[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71764-71765]
[DOCID:fr19de07-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29010; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-13]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Chevak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Chevak, AK to provide
adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). Two SIAPs are being developed
for the Chevak Airport. This action revises existing Class E airspace
upward from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at the
Chevak Airport, Chevak, AK.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, February 14, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class E
airspace upward from 700 ft. above the surface and from 1,200 ft. above
the surface at Chevak, AK (72 FR 58567). The action was proposed in
order to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
while executing SIAPs for the Chevak Airport. The Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking contained incorrect airport location coordinates. This rule
corrects the error. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from
700 ft. above the surface and from 1,200 ft. above the surface in the
Chevak Airport area is revised by this action.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed with the
correction to the airport coordinates.
    The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200
ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the
Chevak Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate
aircraft executing new SIAPs, and will be depicted on aeronautical
charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to
provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the Chevak Airport, Chevak, Alaska.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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 rule will 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 United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of 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 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Chevak Airport and represents
the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable
airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; 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(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 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Chevak, AK [Revised]

Chevak, Chevak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 61[deg]32'27'' N., long. 165[deg]36'03''W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.0-mile radius of the Chevak Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the Chevak Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 11, 2007.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
 [FR Doc. E7-24401 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 25838]
[DOCID:fr02my06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2237-013--Georgia]

Georgia Power Company; Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project; Notice
of Proposed Revised Restricted Service List for a Programmatic
Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places

April 26, 2006.
    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular
phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the Georgia State Historic
Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the Council's
regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470f), to prepare and
execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties included in,
or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places
at the Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2237-013 (SHPO Reference
Number HP-040120-022).
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission, the
SHPO, and the Council, would satisfy the Commission's section 106
responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in
accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated
(36 CFR 800.13e). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section
106 for the Morgan Falls Project would be fulfilled through the
programmatic agreement, which the Commission proposes to draft in
consultation with certain parties listed below.
    The executed programmatic agreement would be incorporated into any
Order issuing a license.
    Georgia Power Company, as licensee for Project No. 2237, and the
Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians,
the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, the Kialegee Tribal Town, the Alabama-
Quassarte Tribal Town, the Seminole Indian Tribe, the Seminole Nation
of Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,
the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the National Park
Service have expressed an interest in this preceding and are invited to
participate in consultations to develop the programmatic agreement.
    On January 6, 2006, we established a restricted service list for
the Morgan Falls Project. Due to staff changes at the Seminole Nation
of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, we propose to remove Emman Spain,
Michelle Hamilton, and Steve Mouse, respectively, from the restricted
service list for the aforementioned project, and replace them with the
following people:

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Attention: Tyler Howe, THPO, Qualla
Boundary, P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, NC 28719;
Pare Bowlegs, Historic Preservation Officer, Seminole Nation of
Oklahoma, P.O. Box 1498, Wewoka, OK 74884; and
Lisa Stopp, Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, United
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, P.O. Box 746, 20525 S. Jules Valdez
Rd., Tahlequah, OK 74464.

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic
properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
    An original and 8 copies of any such motion must be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, the Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426) and must be served on each person whose name
appears on the official service list. Please put the project name
``Morgan Falls Project'' and number ``P-2237-013'' on the front cover
of any motion. If no such motions are filed, the restricted service
list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a
further notice will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed
within the 15 day period.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6576 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78981-78983]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31778]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258; FRL-9940-32-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Interstate Transport of Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
June 28, 2010, the State of Idaho made a submittal to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is
approving the submittal as meeting the requirement that each SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in any other
state.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA,
98101. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On October 30, 2015, the EPA proposed to approve Idaho's June 28,
2010 submittal as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 66862). An
explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the
submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the
notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The
public comment period for this proposed rule ended on November 30,
2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Idaho's June 28, 2010 submittal as meeting the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
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);
     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 this action does not involve technical standards; 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 is not approved to 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 as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    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 February 16, 2016. 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 section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 8, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 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 N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' at
the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision         geographic or non-       State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                     attainment area    submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Transport Requirements  State-wide.........       6/28/2010  12/18/2015 [insert   This action
 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.                                               Federal Register     addresses the
                                                                         citation].           following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-31778 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 225)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70289-70290]
[DOCID:fr20no08-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334; FRL-8742-8]
RIN 2060-AM19

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period on
the proposed rule, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources.'' As initially
published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2008, written comments
on the proposed rule were to be submitted by November 20, 2008. On
November 12, 2008, EPA received a court order extending the deadline
for signature of the notice of final rulemaking to May 15, 2009, and we
are extending the public comment period on the proposed rule to January
5, 2009.

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or
before January 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0334, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (2822T), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy
also be sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (2822T), EPA West Building, Room 3444, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please
include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0334. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center (2822T), EPA West Building, Room 3444, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Mr.
Randy McDonald, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

Extension of Public Comment Period

    We proposed the national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) as part of our effort to comply with a court-
ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue final standards for 10 area
source categories listed pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 112(c)(3)
and (k) by December 15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537,
D.D.C., March 2006). To meet this deadline, we proposed NESHAP for nine
area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector. The
proposal was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2008 (73
FR 58352).
    We received several requests to extend the public comment period by
up to 55 days. Commenters requested more time to review the information
in the docket and prepare in-depth comments. We agree that the comment
period should be extended to allow more time for interested parties to
prepare comprehensive comments. At the request of EPA, the Court has
extended EPA's deadline for the nine area source categories at issue in
the proposed rule from December 15, 2008, to May 15, 2009. Therefore,
the public comment period will now end on January 5, 2009, rather than
November 20, 2008. (The public comment period is currently scheduled to
end on November 20, 2008, instead of November 5, 2008, because a public
hearing was requested and held on October 21, 2008.)

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02),
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0334. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you
mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Availability of Related Information
    The proposed rule for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources was published in
the Federal Register on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58352). EPA has
established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0334. Information on how to access
the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. In addition to
being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule
is available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

    Dated: November 14, 2008.
Robert J. Meyers,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
 [FR Doc. E8-27609 Filed 11-19-08; 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 Soil Fumigation with Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide
and Metam-sodium in Strawberry Production

FROM: 	Leonard Yourman, Plant Pathologist

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Stephen Smearman, Economist

		Economic Analysis Branch

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

Timothy Kiely, Chief

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		John Leahy, Senior Policy Advisor

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

Summary

This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided by the
soil fumigants, particularly methyl bromide in the production of
strawberry fruit.  Methyl bromide mixed with chloropicrin has been the
leading chemical pre-plant soil treatment for commercial strawberries
grown in California and Florida, which produce over 90% of commercial
strawberries grown in the U.S.  As methyl bromide becomes less available
due to the worldwide phase-out process, farmers have turned to
1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) plus chloropicrin or metam-sodium for
pathogen (crown rot and black root rot) and nematode control.  Efficacy
of soil treatments vary depending on soil conditions.  Yields from 1,3-D
plus chloropicrin treated fields were 14% lower compared to yields when
methyl bromide was used in clay soils.  The estimated yield reduction
with use of metam-sodium was 30% compared to soils treated with methyl
bromide.  These estimates were based on responses from growers
estimating losses for the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination program
(CUN, 2006; CUN, 2005).  Fumigant use in fresh fruit is primarily for
pathogen control and secondarily for regional nematode control.

The total national net revenue benefits associated with the use of
methyl bromide for strawberry production are estimated to range from
$60.8 million for acres treated with 1,3-D plus chloropicrin to $203.2
million for acres treated with metam-sodium assuming all acres are
treated with either one or the other control.

Introduction

As part of the reregistration 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 methyl bromide and chloropicrin in the production of
strawberry fruit.  Conceptually, the benefits fumigants are the
improvements in production and/or reductions in cost resulting from
fumigant use.  The social benefits of any pesticide are divided between
the users of the pesticide, e.g., strawberry producers, and consumers of
strawberries and strawberry products.  Consumers benefit because higher
production and/or lower costs translate into a cheaper and more abundant
supply of strawberries.

Strawberry Fruit Production

According to the Economics Research Service, the United States is the
largest producer of strawberries in the world accounting for over 25% of
the world’s total production.  Other leading production areas include
the Russian Federation, Poland, Germany, Spain, Korea, Japan and Mexico.

California.  California produces more than 85% of fresh market and
processed strawberries grown in the U.S.  In terms of world-wide
production, California produces about 20% of the world’s strawberries
(ERS, 2005).  Most strawberries exported from California go to Canada,
Japan, and Mexico.

California has two general strawberry production areas, northern and
southern, and five specific regions: Central Coast, Santa Maria, Oxnard
Plain, South Coast, and Interior Valley (Crop Profiles for Strawberry in
California, 1999).  Overall, the southern region produces both fresh
(63%) and processed (37%) strawberries.  The northern region includes
both rotated and non-rotated strawberry production regimes, with each
producing fresh (84%) and processed (16%) strawberries.  The average
strawberry farm is 47 acres (USDA-NASS, 2002) with strawberry fields in
rotation.  Because strawberry production in California is concentrated
in a small geographic location due to optimal growing conditions,
factors that affect this small area can be significant.  An example of
this is the regulatory limit on the amount of 1,3-dichloropropene
(1,3-D) that can be used in each township (i.e., 36 square mile area,
approximately 95 square km) in California (Trout, 2005).

Depending on the region, California strawberries are planted in the
summer (southern California) or fall (northern and southern California)
(CUN, 2006).  Prior to planting, fumigation is typically performed on
flat ground over the entire surface of the field.  Immediately after
fumigation the field is covered with plastic.  At the end of the
fumigation period, the plastic is removed and planting beds are formed
and covered with fresh plastic.  Strawberry plants are transplanted
about two to six weeks after fumigation to ensure that there are no
phytotoxic levels of fumigant remaining.  Harvest begins about two to
four months later.  At the end of the first harvest, the strawberry
plants are removed and the field is readied for the next crop.
Rotational crops that are planted after strawberries, and that benefit
from the previous fumigation, include broccoli, celery, lettuce, radish,
leeks, and artichokes.

Table 1.  Fresh Strawberry Acreage, Production and Value, Averaged from
2002–2004.

Region	Harvested Acres	Production

(1,000 cwt)	Yield

(cwt/acre)	Value

($ 1000)	Price

($/cwt)

California 	31,400	18,840	600	1,066,980	$56.60

Florida 	7,100	1,690	238	164,360	$97.50

U.S.	49,900	21,440	430	1,306,990	$61.00

Sources:  Crop Summary (USDA NASS, 2003-2006); Agricultural Prices (USDA
NASS, 2003-2006).

Florida.  Florida is the second largest strawberry producing state with
approximately 7% of the total U.S. production (ERS, 2005).  All of
Florida’s production is for fresh market primarily in the winter (Crop
Profiles for Strawberry in Florida, 2004).  The average strawberry farm
is 30 acres (USDA-NASS, 2002).  Strawberries are grown as an annual crop
in Florida using a raised-bed system.  Typically, MeBr in combination
with chloropicrin is applied to the soil during construction of
raised-beds, approximately two weeks prior to planting transplants.
Immediately after application, beds are covered with plastic mulch.
Drip and overhead irrigation are used to help establish plants, irrigate
plants, and protect plants from frost.  Many growers use the existing
beds and drip tubes to grow a follow-up crop after harvesting
strawberries, such as cucurbits or solanaceous crops.  Table 2 below
identifies the target pests for soil fumigants in strawberry fruit
production.

Table 2.  Target pests* for fumigants for strawberry fruit production.

State	Key Pests

California	Diseases: Black root rot (Rhizoctinia and Pythium spp.),
crown rot (Phytophthora cactorum); Nematodes: root knot nematode
(Meloidogyne spp.) Sting nematode (Belonolaimus spp.); Weeds: Yellow
nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus),
ryegrass, and winter annual weeds.

Florida	Diseases: Crown rot, (Phytophthora citricola, P. cactorum);
Nematodes: Sting (Belonolaimus longicaudatus); Root-knot (Meloidogyne
spp.); Weeds: Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus); Purple nutsedge
(Cyperus rotundus); Carolina Geranium (G. carolinianum); Cut-leaf
Evening Primrose (Onoethera laciniata)

*Based on information supplied in critical use exemption requests for
methyl bromide submitted by strawberry consortia (CUN, 2006).

Application information for fumigants.

Application information for soil fumigants is listed below, which
discusses type of application, mixes, and ratios dependent upon the
situation.  This is followed by Tables 2-8, which illustrate soil
fumigant usage information by state, amount applied, number of acres
treated and the number of applications per season.  Most of these
fumigants are used with plastic films (tarps).  Film technology is
rapidly changing and numerous field experiments (e.g., Ajwa et al.,
2005; Fennimore et al., 2005; Gilreath et al., 2005; Johnson and
Fennimore, 2005) are being conducted to identify the films that can make
fumigants more effective.  Film permeability, heat retention, and
transmittance of certain wavelengths of light can affect the efficacy of
the fumigation process in terms of pest control.

Methyl Bromide

California.  Methyl bromide is shank injected 25-30 cm below the
surface.  It is generally broadcast (90%; 10% strip bed) and always
mixed with chloropicrin (currently at ratios ranging from 67:33 to
50:50, depending on the pest situation).

Florida.  Methyl bromide is shank injected 30-45 cm below the surface on
strip beds—fumigation is conducted on approximately 55% of the
acreage.  Methyl bromide is always used with chloropicrin (currently at
a ratio of 67:33).

Chloropicrin

California and Florida.   Chloropicrin is an important component of
preplant soil fumigation.  It is used in conjunction with methyl
bromide, and 1,3-D.  By itself, it can be an effective fungicide and at
high rates may be effective against weeds.  Chloropicrin followed by
metam-sodium may be effective pathogen and weed controls (UC-IPM, 2005).

1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) + Chloropicrin

California. Drip applied as InLine (1,3-D + 35% chloropicrin), this is
the primary alternative to methyl bromide (CUN, 2006).  It is sometimes
followed after 5-7 days by an application of metam-sodium to reduce weed
populations.  Generally, 1,3-D without chloropicrin is not effective for
strawberry production.  Township caps may restrict the use of 1,3-D.
Approximately 35% of strawberry acreage in California is treated with
1,3-D + chloropicrin as an alternative to methyl bromide (CUN, 2006).
According to the University of California (UC-IPM, 2005), 25% of
strawberry production land uses drip fumigation.  Drip fumigation is
applied to bed area only, which occupies approximately 50-70% of the
total area of an acre.  The recommended fumigant alternatives to methyl
bromide are 1,3-D + chloropicrin (InLine) followed by metam-sodium after
5-7 days or chloropicrin drip applied followed by metam-sodium after 5-7
days.

Florida.  Use of 1,3-D with 35% chloropicrin is typically shank injected
at a rate of 35 gal/acre (CUN, 2006).  It is applied 3-5 weeks ahead of
transplanting.  The fumigant application is supplemented with an
herbicide tank mix of oxyfluorfen (0.5 lb/A) plus napropamide (4
lb/acre) to the raised bed surface at tarp laying.  A minimum 30-day
interval is required before transplanting when using oxyfluorfen.  There
may be production delays due to increased time to reduce phytotoxic soil
residue after injection.  Use of 1,3-D + chloropicrin instead of methyl
bromide may result in an estimated 12% yield reduction (CUN, 2006), but
new tarp material may improve the situation with this alternative.
Approximately 95% of strawberry production in Florida is within a
30-mile radius of Plant City (between Tampa and Lakeland) (CUN, 2006).
Restrictions due to Karst topography may affect use of 1,3-D in many
locations in Florida.  Applications of drip applied 1,3-D require at
least two drip lines.

Metam-sodium (and other methyl isothiocyanate—MITC—producers).

California.  California IPM (UC-IPM, 2005) recommends a metam-sodium
application following drip applied 1,3-D + chloropicrin (InLine) for
weed management.  Metam-sodium is not used as a stand alone fumigant in
strawberry production.

Florida. Metam-sodium is not considered an effective stand alone
treatment.  Follow-up applications after 1,3-D + chloropicrin have been
suggested for California farmers (UC-IPM, 2005) for weed management,
although it is unclear if this is an effective treatment for Florida
growers.  Restrictions on the use of 1,3-D or chloropicrin would limit
the usefulness of metam-sodium as a follow-up treatment.

Organic Production (no pesticides used on land within three years of
production)

As of 1999, organically grown strawberry production was less than 0.1%
of the total strawberry acreage in California (Crop Profiles for
Strawberries in California, 1999). Reports on production yields per acre
from organic fields range from 25% to 60% of the conventional yields,
although prices for produce may be higher than for conventional fruit.

Table 3.  Methyl bromide use information* for strawberry fruit
production.

State	Year	Acres Planted	% Acres Treated	No. Applications	A.I.** rate
per Application (lb/A)	A.I. rate per crop per Year (lb/A)	Total A.I.
(1000 lb/year)

Florida	2000	6,300	99	1.0	142	142	891

Florida	2002	6,900	100	1.0	134	134	918

Florida	2004	7,100	96	1.0	158	158	1084

*Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2001/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2001.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2001/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2001.txt  (2000)

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2003/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2003.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2003/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2003.txt  (2002)

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2005/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2005.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2005/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2005.txt  (2004)

**Active ingredient.

Table 4.  Reported methyl bromide use in California* strawberry fruit
production.

Year	Planted Acres	No. Acres Treated	Total No. Applications	Total A.I.
**(1000 lb/year)

2000	27,600	22,580	1,562	4,226

2001	26,400	22,241	1,517	3,766

2002	28,500	20,501	1,319	3,702

2003	29,600	20,593	1,256	3,671

2004	33,200	18,467	1,191	3,187

2005	34,300	16,315	1,184	2,916

*Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf  (2000)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf  (2001)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf  (2002)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf  (2003)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf  (2004)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf  (2005)

**Active ingredient.

Table 5.  Chloropicrin use information* for strawberry fruit production.

State	Year	Planted Acres	% Acre Treated	No. Applications	A.I.** per
Application (lb/A)	A.I./Year (lb/A)	Total A.I. (1000 lb/year)

Florida	2000	6,300	95	1.0	68	68	408

Florida	2002	6,900	99	1.0	66	66	449

Florida	2004	7,100	70	1.0	65	65	323

*Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2001/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2001.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2001/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2001.txt  (2000)

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2003/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2003.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2003/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2003.txt  (2002)

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2005/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2005.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2005/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2005.txt  (2004)

**Active ingredient.

Table 6.  Reported chloropicrin use in California* strawberry fruit
production.

Year	Planted Acres	No. Acres Treated	Total No. Applications	Total A.I.
**(1000 lb/year)

2000	27,600	22,855	1,620	2,358

2001	26,400	24,314	1,725	3,005

2002	28,500	24,187	1,568	2,910

2003	29,600	27,016	1,617	3,283

2004	33,200	28,241	1,614	3,258

2005	34,300	27,571	1,616	3,182

*Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf  (2000)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf  (2001)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf  (2002)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf  (2003)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf  (2004)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf  (2005)

**Active ingredient.

Table 7.  Dichloropropene (1,3-D) use information* for strawberry fruit
production.

States*	Year	Planted Acres	% Acre Treated	No. Applications	A.I.** per
Application (lb/A)	A.I./Year (lb/A)	Total A.I. (1000 lb/year)

California + Florida + Oregon	2000	38,000	NR***	NR***	NR***	NR***	NR***

	2002	38,900	6	1.1	165	184	428

	2004	43,600	8	1.2	168	196	715

*Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). NASS only
reported usage information for 1,3-D as a combined use for California
(27,600 A planted), Florida (6,300 A planted), and Oregon (4,100 A
planted).

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2001/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2001.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2001/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2001.txt  (2000)

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2003/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2003.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2003/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2003.txt  (2002)

  HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2005/Agr
iChemUsVeg-07-15-2005.txt"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsVeg//2000s/2005/Agri
ChemUsVeg-07-15-2005.txt  (2004)

**Active ingredient.

***Not reported

Table 8.  Reported dichloropropene (1,3-D) use in California* strawberry
fruit production.

Year	Planted Acres	No. Acres Treated	Total No. Applications	Total A.I.**
(1000 lb/year)

2000	27,600	143	30	13

2001	26,400	1,044	112	146

2002	28,500	2,473	202	440

2003	29,600	4,997	279	884

2004	33,200	9,109	392	1,522

2005	34,300	9,523	351	1,596

*Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf  (2000)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf  (2001)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf  (2002)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf  (2003)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf  (2004)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf  (2005)

**Active ingredient.

Table 9.  Reported metam-sodium use information for California*
strawberry fruit production.

Year	Planted Acres	No. Acres Treated	Total No. Applications	Total A.I.**
(1000 lb/year)

2000	27,600	314	41	63

2001	26,400	605	45	86

2002	28,500	1,370	61	238

2003	29,600	1,127	71	238

2004	33,200	1,741	92	274

2005	34,300	1,631	82	226

*Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur00rep/comrpt00.pdf  (2000)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur01rep/comrpt01.pdf  (2001)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/comrpt02.pdf  (2002)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur03rep/comrpt03.pdf  (2003)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur04rep/comrpt04.pdf  (2004)

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur05rep/comrpt05.pdf  (2005)

**Active ingredients

Estimated Benefits of Fumigants

To determine the economic benefits of the fumigants, primarily methyl
bromide (MeBr), BEAD used a partial budget analysis to estimate the
changes in production costs on a typical acre for fresh fruit strawberry
crop grown.  This approach allows the Agency to compare changes to net
operating revenue.  Net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus
operating costs.  This is a good measure of the direct changes in income
that may be realized by growers currently using fumigants for pest
control.  Net revenue does not represent net income to the users.  Net
income, which indicates profitability of an operation of an enterprise,
is gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs.  Net income
should be smaller than the net revenue measured in this study.  Fixed
costs were not included because they are often difficult to measure and
verify.

While this is a discussion of the benefits of all fumigants for fresh
strawberry producers, the primary fumigant used by producers in
California and Florida is MeBr.  Therefore the baseline established to
determine the benefits of all potential fumigants is based on using MeBr
and comparing the costs and revenues of growers who use MeBr to the
estimated changes in costs and revenues that may be realized using other
fumigants.

Per Acre Regional Benefits—California

In California, MeBr is the primary fumigant used by strawberry growers
with the 1,3-D plus chloropicrin as a second choice for many.  If
growers use an alternative other than MeBr, yield losses ranging from
14% to 30% are likely depending upon the alternative used.   If growers
choose 1,3-D plus chloropicrin to control pathogens and nematodes,
control costs are expected to increase from $1,549 to $1,979 per acre,
an increase of $430 per acre or 27.7%.  Net operating revenue is
expected to drop from the methyl bromide baseline of $3,632 to $1,311
per acre, a 64% decrease.  This is due to both yield losses and the
increase in control costs.

For California growers using metam-sodium as a methyl bromide
replacement, control costs are expected to increase by approximately
$351 per acre or an increase of 22.6% and net operating revenue is
expected to decrease from $3,632 to a negative $6,391per acre, a loss of
$10,023 per acre or a -276% due to per acre yield losses and control
cost increases.  The benefits associated with the use of MeBr as the
baseline for California fresh fruit production are illustrated below in
Table 10.

Total California Production losses are based on California Department of
Pesticide Regulation data for the 16,315 acres treated with methyl
bromide in 2005 (Table 4).  The estimated regional loss is estimated to
range from $37.8 million for 1,3-D plus chloropicrin to $163.5 million
for growers using metam-sodium.

Table 10.  Estimated Per Acre Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net
Operating Revenue Impacts for California Strawberry Fruit Production

	Baseline

Methyl Bromide	Alternative

1,3-D + Pic	% Change	Alternative

Metam Sodium	% Change

Yield (pounds/acre)	36,638	31,509	-14.0	25,647	-30.0

Price  ($/lb)	.88	.88

.88

	Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	32,241	27,728	-14.0	22,569	-30.0

Methyl bromide

1,3-D + Pic ($/acre)

Metam-sodium  ($/acre)	1,549

1,979

27.7

1,900

22.6

Other Operating Costs  ($/acre)	9,676	9,676

9,676

	Harvest Costs  ($/acre)	17,384	17,384

17,384

	Total Operating Costs  ($/acre)	28,609	29,039	1.5	28,960	1.2

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	3,632	1,311	-64	-6,391	-276

Source:  USDA NASS (2006), 2006 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination
for Preplant Soil Use on Strawberry, BEAD calculations.  Assumptions: 1:
fumigation costs include tarp and hand weeding costs; 2:Metam-sodium
fumigation costs derived from 2003 Doane, Farm Chemicals Handbook; yield
losses estimates from emergency exemption 03-FL-0024. Figures may not
sum due to rounding.

Per Acre Regional Benefits—Florida

In Florida, methyl bromide is the primary fumigant used by strawberry
growers with the use of 1,3-D plus chloropicrin as a second choice for
many.  If growers choose an alternative other than MeBr, yield losses
are expected to range from 14% to 30% depending upon the alternative
used.  If growers choose 1,3-D plus chloropicrin to control pathogens
and nematodes, control costs are expected to decrease from $759 per acre
to $640 per acre, an decrease of $110 per acre or -14.6%.  This is due
to more fumigant control material being applied in California compared
to Florida.  Net operating revenue is expected to change from the MeBr
baseline of $9,045 to $5,569 per acre, a 37.4% decrease due to yield
losses.  For Florida growers using  methyl bromide rather than metam
sodium,, control costs are expected to increase by approximately $110
per acre, an decrease of 14.6%, and net operating revenue is expected to
decrease from $9,045 to $3,213 per acre, an decrease of $5,832 per acre,
or a decrease of 64.5% due to per acre yield losses.

Total Florida production changes are based on USDA NASS 2004 data
estimates for the estimated 6,816 acres treated with methyl bromide
(Table 4).  The regional benefit assuming the value of methyl bromide as
the baseline is estimated to range from $23 million for 1,3-D plus
chloropicrin to $39.7 million for growers using metam-sodium.

The benefits associated with the use of MeBr as the baseline for Florida
fresh fruit production are illustrated below in Table 11.

Table 11.  Estimated Per Acre Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net
Operating Revenue Impacts for Florida Strawberry Fruit Production

	Baseline

Methyl Bromide	Alternative

1,3-D + Pic	% Change	Metam-sodium	% Change

Yield (lb/acre)	2,042	1,748	-14	1,433	-30

Price  ($/12 lb flat)	13.20	13.20

13.20

	Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	26,954	23,073	-14	18,922	-30

Methyl bromide ($/acre)

1,3-D  ($/acre)

Metam-sodium  ($/acre)

	750

640

-14.6

640

-14.6

Other Operating Costs  ($/acre)	13,279	12,719	-4.2	11,743	-11.5

Harvest Costs  ($/acre)	3,880	4,055	4.5	3,326	-14.2

Total Operating Costs  ($/acre)	17,909	17,414	-2.7	15,709	-12.3

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	9,045	5,659	-37.4	3,213	-64.5

Source: USDA NASS (2006), 2006 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination
for Preplant Soil Use on Strawberry, BEAD calculations.  Assumptions: 1:
fumigation costs include tarp and hand weeding costs; 2:Metam-sodium
fumigation costs derived from 2003 Doane, Farm Chemicals Handbook; yield
losses estimates from emergency exemption 03-FL-0024. Figures may not
sum due to rounding.

National Benefits

Total national net revenue benefits associated with the use of fumigants
are estimated to range from $60.8 to 203.5 million for acres treated
with methyl bromide if growers choose MeBr rather than 1,3-D plus
chloropicrin or metam-sodium.

Conclusion

The use of fumigants plays a very important role in fresh strawberry
production.  MeBr is the fumigant of choice in California and Florida
and the benefits of MeBr use are significant because of the relatively
lower material cost and more efficacious control, which reduces
additional inputs and produces higher yields and higher quality fresh
strawberries.

REFERENCES

Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S., Browne, G., Martin, F., Trout, T., Duniway,
J., Shem-Tov, S., and Daugovish, O. 2005. Strawberry yield with various
rates of chloropicrin and Inline applied under VIF. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions, 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/053AjwaH%20MBAO-ajwa05-VIF%20mta.pdf
"
http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/053AjwaH%20MBAO-ajwa05-VIF%20mta.pdf

Crop Profiles for Strawberries in California. 1999.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/castrawberries.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/castrawberries.html

Crop Profiles for Strawberry in Florida. 2004.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLstrawberries.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLstrawberries.html

CUN (Critical Use Nomination for Methyl Bromide in Strawberry Fruit
Production in Open Fields. 2006.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/cun2009/cun2009_StrawberryFruit.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/cun2009/cun2009_StrawberryFruit.pdf

CUN (Critical Use Nomination for Methyl Bromide in Strawberry Fruit
Production in Open Fields. 2005
http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/CUN2008/CUN2008_StrawberryFruit.pdf.

ERS (Economic Research Service)-USDA. 2005.  Fruit and Tree Nuts
Outlook.  July 28, 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/Strawberr
ies.pdf#search=%22strawberry%20production%20states%22"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/Strawberri
es.pdf#search=%22strawberry%20production%20states%22

Fennimore, S., Kabir, Z., Ajwa, H., Daugovish, O., and Roth, K. 2005.
Chloropicrin and Inline lethal dose on nutsedge and knotweed under
impermeable film. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 2005.
http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/054Fennimore%20abstract1.pdf

Johnson, M. S. and Fennimore, S. A. 2005. Weed and crop response to
colored plastic mulches in strawberry production.  HortScience
40(5):1371-1375.

Gilreath, J. P., Siham, M. N, Esmel, C. E., and Santos, B. M.2005b.
Methyl bromide rate reduction and mulch effect on nutsedge control.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions, 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/016SihamM%20MBAO05abstract%20Myr
iamSiham%20MBr%20rate%20+%20metallized%20mulch%20on%20nutsedge.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/016SihamM%20MBAO05abstract%20Myri
amSiham%20MBr%20rate%20+%20metallized%20mulch%20on%20nutsedge.pdf

Trout, T. 2005. Impact of township caps on telone use in California.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions, 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/127TroutT%20mb-pest-use-telone-r
pt05-mbao.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/127TroutT%20mb-pest-use-telone-rp
t05-mbao.pdf

UC-IPM (University of California). 2005. Strawberry drip fumigation.
HYPERLINK "http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r734900211.html"
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r734900211.html

USDA NASS (2002-2006)

USDA-NASS. 2002. The Census of Agriculture, 2002. Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series, Part 51.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/USVolume104.pdf

 PAGE

 PAGE   12


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 41273]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR14-37-000]

Alpha Crude Connector, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on July 3, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the
Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(2)(2014), Alpha Crude Connector, LLC filed a petition for
declaratory order seeking approval of the overall tariff and rate
structure and apportionment policy for a new crude oil pipeline system
to transport crude oil from Southeast New Mexico and West Texas to
points of interconnection with downstream pipelines and a rail
terminal, and thence to local refineries, Cushing Oklahoma, and the
Gulf Coast, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must
serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 1, 2014.

    Dated: July 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16436 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21720-21721]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2434-002.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits tariff filing
per 35: FERC Rate Schedule 115 Amended Service Agreement Compliance
Filing to be effective 9/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3290-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corporation submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): AEPSC filed a 25th revision to the
AEPSC & Buckeye ILDSA under SA No. 1336 to be effective 3/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3291-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Queue No. W4-030; Original Service Agreement No. 2804
to be effective 3/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3292-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): GenOn Diesels Distribution Service Agreement--
Amendment to First Supplement to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3293-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amendment to IFA and Service Agreement
with PAPCO to be effective 4/16/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3294-000.
    Applicants: Sempra Generation.
    Description: Sempra Generation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revision to Sempra Generation FERC Electric MBR
Tariff to be effective 4/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3295-000.
    Applicants: El Dorado Energy, LLC.
    Description: El Dorado Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revision to El Dorado Energy LLC FERC Electric MBR
Tariff to be effective 4/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3296-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Power, LLC.
    Description: Mesquite Power, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revision to Mesquite Power LLC FERC Electric MBR
Tariff to be effective 4/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3297-000.
    Applicants: Termoelectrica U.S., LLC.
    Description: Termoelectrica U.S., LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revision to Termoelectrica U.S. LLC FERC Electric MBR
Tariff to be effective 4/5/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110405-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF11-207-000.
    Applicants: PowerSecure, Inc.
    Description: Form 556--Notice of self-certification of qualifying
cogeneration facility status of PowerSecure, Inc.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110404-5079.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF11-208-000.
    Applicants: Cambridge Housing Authority.
    Description: Form 556--Notice of self-certification of qualifying
cogeneration facility status of Cambridge Housing Authority- Lyndon B.
Johnson Apartments.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110404-5105.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying

facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are
qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and
protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility
dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 05, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9299 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37136-37138]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16636]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81290; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees
for Use of Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. and Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.'s
Equity Options Platform

August 2, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 24, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-Members of the

Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules 15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') and its equity options
trading platform (``EDGX Options'') to re-name NYSE MKT as NYSE
American throughout the fee schedule.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify fees applicable to EDGX
Equities for orders routed to NYSE American in connection with changes
made by NYSE American to its fee structure. As of July 24, 2017, NYSE
American transitioned to a fully automated cash equities market. In
connection with this transition, NYSE American updated its fee
structure in a variety of ways, including to charge a fee to add non-
displayed liquidity and to provide no rebate (nor charge any fee) to
add displayed liquidity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2017-43 (filed July 19, 2017), available at:
https://www.nyse.com/regulation/rule-filings?market=NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the fee structure for orders that
are routed to and add liquidity at NYSE American, which yielded fee
code 8 for displayed liquidity and fee code NA for non-displayed
liquidity. Orders yielding fee code 8 previously received a rebate of
$0.00150 per share and orders yielding fee code NA were not provided a
rebate or charged any fee.
    The Exchange proposes to continue to apply fee code 8 to orders
that add displayed liquidity at NYSE American but to change the rate
from a rebate to a fee, charging orders that yield fee code 8 a fee of
$0.00020 per share.
    The Exchange also proposes to remove NYSE American (previously NYSE
MKT) from the list of venues where an order that adds non-displayed
liquidity yields fee code NA. The Exchange does not propose to modify
the rate applied to orders yielding fee code NA, but, as a result of
this change, orders adding non-displayed liquidity at NYSE American
will yield fee code NB instead, which is applied to all routed
executions at an exchange not covered by Fee Code NA that adds non-
displayed liquidity. Similarly, the Exchange does not propose to modify
the rate applied to orders yielding fee code NB, which is currently a
fee of $0.00300 per share.
    The Exchange notes that the changes proposed above will not impact
the current fee structure for orders that add displayed liquidity at
NYSE American in securities priced below $1.00, which, pursuant to fee
code 8 are provided without charge and without rebate. However, the
proposed change to remove NYSE American from fee code NA will impact
pricing for non-displayed orders routed to NYSE American that add
liquidity. Specifically, consistent with other orders yielding fee code
NB, orders in securities priced below $1.00 will be charged 0.30% of
the total dollar value of an execution.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the above changes to its fee
schedule immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. At the outset, the Exchange notes that its proposal to
refer to NYSE American is consistent with the Act as it will avoid
confusion with the Exchange's fee schedule by reflecting NYSE MKT's new
name. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule changes
are designed to react to pricing changes at NYSE American, to avoid
subsidizing routing to such venue. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that
routing through the Exchange's affiliate, Bats Trading, Inc. is
voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes to fee code 8 and to remove NYSE American (NYSE MKT)
from fee code NA are primarily to designed to react to pricing changes
at NYSE American, effective July 24, 2017. These changes are necessary
to avoid providing routing services with pricing that effectively
subsidizes routing to NYSE American. The Exchange's prior pricing model
for orders routed to NYSE American was based on a fee structure that
provided rebates for orders that added liquidity. The Exchange believes
it is reasonable and fair and equitable to charge fees for orders
routed to NYSE American that no longer receive a rebate but instead are
either assessed a fee by NYSE American or are provided free of charge.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rates are reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory in that they are consistent with other rates
already charged by the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes the
proposed changes are not unfairly discriminatory in that they are
equally applicable to all Members that use the Exchange's routing
services to add liquidity at NYSE American.

(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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that any of the proposed changes to the Exchange's routing pricing
burden competition, as they are based on the pricing on other venues.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden
intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members
uniformly.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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-BatsEDGX-2017-31 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-BatsEDGX-2017-31. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2017-31 and should
be submitted on or before August 29, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16636 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69696]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26689]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 282

[EPA-R01-UST-2019-0421; FRL-10003-05-Region 1]

New Hampshire: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the heading, Agency, and Summary to a
proposed rule published in the Federal Register of November 1, 2019,
regarding approval of revisions to the State of New Hampshire's
Underground Storage Tank (UST) program. This correction clarifies the
title of the Agency proposing the rule.

DATES: Comments were due by December 2, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Hanamoto, RCRA Waste Management,
UST, and Pesticides Section; Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment
Division; EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (Mail Code 07-
1), Boston, MA 02109-3912.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2019-23708 appearing on page 58674 in the
issue of November 1, 2019, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 58674, in the heading, the agency name is corrected to
read ``Environmental Protection Agency''.
    2. On page 58674, in the AGENCY caption, the agency name is
corrected to read ``Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)''.
    3. On page 58674, in the first sentence of the summary,
``Environmental Services Agency'' is corrected to read ``Environmental
Protection Agency''.

    Dated: November 5, 2019.
Nancy Barmakian,
Acting Director of Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-26689 Filed 12-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1  Forwarded by DonaldF Anderson/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 12/ 18/ 03 09: 15

DonaldF Anderson To: " Hunt, Tim" < Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa. org> cc: " Schwartz, Jerry" < Jerry_ Schwartz@ afandpa. org> Subject: Re: Plywood MACT and zero discharge( Document link: DonaldF Anderson) 12/ 18/ 03 09: 17 Tim

I got the file. We will consider the suggestions in the file. Happy holidays,

Don " Hunt, Tim" < Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa. org> To: DonaldF Anderson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: " Schwartz, Jerry" < Jerry_ Schwartz@ afandpa. org> Subject: Plywood MACT and zero discharge 12/ 17/ 03 17: 09 Don,

Here are the clarifications on the zero discharge issue for Plywood MACT that Jerry promised earlier this month. They are pretty self explanatory with actual rule language working from the original proposal and explanations for the changes. If you would like to talk about them at all, let us know. I am out after Monday for the rest of the year, so it might need to happen after the first of the year. If everything is OK, it would be good to know that as well.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Happy Holidays.

<< zero discharge final rule language 12 17 03. DOC>>

Timothy Hunt Senior Director, Air Quality Programs American Forest and Paper Association Suite 800 1111 19th St., NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202 463 2588 fax: 202 463 2423 Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa. org ( See attached file: zero discharge final rule language 12 17 03. DOC) 2 Replacement for existing 40 CFR § 429.11( c) ( AF& PA additions to EPA 1/ 9/ 03 preamble shown in italics):

The term " process wastewater" specifically excludes non contact cooling water, material storage yard runoff ( either raw material or processed wood storage), boiler blowdown, and wastewater from air pollution control devices installed or used by facilities in subparts B, C, D, and M of this part to comply with the proposed or final national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for plywood and composite wood products ( PCWP) facilities ( 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDD). For the dry process hardboard, veneer, finishing, particleboard, and sawmills and planing mills subcategories, fire control water is excluded from the definition. An air pollution control device installed or used to comply with the proposed or final PCWP NESHAP is a device that reduces the amount of a hazardous air pollutant emitted into the air ( including any appurtenant equipment needed to capture or transport exhaust gases containing hazardous air pollutants to such a device), the operation of which is necessary to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants below the emission limitations set forth in the PCWP NESHAP, or below the level at which those emissions are not subject to the emission limitations set forth in the PCWP NESHAP.

Possible Preamble Language:

As discussed in the preamble to the proposed PCWP MACT rule, EPA has considered industry's request that EPA amend the effluent guidelines applicable to many PCWP facilities and contained in 40 CFR part 429. Those effluent guidelines for a number of subcategories prohibit the discharge of process wastewater pollutants into navigable waters of the United States. Certain types of wastewaters are excluded from this discharge prohibition, but wastewater from operation and maintenance of air pollution control equipment is not mentioned in the exclusions. Industry argued that compliance with the PCWP MACT rule could generate substantial quantities of wastewater that were never contemplated by EPA when EPA determined that the zero discharge of process wastewater effluent guidelines were achievable with Best Available Technology. EPA has confirmed that operation and maintenance of the types of emission control devices on which the PCWP standards are based could result in the generation of significant quantities of wastewater beyond those considered by EPA when it determined that elimination of the discharge of process wastewater pollutants was practicable. Thus, EPA is today amending the effluent guidelines to exclude from the definition of " process wastewater" those wastewaters generated by operation and maintenance of technology to meet the PCWP NESHAP.

Equipment that reduces emissions to meet the limitations on hazardous air pollutant emissions in the proposed or final PCWP NESHAP is covered by this exclusion. So is equipment needed to reduce or maintain HAP emissions below 3 applicability thresholds, or to allow the source to qualify for a risk based alternative to specified HAP emission limitations. An " air pollution control device" is any equipment that reduces the quantity of a hazardous pollutant that is emitted to the air, and it also includes any equipment that captures or transports HAP emissions to a device for destruction or recovery. Some examples of the types of equipment that, if used to comply with the PCWP NESHAP, would have wastewater exempted from the discharge prohibition in the effluent guidelines are RTOs, TCOs, and other types of thermal destruction devices; boilers or other combustion units used to burn process exhaust gases; biofilters; condensers; and the hoods, vents, and ductwork that captures exhaust gases containing hazardous air pollutants and transports it to a control device, including particulate removal equipment, such as a wet electrostatic precipitator, that is operated as part of a thermal oxidation system to reducing the particulate loading on the thermal oxidation device.

In the absence of applicable effluent guidelines, the discharge of wastewater to waters of the United States from the operation and maintenance of pollution control equipment covered by this exclusion would be subject to discharge allowances in individual NPDES permits. The actual discharge allowances would be determined initially on a case by case basis by NPDES permitting authorities using their best professional judgment ( see 40 CFR § 125.3). EPA will consider, through the CWA section 304( m) planning process, whether it is appropriate to revise part 429 at a later time in order to establish category or subcategory specific effluent limitations and standards for such air pollution control wastewater discharges. Wastewater from operation and maintenance of air pollution control equipment used to comply with the PCWP NESHAP at wet process hardboard mills, 40 C. F. R. part 429 subpart E, will continue to be subject to the discharge allowances in the effluent limitations guidelines contained in that subpart.

AF& PA Explanation AF& PA does not believe that listing particular types of air pollution control equipment in the regulation is necessary or advisable for several reasons. Most importantly, any list may result in permit writers deciding that other types of equipment not listed should not be subject to the exclusion from zero discharge, which could obstruct the use of innovative technologies to comply with the PCWP NESHAP. Instead of listing specific equipment, we have used descriptive terminology similar to the definitions of " control system" and " control device" in the proposed PCWP NESHAP.

It was suggested that the exclusion should apply only to subparts C ( Plywood), D ( Dry Process Hardboard), and M ( Particleboard). AF& PA understands the logic of not extending the exclusion to subpart E ( Wet Process Hardboard) ( although for new wet process hardboard mills, which are subject to a zero discharge NSPS, special efforts will 4 have to be taken in designing the mill to allow use of the air pollution control equipment wastewater within the confines of a zero discharge requirement). Subparts F through L and N through P apply to operations not subject to the PCWP MACT standards, so the exclusion should not apply to them, either. Subpart B ( Veneer) appears to be subject to MACT standards for veneer dryers, however. Thus, veneer mills will encounter the same kinds of increased wastewater loading from the MACT controls on their veneer dryers that facilities in other subcategories, such as plywood mills, will face. AF& PA is not aware of any reason for treating veneer mills differently; they should be part of the exclusion for air pollution control wastewaters, also.

AF& PA has inserted language to clarify that the exclusion from zero discharge for air pollution control wastewaters applies to equipment used to reduce HAP emissions below applicable thresholds for requirements to meet specific emission limits. If the final rule includes, as we anticipate, an option for a mill to demonstrate eligibility for sitespecific delisting based on risk, then equipment employed by the mill to get below that risk threshold is just as much a consequence of new, unanticipated CAA requirements as is equipment used to meet production based limits or percent reduction requirements.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34999-35000]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-2004-18757]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; TransCanada/Columbia
Pipeline Group

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to seek public comment on a
request for special permit renewal, seeking relief from compliance with
certain requirements in the federal pipeline safety regulations. At the
conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments
received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny
the special permit renewal request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
August 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for the specific
special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Note: There is a privacy statement published on https://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to https://www.Regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Mr. Vincent Holohan by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA has received a special permit request
from TransCanada (present owner and operator of the Columbia Pipeline
Group (CPG) Dundee Storage Field, which was formerly owned and operated
by Columbia Gas Transmission) for the extension of a previously issued
special permit. On March 3, 2005, PHMSA issued a special permit to
Columbia Gas Transmission for the installation, operation, and testing
of approximately 4,200 feet of 4-inch diameter fiberglass reinforced
polyethylene known as Fiberspar[supreg] spooled, non-metallic,
composite line pipe in its CPG Dundee Storage Field, located in
Schulyer County, New York. The special permit provided variance from 49
CFR 192.53(c), 192.121, 192.123, and 192.619(a). TransCanada has
requested a continuation of the existing special permit variances and
conditions contingent upon the continued testing of sample pipe as set
forth in the original special permit. The maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP) of the CPG Dundee Storage Field Fiberspar pipeline
remains at 825 pounds per square inch gauge. There have been no changes
in the MAOP or class location, and no high consequence areas have
developed on the CPG Dundee Storage Field Fiberspar pipeline.
    The proposed special permit renewal and Draft Environmental
Assessment (DEA) for TransCanada's request for the CPG Dundee Storage
Field pipeline is available in Docket Number PHMSA-RSPA-2004-18757, at
https://www.Regulations.gov. We invite interested persons to
participate by reviewing the special permit renewal request and DEA at
https://www.Regulations.gov, and by submitting written comments, data,
or other views. Please include any comments on potential safety and
environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is renewed.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit renewal request,
PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment
closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be
evaluated if it is possible to do so without incurring additional
expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment we receive
in making our decision to grant a special permit renewal or deny a
request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2019, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2019-15386 Filed 7-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P