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

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with Chloropicrin
and Metam Sodium in Pome Fruit Production (DP#337490)

FROM:	T J Wyatt, Agricultural Economist

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Leonard Yourman, Plant Pathologist

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Timothy Kiely, Chief

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Arnet Jones, Chief

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		Steve Weiss, Chemical Review Manager

		Special Review Branch

		Nathan Mottl, Chemical Review Manager

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Veronique LaCapra, Chemical Review Manager

		Registration Branch 2

		John Leahy, Senior Policy Advisor

	Special Review and Reregistration Division  (7508P)

Product Review Panel:  April 16, 2007

Summary

Chloropicrin, alone or in conjunction with 1,3-dichloropropene, provides
substantial benefits to apple and pear producers in the Pacific
Northwest, who fumigate orchards prior to replanting.  Fumigation
targets a broad suite of soil pests, including nematodes and soil
pathogens.  Metam sodium is also used, where soil conditions are
amenable and nematodes are less of a problem.  In other production
regions, nematodes appear to be the main soil pest and growers rely on
1,3-dichloropropene.  Fumigation improves the survival rate of young
trees, increases growth and leads to more rapid maturation, and
increases yields throughout the life of the orchard.

The benefits of chloropicrin in improved yields eventually extend to
about 80% of the bearing acreage in the Pacific Northwest and are valued
at around $46.8 million annually.  This is in comparison to a control
regime of 1,3-dichloropropene followed by metam sodium.  Metam sodium is
less effective on many acres because it does not penetrate certain soils
or under certain conditions as well as chloropicrin.  However, the
ability to obtain some control over soil pathogens with metam sodium
would be worth an additional $92.8 million/year over the use of
1,3-dichloropropene alone.  These figures do not include the benefits of
greater survivability and rapid maturation, which may have a significant
effect on the decision to invest in a pome fruit orchard or not.  Higher
future returns because of fumigation can, in some situations, make the
high cost of orchard establishment justifiable, leading to an overall
increase in bearing acreage.  The overall increase in production may not
have a sizable effect on consumer prices, but some portion of the
estimated benefits are passed along to consumers.

Background

As part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants
(basamid, chloropicrin, metam potassium, metam sodium, and methyl
bromide).  This document presents the assessment of the benefits
provided by the soil fumigants in the production of pome fruit (apple,
and pear).  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 benefits of a pesticide are
shared between the users of the pesticide, e.g., fruit producers, and
consumers of fresh and processed fruit.  Consumers benefit because
higher production and/or lower costs translate into a cheaper and more
abundant supply of fruit.

This document is an assessment of the benefits of soil fumigants.  As
such, it compares the current situation in which fumigants are available
for use, subject to existing label restrictions, to the situation that
is estimated to occur were the fumigants not available.  This is
somewhat different from an assessment of the impacts of regulation, as
no specific regulatory scheme is considered.

Pome Fruit

Pome fruit, especially apple, are cultivated throughout the U.S., but
there are several important regions of commercial production.  The
Pacific Northwest produces almost 60% of the nation’s apples and
nearly 70% of the pears (USDA NASS, 2002-2006).  Apples are generally a
more northern crop; other major production areas are in the upper
Midwest and the Northeast and Atlantic coast.  California is the other
main producer of pears.  Table 1 presents a summary of acreage,
production, and value for select regions.

Table 1.  Pome fruit acreage, production and value, 2001-2005 average.

Region	Bearing Acres	Production

(1000 tons)	% U.S. Production	Yield

(tons/acre)	Value

($1000)	Price

($/ton)

Apple

PNW 1	165,620	2,778.3	59.9	16.8	1,100,040	400

Atlantic 2	100,020	999.6	21.5	10.0	262,670	260

Midwest 3	69,950	513.0	11.1	7.3	167,110	330

California	27,400	210.0	4.5	7.7	75,370	360

US	391,570	4,641.0

11.9	1,678,260	360

Pear

PNW 1	42,720	614.1	68.2	14.4	191,270	310

California	17,340	264.8	29.4	15.3	76,440	290

US	63,880	900.7

14.1	285,230	320

Source:  USDA NASS (2002-2006b).

1	Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

2	Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia.

3	Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Fumigant Use

Apple and pear orchards require periodic replacement.  Orchards are
replanted when the natural productive life of orchard trees ends or when
the economic situation changes such that customer demand for new
varieties or new crop price projections warrants replacing existing
orchards.  Because a typical orchard may be productive for 10-25 years
or longer, plantings may represent a small fraction of bearing acreage,
but small changes in plantings will have large impacts on production in
later years.

Data on both plantings and fumigant use are sparse.  A major difficulty
of both public and private data sources is the sporadic nature of use.
Because a grower may not replant a portion of his or her orchard every
year and what is planted is small compared to bearing acreage, surveys
may overlook relatively important use of soil fumigants.  The following
tables present BEAD’s best estimates, which combine a number of
sources including USDA and state reports, reports of trade associations
and EPA proprietary data.

Table 2 presents estimated use of methyl bromide, compared to acres
planted.  Use of methyl bromide is not common in pome fruit and has
largely been phased out under the Montreal Protocol by 2005.  Some
methyl bromide use may continue, using existing stocks.

Table 2.  Annual methyl bromide usage on pome fruit, 2001-2005.

State/Region	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated	% Acres Treated	lb Applied
Rate 2

(lb/acre/year)

Apple

Pacific Northwest 3	5,630	380	6.8	180,000	473.9

Atlantic 4	1,980	no reports

Midwest 5	490	no reports

California 6	1,250	10	0.6	1,000	178.4

Pear

Pacific Northwest 3	560	no reports

California 6	800	10	0.8	1,000	112.6

Source:	NCACSS, 2002; MI?; USDA NASS 2006a/b, 2002a/b; WV?; and EPA
proprietary data.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation.

2	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.

3	Oregon and Washington.  Recent data are not available for Idaho.

4	New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia only.

5	Michigan only.

6	Planted acres assumed to be 1/20 of 2005 acreage, i.e., enough to
maintain acreage assuming a 20-year lifespan.

Chloropicrin use is presented in Table 3.  The shift away from methyl
bromide has resulted in a recent increase in the use of chloropicrin,
either alone or in combination with 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) in the
Pacific Northwest (Northwest Horticultural Council, 2007).  There are
few reports of chloropicrin use in the California Pesticide Use Reports
(2002-2006), but this likely reflects underreporting.  Methyl bromide is
currently only available in formulation with chloropicrin, but
chloropicrin acreage is sometimes less than that reported for methyl
bromide.  Many 1,3-D products are also formulated with chloropicrin.  It
may be that some pesticide use reports do not distinguish between
products and/or only report the primary fumigant used.  BEAD has
attempted to correct for this, but the estimated acres treated could
still be biased downward.  The North Central IPM Center reports very
little fumigation of orchards in that region (Jess, personal
communication, 2007).  EPA proprietary data indicate substantial use in
New York, but only in a single year and for acreage far beyond reported
plantings.  This is symptomatic of the problems with extrapolating use
for sporadic occurrences from survey data.

Table 3.  Annual chloropicrin usage on pome fruit, 2001-2005.

State/Region	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated	% Acres Treated	lb Applied
Rate 2

(lb/acre/year)

Apple

Pacific Northwest 3	5,630	4,500	80.0	225,000	50.0

Atlantic 4	1,980	reported use in New York

Midwest 5	490	no reports

California 6	1,250	10	0.9	1,000	107.9

Pear

Pacific Northwest 3	560	450	80.0	22,000	50.0

California 6	800	10	0.8	1,000	112.6

Source:	NCACSS, 2002; MAS, 2004; USDA NASS 2006a/b, 2002a/b; WV?;
Northwest Horticultural Council, 2007; and EPA proprietary data.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation.

2	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.

3	Oregon and Washington.  Recent data are not available for Idaho.

4	New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia only.

5	Michigan only.

6	Planted acres assumed to be 1/20 of 2005 acreage, i.e., enough to
maintain acreage assuming a 20-year lifespan.

Table 4 presents the best available information on the use of metam
sodium.  Data are very sparse, but it seems that some acreage is treated
in the Pacific Northwest.  California data do not indicate use of metam
sodium, but substantial acreage denoted simply as “uncultivated” is
fumigated with metam and some acreage may be pome fruit orchards.

Table 4.  Annual metam sodium usage on pome fruit, 2001-2005.

State/Region	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated	% Acres Treated	lb Applied
Rate 2

(lb/acre/year)

Apple

Pacific Northwest 3	5,630	300	4.9	75,000	250.0

Atlantic 4	1,980	no reports

Midwest 5	490	scattered usage

California 6	1,250	no reports

Pear

Pacific Northwest 3	560	60	10.8	8,000	130.0

California 6	800	no reports

Source:	NCACSS, 2002; MI?; USDA NASS 2006a/b, 2002a/b; WV?; Northwest
Horticultural Council, 2007; and EPA proprietary data.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation.

2	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.

3	Oregon and Washington.  Recent data are not available for Idaho.

4	New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia only.

5	Michigan only.

6	Planted acres assumed to be 1/20 of 2005 acreage, i.e., enough to
maintain acreage assuming a 20-year lifespan.

Table 5 presents data on use of 1,3-D.  Available data probably under
represents the extent of use, particularly in the Pacific Northwest
where it is combined with chloropicrin.

Table 5.  Annual 1,3-dichloropropene usage on pome fruit, 2001-2005.

State/Region	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated	% Acres Treated	lb Applied
Rate 2

(lb/acre/year)

Apple

Pacific Northwest 3	5,630	300	5.3	68,000	225.0

Atlantic 4	1,980	reported use in New York

Midwest 5	490	scattered usage

California 6	1,250	20	1.4	5,000	307.0

Pear

Pacific Northwest 3	560	30	5.3	7,000	225.0

California 6	800	rare

Source:	NCACSS, 2002; MI?; USDA NASS 2006a/b, 2002a/b; WV?; and EPA
proprietary data.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation.

2	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.

3	Oregon and Washington.  Recent data are not available for Idaho.

4	New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia only.

5	Michigan only.

6	Planted acres assumed to be 1/20 of 2005 acreage, i.e., enough to
maintain acreage assuming a 20-year lifespan.

Given the data on use patterns, this analysis will mainly focus on the
use of chloropicrin in the Pacific Northwest.

Target Pests for Fumigants

The primary reason for fumigation is to establish healthy stock into
soils with minimal pest infestation.  In many orchard sites, soil-borne
nematodes and/or pathogens, and a poorly understood disease complex
called orchard replant “problem” or “disorder” are threats to
establishing healthy, long-bearing orchards.

Table 6 indicates the key pests associated with apple and pear fruit
crops in major production areas in the U.S.  There are some key
distinctions between the regions.  Growers in Washington, and the rest
of the Pacific Northwest, are primarily faced with fungal pathogens.
Nematodes are a factor in some locations.  In contrast, in states like
New York along the Atlantic coast and Michigan in the Midwest, the
primary pests are nematodes rather than pathogens.  California
production areas also appear to be host to nematodes rather than fungal
pathogens.  Replant problems in the South are not well defined, but may
be a result of disease and fungal pathogens rather than nematodes.  Data
do not indicate fumigation of apples in this area, but the region is not
a major producer of apples.  It may be that our data sources miss
fumigation practices for these states.

Table 6.  Target pests for fumigants in pome fruit production.

State	Key Pests

Washington1	Apple replant disorder (disease complex): Replant disease is
characterized by uneven growth of young trees.  Symptoms include severe
stunting, shortened internodes, rosetted leaves, small root systems,
decayed or discolored roots, and reduced productivity.  Implicated
primary pests involved in replant disorder are fungal pathogens
Cylindrocarpon destructans, Pythium spp., Phytophthora cactorum, and
Rhizoctonia solani.  In addition, the lesion nematode Pratylenchus
penetrans may be a factor in some locations.  Pests vary depending on
location of orchards.

New York2	Apple replant disorder (disease complex); Nematodes: Lesion
(Pratylenchus penetrans); dagger (Xiphenema americanum

Michigan3	Apple replant disorder (disease complex): Populations of
plant-parasitic nematodes can be reduced below fruit-crop injury levels
through fallowing, use of cover crops and application of fumigant or
non-fumigant nematicides.  Soil fumigation or use of a non-fumigant
nematicide prior to planting in old fruit sites is often essential for
development of healthy and productive orchards.

Root-Lesion Nematode: All life cycle stages of this nematode overwinter
in Michigan. Root-lesion nematodes cause more damage and build to higher
densities in sandy soils than in heavier soils. P. penetrans is the most
common root lesion-nematode found in Michigan.

Lance Nematode: Lance nematode is a relatively large nematode that is
known to be a problem in a few orchards in Michigan. The only species
known to exist in Michigan is Hoplolaimus galeatus.

Dagger Nematode: Several species of dagger nematodes are found in
Michigan; the most common is Xiphinema americanum. The dagger nematode
is a vector for tomato ringspot virus which causes brown ring union
necrosis of apples and plums.

Ring Nematode: The ring nematode is frequently recovered from Michigan
orchards. Criconemella xenoplax is the most common species. High
population densities of this nematode can inhibit normal growth and
development of roots.

Stubby-Root Nematode: The stubby-root nematodes Trichodorus spp. and
Paratrichodorus spp. occur in high population densities in a number of
Michigan orchards. Root feeding causes stimulation of secondary feeder
roots which become short and stubby.

Root-Knot Nematode: Northern root-know nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla)
form galls on the roots of fruit trees and other hosts. This nematode
can be introduced into orchard sites in infested nursery stock.

Needle Nematode: The only species known to exist in Michigan orchards is
Longidorus elongatus. It is found in a small number of Michigan
orchards. It is known to be a vector of a number of important viruses
but is not known to be of significance as a virus vector in Michigan
orchards

California4	Nematodes:  Pratylenchus vulnus and P. penetrans ;
Meloidogyne incognita, M. javanica, and M. arenaria occur throughout the
warmer apple growing regions, with M. incognita having the most common
occurrence.  Xiphinema americanum (dagger nematodes) occurs throughout
the state probably more common in northern California.

Pathogen: Some sites may have Armillaria mellea (Armillaria root rot;
oak root fungus), a slow growing fungal pathogen that can cause decline
in growth of pears, although the disease is generally not a problem.
Use of solid set sprinklers may keep soils wet for an extended period
causing greater disease severity.

Southern U.S.5	Apple replant disorder (disease complex): One of the
potential problems with apple production lies in replanting sites after
orchard removal.  Frequently, orchards replanted in previous orchard
sites fail to thrive, never reaching a profitable level.  This problem
is referred to as apple replant disease.  Rotation with a non-orchard
crop such as wheat for several seasons is strongly encouraged… Good
site preparation is essential to minimizing the replant problem.
Practices to reduce the severity of the disease include fertilizing and
liming, fallowing for at least 2 years, and rotating to non-orchard
crops for at least 2 years. The performance of new rootstocks is being
evaluated in replant sites.  Nematodes: not commonly a problem but
sampling is recommended.

1 	Mazzola, 1998.

2 	NYSAES, 2006; Leinfelder and Merwin, 2006.

3  	Crop Profile for Apples in Michigan, 2004.

4  	UC Pest Management Guidelines—Apple Nematodes, 2006; UC Pest
Management Guidelines—Pears. 2007.

5  	Crop Profile for Apples in North Carolina, 2004; Crop Profile for
Apples in Virginia, 2000.

Orchards with replant problem have several visible effects—the first
and most apparent is poor tree growth during the early years of
establishment (rejection component), and in some cases, a slow and
detrimental decline in root health and plant growth caused primarily by
pathogenic nematodes and fungi, which can lead to premature tree death.
The etiology of replant disease remains unclear and probably varies
according to location of orchard sites (Mazzola, 1998).  Orchards with
unmanaged replant disease can ultimately experience yield losses of
20-50% (OSUE, 2006).  Interactions with environmental features such as
soil composition, damage from insects, nutrient deficiency or wind
blow-down are less well documented, but anything that limits early root
growth can predispose the trees to greater damage from subsequent agents

The replant disorder can be of varying severity depending on pest
pressure, orchard location, type of crop, soil texture, soil moisture,
pH, or other factors.  Planting nematode-tolerant rootstock is an
important management tool that is available for apple and pear fruit
trees.  However, rootstocks are generally only tolerant to one type of
nematode while orchards may harbor other species (e.g., UC Pest
Management Guidelines—Apple nematodes. 2006).  In orchards with
several nematode species at high population concentrations, fumigation
may be necessary.  Replant disorder effects can sometimes be reduced by
planting a few years of cover crops (such as wheat), but the delayed
productivity may not be economically feasible for some growers.
Generally, it is desirable to establish orchards on land previously
planted with different crops (e.g., planting pome fruit trees after a
stone fruit) to avoid severe replant problems, although economic
considerations, availability of land, and agronomic conditions may
conflict with this recommendation.

Orchard Replant Practices for Pome Fruit

The potential long life of a productive orchard necessitates a long-term
approach to orchard management.  Typically, the first step in the
establishment of an orchard on land previously planted to orchard crops
is “ripping” the soil followed by a fallow period or cover crop,
then fumigation.  Fumigation kills or reduces pests and remnant roots of
previous plantings, especially for deep-rooted trees, that harbor pests.

In the Pacific Northwest, methyl bromide with chloropicrin was the
standard for sites requiring fumigation.  Recently, growers have
transitioned from use of methyl bromide to chloropicrin alone or with
1,3-D.  According to a recent survey by the Northwest Horticultural
Council (Carter, 2007), about 80% of replanted fruit orchards are
fumigated with chloropicrin.  The typical application rate is about 50
lb active ingredient (a.i.) per acre with a maximum rate of 195 lb
a.i./acre.  Application of chloropicrin products is shanked without
tarping to depths of 16-20 inches.  Because the chloropicrin moves only
6-9 inches from the point of injection, it must be applied with
equipment that places the product in numerous bands along and at various
depths in the treated row.  The soil is sealed after application with a
disc/cultipacker.  The shanking depth depends on soil type and moisture.

Text Box 2.  Chloropicrin Characteristics, Pacific Northwest Pome Fruit.

Rate:	50 lb a.i./acre, effective broadcast rate; 195 lb/treated acre

Method of Application:  Shank injection, 16-20 inches in depth.

Fumigation Period:  Early to late spring (Feb – June) or early to late
fall (Sept – Dec)

Surface Sealing:  Soil compaction

Field Size:	unknown

Area Treated/Day:  5 acres/tractor

Alternative Control Measures

Only three treatments have so far shown long-term growth and yield
benefits in Washington orchard trials: methyl bromide, metam sodium (or
metam potassium), and fumigants containing chloropicrin (Crop Profile
for Sweet Cherries in Washington, 2003).  Methyl bromide can only be
used under a Critical Use Exemption (CUE) from the Montreal Protocol,
which has not been granted to fruit producers in the Pacific Northwest.

Metam sodium or metam potassium use rate for treatment of replant
disorder is 104 pounds a.i./acre (Crop Profile for Sweet Cherries in
Washington, 2003).  The entire orchard surface may be treated or, most
often, the products are banded on about 40-50% of the orchard soil
surface.  The rate of water carrier is adjusted to keep the product in
the surface 2-3 ft of soil.  This product is the most practical for
treatment of relatively small replant areas or in very rocky soils that
cannot easily be treated by the shank injectors necessary with the other
fumigants.  Water to move the material into the soil must be available.
If conditions are optimal, metam-sodium can be as effective as other
fumigants for the control of replant disorder.  In heavier soils, metam
sodium may not provide the same level control of pathogens as
chloropicrin.

Text Box 3.  Metam Sodium Characteristics, Pacific Northwest Pome Fruit.

Rate:	250 lb a.i./acre, effective broadcast rate (see Table 4)

Method of Application:  Shank or chemigation.

Fumigation Period:  Early to late spring (Feb – June) or early to late
fall (Sept – Dec)

Surface Sealing:  Soil compaction or water seal

Field Size:	unknown

Area Treated/Day:  unknown

Cultural Control Measures

Before fumigating, old trunks and large roots are brought up by ripping
(UC Pest Management Guidelines—Cherry Nematodes, 2006).  A period of
fallow or green manure cover crop is instituted for 1 to 2 years (3 to 4
years if lesion nematodes are present).  Certified nematode-free
rootstocks or seedlings are used to establish new orchards.  When the
orchard is developed, procedures that improve soil tilth and drainage
are used to help reduce nematode damage.  This protocol may not be
effective in replant sites with high pest pressure or in areas where
fungal pathogens are a problem.  A longer fallow period, which allows
remaining roots to decay and eliminate the pathogens’ host, may help.
However, long periods of fallow are rarely economical.

It should also be noted that organic production does not preclude the
use of fumigation to establish an orchard.  Organic production typically
requires three years without use of synthetic chemicals, including
fertilizers and pesticides, prior to obtaining certification.  This
allows organic growers to fumigate at planting to improve establishment
and then transition to organic production during the non-bearing period
of growth.

Benefits of Fumigation

Planting orchards with apple and pear trees requires a large investment
of resources as well as numerous choices to establish a long-bearing and
productive orchard.  Fumigation is primarily used in areas where pome
fruit trees are replacing pome fruit trees.  Rootstock selection is an
important tool to manage replant disorder and nematodes.  Fumigation
choices depend on soil type, climatic region, availability and cost of
orchard land, availability of resistant rootstock to specific key pests,
and local regulatory restrictions of some fumigants.  In general, when
fumigation is deemed necessary, few choices are available to the orchard
manager.

The benefits of fumigation for orchard replant can be measured by future
yields (orchard crops require several years to bear fruit) when fruit
production may be adversely affected by poor tree growth and high pest
populations.  In addition, fumigant treatments result in healthier young
trees.  The effects of orchard replant problem and nematode damage to
young seedlings are experienced within the first three years of orchard
establishment and are commonly observed within the first year.  Costs
associated with individual tree replacement include delayed fruit
production as newly replanted trees lag behind previously planted ones.
In more severe cases, when replant disorder or high nematode populations
are not properly managed at the time of orchard establishment, the
entire orchard of trees might be lost.  Because of the long life of an
orchard, optimal soil preparation, along with appropriate rootstocks, is
a priority for successful fruit production.

BEAD typically uses a partial budget analysis to estimate the impacts of
changes in production practices.  That is, we evaluate the consequences
on a typical acre of the crop grown, rather than attempt to assess the
impacts in the context of a whole enterprise, which could include
multiple crops under cultivation.  This approach allows the Agency to
compare estimated losses to net operating revenue, which is defined as
the difference between gross revenue and variable operating costs, on a
per-acre basis.  The analysis ignores fixed costs, which are highly
dependent on land ownership and the size and diversity of the grower’s
operation, and therefore difficult to define on a per-acre basis.  As
such, this analysis may understate the benefits of a pesticide as a
percentage of the grower’s income.

An analysis of a single year, however, does not capture the full benefit
of fumigation.  Establishing an orchard involves considerable costs,
including the maintenance of the orchard during the non-bearing years.
This investment literally bears fruit in the future.  Therefore, another
approach to evaluating the benefits fumigation is to calculate the net
present value of the orchard under different streams of costs and
returns.  Net present value (NPV) is a way of comparing different
investments by summing the discounted costs and returns over time to
calculate the value of the investment.  The formula for NPV is:

where t is the time period (year), T is the last year the orchard is in
production and r is the discount rate.  This analysis uses a rate of 7%
to represent a private discount rate.  Since revenues and costs are not
adjusted for future inflation, all measures are in real terms.

Since the choice of discount rate is somewhat arbitrary, BEAD also
presents the internal rate of return (IRR), which is the discount rate
that makes NPV = 0.  One interpretation of this value is that it
represents the maximum rate of return on an investment that an
individual must be willing to accept before the investment would be
considered.  That is, if the IRR is 5%, only individuals willing to
accept a rate of return less than 5% would find the investment
worthwhile.

Apple, Pacific Northwest

The current practice for apple replant is to fumigate with chloropicrin,
alone or in combination with 1,3-D.  An advantage of chloropicrin, in
comparison to metam sodium, is that it penetrates heavier soils better.
Because of this, chloropicrin provides better control of plant pathogens
resulting in greater survival of young trees, better growth and earlier
production, and improved yields for the lifespan of the orchard.  If
used with 1,3-D for nematode control, metam sodium must be applied
separately, which may increase costs.  Comparing this alternative to
current practice will allow BEAD to evaluate the benefits of
chloropicrin.  We also consider fumigation with 1,3-D alone to evaluate
the benefits of fumigation for control of soil pathogens more generally.
 For sites with sandy soils and sites that were formerly planted to
non-Prunus crops, 1,3-D alone may be sufficient, but that is presumably
not the case for growers currently relying on chlorpicrin.

In a recent survey conducted in the Pacific Northwest (Carter, 2007),
growers of apples and pears (as well as cherries) estimated that without
the use of chloropicrin (usually with1,3-D), there could be a 15-25%
yield loss with a 12% reduction in monetary returns.  BEAD assumes that
replacing chloropicrin with metam sodium would result in an intermediate
yield loss of 5-10%.  Yield losses are due to soil pathogens that infect
the trees at an early age, stunting their growth.

Table 7 presents a partial budget analysis for full production years,
comparing fumigation with 1,3-D and chloropicrin, 1,3-D followed by
metam sodium, and 1,3-D alone.  Yield for the 1,3-D and chloropicrin
treatments are assumed to be the observed average for the Pacific
Northwest (USDA NASS, 2002-2006).  Price per ton is also the 2002-2006
average (see Table 1).  Production costs are derived from Seabert, et
al. (2003).  During full production years, soil fumigation does not
affect operating costs.  Harvest costs, however, are assumed to be less
when less fruit is produced.  The analysis suggests that chloropicrin
provides substantial benefits as a proportion of net operating revenue.
Revenue is almost 30% less when using 1,3-D alone and nearly 10% less if
metam sodium does not provide equivalent control of soil pathogens at
establishment.  Compared to 1,3-D alone, however, metam sodium provides
considerable benefits:  over $560/acre annually.  Note that this
analysis assumes yield differences at the low end of the estimated
ranges.

Table 7.  Gross revenue, operating costs, and net operating revenues,
Oregon apple orchard at full production.

	1,3-D + chloropicrin	1,3-D + metam sodium	% Change 1	1,3-D alone	%
Change 1

Yield (ton/acre)	16.8	16.0	-5.0	14.3	-15.0

Price  ($/ton)	400	400

400

	Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	6,720	6,384	-5.0	5,712	-15.0

Operating Costs  ($/acre)	2,570	2,570

2,570

	Harvest Costs  ($/acre)	1,092	1,037	-5.0	928	-15.0

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	3,058	2,777	-9.2	2,214	-27.6

Source:  Seavert et al. (2003), USDA NASS (2002-2006), BEAD
calculations.  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

1	Percent change in comparison to 1,3-D and chloropicrin.

The analysis in Table 7 does not consider the investment producers must
make in establishing an orchard and maintaining it through several
non-bearing years.  Table 8 presents the information on net operating
revenue, NPV, and IRR.  Field preparation costs are similar for any type
of fumigation, but fumigation costs differ according to the mix of
chemicals and the cost of application.  Chemical costs are average
per-acre cost of products, which incorporates typical application rates.
 Chloropicrin can be applied with 1,3-D, but use of metam sodium
requires two applications, which makes it substantially more expensive.
Trees are planted the following spring and costs are identical
regardless of fumigant.  BEAD assumes that some trees must be replanted
the following year.  We assume that 2% are replanted following
fumigation with 1,3-D and chloropicrin; 3% are replanted under the 1,3-D
and metam sodium regime; and 5% are replanted if 1,3-D alone is used.
This represents the lower survival rate if nematodes are controlled but
soil pathogens are not.  Trees begin to produce in the third year,
initially at 25% of production, climbing to full production in the sixth
year (Seavert et al., 2003).  However, orchards fumigated with 1,3-D
alone do not begin production until the fourth year, representing
delayed maturity due to pathogens that weaken the young tree.  Returns
during full production are shown in Table 7.  Finally, orchards
fumigated with 1,3-D alone are assumed to last one year less than those
fumigated with chloropicrin or metam sodium.

Table 8.  Net operating revenue, net present value (NPV), and internal
rate of return (IRR) of an apple orchard.

Year	Stage	1,3-D + chloropicrin	1,3-D + metam sodium	1,3-D alone

0	Field Preparation	-1,631	-1,631	-1,631

	Fumigation 1	-605	-1,095	-593

1	Establishment	-7,749	-7,749	-7,749

2	Non-bearing 2	-1,122	-1,158	-1,230

3	Initial production 3	178	94	-1,049

4	Partial production 4	996	855	-75

5	Partial production 5	2,251	2,026	574

6	Full production 6	3,058	2,777	1,576

7-25	Full production 7	3,058	2,777	2,214

NPV (7% discount rate)	14,160	11,371	4,527

IRR	16.8%	14.8%	10.3%

Source:  Seavert et al. (2003), and BEAD calculations.  Cash flow
represents undiscounted net operating revenue where negative numbers
represent costs greater than income.  Net present value is calculated
assuming 7% discount rate.

1	Fumigation costs include chemical costs and application costs.  1,3-D
and chloropicrin can be applied as a single product, but 1,3-D and metam
sodium must be applies separately.

2	In addition to operating costs, non-bearing costs include replanting
trees.

3	Initial production is 25% of full production.  On-set of production is
delayed one year if 1,3-D is used alone.

4	Partial production is 50% of full.  Production is 25% of full
production with 1,3-D alone.

5	Partial production is 75% of full.  Production is 50% of full
production with 1,3-D alone.

6	Production is 75% of full production with 1,3-D alone.

7	Production ceases one year earlier with 1,3-D alone.

This analysis also demonstrates the value of chloropicrin, relative to
metam sodium, and the value of fumigation for control of soil pathogens,
in general.  The NPV of an orchard fumigated with 1,3-D and chloropicrin
is almost $2,800 more than one fumigated with 1,3-D and metam sodium.
Compared to an orchard fumigated with 1,3-D alone, chloropicrin
increases the value of the investment $9,600.  The IRR for an orchard
treated with 1,3-D alone is about 10% while that for the chloropicrin
treatment is about 17%.  This means that, if an alternative investment
were available that paid a 10% return (e.g., the stock market or another
crop) apples would be a reasonable investment if chloropicrin were
available, but apples would be much less attractive investment if
neither chloropicrin nor metam sodium were available.  However, without
knowing what alternatives are available to apple growers, BEAD cannot
evaluate whether the availability of fumigants to control soil pathogens
makes apple production a viable activity.  One consideration is that
apple replacement has become more frequent due to shifting demand for
different apple varieties.  Growers may not anticipate a 25-year life
span.  If new trees are planted after only 15 years, the IRR for an
orchard established with chloropicrin is about 14.4%, while the IRR for
one established with 1,3-D alone falls to 6.6%.

This analysis considers an apple orchard, but is probably reflective of
pear production in the Pacific Northwest as well.  It suggests that the
benefits of chloropicrin are substantial.  If chloropicrin is used on
about 80% of planted acres, benefits ultimately accrue to about 80% of
bearing acres, or about 165,700 acres.  With increased production worth
about $280/acre, the benefits of chloropicrin to the Pacific Northwest
amounts to about $46.8 million annually.  This figure may understate the
full value, because it does not include the fact that, without
fumigation, some investments in pome fruit orchards would not be made.

The estimated value of chloropicrin assumes that metam sodium is
available.  Compared to 1,3-D alone, metam sodium increases production
worth about $560/acre or $92.8 million/year in a $1.2 billion industry.
The total benefits of controlling plant pathogens at the establishment
of a pome fruit orchard may be around $139.6 million each year.

The Pacific Northwest supplies about 60% of total U.S. production of
pome fruit.  Thus, a 5% increase in output on 80% of acres in the
Pacific Northwest would lead to an overall increase in U.S. production
of 2-3%.  An increase of this magnitude would probably not have a
substantial impact on prices, but some portion of the estimated benefits
would accrue to consumers.

Other regions

Fumigation for soil pathogens appears much less critical for other pome
fruit production regions.  Hence, the benefits of fumigation are low for
these areas.

New York

Fumigants do not play a critical role in the establishment of orchards
in New York, the largest apple growing state in the eastern U.S. and a
significant producer of pears.  Many sites use fallow, rotation crops,
and new land for orchard plantings and fumigants are generally not
required in these cases.  Where land is replanted from pome fruit to
pome fruit, 1,3-D appears to control most pests.  Chloropicrin and metam
sodium probably provide some benefits for sites with greater pathogen
pressure.

Michigan

In general, pome fruit producers in Michigan appear not to rely on
fumigants when establishing orchards.  Nematodes are not usually
problems and rootstock selection is considered the most important
management tool for nematode problems.  For cases where nematode
populations are known to be high, treating with1,3-D is usually
sufficient.  Metam sodium and chloropicrin may be useful where soilborne
pathogens are present.  Metam sodium can also be useful in helping to
kill remnant roots of previous plantings, which reduces feeding sites
for nematodes.

California

Fumigants do not appear to be crucial to production of pears or apples
in California.  The large pear industry relies on rootstock selection
and choice of sites (optimal soils) to avoid pest problems, including
Armillaria root rot, although metam sodium is sometimes used on sites
with significant Armillaria root rot incidence.  Benefits, however,
appear relatively small.

Southern U.S.

The major apple production areas in the southeastern U.S. primarily rely
on 1,3-D for nematode control.  Soil-borne pathogens appear to be a
relatively minor problem, but on some marginal lands, producers benefit
from the availability of fumigants with efficacy over a broader suite of
pests than 1,3-D alone.

Conclusions

Soil fumigation with chloropicrin when pome fruit orchards are replanted
provides significant benefits to growers in the Pacific Northwest.
Fumigation is needed to address the orchard replant ‘disorder,’ a
combination of soil pathogens and nematodes.  While the problem is
spread through all apple producing regions, the mix and severity of
pests varies significantly.  Outside the Pacific Northwest, nematodes
may be the more common problem and can be treated with 1,3-D.  In the
Pacific Northwest, however, use of chlorpicrin leads to greater survival
of young trees, improved growth and faster maturity, and increased
productivity through the life of the orchard.

BEAD estimates that the increased productivity due to fumigation with
chloropicrin is worth about $46.8 million annually to apple and pear
producers in the Pacific Northwest.  This is in comparison to fumigation
with metam sodium.  The value of fumigation for control of soil
pathogens in general, is worth nearly $140 million each year.  This
figure does not include the benefits from higher survival and faster
maturity in establishing an orchard, benefits which may make the
investment in growing pome fruit viable.

References

Caprile, J. and McKenry, M. 2006. Orchard replant considerations.
University of California Extension, Contra Costa County Crop Currents,
Fall 2006, attached in University of California Extension Tree Topics
Oct. 30, 2006, vol 31, issue 8.   HYPERLINK
"http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/crops/CAPRILE_ORCHARD_REPLANT_CONSIDER
ATIONS_12_06.pdf"
http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/crops/CAPRILE_ORCHARD_REPLANT_CONSIDERA
TIONS_12_06.pdf

Carter, Deborah. 2007.  Chloropicrin survey for use on replant of
cherry, apple, and pear in Washington. Personal communication, email to
TJ Wyatt, 2-22-2007.

CASS (Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service).  2002.  Colorado Fruit
Tree Survey, 2002.  Colorado Department of Agriculture, Colorado
Agricultural Statistics Service, at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Colorado/Publications/Spec
ial_Interest_Reports/2002-Fruit-Bulletin2.pdf"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Colorado/Publications/Speci
al_Interest_Reports/2002-Fruit-Bulletin2.pdf .

Crop Profile for Apples in Michigan. 2004.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/MIapples.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/MIapples.html

Crop Profile for Apples in New York. 2000.
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/nyapples.html

Crop Profile for Apples in North Carolina. 2004.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/ncapples.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/ncapples.html

Crop Profile for Apples in Virginia. 2000.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/vaapples.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/vaapples.html

Crop Profile for Apples in Washington. 2001.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/WAApples.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/WAApples.html

Crop Profile for Pears in California. 1999.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/capears.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/capears.html

Crop Profile for Pears in Michigan. 2000.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/mipears.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/mipears.html

Crop Profile for Pears in New York. 2000.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/nypears.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/nypears.html

Crop Profile for Pears in Oregon. 1999.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/orpears.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/orpears.html

Granatstein, D. and Mazzola, M. Alternatives to Fumigation for Control
of Apple Replant Disease in Washington State Orchards. 2001. Washington
State University Tree Fruit and Extension Center, Organic and Integrated
Fruit Production.   HYPERLINK
"http://organic.tfrec.wsu.edu/OrganicIFP/AppleReplantDisease/IFPSpainPro
c.PDF"
http://organic.tfrec.wsu.edu/OrganicIFP/AppleReplantDisease/IFPSpainProc
.PDF

Jess, L.  2007.  Personal communication.  E-mail from Northeastern IPM
Center, March 9.

Leinfelder, M. M. and Merwin, I. A. 2006. Management strategies for
apple replant disease. New York Fruit Quarterly 14(1):39-42.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nyshs.org/fq/06spring/06NYFQSpring.pdf"
http://www.nyshs.org/fq/06spring/06NYFQSpring.pdf

MAS (Michigan Agricultural Statistics).  2004.  Fruit Inventory
2003-2004.  Michigan Agricultural Statistics, Michigan Department of
Agriculture, Oct., 57 pp.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Michigan/Publications/Mich
igan_Rotational_Surveys/index.asp"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Michigan/Publications/Michi
gan_Rotational_Surveys/index.asp .

Mazzola, M. 1998. Elucidation of the microbial complex having a causal
role in the development of apple replant disease in Washington.
Phytopathology 88:930-938.

McKenry, M., Buzo, T. and Kaku, S. 2006. Replanting stone fruit orchards
without soil fumigation. International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 2006.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/028McKenrySummary2006.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/028McKenrySummary2006.pdf

McKenry, M. 1999. The replant problem and its management. Catalina
Publishing, Fresno, CA.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec1.pdf"
http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec1.pdf    HYPERLINK
"http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec2.pdf"
http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec2.pdf    HYPERLINK
"http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec3.pdf"
http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec3.pdf

NCACSS.  2002.  2002 North Carolina Commercial Fruit Inventory Survey.
North Carolina Agriculture Statistics and Consumer Services, North
Carolina Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/fruit/fruitweb.pdf"
http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/fruit/fruitweb.pdf

NYSAES (New York State Agricultural Extension Service). 2006.
Characteristics of Crop Protectants Used On Fruit Trees.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/treefruit/pdf/2006TF04.pdf"
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/treefruit/pdf/2006TF04.pdf

OMB (Office of Management and Budget).  2003.  Circular A-4, Regulatory
Analysis, September 17, available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html .

OSUE (Oregon State University Extension). 2006. Apple Replant Disease.
2006.   HYPERLINK
"http://plant-disease.ippc.orst.edu/disease.cfm?RecordID=53"
http://plant-disease.ippc.orst.edu/disease.cfm?RecordID=53

Seabert, C., J. Moore, S. Castagnoli, and T. Annala.  2003.  Orchard
economics:  Establishing and producing medium-density apples in Hood
River County.  Oregon State University Extention Service publication EM
8829-E, April.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/EconInfo/ent_budget/PDF/EM8829-E.pdf"
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/EconInfo/ent_budget/PDF/EM8829-E.pdf .

Smith, T. 2005. Orchard soil fumigation.  Washington State University
Extension.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/treefruit/soil/fumigate.htm"
http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/treefruit/soil/fumigate.htm

UC (University of California) Pest Management Guidelines—Apple
nematodes. 2006.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r4200111.html"
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r4200111.html

UC (University of California) Pest Management Guidelines—Pears. 2007.
 HYPERLINK "http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.pears.html"
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.pears.html

USDA NASS.  2006a. Oregon Fruit Tree Inventory.  US Dept. of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Oregon Field
Office, at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Oregon/Publications/Fruits
_Nuts_and_Berries/FTI-2006.pdf"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Oregon/Publications/Fruits_
Nuts_and_Berries/FTI-2006.pdf .

USDA NASS.  2006b. Washington Fruit Survey.  US Dept. of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington Field Office, at
HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Fr
uit/FruitTreeInventory2006.pdf"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Fru
it/FruitTreeInventory2006.pdf .

USDA NASS.  2002-2006b.  Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, Summary.  National
Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, July,
at   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ .

USDA NASS.  2002a.  Fruit Tree and Vineyard Results.  New York Orchard
and Vineyard Survey.  US Dept. of Agriculture, New York Field Office, at
  HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_York/Publications/Spec
ial_Surveys/index.asp"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_York/Publications/Speci
al_Surveys/index.asp .

USDA NASS.  2002b.  Orchard and Vineyard.  US Dept. of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service, Pennsylvania Field Office, at
 HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Pennsylvania/Publications/
Orchard_and_Vineyard/index.asp"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Pennsylvania/Publications/O
rchard_and_Vineyard/index.asp .

 The Office of Management and Budget suggests using a 3% and 7% rate
when evaluating the cost and benefits of government regulation, where 7%
is an estimate of the before-tax rate of return to private capital (OMB,
2003).

 Seavert et al. (2003) assume that two trees are replaced each year
after establishment, even during full production, i.e., 50 trees over
the lifespan of the orchard.  It seems unlikely that growers would
continue to replace trees in an older orchard.  Instead, we assume that
the 10-12 stunted trees, approximately 2% of the 558 trees planted in a
medium-density orchard, are replaced the second year.  This is
consistent with analyses of other orchard replant situations.

 PAGE

 PAGE   19


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67940-67941]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-474-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of
the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Putnam Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Putnam Expansion Project, proposed by Florida Gas Transmission Company,
LLC (Florida Gas) in the above-referenced docket. Florida Gas requests
authorization to provide 169,000 million British thermal units per day
(MMBtu/d) of natural gas to subscribed Project shippers. Florida Gas
also requests approval to upgrade facilities at Compressor Station 18
to increase reliability to existing shippers. The Project includes
modifications to existing facilities and installation of new pipeline
loops in Columbia, Union, Putnam, Clay, and Orange counties, Florida.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Putnam Expansion Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The Putnam Expansion Project would consist of the following
facilities in Florida:
     West Loop--install 13.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline
loop \1\ in Columbia and Union Counties;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity. A ``pig'' is a tool that
the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline
for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     East Loop--install 7.0 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline
loop in Clay and Putnam Counties;
     Columbia/Union Receiver Station Relocation--remove and
relocate the existing 30-inch-diameter loop pig receiver located at the
beginning of the West Loop in Columbia County to a new pig receiver
station to be installed at the terminus of the West Loop in Union
County;
     Clay/Putnam Receiver Station Relocation--remove and
relocate the existing 30-inch-diateter loop pig receiver located at the
beginning of the East Loop in Clay County to a new pig receiver station
to be installed at the terminus of the East Loop in Putnam County;
     Compressor Station (CS) 18--install new automated valves,
over pressure protection device, and station piping at Florida Gas's
existing CS 18 in Orange County, Florida.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed
and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using the
eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the Docket Number field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP19-474). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the
opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on
this project, it is important that we receive your comments in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 6, 2020.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You must select the type of filing you are making. If you

are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19-474-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more
fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission may grant
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: December 6, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26759 Filed 12-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66034-66036]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25966]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87620; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2019-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New
NYSE Chicago Rule 11.5190

November 25, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 20, 2019, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new NYSE Chicago Rule 11.5190 that
is substantially the same as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') Rule 5190. The proposed rule change is intended to
harmonize Exchange rules with the rules of the Exchange's affiliates
and FINRA and thus promote consistency within the securities industry.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new NYSE Chicago Rule 11.5190 that
is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 5190.\3\ The proposed rule
change will further harmonize the Exchange's rules with the rules of
FINRA and the Exchange's affiliates. The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will help reduce duplicative reporting requirements for
Participants who are also FINRA members, NYSE or NYSE American member
organizations, and/or NYSE Arca ETP Holders because Participants will
not be required to submit an additional Regulation M notification to
the Exchange if they have already provided a notification to FINRA,
NYSE, or NYSE American pursuant to their respective rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58514 (September 11,
2008), 73 FR 54190 (September 18, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-039). The
Exchange's affiliates, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca''), previously adopted versions of FINRA Rule 5190. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59965 (May 21, 2009), 74 FR
25783 (May 29, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-25); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59975 (May 26, 2009), 74 FR 26449 (June 2, 2009) (SR-
NYSEALTR-2009-26); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66311
(February 2, 2012), 77 FR 6613 (February 8, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-
07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Regulation M-related notification
rules harmonized with the rules of FINRA, NYSE, NYSE American and NYSE
Arca both to provide uniformity in the marketplace as well as to reduce
duplicative reporting obligations for the same subject matter. The
Exchange accordingly proposes to adopt new Rule 11.5190, which is based
on FINRA Rule 5190, NYSE Rule 5190, NYSE American Rule 5190--Equities,
and NYSE Arca Rule 9.5190-E.
    Proposed Rule 11.5190 would require, in part, that a Participant
acting as a manager (or in a similar capacity) of an offering to
provide the following information:
     The Participant's determination as to whether a one-day or
five-day restricted period applies under Rule 101 of SEC Regulation M
and the basis for such determination, including the contemplated date
and time of the commencement of the restricted period, the listed
security name and symbol, and identification of the distribution
participants and affiliated purchasers, no later than the business day
prior to the first complete trading session of the applicable
restricted period, unless later notification is necessary under
specific circumstances;
     the pricing of the distribution, including the listed
security name and symbol, the type of security, the number of shares
offered, the offering price, the last sale before the distribution, the
pricing basis, the SEC effective date and time, the trade date, the
restricted period, and identification of the distribution participants
and affiliated purchasers, no later than the close of business the next
business day following the pricing of the distribution, unless later
notification is necessary under specific circumstances; and
     the cancellation or postponement of any distribution for
which prior notification of commencement of the restricted period has
been submitted under paragraph (c)(1)(A), immediately

upon the cancellation or postponement of such distribution. If no
Participant is acting as a manager (or in a similar capacity) of such
distribution, then each Participant that is a distribution participant
or affiliated purchaser shall provide the notice required under
paragraph (c)(1), unless another Participant has assumed responsibility
in writing for compliance therewith.
    Proposed Rule 11.5190 is substantially similar to FINRA Rule 5190,
except that the term ``member'' has been replaced with ``Participant''
throughout to reflect the Exchange's membership. Also, in proposed
subsection (e), the Exchange proposes to replace ``OTC Security'' with
``security'' and add the phrase ``stabilizing bids'' to the first
sentence. These changes are consistent with NYSE Rule 5190(e), NYSE
American Rule 5190(e)--Equities, and NYSE Arca Rule 9.5190-E.
    Consistent with current practice that notifications ``to the
Exchange'' are submitted directly to FINRA,\4\ notification under
proposed Rule 11.5190 may be satisfied by making an electronic
submission through the secure FINRA website at https://firms.finra.org.\5\ Further, because notifications submitted pursuant
to FINRA Rule 5190 or the rules of the Exchange's affiliates will meet
the requirements of proposed Rule 11.5190, such notifications will also
satisfy the notification requirements of proposed Rule 11.5190.
Participants will therefore not need to make duplicative filings to the
Exchange if notifications have been submitted to FINRA pursuant to
FINRA rules or the rules of the Exchange's affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under Exchange Rule 0, Participants required to submit
notifications to the Exchange may submit such notifications to FINRA
departments acting on the Exchange's behalf.
    \5\ The filing process is described in FINRA Regulatory Notice
12-19 (June 4, 2012), available at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/12-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will harmonize
its rules with the rules of FINRA and the Exchange's affiliates. The
Exchange accordingly believes that the proposed rule change supports
the objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between
Exchange Rules and FINRA Rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for dual members of
both self-regulatory organizations (``SROs''). To the extent the
Exchange has proposed changes that differ from the FINRA version of the
rules, such changes are technical in nature and do not change the
substance of the proposed Rule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is intended to
harmonize the Exchange's rules with the rules of other SROs with
respect to Regulation M compliance. The Exchange believes that any
burden on competition would be clearly outweighed by the important
regulatory goal of ensuring clear and consistent requirements
applicable across SROs, avoiding duplication, and mitigating any risk
of SROs implementing different standards in these important areas.
Further, the proposed changes would apply to all Participants in the
same manner and therefore would not impose any unnecessary intramarket
burdens.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.
    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing
for Commission Action
    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \10\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-22. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSECHX-2019-22, and should be submitted on or before December 23,
2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25966 Filed 11-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30632-30633]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12966]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1071; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-15]

Proposed Revocation of Class D Airspace; Springfield, OH

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class D airspace at
Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH. The closure of
the air traffic control tower has necessitated the need to remove the
Class D airspace area at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-
1071; Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-15, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this proposed incorporation by
reference material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2014-1071 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-15) and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ``Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-1071 and
Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-15''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing Class D airspace at
Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield, OH. The closing of
the air traffic control tower at Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport
has made this action necessary for the efficient use of airspace within
the National Airspace System.
    Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000, of FAA
Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action''

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would remove controlled airspace at Springfield-Beckley Municipal
Airport, Springfield, OH.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6,
2014, and effective September 15, 2014 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace areas extending upward from the
surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL OH D Springfield, OH [Removed]

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 20, 2015.
Humberto Melendez,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-12966 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 18313]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at North American Electric Reliability
Corporation Standard Drafting Team Meeting

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the
following meeting:

North American Electric Reliability Corporation Project 2021-07 Extreme
Cold Weather Grid Operations, Preparedness, and Coordination Standard
Drafting Team Meeting; March 28, 2023 (1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Eastern
Time).
    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:
http://www.nerc.com/Pages/Calendar.aspx.
    The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may
address matters at issue in the following Commission proceeding:

Docket No. RD23-1-000 Extreme Cold Weather Reliability Standards EOP-
011-3 and EOP-012-1

    For further information, please contact Chanel Chasanov, 202-502-
8569, or [email protected].

    Dated: March 22, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06360 Filed 3-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P