[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31068-31072]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13599]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0567; FRL-9979-64--Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Colorado; Attainment Demonstration for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard
for the Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area, and Approval
of Related Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 31, 2017, the State of Colorado submitted State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the 2008
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the
Denver Metro/North Front Range (DMNFR) Moderate nonattainment area by
the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2018. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the majority of the submittal, as
well as revisions made to Colorado's Reg. No. 7 in a May 5, 2013 SIP
submission. The EPA is deferring action on portions of the submitted
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules. This action is
being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective August 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0567. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
section for additional available information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The DMNFR nonattainment area includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, and portions of
Larimer and Weld Counties. See 40 CFR 81.306. The area was designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR
30088, May 21, 2012) and reclassified as a Moderate ozone nonattainment
area on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697; see 40 CFR 81.306). Moderate areas
are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than 6
years after the effective date of designation, which for the DMNFR
nonattainment area is July 20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903.
    On April 6, 2018, 83 FR 14807, the EPA proposed approval of certain
revisions to Colorado's SIP submitted to the EPA on May 5, 2013, and
May 31, 2017. Specifically, we proposed approval of Colorado's 2017
attainment demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition,
we proposed approval of the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB)
contained in the State's 2017 submittal. We also proposed approval of
all other aspects of the 2017 submittal, except for certain area source
categories and major source RACT, which we will be acting on at a later
date. We proposed approval of the revisions to Colorado's Reg. 7 and
11, except for Sections X.E and XIX of Reg. 7, which we will be acting
on at a later date. We proposed approval of the revisions to Colorado
Reg. 7 Section XII from the State's May 5, 2013 submittal.
    The factual and legal background for this action is discussed in
detail in our April 6, 2018 proposed approval. 83 FR 14807. The
proposal provides a detailed description of the revisions and the
rationale for the EPA's proposed actions.

II. Response to Comments

    We received nineteen comments during the public comment period.
After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that sixteen of
the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to
identify any material issue necessitating a response. We received two
comments supporting our proposal to approve the DMNFR moderate
nonattainment area attainment demonstration and related revisions, and
one adverse comment. Below is a summary of the material comments and
the EPA's responses.

Comments From Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

    The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
stated that ``Colorado supports EPA's proposal to approve the DMNFR
moderate nonattainment area attainment demonstration and many of the
related revisions.'' The State further requested that the EPA delay
taking action on the combustion adjustment and tuning work practice
requirements in Reg. 7, Section XVI.D, due to ``Colorado's ongoing
efforts to further establish RACT for combustion sources on a
categorical basis.'' Colorado stated that it anticipates submitting to
the EPA additional RACT standards for combustion equipment in Summer
2019, and requested that the EPA delay action on Reg. 7, Section XVI.D
revisions from the May 31, 2017 submittal so that the Agency ``can
incorporate and approve Colorado's RACT standards for combustion
equipment all at once.''
    Response: The Agency acknowledges the State's support for this
action. We agree with the request that we refrain from acting on Reg.
7, Section XVI.D of Colorado's May 31, 2017 submittal, which
established RACT as a work practice for combustion equipment at major
sources of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. In our notice of
proposed rulemaking, we proposed to approve all of Reg. 7, Section XVI,
but explained that we would be acting on Colorado's RACT demonstration
for major sources in a future rulemaking and identified provisions for
which we were taking no action on at the time (see sections H and N of
the proposed rulemaking). The State's desire to incorporate Section
XVI.D into its anticipated combustion equipment RACT submission is
reasonable, and because Colorado did not rely on any emission
reductions from control requirements in Section XVI.D in its 2017
modeling analysis, we are able to act on this revision in a separate
action. We, therefore, agree with the State's comment and will act on
revisions to Reg. 7, XVI.D from the May 31, 2017 submittal at a later
time.

Comment From Anonymous

    The comment described the approval of the State's revised SIP as
``a necessary step'' that ``will hold owners and operators more
accountable for their actions,'' and cited several specific provisions
as beneficial. The commenter urged future action on the changes made to
Reg. 7, Sections X and section XIX, and also urged ``every revision and
action'' to meet the ozone standard.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the SIP provisions we are approving,
which will be enforceable as a matter of federal law, are necessary
steps to comply with the CAA and protect air quality. We are taking no
action in this final rule on the State submissions concerning Reg. No.
7, Sections X.E. and XIX, but do intend to act on them in a later
rulemaking. Further, we will continue our ongoing work to assist the
State in its

development of measures to improve air quality.

Comments From the Center for Biological Diversity

Comment 1
    The comment stated that the ``EPA must disapprove the attainment
designation [sic; rightly ``demonstration''] because the N. Front Range
nonattainment area did not attain by the attainment deadline'' and that
the ``EPA must disapprove the attainment demonstration because it was
demonstrable [sic] wrong.'' The comment said that ``EPA has used the
excuse of ignoring ozone values if the comment period or decision is
before the May 1 deadline for certifying data'' and that the time the
comment was submitted was after May 1. The comment also explained that
``EPA uses the exceptional event provision as another excuse. However,
in Table 1 [from the commenter], which is generated from data from
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), we have excluded exceptional events
even though Colorado's claims of exceptional events are not valid.''
    Response: We do not agree with the commenter's argument that the
EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because the area did
not attain by the attainment deadline, or with the commenter's
assertions concerning exceptional events and the timing of the
submission.
    Colorado has satisfied the legal and regulatory criteria for
approving attainment demonstration SIPs. An attainment demonstration
uses photochemical grid modeling to show that SIP controls are
sufficient to reduce predicted ambient ozone levels to a level at or
below the standard, assuming identical meteorology in the baseline and
future (modeled) years. As explained in section IV.D and E of the
proposed rulemaking, to predict future ozone levels the modeled
attainment demonstration uses a baseline design value derived from
historical data (in this case 2009-2013), historical meteorological
data from the baseline period, emission inventories representing the
baseline design value period, and modeled reductions in emissions based
on SIP control measures. The attainment demonstration is not required
to identically match actual monitored ozone levels for the future years
described in the model.\1\ Rather, it is intended to assess whether SIP
controls are adequate to reduce ambient ozone to a level at or below
the NAAQS by the attainment date, and such an assessment is based on
modeling. The modeled attainment demonstration can be an approvable SIP
element, even if actual monitored data do not show attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, attainment demonstration modeling assumes
that the future meteorology will be identical to that in the
baseline period, but year-to-year variability in meteorology means
that actual measurements of ozone in future modeled years cannot
match that predicted by models. In addition, monitoring data may not
always accurately reflect conditions in the area, such as during
times of exceptional events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying this standard, Colorado's attainment demonstration
qualifies for EPA approval. As described in the 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule (80 FR 12292), ``[t]o demonstrate attainment, the
modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions
reductions implemented by the beginning of the last full ozone season
preceding the attainment date will result in ozone concentrations that
meet the level of the standard'' (80 FR 12270, March 6, 2015). We find
the attainment demonstration submitted on May 31, 2017, adequate to
meet this requirement.
    The EPA acknowledges that 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 monitored design
values in the Denver nonattainment area violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
regardless of whether all data are used, or whether instead, potential
exceptional event data (which have not been acted on by the EPA) are
removed. But under the CAA, a determination of whether an area has
failed to attain is a separate action entirely from the review of an
attainment demonstration SIP. The EPA's SIP review occurs under CAA
section 110(k), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), while a determination of whether an
area has failed to attain is governed by CAA section 181(b)(2), 42
U.S.C. 7511(b)(2). Under section 181(b)(2), the EPA must determine
whether an ozone nonattainment area has attained the applicable NAAQS
``[w]ithin 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including
any extension thereof).'' (Emphasis added.) Here, the applicable
attainment date is still in the future: July 20, 2018. After that date,
the EPA will analyze the pertinent information and determine whether
the DMNFR nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date in accordance with section 181(b)(2). In the event that
the EPA determines that the area failed to attain based on certified
air quality data, the DMNFR nonattainment area may be reclassified to
Serious by operation of law, and would then be subject to a number of
Serious area attainment planning and control requirements, including
developing and submitting a new attainment demonstration.
    In addition, it is possible that Colorado will request and receive
an extension of the attainment date if that is required, as is
envisioned in section 181(b)(2). The CAA allows for up to two
attainment date extensions, if the fourth maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration in the attainment year (2017 in this case) is below the
level of the standard.\2\ Thus, a nonattainment area may be able to
attain the NAAQS by the extended attainment date, even if the measured
design value for an area does not meet the NAAQS at the end of the
original attainment year, if the area is eligible for and is granted an
attainment date extension. The original attainment date has not yet
passed, and it is possible that the attainment date will be extended
per section 181(b)(2). As previously noted, the Colorado SIP submission
satisfies the requirements for a modeled demonstration that the area
will meet the standard in the attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(A), the
EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.1103, and 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule (80 FR 12292).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 2
    The commenter also criticized EPA's approach to calculating design
values for using figures that are ``truncated rather than rounded.''
    Response: Rules for calculating monitored ozone design values for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS are in 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. Section 2.1 of
appendix P requires that hourly average ozone be truncated to the third
decimal place (0.001 ppm), as shall 8-hour averages compiled from the
individual 1-hour averages. Section 2.2 of appendix P then requires
that 3-year averages of annual fourth highest 8-hour averages also be
truncated to the third decimal place. The truncation is thus in
compliance with the procedure required by the regulations.

III. Final Action

    We are approving the SIP submittal from the State of Colorado for
the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area submitted on May 31, 2017.
Specifically, we are approving the following:
     Attainment demonstration with weight of evidence analysis
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
     Base and future year emissions inventories;
     RFP demonstration;
     Demonstration of RACT for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) sources

(except for the following CTG source categories as to which we are not
taking any action at this time: Metal Furniture Coatings, 2007;
Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, 2008; Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations, 1996; Industrial Cleaning Solvents, 2006;
Aerospace, 1997; and Oil and Natural Gas Industry, 2016.);
     Demonstration of RACM implementation;
     Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program revisions
in Colorado's Reg. No. 11;
     NNSR program;
     Contingency measures plan;
     MVEBs; and
     Revisions to Colorado's Reg. No. 7 (except for revisions
to Reg. No. 7, Section X pertaining to VOC controls of industrial
cleaning solvents, Section XVI.D revisions pertaining to RACT standards
for combustion equipment, and Section XIX revisions pertaining to RACT
requirements for major sources as to which we are not taking any
action).
    We are also approving SIP revisions to Reg. No. 7 submitted by the
State on May 13, 2013, except for provisions that have been superseded
by later submissions, for which we are not taking any action. We are
approving these actions in accordance with section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410,
and part D of the CAA.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Colorado
Reg. No. 11 pertaining to regulation of the State's motor vehicle
emissions inspection program and Colorado Reg. No. 7 pertaining to
regulation of sources of VOC and NOX emissions as discussed
in section IV., J. Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/
M) Program and N. SIP Control Measures (except we are not acting on
Reg. 7, Sections, X, XVI.D, and XIX in this action) of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and
will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal
requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action, because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note), because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: June 20, 2018.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. In Sec.  52.320:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
i. Revising table entries ``I,'' ``II,'' ``VI,'' ``VII,'' ``VIII,''
``IX,'' ``XII,'' and ``XVI,'' under the centered heading ``5 CCR 1001-
09, Regulation Number 7, Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors
(Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides).''
0
ii. Revising table entry ``II'' and adding table entry ``V'' in
numerical order under the centered heading ``5 CCR 1001-13, Regulation
Number 11, Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program--Part A, General
Provisions, Area of Applicability, Schedules for Obtaining
Certification of Emissions Control, Definitions, Exemptions, and Clean
Screening/Remote Sensing.''
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry ``2008
Ozone Moderate Area Attainment Plan'' after the last entry under the
heading ``Denver Metropolitan Area.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        State       EPA effective  Final rule/citation
              Title                effective date       date               date                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5 CCR 1001-09, Regulation Number 7, Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors (Emissions of Volatile Organic
                                         Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Applicability.................       1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 08/
                                                                    Register             05/11 except for
                                                                    citation], 7/3/      I.A.1.b, I.B.1.b,
                                                                    2018.                I.B.2.b, and I.B.2.d;
                                                                                nonsubstantive changes
                                                                                to I.A.1.a. and
                                                                                I.A.1.c. approved 7/3/
                                                                                2018.
II. General Provisions...........       1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 08/
                                                                    Register             05/11 except for
                                                                    citation], 7/3/      II.A.12, II.C.1, and
                                                                    2018.                the repeal of
                                                                                previously approved
                                                                                II.D; nonsubstantive
                                                                                changes to II.D
                                                                                approved 7/3/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Storage and Transfer of             1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 08/
 Petroleum Liquid.                                                  Register             05/11; nonsubstantive
                                                                    citation], 7/3/      changes to
                                                                    2018.                VI.B.2.a.(iii)(B)
                                                                                approved 7/3/2018.
VII. Crude Oil...................       1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 08/
                                                                    Register             05/11; nonsubstantive
                                                                    citation], 7/3/      changes to VII.C 7/3/
                                                                    2018.                2018.
VIII. Petroleum Processing and          1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 08/
 Refining.                                                          Register             05/11; nonsubstantive
                                                                    citation], 7/3/      changes to
                                                                    2018.                VIII.C.4.a.(i)(A)(6) 7/
                                                                                3/2018.
IX. Surface Coating Operations...       1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 08/
                                                                    Register             05/11; nonsubstantive
                                                                    citation], 7/3/      changes to IX.A.3.c.,
                                                                    2018.                IX.A.5.a.-d., and
                                                                                IX.A.12.a. 7/3/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII. Volatile Organic Compound          1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 02/
 Emissions From Oil and Gas                                         Register             13/08; substantive
 Operations.                                                        citation], 7/3/      changes to Section XII;
                                                                    2018.                state-only provisions
                                                                                excluded 7/3/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XVI. Control of Emissions from      2/15/2013, 1/        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal      Previous SIP approval 08/
 Stationary and Portable Engines          14/2017                   Register             19/05; nonsubstantive
 in the 8-Hour Ozone Control Area.                                  citation], 7/3/      changes to Sections
                                                                    2018.                XVI.A.-C. 7/3/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5 CCR 1001-13, Regulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program--Part A, General Provisions,
 Area of Applicability, Schedules for Obtaining Certification of Emissions Control, Definitions, Exemptions, and
                                         Clean Screening/Remote Sensing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Definitions..................       1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal
                                                                    Register
                                                                    citation], 7/3/
                                                                    2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Expansion of the Enhanced            1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal
 Emissions Program to the North                                     Register
 Front Range Area.                                                  citation], 7/3/
                                                                    2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State       EPA effective   Final rule/citation
               Title                effective date       date                date                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Maintenance Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Denver Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2008 Ozone Moderate Area                 1/14/2017        8/2/2018  [Insert Federal        Except RACT for Metal
 Attainment Plan.                                                    Register citation],    Furniture Coatings,
                                                                     7/3/2018.              Miscellaneous Metal
                                                                                Products Coatings,
                                                                                Wood Furniture
                                                                                Manufacturing
                                                                                Operations,
                                                                                Industrial Cleaning
                                                                                Solvents, Aerospace,
                                                                                Oil and Natural Gas
                                                                                Industry, and major
                                                                                source RACT.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-13599 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 20, 2002

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13991

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of      US Airways, Inc.       filed   12/3/02  for:

XX  Exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Shannon/Dublin, Ireland.

Applicant rep: Joel Stephen Burton<PHONE_NUMBER>           DOT Analyst:
 Sylvia Moore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted  (see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   December 20, 2002,  through
 December 20, 2004

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Ireland.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
__________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found US Airways, Inc. qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy, Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security;1 and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										10/2002

 US Airways will operate this service on a seasonal basis beginning in
or about May 2003.

1 To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new
service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, inform
its Principal Security Inspector of its plans.


Meeting with OMB, SBA and Dow Chemical Co. September 14, 2004 Participants Dow: Michael McCurrie, Peter Mulinaro, Louis Vega EPA: Bob Meyers, Jeanne Briskin, Suzie Kocchi OMB: Paul Noe, Art Fraas, Edmond Toy SBA: Kevin Bromberg This meeting was requested by Dow to provide OMB information on the proposed SNAP rule to change the listing of HCFC 141b from acceptable to unacceptable for use in all foam applications as of January 1, 2005. Dow described the process they used in developing their non ODP alternative spray foam systems, including the process for gaining test and code approvals. They urged the government to issue final rule as soon as possible, noting the considerable amount of resources they invested in the transition and the uncertainty in the market.


E [C]/R Incorporated
                  Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		December 6, 2010

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT:	Summary of the November 19, 2010 Teleconference with the Engine Manufacturers Association Regarding Dresser Waukesha's Petition for Reconsideration  -  Formaldehyde as HAP Surrogate

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

INTRODUCTION

      The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) requested this teleconference with EPA to discuss the petition for reconsideration submitted by Dresser Waukesha on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE).  The most recent amendments to the NESHAP for stationary RICE were published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2010 (75 FR 51570).

ATTENDEES

Melanie King, EPA
Brady Winkleman, Caterpillar
Bob Wayland, EPA
Gordon Gerber, Caterpillar
Michael Horowitz, EPA
Michael Brand, Cummins
Tanya Parise, EC/R
Mike Itsell, Cummins
Tim French, EMA
Lynn Palmer, Dresser Waukesha

Bob Stachowicz, Dresser Waukesha

SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE

	Dresser Waukesha had previously submitted a petition for reconsideration on the RICE NESHAP (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0583).  EMA indicated that it fully supports Dresser Waukesha's petition for reconsideration, which requests that EPA reconsider using formaldehyde as a surrogate for hazardous air pollutants (HAP).  EMA requested this teleconference to discuss the petition and to clarify misconceptions it believes EPA has regarding previously submitted data that form the basis for Dresser Waukesha's petition.

	EMA contended that formaldehyde is not a suitable surrogate for stationary rich burn engines.  According to EMA, total hydrocarbons (THC) is a much better alternative because at a minimum level of THC destruction efficiency virtually all formaldehyde emissions are removed, plus THC emissions are less costly to measure.  Further, EMA said that the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for HAP could become a deterrent for deploying stationary rich burn engines, given that formaldehyde is only used as a surrogate for HAP for stationary rich burn engines and not for lean burn engines under the current RICE NESHAP.  EPA said that it does not have a response on this issue as of right now, but that it has shared the petition for reconsideration with EPA's Measurement Policy Group and will discuss the information contained in the petition internally.

      EPA stated that it seemed that the information that has been provided by Dresser Waukesha focused on percent reduction and that the information indicated that some engines are expected to meet the formaldehyde limits without the use of a catalyst.  EPA asked if in EMA's opinion THC would also be an appropriate surrogate for formaldehyde in those cases.  Members of EMA contended that most stationary rich burn engines in the field would not be able to meet the formaldehyde limits without adding aftertreatment.  EMA said that there is no way to alter a stationary rich burn engine in order to reach the 10.3 parts per million formaldehyde limit that applies to smaller existing rich burn engines at major sources.  The engine would need non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) in order to meet that level, according to EMA.  EPA pointed out that the formaldehyde standards for existing stationary engines 500 horsepower (HP) or below at major sources are based on uncontrolled levels, plus the most recent rule published only deals with existing engines.  Therefore, EPA was curious as to the timing of the petition as it seems to relate more to engines that are subject to standards that are expected to require aftertreatment, i.e., primarily new stationary engines greater than 500 HP at major sources.  Those standards have been in place since 2004, so EPA questioned why the surrogate issue is being brought up now.  EMA explained that Dresser Waukesha recently obtained laboratory test data for a rich burn engines with NSCR, which partly explains the timeframe.  Also, there were not as many stationary rich burn engines affected before under the original 2004 regulation since that only covered stationary engines greater than 500 HP at major sources so it was not such a big issue at that time, EMA said.   However, now there are many more affected engines, EMA added.  EMA clarified that it is not solely focusing on the most recent additions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, but is asking for relief for all stationary rich burn engines covered under the subpart.

      EPA said that the information submitted by Dresser Waukesha primarily presented destruction efficiency data for THC and formaldehyde.  However, based on recent court cases, EPA emphasized that it is important that the focus is on emissions.  EMA said that THC could also be used as a surrogate for formaldehyde for engine-out emissions and available data indicate proportionality of THC and formaldehyde.  EPA indicated that it would need substantial evidence to show that such proportionate surrogacy exists universally.  EMA responded that it felt that it had already submitted sufficient information to that point with data and references to other publications.  EMA contended that the percent reduction data is better than proportional because of virtual total destruction of formaldehyde and argued that because THC emissions are not consistent should not be a reason to reject THC as a surrogate.

      EMA stated that it would submit to EPA the information that highlights the pre-catalyst data for uncontrolled engines.  In EMA's opinion, that dataset would suffice in establishing the proportional relationship between engine-out THC and formaldehyde emissions.  Secondly, EMA cited a paper that demonstrated the proportional relationship between THC and formaldehyde for five engine families.  EMA indicated that it would send the paper to EPA to determine if the information presented would be sufficient to demonstrate universal applicability of THC as a surrogate for formaldehyde.


[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37703-37704]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133; FRL-9425-6]
RIN 2060-AQ76

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel
Standards; Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a public hearing to be held for the
proposed rule ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable
Fuel Standards,'' which EPA intends to publish separately in the
Federal Register at a future date. The hearing will be held in
Washington, DC on July 12, 2011.
    In a separate notice of proposed rulemaking EPA will be proposing
amendments to the renewable fuel standard program regulations to
establish annual standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based
diesel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuels that would apply to all
gasoline and diesel produced in the U.S. or imported in the ear 2012.
In addition, the separate proposal includes a proposed cellulosic
biofuel applicable volume for 2012 and an applicable volume of biomass-
based diesel that would apply in 2013.

DATES: The public hearing will be held on July 12, 2011 at the location
noted below under ADDRESSES. The hearing will begin at 9 a.m. and end
when all parties present who wish to speak have had an opportunity to
do so. Parties wishing to testify at the hearing should notify the
contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by July 1,
2011. Additional information regarding the hearing appears below under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the following location:
Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street NW., Washington,
DC 20005-3901.
    When the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, a
complete set of documents related to the proposal will be available for
public inspection at the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Documents will also be
available through the electronic docket system at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for which EPA is holding the
public hearing will be published separately in the Federal Register.
    Public Hearing: The public hearing will provide interested parties
the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the
proposal (which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/
renewablefuels/index.htm). The EPA may ask clarifying questions during
the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at
that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as
any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public
hearing. Written comments must be received by the last day of the
comment period, as specified in the proposal.
    The public hearing will be held on July 12, 2011 at the location
noted under ADDRESSES, and will begin at 9 a.m. and end when all
parties present who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so.
Those wishing to testify at the public hearing should register in
advance by notifying the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by July 1, 2011.

    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and copies of written
statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

How can I get copies of this document, the proposed rule, and other
related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the
RFS program, including the notice of proposed rulemaking, at the
address given above. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking
for detailed information on accessing information related to the
proposal.

    Dated: June 16, 2011.
Margo Tsirigotis Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2011-16144 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with Metam-sodium
in Potato Production (DP # 337490)

FROM:	Tara Chandgoyal, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

		 Biological Analysis Branch

		Derek Berwald, Ph.D., Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Tim Kiely, Chief

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		John Leahy, Senior Policy Advisor

Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL: February 15, 2007

Summary

Metam sodium is the predominant fumigant used in potato production with
most usage concentrated in the Northwestern States (Idaho, Washington
and Oregon) followed by the Upper Midwest States (Michigan, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin) and California.  The value of potato production in the US
is about $2.9 billion, with about $1.3 billion in the Pacific Northwest,
and about $240 million in California.  The use is driven largely by
Verticillium wilt (a soil borne fungal disease) and plant parasitic
nematodes. Although there are registered alternatives to metam-sodium
(such as 1,3-dichloropropene for the control of nematodes and
chloropicrin for the control of the Verticillium fungal pathogen), these
alternatives do not provide efficient control of this soil-borne
pathogen. The benefits of using metam-sodium rather than the
alternatives are substantial, both in terms of yield increases and lower
costs.  It has been experimentally demonstrated that the growers are
likely to experience a 13 percent lower yields using a combination of
1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin over metam sodium.  If we consider
the benefits of metam-sodium relative to no fumigants at all, the yield
benefits are even greater.  The use of metam-sodium prevents the fungal
inoculums building up in the soil after several years of partial
control.  In areas with high pest pressure, only metam-sodium enables to
continue producing potatoes.  Overall, the annual benefits of
metam-sodium are estimated to be about $800 per acre in California, and
about $250 per acre in the Pacific Northwest, which translates to
benefits of about $8 million per year in California, and about $48
million per year in the Pacific Northwest.

Background

As part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants:
dazomet, chloropicrin, metam potassium, metam sodium, and methyl
bromide.  This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided
by the soil fumigants, particularly metam sodium, in the production of
potatoes.  Conceptually, the benefits of a pesticide like a soil
fumigant are the improvements in production and/or reductions in cost
resulting from the pesticide’s use.  The social benefits of a
pesticide are divided between the users of the pesticide, e.g., potato
producers, and consumers of potatoes and potato products.  Consumers
benefit because higher production and/or lower costs translate into a
cheaper and more abundant supply of potatoes.

This assessment compares the current situation in which fumigants are
available for use, subject to existing label restrictions, to the
situation that is estimated to occur if the fumigants were not
available.

Potatoes

Potatoes are grown commercially throughout the country but the
Northwestern States of Idaho, Washington and Oregon have 555,220 acres
of planted potatoes, representing 45% of United States acreage. Forty
five percent of U.S. production of potatoes is produced in these three
states with a value of $1.3 billion per year (USDA NASS; Table 1).  This
analysis will focus on potato production in the Pacific Northwest states
of Idaho, Oregon and Washington; the Upper Midwest States of Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin; and California.  Table 1 shows acreage, yield,
production and value for these regions, as well as the United States as
a whole.

Potato producers use fumigants in their production to control pests.
This analysis focuses on the benefits of fumigation with metam sodium,
and the use of metam sodium and other fumigants are given in Table 2,
which shows the percent crop treated, the acreage treated, the amount of
active ingredient applied and the application rates for chloropicrin,
dichloropropene, metam potassium and metam sodium.  Florida is also
shown in that table, to contrast fumigant use in that state with the
ones in this analysis; metam sodium is much less important to growers in
that state.

 Table 1.  Potato Acreage, Production and Value, 2001 – 2005 Average.

Region	Planted Acres	Harvested Acres	Production

(1000 cwt.)	Yield

(cwt./acre)	Value

($1000)	Price

($/cwt.)

California	42,160	42,100	16,067	381	237,828	14.86

Pacific Northwest 1	555,220	552,600	240,932	379	1,269,660	5.40

Upper Midwest 2	177,300	172,160	64,071	378	418,235	6.61

U.S.	1,224,300	1,197,840	446,725	374	2,870,658	6.45

Source:  USDA NASS Quickstats database.

1Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

2Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Table 2.  Fumigant Use on Potato, 2001-2005 Average.

Region	Percent

of Planted

Acres

 Treated	Acres Treated	Total Pounds of Active Ingredient Applied	Rate

(Pounds per Acre per Year)

Chloropicrin

California	0.7%	280	12,890	47

Pacific Northwest 1	2.7%	14,800	346,470	34

Upper Midwest 2	0.2%	390	1,860	5

Florida	6.4%	2,120	87,660	31

U.S.	1.5%	17,920	454,510	34

Dichloropropene

California	1.1%	480	58,090	141

Pacific Northwest 1	13.6%	75,740	10,240,710	146

Upper Midwest 2	0.2%	420	12,990	97

Florida	32.2%	10,640	666,650	64

U.S.	7.3%	89,920	11,326,920	124

Metam Potassium

California	0.3%	140	18,283	128

Pacific Northwest 1	1.0%	5,280	662,391	132

Upper Midwest 2	N/A	 N/A	N/A	N/A

Florida	9.2%	3,030	261,943	94

U.S.	0.7%	8,460	942,617	116

Metam Sodium

California	23.6%	9,930	1,524,550	143

Pacific Northwest 1	34.6%	192,040	25,310,500	136

Upper Midwest 2	11.8%	20,890	3,141,000	147

Florida	7.7%	2,540	178,070	74

U.S.	18.5%	226,400	30,306,690	141

Source:  EPA Proprietary Data

1Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

2Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Target Pests

Verticillium wilt: It is a major factor limiting tuber yield in many
potato production areas throughout the United States (Powelson and Rowe.
1993; Rowe, 1986). The pathogen can persist in the soil for many years
and the yield losses caused by Verticillium wilt vary from year to year
and with location and environmental conditions. The most severe symptoms
and yield losses happen when the plants are stressed by poor irrigation
and poor fertilization (Rowe, 1987). The fungal inoculum remains viable
for many years in the soils and quickly builds up when potatoes are
planted.

Nematodes: Root knot (Meloidogyne spp.), Stubby-Root Nematode
(Paratrichodorus teres) Golden nematode (Globodera rostochiensis) and
some others. These nematodes are soilborne root parasites that are
capable of causing significant quantitative and qualitative damage to
roots and tubers. Stubby root nematodes also can serve as vectors for
corky ringspot disease, which causes qualitative damage to the tuber
rendering them unmarketable.

Pest Control

Soil fumigation of fields with metam sodium is conducted from late
August to November and the potato crop is planted the following spring
in the Pacific Northwest and Upper Mid-Western States. In lower
California, the soils are fumigated in October/November and the potato
crop is planted in December/January. Metam sodium fumigation effectively
controls Verticillium wilt (Powelson, and Rowe, 1993) and nematode
populations.  Metam sodium is typically applied through sprinkler
irrigation and/or central pivot irrigation. Metam sodium decomposes to
methylisothiocyanate (MITC) gas that moves throughout the soil and kills
fungal mycelium and nematodes. Metam sodium may also be applied as a
shank soil injection treatment.  Metam sodium applications do not
completely eradicate the Verticillium fungus from the soil. Economically
damaging populations of Verticillium usually develop after 1-2 potato
crop cycles (Gianessi, et al., 2002). Therefore, most growers will
usually fumigate their fields every growing season.

Metam sodium also reduces nematode populations below economic threshold
levels. Some growers use 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) alone or a mixture
of 1,3-D and chloropicrin in some of their fields having high to very
high populations of nematodes (National Potato Council, 2006). However,
1,3-D alone or its combination with chloropicrin is not as effective as
metam sodium alone in controlling Verticillium wilt disease (Hamm,
1993).

Yield Losses

National Potato Council claims that without the use of metam sodium the
growers are likely to incur approximately 10% yield losses. Hamm (1993)
showed that the growers are likely to lose 13% yield using Telone C-17
instead of metam sodium. He also demonstrated that yield losses of 50%
may occur without the use of fumigants in potato production. Additional
published information shows that metam sodium when applied to soil
through sprinkler irrigation prior to planting increases yields by
23-33% (O’Sullivan and Reyes, 1980; Powelson and Hamm, 2002). This
will translate into 19-25% losses if metam sodium is not available to
growers. In another study it has been documented that the growers are
likely to lose 9.0-16.8% of total yield without the use of metam sodium
(Hamm and Hane, 1997).

Field Sizes and Planting Season

 In the Pacific Northwest the typical potato field size varies between
120-160 acres and upper mid-west 30-50 acres (National Potato Council,
2006). The data on field size in California and Florida are not
available.

Alternatives

Fungal Resistance: Commercially grown cultivars of potatoes are
susceptible to the disease and nematode pests. There are reports that
some genetically modified varieties have resistance against Verticillium
but none are commercially available at the present time.

OtherPesticides: The fungal pathogen and nematodes are soil-borne
organisms. Fumigants (such as metam sodium and/or combination of 1,3-D
and chloropicrin) are effective in controlling these pests. The National
Potato Council claims (2006) that chloropicrin is not a viable option
because chloropicrin has no activity against nematodes, is difficult to
apply, has lower efficacy against Verticillium pathogen and is more
expensive than metam sodium. If 1,3-D and chloropicrin are combined the
yield losses can be minimized to about 10-13% (Hamm, 1993). However, it
is unknown whether the losses caused by Verticillium fungus will
increase in the following crop seasons. This fungus has the tendency to
build up in the soil if not controlled effectively.

Biofumigation: This term is used to describe the effects of Brassica
rotation crops or green manures on soilborne pests (McGuire, 2001).
Brassica crops such as rapeseed and mustard contain biologically active
chemicals, called glucosinolates. In the soil, certain glucosinolates in
the roots of rotation crops, or in the roots, stems and leaves of green
manures, break down into isothiocynates (ITCs) and other chemicals. ITCs
are known to kill or suppress some soilborne disease pathogens,
nematodes, and weed seeds. There are many types of glucosinolates, some
of which produce different types of ITCs, which vary in their toxicity
to different pests. Methyl isothiocynate is the active chemical produced
when metam sodium, a common synthetic fumigant, is applied to the soil;
hence the name biofumigation when ITCs are produced by plants. In the
Pacific Northwest, the US-EPA has funded a project to study the
replacement of metam sodium use with green manure cropping in potato
production (Strategic Ag. Initiative Project, 2005) for the control of
soilborne nematode, wireworm and weed control. At present it is unknown
whether biofumigation will effectively control the same pests as
controlled by metam sodium. Based on available information, we believe
that biofumigation may suppress fungal inoculum and nematode populations
in the soil. However, it appears that biofumigation is neither a
commercially feasible nor an economically viable alternative to metam
sodium fumigation of soil for potato production.  In the Pacific
Northwestern and upper Mid-Western states, the growers fumigate their
fields in the late fall so that the potato crop may be planted quickly
in the coming spring season. Therefore, if the growers shall decide to
biofumigate their fields in the coming spring season then they may also
lose early and mid-growing season of potatoes. A recent study concluded
that biofumigation has promise and warrants further study into the use
of mustard green manures for control of soilborne pests in potato and
other cropping systems (McGuire, 2003).

Benefits of Metam-sodium

No Alternative Fumigants

If growers do not use other fumigants to replace metam sodium, the
primary impact will come from reduced yields in response to increased
disease.  Potato is a valuable crop and decreased yield can result in
large reductions in grower income.  For this analysis, we assume that
yield losses due to disease without metam sodium control would be 22%,
the midpoint of the 19 – 25% range estimated by O’Sullivan and Reyes
(1980) and Powelson and Hamm (2002).  Note that this estimate is much
lower than the 50% yield loss estimated by Hamm (1993).  If that
estimate were correct, losses would be correspondingly higher.

In Tables 3 and 4, we present rough estimates of the impacts to growers
who could not use metam sodium.  The yield and price data are from the
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, and they represent the
average yield and price for California, the acreage weighted average
price and yield for the states that make up the Pacific Northwest
(Idaho, Oregon, and Washington).  The cost of using metam sodium is the
acreage-weighted average from EPA proprietary data.  The other operating
costs are based on information in the cost and return estimates for
Idaho (used for the Pacific Northwest), and California.  The harvest
cost of $352 for the Pacific Northwest baseline is reported in the Idaho
cost and returns report.  Because we anticipate yield changes, it is
inappropriate to assume that harvest costs will not change.  To estimate
the harvest cost with the lower yield, we calculate the harvest cost per
hundredweight from the baseline ($0.93 per hundredweight), and apply
that to the lower yield.  More problematic is that the California cost
of production study does not include harvest costs.  For that reason, we
use the same harvest cost per hundredweight, and apply it to the
California yield to calculate estimated harvest costs.  This is a crude
estimate, but alternative data are not available.

Table 3: Change in Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net Operating
Revenue for Potato Production, California and Pacific Northwest

	California

Pacific Northwest

	Baseline	Without Metam Sodium	Change	% Change

Baseline	Without Metam Sodium	Change	% Change

Yield (cwt./acre)	381	297	-84	-22%

379	295	-83	-22%

Price ($/cwt.)	15	15

5	5

Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	5,662	4,416	-1,246	-22%

1,967	1,534	-433	-22%

Cost of metam sodium ($/acre)	130

	106

	Other Operating Costs  ($/acre)	914	914

1,063	1,063

Harvest Costs ($/acre)	355	277

352	275

Total Operating Costs  ($/acre)	1,399	1,191	-208	-15%

1,521	1,338	-183	-12%

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	4,263	3,225	-1,037	-24%

447	197	-250	-56%

Source:  USDA NASS; EPA Proprietary Data; Patterson, Seyedbagheri, and
Smathers (2005); Mayberry, 2000.

Note: this table assumes that metam sodium is not replaced with another
fumigant.

A 22% reduction in yield for the Pacific Northwest results in yield
falling from 379 hundredweight per acre to 295 per acre.  At an average
price of $5 per hundredweight, gross revenue per acre will be reduced by
$433.  Net operating revenue will be reduced by only $250 per acre,
because of the cost savings to growers, who face lower harvest costs and
no longer pay for metam sodium.  The $250 per acre reduction in net
operating revenue represents a reduction of about 56%, relative to the
baseline where metam sodium is used.  In California, the impacts on
yield are similar, a loss of about 84 hundredweight per acre.  The
impact on gross revenue, however, is larger (about $1,250) because
California potatoes receive a higher price.  We estimate the change in
net operating revenue for California to be about -24%, or a loss of over
$1,000 per acre.

For the Upper Midwest (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) and the
United States overall, no reasonable cost data were available.  For
these areas, we present estimated changes in revenue that result from a
decrease in yield of 22% in Table 4.  In both cases, estimated gross
revenue is expected to fall by over $500 per acre.

Table 4: Change in Gross Revenue for Potato Production, United States
and Upper Midwest

	Upper Midwest

United States

	Baseline	Without Metam Sodium	Change

Baseline	Without Metam Sodium	Change

Yield (cwt./acre)	378	295	-83

374	291	-82

Price ($/cwt.)	7	7

	6	6

	Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	2,485	1,939	-547

2,411	1,881	-530

Cost of metam sodium ($/acre)	122

118

Source:  USDA NASS; EPA Proprietary Data.

Using 1,3-D and chloropicrin to replace metam sodium

Growers who replace metam sodium with a combination of chloropicrin and
1,3-D will face smaller yield reductions than those who choose not to
fumigate.  However, the cost of the new treatments will be higher than
metam sodium.  There is little data on the actual cost of 1,3-D and
chloropicrin applied to potatoes because there is not much of this use.
Hamm (1993), found a yield reduction of 13% without metam sodium, when
treated with Telone C17 at 27.5 gallons per acre.  Based on a cost of
Telone C17 of about $10 per gallon (EPA Proprietary Data), we assume a
cost per acre of $275 in this analysis.

The impact of using 1,3-D and chloropicrin in place of metam sodium is
shown in Table 5.  In this case, growers face lower yield losses (we
assume 13%) without metam sodium, but must also pay for the alternative,
which is more expensive than metam sodium.  In California, the smaller
yield reductions make up for the increased costs of 1,3-D and
chloropicrin; losses to growers are smaller than the previous scenario,
where they do not replace metam sodium with another fumigant.  Losses
are still high, however, at approximately $835 per acre, or a decrease
of about 20% in net operating revenue.

In the Pacific Northwest, however, we estimate that the additional cost
of 1,3-D and chloropicrin erases the advantage of reduced yield losses
due to lower price received as compared to California.  We estimate net
operating revenue in the Pacific Northwest to fall by almost $380 with
1,3-D and chloropicrin in place of metam sodium, a decrease of about
85%.  It in unlikely that most growers would find this a better choice
than using no fumigant at all to replace metam sodium, unless increased
disease pressure over time reduces yields even further.  We do not
report additional results in this scenario for the Upper Midwest or the
US overall, due to the lack of information on operating costs, but we
note that the yield per acre and price received are more similar to the
Pacific Northwest figures than those for California.

Table 5: Change in Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net Operating
Revenue for Potato Production, California and Pacific Northwest with
1,3-D Plus Chloropicrin Replacing Metam Sodium

	California

Pacific Northwest

	Baseline With Metam Sodium	Without Metam Sodium	Change	% Change

Baseline With Metam Sodium	Without Metam Sodium	Change	% Change

Yield (cwt./acre)	381	331	-50	-13%

379	329	-49	-13%

Price ($/cwt.)	15	15

5	5

Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	5,662	4,926	-736	-13%

1,967	1,712	-256	-13%

Cost of Metam Sodium ($/acre)	130

	106

	Cost of 1,3-D Plus Chloropicrin ($/acre)1

275

	275

Other Operating Costs  ($/acre)	914	914

1,063	1,063

Harvest Costs ($/acre)	355	309

352	307

Total Operating Costs  ($/acre)	1,399	1,498	99	7%

1,521	1,644	124	8%

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	4,263	3,428	-835	-20%

447	67	-379	-85%

Source:  USDA NASS; EPA Proprietary Data; Patterson, Seyedbagheri, and
Smathers (2005); Mayberry, 2000.

1  Data were insufficient to estimate the cost of the appropriate
combination of 1,3-D plus chloropicrin based on current use for potato.
Instead, the rate of 27.5 gallons per acre used by Hamm (1993) was
multiplied by an estimated cost of $10 per gallon, based on EPA
Proprietary Data.

There are important uncertainties with this analysis.  The cost data are
representative of a region, but do not necessarily represent average
costs of production.  Regional variation in production methods, pest
pressure, and agronomic conditions can be large, but we make no attempt
at a rigorous evaluation of those issues here.  Most importantly there
is great uncertainty about the medium- and long-run response by growers
to the disease.  Fungal diseases like Verticillium wilt may become more
of a problem over time, but that is not included in the analysis.  We
assume for this document that growers respond by accepting reduced
yields, but in fact they may also change rotation patterns, apply a mix
of other chemicals to control disease, or end potato production
altogether as disease pressure increases.

Conclusion

Metam sodium is the predominant fumigant used in potato production with
most usage concentrated in the Northwestern States (Idaho, Washington
and Oregon) followed by the Upper Midwest States (Michigan, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin) and California.  The use is driven largely by
Verticillium wilt (a soil borne fungal disease) and plant parasitic
nematodes. Although there are registered alternatives to metam-sodium
(such as 1,3-dichloropropene for the control of nematodes and
chloropicrin for the control of the Verticillium fungal pathogen), these
alternatives do not provide efficient control of this soil-borne
pathogen. The benefits of using metam-sodium rather than the
alternatives are substantial, both in terms of yield increases and lower
costs.  It has been experimentally demonstrated that the growers are
likely to experience a 13 percent lower yields using a combination of
1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin over metam sodium.  If we consider
the benefits of metam-sodium relative to no fumigants at all, the yield
benefits are even greater.  The use of metam-sodium prevents the fungal
inoculums building up in the soil after several years of partial
control.  In areas with high pest pressure, only metam-sodium enables to
continue producing potatoes.  Overall, the annual benefits of
metam-sodium are estimated to be about $800 per acre in California, and
about $250 per acre in the Pacific Northwest, which translates to
benefits of about $8 million per year in California, and about $48
million per year in the Pacific Northwest.

REFERENCES

EPA Proprietary Data.  EPA proprietary data are data on pesticide use
purchased from private sector firms.

Gianessi, L. P. Silvers, C.S., Sankula, S and Carpenter, J.E. 2002.
Plant biotechnology: Current and potential impact for improving pest
management in U. S. Agriculture-An analysis of 40 case studies. Fungal
resistant poatoes. Published by National Center for Food and
Agricultural Policy, 1616 P Street NW, Washington DC 20036).

Hamm, P. B. 1993. Soil fumigation and soil borne diseases of potato.
Paper presented at the 1993 Washington State Potato Conference and Trade
Fair, Pages 87-93. A photocopy of this document was sent by Andrew
Jensen (National Potato Council, 2006) to Tara Chandgoyal via email on
01-25-2007.

Hamm, P. B and Hane, D. 1997. Soil fumigation and impact on yield in
early, mid and late season cultivars. Progress Report to the Agri. Res.
Foundation, Oregon Potato Commission.   HYPERLINK
"http://oregonstate.edu/potatoes/reports/1997/page053.pdf"
http://oregonstate.edu/potatoes/reports/1997/page053.pdf

Mayberry, Keith S.  Sample Cost to Establish and Produce Potatoes:
Imperial County – 2000.  University of California Cooperative
Extension, 2000.  Available here:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/potatoes.pd
f"
http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/potatoes.pdf

McGuire, A. 2001. Using green manures in potato cropping systems.
Cooperative Extension, Washington State University.  (  HYPERLINK
"http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1951e/EB1951E.pdf"
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1951e/EB1951E.pdf )

McGuire, A.M. 2003. Mustard green manures replace fumigant and improve
infiltration in potato cropping system. On line. Crop Management
doi:10.1094/CM-2003-0822-01-RS.

(http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/research/2003/mustard/)

National Potato Council. 2006. A meeting of National Potato Council and
growers with the representatives of US-EPA (SRRD and BEAD divisions) on
the use and efficacy of fumigants in potato cultivation. Meeting was
held on December 4, 2006, at Potomac Yard building (2770 South Crystal
Dr), Arlington, VA 22202.

O’Sullivan John and Andres A. Reyes. 1980. Effects of soil fumigation,
rotation and nitrogen on yield and Verticillim wilt of potatoes. Journal
of American Society of Horticultural Society 105: 809-812).

Patterson, Paul E,, Mir-M. Seyedbagheri, and Robert L. Smathers. 2005
Southwestern Idaho Crop Costs and Returns Estimate:  Russet Burbank
Commercial Potatoes: Fumigation and No Storage, 2005.  Available here:
HYPERLINK "http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/aers/PDF/Crops/EBB2-Po1-05.pdf"
http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/aers/PDF/Crops/EBB2-Po1-05.pdf

Patterson, Paul E and Robert L. Smathers. 1999. Crop Input Cost Summary
for Idaho, University of Idaho. A. E. Extension Series No. 00-04,
February 2000.

Powelson and Hamm. 2002.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncfap.org/40CaseStudies/OnePagers/PotatoFROnePager.pdf"
http://www.ncfap.org/40CaseStudies/OnePagers/PotatoFROnePager.pdf

Powelson, M.L. and R.C. Rowe. 1993. Biology and management of early
dying of potatoes. Annual Review of Phytopathology 31: 111-126

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA NASS), Quickstats Database.  The database can
be queried here:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/indexbysubject.jsp?Pass_group=Crops
+%26+Plants"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/indexbysubject.jsp?Pass_group=Crops+
%26+Plants .

Rowe, R.C. 1986. Managing potato production for optimal plant health.
Plant Disease 70: 374-356)

Rowe, R.C. 1987. Potato early dying: causal agents and management
strategies. Plant Disaease 71:482-489

Strategic Agricultural Initiative- United States Environmental
Protection Agency. 2005. Project title, “Replacing metam sodium use
with green manure cropping production” funded by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.

 PAGE

Page  PAGE   10