement) would increase the adoption of this alternative. The Replant Problem and Its Management; July 1999 California 1,3 D, Chloropicrin ( Telone C17, Telone C35)

Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. Premix formulations of 1,3 D and Chloropicrin are effective only when treatment rates of 1,3 D are at the maximum ( 35 GPA) as described in Worksheet 3 A. The addition of chloropicrin does not appear to provide additional nematode control. Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Michael V. McKenry Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Can be found at www. uckac. edu/ nematode/ Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

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

1a. Full use permitted 1b. Township caps X 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet The Replant Problem and Its Management Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as applicati The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and othe There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives pro For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative,

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

1,3  D, Metam Sodium In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each resear For EPA Use Only ID#

For EPA Use Only ID# Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

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

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

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Can be found at www. uckac. edu/ nematode/

Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Michael V. McKenry Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study.

Having sprinkler lines in place during 1,3 D application is necessary for subsequent metam sodium application.

Amount of water used during sprinkler application depends on soil texture. Growers are not typically set up to make sprinkler applications of metam sodium, requiring purchase or lease of equipment. has been shown to be as effective as methyl bromide ( tarped). 1,3 D ( shanked or drenched) at 35 GPA followed by a sprinkler application of metam sodium at a rate of 250 ppm 1,3 D, metam sodium The Replant Problem and Its Management; July 1999 California Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

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

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

For EPA Use Only ID# Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives pro For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative,

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

Metam Sodium In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each resear If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet The Replant Problem and Its Management Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as applicati The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and othe There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

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

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

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Erratic results and difficulty of obtaining good distribution in soil is a limiting factor. Availability of economical and commercial equipment that can distribute the material through the soil must occur for widespread adoption of The Replant Problem and Its Management; July 1999 metam sodium. Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. Metam sodium performs erratically and inconsistently due to its poor fumigant attributes. It does kill shallow roots at 250 ppm by drenching. Metam sodium can be as effective as methyl bromide when applied at twice the label rate, which is not legal. New delivery systems are being investigated to deliver metam sodium through soil in water,

but availability is limited. California Metam Sodium Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Michael V. McKenry Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Can be found at www. uckac. edu/ nematode/ Col. B: Target Pests Col. C: Active Ingredients Col. D: Formulation Col. E, F, G: Application Rate Col. H, I, J: Prices and Costs Col. K: Area Treated Col. L: # of Applications per Year Col. M: Cost per Area in 2001 Dollars Non chemical Control A B C D E F G H I J K L M lbs. ai per Area per Application Units of product per Area per Application Product Unit ( e. g., lbs.,

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

Not available at this time. Some costs are unknown because delivery systems required to apply alternatives are still in the research stage and currently theoretical.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

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

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

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

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

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

Name of Product Price per Unit of the Product Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area Other Costs per Application Worksheet 3 B. Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs for Alternative: Not Available ( see comments)

Enter the area receiving at least one application of the pesticide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exact numbers are unknown, largely due to the long fumigation cycle ( 20  25 years) and the difficulty to quantify over that period of time It is estimated that use of alternatives will result in a 25% loss in production efficiency at this time ( M. McKenry, The Replant Problem and Its Management OMB Control # 2060 0482 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Worksheet 3 C. Alternatives  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for Alternativ Unknown ( see comments)

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

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

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

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

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodity produced per area for that price factor identified.

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

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

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

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below. 1. Name of study:

2. Researcher( s):

3. Your test is planned for:

4. Location:

5. Name of alternative to be tested:

6. Yes No 7.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 See Below Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. ( All available methyl bromide alternatives from the alternatives list should have been tested or have future tests planned.) There is no need to complete a separate worksheet for future research plans for each alternative  you may use this worksheet to describe all future research plans.

If additional testing is not planned, please explain why. ( For example, the available alternatives have been tested and found unsuitable, an alternative has been identified but is not yet registered for this crop, available alternatives are too expensive for this crop, etc.) Will crop yield be measured in the study? For EPA Use Only ID#

Research efforts will continue, but are not fully defined at this time. Research programs and funding are discussed during the fall and winter months. Worksheet 4. Alternatives  Future Research Plans For EPA Use Only ID#

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

Not known at this time.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Enter custom operation costs that change in Col. B.

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

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

Enter in Col. C and D, material and labor costs per area that change for operations done by user. The total cost per area is calculated automatically from the values you enter in Cols. C and D. Typical Equipment Used Operation Done by User Not available Worksheet 3 D. Alternatives  Changes in Other Costs for Alternative:

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

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

Identify the operations or cost items that change as a result of not using methyl bromide. 1.

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

Virtually impermeable film ( VIF)

Cultural practices ( please specify)

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

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

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

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

4.

$

5.

6.

When do you expect these to occur?

7.

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

1%

20% 4% 25% Do you anticipate that you will have any methyl bromide in storage on January 1, 2005?

Unknown Effective alternatives that can be implemented into current practices, or with minimal expense. Identify what factors would allow you to stop or reduce your use of methyl bromide ( e. g. registration of particular pesticide; completion of research plan; capital outlay). What is the cumulative amount spent to date by the user or consortium on research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide ( beginning in 1992)? How will you minimize your use and/ or emissions of methyl bromide?

Do you have access to recycled methyl bromide? When available and industry learns how and has the capability to use them.

35% >$ 250,000 10% 5% Range of acres farmed by growers included in this application? ( insert number of users in each category) Other investments, if any, made to reduce your reliance on methyl bromide. Describe each investment and its associated cost. Worksheet 5. Additional Information ( continued)

8.

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

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

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

Information in this application may be aggregated with information from other applications and used by the United States government to justify claims in the national nomination package that a particular use of methyl bromide be considered " critical" and authorized for an exemption beyond the 2005 phaseout. Use of aggregate data will be crucial to making compelling arguments in favor of critical use exemptions. By signing below, you agree not to assert any claim of confidentiality that would affect the disclosure by EPA of aggregate information based in part on information contained in this application. For EPA Use Only ID# 1. 2. 3. 4. Pounds of Methyl Bromide Requested 2005 1,579,500 5. Area Treated with Methyl Bromide 2005 8,100 acres units 6. If methyl bromide is requested for additional years, reason for request:

2006 1,579,500 lbs. Area Treated 8100 acres units 2007 1,579,500 lbs. Area Treated 8100 acres units Not Technically Feasible Not Economically Feasible X X X X For EPA Use Only ID#

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

Name of Applicant:

Location:

Crop: California Grape & Tree Fruit League Alternatives have use limitations and delivery tecnology has not been commercially designed or developed.

Fresno, CA Stone fruit ( peach, nectarine, cherry, plum, prune) Erratic results and difficulty of obtaining good distribution in soil is a limiting factor. Availability of economical and commercial delivery equipment that can distribute the material throughout the soil must occur for widespread use of metam sodium.

Township caps and other use restrictions ( use rates and high soil moisture content requirements) limits widespread use and long lasting benefits. These restrictions limit effective use to coarser textured soils.

Reasons See above. Addition of chloropicrin does not appear to provide additonal nematode control.

See 1,3 D above. Treatment combination is promising, but continued research is required to learn how to deliver material in an efficaceous and economical manner that can fit into commercial production practices.

1,3 D, chloropicrin 1,3 D, metam sodium Potential Alternatives 1,3 D Place an " X" in the column( s) labeled " Not Technically Feasible" and/ or " Not Economically Feasible" where appropriate. Use the " Reasons" column to describe why the potential alternative is not feasible.

Metam sodium


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86399-86400]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27275]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99115; File No. SR-ICC-2023-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearance of Additional
Credit Default Swap Contracts

December 7, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On October 25, 2023, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to clear
additional credit default swap (``CDS'') contracts. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 7,
2023.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed
rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearance of
Additional Credit Default Swap Contracts; Exchange Act Release No.
98833 (Nov. 1, 2023), 88 FR 76870 (Nov. 7, 2023) (File No. SR-ICC-
2023-014) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC is registered with the Commission as a clearing agency for the
purpose of clearing CDS contracts. Chapter 26 of ICC's Rulebook covers
the CDS contracts that ICC clears, with each subchapter of Chapter 26
defining the characteristics and additional Rules applicable to the
various specific categories of CDS contracts that ICC clears. Among
other CDS contracts, ICC currently clears Standard Emerging Market
Sovereign Single Name CDS (``SES'') contracts.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ICC's rules to
permit ICC to clear additional SES contracts, specifically, SES
contracts on the Kingdom of Morocco and the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
    To carry out this change, the proposed rule change would amend
Subchapter 26D of Chapter 26. In Rule 26D-102 (Definitions), ``Eligible
SES Reference Entities,'' the proposed rule change would add the
Kingdom of Morocco and the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the list of
specific Eligible SES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC.
    As discussed below, these additional SES contracts have terms
consistent with the other SES contracts that ICC is already clearing.
Likewise, to clear these additional contracts, ICC will be able to rely
on its existing Risk Management Framework and other policies and
procedures without making any changes.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
organization.\4\ For the reasons given below, the proposed rule change
is consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(1) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of
the Act.\8\ The terms and conditions of the additional SES contracts
proposed for clearing are substantially similar to the terms and
conditions of the other contracts listed in Subchapter 26D of ICC's
Rules, all of which ICC currently clears, with the key difference being
the underlying reference obligations. The underlying reference
obligations will be issuances by the Kingdom of Morocco and the Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A review of the Notice and ICC's Rules, policies, and procedures
shows that ICC would be able to clear the additional SES contracts
pursuant to its existing clearing arrangements and related financial
safeguards, protections, and risk management procedures. Furthermore, a
review of data on volume, open interest, and the number of ICC Clearing
Participants (``CPs'') that currently trade in the SES contracts, as
well as certain model parameters for the additional contracts, show
that ICC's rules, policies, and procedures are reasonably designed to
price and measure the potential risk presented by the additional SES
contracts, collect financial resources in proportion to such risk, and
liquidate the additional contracts in the event of a CP default. This
should help ensure ICC's ability to maintain the financial resources it
needs to provide its critical services and function as a central
counterparty, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate settlement of
the additional SES contracts and other credit default swap
transactions.
    Therefore, clearance of the additional SES contracts would promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires ICC to establish, implement, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal
basis for each aspect of

its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would help provide a well-founded, clear,
transparent, and enforceable legal basis for ICC's clearance of SES
contracts on the Kingdom of Morocco and the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. By amending Rule 26D-102 to add both the Kingdom of Morocco
and the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the list of specific Eligible
SES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC, the proposed rule change
would help to ensure that ICC can clear SES contracts on those
countries pursuant to its existing rules in Subchapter 26D. The revised
Subchapter 26D would provide a well-founded, clear, transparent, and
enforceable legal basis for ICC to clear these contracts, consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \12\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2023-014), be, and hereby
is, approved.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \15\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27275 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P