[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7841-7844]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3100]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0835; FRL-9265-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collections;
Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Request for Comments on Proposed
Renewal of Form R and Form A, Including Minor Form Revisions and the
Ratio-Based Burden Methodology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on July
31, 2011. The ICR Supporting Statement, which is summarized below and
also posted in the docket, along with a technical document titled
``Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology,'' describes the
nature of the information collection (including proposed form changes)
and its estimated burden and cost. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2010-0835, by one of the following methods:
     U.S. Government Web site for Federal Rulemaking, follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operations, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: To submit a comment to the docket, direct your
comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0835. EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the public docket without
change and will be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information that has been provided, unless the
comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that is considered to
be CBI or otherwise protected information through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comments. 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. When preparing electronic
files, avoid using special characters or any form of encryption and
ensure that the electronic files to be submitted are free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cassandra Vail, Toxics Release
Inventory Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access
(2844T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number,<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for the ICR described in this
notice under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0835, which is available for
online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. Go to http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the proposed collection of
information, to submit or view public comments, to obtain an index of
the docket contents, and to obtain those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then enter the docket ID number identified in this
document.
    The docket is also available for viewing in person at the OEI
Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), U.S. EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The phone number for the Reading Room is 202-
566-1744, and the phone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

In which information is EPA particularly interested?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it
to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
new Ratio-Based Burden Methodology;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting the electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

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

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples;
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used;

    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views;
    4. If you provide estimates of potential burden hours or labor
costs, explain how you arrived at your estimates;
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity;
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES; and
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the docket ID number
assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your
response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register
citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected Entities: This ICR applies to facilities that submit
annual reports under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA). The applicability criteria are outlined in part
372, subpart B, of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and
potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not
limited to the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category            Examples of potentially affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  Facilities included in the following
                                NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding
                                to SIC codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*,
                                313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*,
                                324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333,
                                334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*,
                                211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*,
                                212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120,
                                511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220,
                                512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*.
                               * Exceptions and/or limitations exist for
                                these NAICS codes.
                               Facilities included in the following
                                NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes
                                other than SIC codes 20 through 39):
                                212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to
                                SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or
                                212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299
                                (correspond to SIC 10, Metal Mining
                                (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or
                                221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121,
                                221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities
                                that combust coal and/or oil for the
                                purpose of generating power for
                                distribution in commerce) (correspond to
                                SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric
                                Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120
                                (Limited to facilities previously
                                classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and
                                Allied Products, Not Elsewhere
                                Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to
                                SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and
                                Plants); or 562112 (Limited to
                                facilities primarily engaged in solvent
                                recovery services on a contract or fee
                                basis (previously classified under SIC
                                7389, Business Services, NEC)); or
                                562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920
                                (Limited to facilities regulated under
                                the Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.)
                                (correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse
                                Systems).
Federal Government...........  Federal facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the individual listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Title: Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Form R); Toxic Chemical
Release Reporting, Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable
Amounts (Form A) and the Ratio-Based Burden Methodology.
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1363.21, OMB Control No. 2025-0009 (TRI
Form R) and EPA ICR No. 1704.13, OMB Control No. 2025-0010 (TRI Form A
Certification Statement). EPA proposes to combine these two ICRs into
one overarching ICR, which will retain the OMB Control No. 2025-0009.
    ICR Status: The ICRs for the TRI Form R and the TRI Form A
Certification Statement are scheduled to expire on July 31, 2011.
    Abstract: Pursuant to section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities that
manufacture, process, or otherwise use specified toxic chemicals in
amounts above reporting threshold levels must submit annually to EPA
and to designated State officials toxic chemical release forms
containing information specified by EPA. 42 U.S.C. 11023. In addition,
pursuant to section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA),
facilities reporting under section 313 of EPCRA must also report
pollution prevention and waste management data, including recycling
information, for such chemicals. 42 U.S.C. 13106. These reports are
compiled and stored in EPA's database known as the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI); TRI data are made readily available to the public.
    Regulations at 40 CFR part 372, subpart B, require facilities that
meet all of the following criteria to report:
    1. The facility has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents
(i.e., a total of 20,000 hours worked per year or greater; see 40 CFR
372.3); and
    2. The facility is included in a North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Code listed at 40 CFR 372.23 or under
Executive Order 13148, Federal facilities regardless of their industry
classification; and
    3. The facility manufactures (defined to include importing),
processes, or otherwise uses any EPCRA section 313 (TRI) chemical in
quantities greater than the established thresholds for the specific
chemical in the course of a calendar year.
    Facilities that meet the criteria must file a Form R report or, in
some cases, may submit a Form A Certification Statement, for each
listed toxic chemical for which the criteria are met. As specified in
EPCRA section 313(a), the report for any calendar year must be
submitted on or before July 1st of the following year. For example,
reporting year 2009 data should have been submitted and certified on or
before July 1, 2010.
    The list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI reporting can be found
at 40 CFR 372.65. This list is also published every year as Table II in
the current version of the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms and
Instructions. The current TRI chemical list contains 593 chemicals and
30 chemical categories.
    TRI data are used by environmental agencies, industry, and the
public. EPA program offices use TRI data, along with other data, to
help establish programmatic priorities, evaluate potential hazards to
human health and the natural environment, and undertake appropriate
regulatory and/or enforcement activities. Environmental and public
interest groups use the data to better understand toxic chemical
releases at the community level and to work with industry, government
agencies, and others to promote reductions in toxic chemical releases.
Industrial facilities use the TRI data to evaluate the efficiency of
their production processes and to help track and communicate their
progress in achieving pollution prevention goals.
    The TRI data are unique in providing a multi-media (air, water, and
land) picture of toxic chemical releases, transfers, and other waste
management activities by covered facilities on a

yearly basis. While other environmental media programs provide some
toxic chemical data and related permit data, the data are not directly
comparable to TRI data with regard to the types of chemicals and
industry sectors that are covered or the frequency of reporting.
Facilities that are subject to TRI reporting must submit reports for
each calendar year to EPA and the States in which they are located by
July 1st of the following year.
    Respondents may claim trade secrecy for a chemical's identity as
described in EPCRA Section 322 and its implementing regulations in 40
CFR part 350. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim
of trade secrecy only to the extent permitted by and in accordance with
the procedures in 40 CFR part 350 and 40 CFR part 2.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on
the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 35.71
hours for Form R and 21.96 hours for a Form A. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting/validating/verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements that have subsequently changed; train
personnel to respond to a collection of information; search data
sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR Supporting Statement provides a detailed explanation of the
Agency's estimate for TRI program burden, including Form R/A burden,
which is only briefly summarized here:
     Estimated total number of respondents (i.e., facilities):
20,871.
     Frequency of response: Annual.
     Estimated total average number of responses: 73,727.
     Estimated total average number of responses for each
respondent: 3.53.
     Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,515,751 hours.
     Estimated total annual costs: $174,451,565.

What changes are included in this ICR?

    OMB approved the ICR for Form R and the ICR for the Form A
Certification Statement on March 2, 2008, with original expiration
dates of March 31, 2011. On February 17, 2010, OMB approved an
extension of the expiration dates for both forms to July 31, 2011. The
OMB approved burden numbers on March 2, 2008, where 3,217,280 hours for
Form R and 515,901 hours for Form A, totaling 3,733,181 hours.
    Several changes in the burden estimates have been approved by OMB
since the OMB approvals of the ICRs on March 2, 2008. On March 20,
2009, OMB approved the merging of the ICR for TRI detailed reporting on
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds (OMB 2025-007, ICR 2086.02), into the
TRI Form R ICR (currently OMB Control Number 2025-0009), increasing
burden by 899 hours. Then on March 27, 2009, OMB approved changes in
the number of responses and the burden hours for Form R and Form A to
reflect the passage of Section 425 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of
2009, which rescinded the December 2006 Toxics Release Inventory Burden
Reduction Rule. As a result, the OMB-approved numbers for Form R were
increased by 140,565 hours and for Form A burden were decreased by
318,418 yielding a net increase of 458,983 hours. Most recently, on
November 26, 2010, the Addition of National Toxicology Program
Carcinogens rule was published in the Federal Register. This rule is
estimated to increase the number of reporting facilities by 74 and the
number of Form Rs submitted by 186 with an associated burden increase
of 6,641 hours.
    Meanwhile, over the past several years, there has been a slight
decrease in the number of facilities reporting to TRI. Based on the
latest data for Reporting Year 2009 plus updates to reflect changes
during the year of the ICR project--in this case, the modeled number of
chemicals and facilities estimated to report under the Addition of
National Toxicology Program Carcinogens rule, EPA now estimates the
total number of combined Form R and Form A responses to be 73,727, with
the associated total annual burden hours to be 3,515,751, and the
annual cost to be $174,451,565. For a detailed explanation of the
Agency's estimates of the respondent reporting burden and labor costs,
please refer to the proposed TRI Form R and A Supporting Statement and
the document ``Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology,'' which
are available in the docket.
    EPA is interested in comments regarding methodology revisions
documented in the peer-reviewed technical document titled, ``Revising
TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology,'' which is available through the
docket. The revised methodology, Ratio-Based Burden Methodology (RBBM),
simplifies calculations, imposes internal consistency, and sharpens
transparency while retaining the components of the existing methodology
and maintaining the overall total burden estimate as a starting point.
EPA invites comments specifically regarding evidence that would
quantify the ratio of PBT/non-PBT burden for the TRI reporting
community overall.
    Additionally EPA is seeking comments on an alternate instruction
for the revision of Form R Section 8.11 in which facilities report
ongoing and newly implemented source reduction activities. The
alternate instructions would limit the scope of ``ongoing source
reduction activities'' to those implemented in the previous five years.
    EPA is proposing to make several changes to the TRI reporting forms
and associated instructions, but these changes are estimated to have a
negligible effect on form unit burden. The proposed changes, which are
outlined below, are designed to help enhance the overall utility of the
data collected under the TRI Program.
    1. Remove the NA box from the Parent Company field (Part I: Sec.
5,.5.1) Rationale: The NA box is currently used to indicate a foreign
parent company. Removing this box and requiring facilities to report
the highest level U.S. parent company will facilitate analysis of the
TRI data at the parent company level.
    2. Disaggregate the ``Total Transfers'' field and add fields to
identify chemical discharge quantities to specific publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) (Part II: Sec 6.1). Rationale: The current form
collects a single ``Total Transfer'' quantity for transfers to all
POTWs. Providing separate fields for the transfer quantity to each POTW
will facilitate analysis of the releases to specific watersheds.
    3. Section 8 enhancements, including:
     Change instructional statement on form to include ``newly
implemented and/or ongoing'' source reduction activities (Part II: Sec.
8.10).
     Add an N/A box to match associated text revisions (Part
II: Sec. 8.10).
     Add a field to allow separate reporting for both new and
ongoing

source reduction activities (Part II: Sec. 8.10, 8.10.1-4).
     Remove the ``Yes'' box and enlarge the text section for
the question on optional pollution prevention information (Part II:
Section 8.11).
    Rationale: The current form requests information on ``any source
reduction activities for this chemical during the reporting year;'' but
the Reporting Forms and Instructions request information on ``newly
implemented'' source reduction activities. These form changes will
remove this difference, allow facilities to distinguish between new and
ongoing source reduction activities, and provide additional optional
information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control
activities on the form itself (in box 8.11).
    4. Add a new question to capture miscellaneous and optional
information regarding the submission (Part II: Sec. 9., 9.1).
Rationale: This new text box will allow facilities to provide optional,
miscellaneous information that may be helpful to EPA and/or the public
in using or interpreting their data (e.g., facility closures,
explanations for changes in release quantities, etc.).
    5. Add NA boxes to Part II, Sections 5.3, 6.1, and 6.2. Rationale:
Adding NA boxes to these sections will make the formatting of Form R
and Form R Schedule 1 more consistent.

What is the next step in the process for these ICRs?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice for the ICR pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: February 6, 2011.
Robin Gonzalez,
Acting Director, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of
Environmental Information.
[FR Doc. 2011-3100 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Nominating Party: 	The United States of America

FILE NAME: USA CUN13 Soil ORNAMENTALS Open Field and Protected
Environments

Brief descriptive Title of Nomination:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Ornamentals in Open Fields and Protection Environments (Submitted in
2011 for 2013 Use Season)

Crop name (open field or protected): Ornamentals – Open Fields and
Protected

Quantity of methyl bromide Nominated:

Table 1: Quantity of Methyl Bromide Nominated

Year	Nomination Amount

2013	48,164 kg

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS:

Contact Person:	John Thompson

Title:	Division Director

Address:	Office of Environmental Policy

	U.S. Department of State

	2201 C Street, N.W. Room 2658

	Washington, D.C. 20520

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1) The United
States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this
Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of
methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market
disruption.                  ■ Yes	            ( No

Signature			       	Name					Date

Title:

(Details on this page are requested under Decision Ex. I/4(7), for
posting on the Ozone Secretariat website under Decision Ex. I/4(8).)

In assessing nominations submitted in this format, TEAP and MBTOC will
also refer to the original nomination on which the Party’s first-year
exemption was approved, as well as any supplementary information
provided by the Party in relation to that original nomination.  As this
earlier information is retained by MBTOC, a Party need not re-submit
that earlier information.

CONTACT OR EXPERT(S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS:

Contact/Expert Person:	Jack Housenger

Title:	Director

Address:	Biological and Economic Analysis Division

	Office of Pesticide Programs

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mailcode 7503P

	Washington, D.C. 20460

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION
PACKAGE:

1.  PAPER DOCUMENTS:

Title of paper documents and appendices	No. of pages	Date sent to Ozone
Secretariat

2.  ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS:

*Title of each electronic file (for naming convention see notes above)
No. of kilobytes 	Date sent to Ozone Secretariat

USA CUN13 Soil ORNAMENTALS Open Field and Protected Environments

* Identical to paper documents

METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE RENOMINATION FOR Preplant Soil Use (OPEN
FIELD OR PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT)

ORNAMENTALS

SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE:

This re-nomination is for methyl bromide for the production of
ornamentals.  The ornamental sector consists of cut flowers, cut greens,
and bulbs in California and floriculture in Florida.  All data comes
from the applicants’ requests unless otherwise cited.

California

Ornamental growers in California have a demonstrated critical need for
methyl bromide in 2013.  Alternatives are not available due to
regulatory constraints.   Iodomethane (methyl iodide)  was registered in
December of 2010 in California, but its future registration status is
uncertain because of lawsuit that was filed to stop its registration.
Many alternative fumigants contain 1,3-dichloropropene and/or
chloropicrin; these active ingredients are severely restricted by
California state and local laws which effectively prevent their use as
methyl bromide alternatives for ornamental cultivation.  Restrictions on
chloropicrin also means the lowest formulation of methyl bromide used in
California is 67:33 (methyl bromide: chloropicrin), as rates of
chloropicrin higher than 225 kg/ha are prevented by law and lower rates
are ineffective for pest control.  A single grower may grow dozens of
types of species and cultivars, each of which may experience different
pest pressures and may result in varying cultivar and species reactions
to pest control measures, impacting an alternative’s ability to
control the entire pest spectrum.

Florida

Iodomethane has been a registered pesticide in Florida since early 2009.
Thus far, research results indicate that it is as efficacious as methyl
bromide, facilitating a transition away from methyl bromide.  However,
few long-term trials have been conducted and concerns have been raised
about application techniques and species-specific interactions.  For
instance, there have been no iodomethane trials to treat permanent
post-rows using the “hot gas” method, which is a common management
practice for Florida ornamental growers.  Until more studies have been
done to address these concerns and growers have more time to adapt their
production practices, there is a critical need for methyl bromide in
2013 as part of a multi-year transition to alternatives. Some
alternatives that appear effective in research trials are not currently
registered, including acrolein and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS).

2.	reasons why alternatives to methyl bromide are not feasible

The adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide by the ornamentals sector
is constrained by regulatory prohibitions, yield losses, and higher
costs which vary greatly by state.  Additionally, some constraints apply
to the entire ornamentals industry.  A single grower may grow dozens of
types of species and cultivars, each of which may experience different
pest pressures.  For example, a 2008 study in Florida found a
significant difference between the pests of two cultivars of Delphinium
and their pest loads (Rosskopf et al 2008). These differences may result
in varying cultivar and species reactions to pest control measures,
impacting an alternative’s ability to control the entire pest
spectrum.  Methyl bromide is requested for ornamentals to allow time to
test the alternatives for all the different crops and growing
conditions.

California

In addition to federal regulations, the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has implemented severe restrictions for soil
fumigants, including larger buffer zone requirements and township caps,
which limit the amount of each fumigant can be applied within a 36-mile
area (Segawa et al 2005).  If these restrictions were not in place, the
best methyl bromide alternative for ornamental growers in California
would be 1,3-D plus chloropicrin followed by metam sodium (James Gerik,
personal communication). A recent study found that this fumigant
combination was at least as efficacious as methyl bromide (Klose et al
2008).  The state buffer and township cap regulations currently prevent
the use of this alternative.  Moreover, another recent study found that
the most effective alternative treatments contain chloropicrin (Gerik et
al 2002). However, any pesticide combinations including either 1,3-D or
chloropicrin are subject to prohibitory regulations and can only be
considered as  alternatives in areas where regulatory constraints do not
restrict their use.  Iodomethane received a registration in California
in December of 2010.  The rates registered in California are lower than
those registered in the rest of the U.S. and the buffer distances to
habited structures are up to 10X larger than in the rest of the U.S.
Research will need to be conducted on the efficacy of these lower use
rates.

Some alternatives that appear effective in research trials are not
currently registered, including acrolein, and DMDS. The future
registration status of these products and other alternatives is unknown.

Florida

Iodomethane is now fully registered in Florida and recent research
results showed it is at least as effective as methyl bromide for pest
control in Florida ornamentals (Rosskopf et al 2006, Rosskopf et al
2007a, Rosskopf et al 2007b, Kokalis-Burelle et al 2006). However, no
studies have been conducted on the same fields for more than two years,
so long-term efficacy and application issues have yet to be fully
identified and understood.   Moreover, efficacy has varied between the
species and cultivars tested in research trials; it is impossible to
predict how each of the many species and cultivars of ornamentals would
respond to iodomethane.  Additionally, research is needed on the
compatibility of iodomethane with ‘hot gas’ fumigant application
currently used for methyl bromide; it is a common management method for
ornamental growers.

More studies are needed in order to understand the climate-specific
constraints faced by Florida ornamental growers. The applicants continue
to apply for grants and conduct research to this end in collaboration
with California ornamental growers.  DMDS was registered in 2010 for
ornamentals but not in Florida (registered states currently include:
Georgia, Ohio, North and South Carolina, Michigan, New Mexico,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia).  If DMDS is registered in Florida
additional time will be needed because there are very few long term DMDS
efficacy studies on ornamentals.

3.	is the use covered by A certification STANDARD?

Methyl bromide is not used to meet a certification standard for
ornamental production.

4.	If part of the crop area is treated with methyl bromide, indicate the
reason why methyl bromide is not used in the other area, and identify
what alternative strategies are used to control the target pathogens and
weeds without methyl bromide there.

Methyl bromide is only being requested for ornamental crop acreage with
demonstrated critical need and is not being requested for acreage that
has had success with alternatives, such as caladiums in Florida.

Enclosures

Some ornamental growers using greenhouses have had success controlling
pests with substrates.  Crops successfully grown in soilless media
include roses, gerbera, lilies, and tulips.  However, even substrates
are fumigated after multiple cropping seasons to control diseases such
as Pythium and continue using the substrate, which must be reused in
order for the cropping system to be cost effective.  Certain crops
actually experience yield or quality gains when grown in substrates,
such as roses; however, for most crops there is not such a gain to
offset the increased costs associated with substrate production.
Soilless media systems also require altered watering and fertilization
management practices, which may incur additional costs.  Ultimately, the
use of substrates requires greenhouses with benches, as opposed to
growing crops in enclosures with open bottoms to the soil.

Steam sterilization has been adopted by some shade house and greenhouse
growers to produce lilies. While steam is considered effective in
controlling pests, there are many costs required to set up a steaming
system within an existing enclosure structure.  The cost of fuel
required to heat soil beds uniformly also impacts the feasibility of
steam sterilization.  Some growers who attempted transitioning to steam
sterilization switched back to fumigation due to application issues and
additional costs.  Researchers in California and Florida have looked a
steam sterilization for ornamental production systems (Rosskopf 2010,
and Hanson 2010).  This work suggests with some additional testing that
field applied steam could become a technically and economically feasible
alternative.

Open Field

The U.S. does not have information about the proportion of ornamental or
floriculture crops using alternatives to methyl bromide.  It can be
presumed that acreage not requesting methyl bromide has either
transitioned to an alternative pesticide or does not have the same
cropping practices or pest pressure as the applicants with critical use
requests.  For example, Easter lily growers in California now use 1,3-D
and metam sodium applied sequentially instead of methyl bromide.
However, these crops allow fallow periods between crops of more than 10
years, which is not feasible for other specialty growers due to limited
land resources.   Additionally, some growers have reduced their planted
acreage due to economic hardship in recent years but intend to expand
plantings and thereby fumigated acres when the economy improves.

5.	Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods to cover at
least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl bromide? What
changes would be necessary to enable this?

No, it is not currently feasible to expand the use of alternative pest
control measures to address the demonstrated critical needs of the
ornamentals sector requesting methyl bromide for the 2013 growing
season.   Regulatory, technical, and economic barriers prevent their
adoption and generally vary by state.  Research to find efficacious,
safe, and cost effective alternatives is ongoing, and applicants have a
long history of successfully applying for grants and carrying out
research on alternatives.

California

State and local regulations would have to change in order for fumigants
such as 1,3-D and chloropicrin to be adopted as methyl bromide
alternatives.  Other fumigants currently being tested may prove
effective in research trials but lack registration in the state of
California, such as DMDS ).  Furthermore, some fumigants considered
effective in research trials for use in California lack both federal and
state registration, including dimethyl disulfide and acrolein (Gerik and
Wong 2008).

Florida

Research is needed in order to determine the long-term efficacy and cost
issues associated with iodomethane adoption as a methyl bromide
alternative.  More research is also needed on nonfumigant alternatives
such as steam.  Critical use of methyl bromide could be further reduced
by changing the label to allow concentrations lower than 98:2 (methyl
bromide: chloropicrin) to be applied using the ‘hot gas’ method,
which is a common management practice.  Concentrations as low as 50:50
(methyl bromide: chloropicrin) have been found to achieved comparable
control of nematodes and nutsedge as with the 98:2 formula (Noling et al
2001).

6.	summary of recent research

CALIFORNIA

Hanson, B.  2010.    HYPERLINK "85Hanson.pdf"  Steam Disinfestation as a
Methyl Bromide Alternative in California Cut Flower Nurseries.
Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/085HansonBSteamflowernursery.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/085HansonBSteamflowernursery.pdf

Steam treatments were compared to methyl bromide for the production of
snapdragon, and Asiatic lily in California.  There were no difference
between MeBr and steam for weed or Fusarium control at the snapdragon
site.  At the Asiatic lily site there were no difference in Fusarium or
Pythium control, weed control or lily plant emergence.

FLORIDA

Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, E. Nissen, O. Nissen, R. Hartman, R.
McSorley, E. Skvarch, T.J. Swaford, C. Owens, S. Brooks, and K.
Register. 2010.  Evaluation of currently available alternatives to
methyl bromide for ornamental crop production in Florida.  Proceedings
of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/082RosskopfAreawideOrnamental..pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/082RosskopfAreawideOrnamental..pdf

The 2010 results were different than the 2008 results above.  No
significant difference between methyl bromide, DMDS, or iodomethane in
terms of soil borne fungi.,  However, none of the alternatives were as
consistent as methyl bromide for weed control and there was a fungal
plant pathogen with nematode interaction for the different fumigants
that will need to be resolved..

Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, D.M. Butler, J. Holzinger, S.
Fennimore.  2010.  Evalution of steam for nematode and weed control in
cut flower production inFlorida.  Proceedings of the Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/083RosskopfSteam.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/083RosskopfSteam.pdf

The results of the 2010 study suggests that steam sterilization can
control weeds, reduce root gall ratings compared to MeBr on snapdragon,
larkspur, and delphinium.  The production of snapdragon, larkspur, and
delphinium appeared similar between MeBr and steam treatments.

7.  ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES

Please note that in this study net revenue is calculated as gross
revenue minus operating costs.  This is a good measure as to the direct
losses of income that may be suffered by the users.  It should be noted
that net revenue does not represent net income to the users. Net income,
which indicates profitability of an operation for an enterprise, is
gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs.  Net income is
smaller than the net revenue measured in this study, often substantially
so.  We did not include fixed costs because they are difficult to
measure and verify.

Table 2: California cut flowers - Calla Lily & Ranunculus - Economic
Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives

California Cut Flowers – Calla Lily & Bulbs	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Pic
Dazomet	Metam Sodium

Yield Loss (%) 	0	25 	25	20

   Yield per Hectare 	55,937	41,952	41,952	44,749

* Price per Unit (U.S.$)	2.59	2.59	2.59	2.59

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (U.S.$)	145,107	108,830	108,830	116,086

- Operating Costs per Hectare (U.S.$)	160,030	160,030	160,030	160,030

= Net Operating Revenue per Hectare (U.S.$)	-14,923	-51,200	-51,200
-43,945

1. Loss per Hectare (U.S.$)	0	36,277	36,277	29,021

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (U.S.$)	0	137	137	110

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0	25	25	20

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue (%)	0	-243	-243	-194

Table 3: Florida Cut Flowers - Lilies - Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives

Florida Cut Flowers – Lilies	Methyl Bromide	IODOMETHANE + PIC (98:2)

Yield Loss (%) 	0	0

   Yield per Hectare 	31,135	31,135

* Price per Unit (U.S.$)	10	10

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (U.S.$)	311,353	311,353

- Operating Costs per Hectare (U.S.$)	262,715	262,715

= Net Operating Revenue per Hectare (U.S.$)	48,638	46,908

1. Loss per Hectare (U.S.$)	0	1,730

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (U.S.$)	0	4

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0	1

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue (%)	0	4

Summary of Economic Feasibility

The economic analysis evaluated methyl bromide alternative control
scenarios for cut flower production for California and Florida by
comparing the economic outcomes of methyl bromide oriented production
systems to those using alternatives.  However, due to the fact that
there are over 100 species of ornamentals grown in all regions of the
country, the data from these examples are used to derive a proxy
estimate for the entire industry.  A major factor that affected this
economic analysis as compared to the past economic analyses was the
availability of iodomethane (registered in 2008) in Florida, but not in
California for use in ornamentals.

The economic factors that most influence the feasibility of methyl
bromide alternatives for fresh cut flower production are: (1) yield
losses, referring to reductions in the quantity and quality produced,
(2) increased production costs, which may be due to the higher-cost of
using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or
resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices, and (3)
missed market windows due to plant back time restrictions, which also
affect the quantity and price received for the goods.

The economic reviewers analyzed crop budgets for pre-plant sectors to
determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were unavailable.
 Various measures were used to quantify the impacts, including the
following:

(1) Loss per Hectare.  For crops, this measure is closely tied to
income.  It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to
interpret in isolation.

(2) Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide.  This measure indicates the
nominal marginal value of methyl bromide to crop production.

(3) Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue.  This measure has the
advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over
some unit, e.g., a hectare of land or a storage operation.  However,
high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also
entail high costs.  Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues
could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity.

(4) Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue.  We define net cash
revenues as gross revenues minus operating costs.  This is a very good
indicator as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the
owners or operators of an enterprise.  However, operating costs can
often be difficult to measure and verify.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic
feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users, who
are producers in this case.  Because producers (suppliers) represent an
integral part of any definition of a market, we interpret the threshold
of significant market disruption to be met if there is a significant
impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide.  The economic
measures provide the basis for making that determination.

Several methodological approaches will help interpret the findings.
Economic estimates were first calculated in pounds and acres and then
converted to kilograms and hectares.  Costs for alternatives are based
on market prices for the control products multiplied by the number of
pounds of active ingredient that would be applied.  Baseline costs were
based on the average number of annual applications necessary to treat
cut flowers with methyl bromide.

Net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating costs.  This
is a good measure as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered
by the users.  It should be noted that 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 difficult to measure and verify.

Loss per hectare measures the value of methyl bromide based on changes
in operating costs and/or changes in yield.  Loss expressed as a
percentage of the gross revenue is based on the ratio of the revenue
loss to the gross revenue, likewise for the loss as a percentage of net
revenue.  Yield loss estimates were based on data from the CUE
applications and U.S. EPA data, as well as expert opinion.

Regulatory constraints

California restricts total use of 1,3-D at the local level (township
cap).  Nematodes and weeds and pathogens are key pests in Florida and
California bulb grower and are controlled with methyl bromide.
Chloropicrin is not as effective in controlling weeds as methyl bromide.
 Using chloropicrin adds to production costs through increased chemical,
weeding and labor costs.

Tables 2 though 4 provide a summary of the estimated economic losses.  A
measure of net revenue loss may not be completely accurate partly
because some nurseries are publicly owned and seedling prices or
production costs are subsidized.  Indirect losses arising from shifts in
the production cycle were not quantified.  Changes in production costs
arise due to differences between the costs of methyl bromide and the
alternatives, shifts in the production cycle (increasing the frequency
of fumigation or lengthening the fallow period) and additional expenses
such as supplementary irrigation.  These costs vary across regions.

As shown in Table 2, the alternatives to methyl bromide for California
cut flower production impose significant economic impacts on the
growers.  However, in Florida where iodomethane is available for use in
ornamentals, economic impacts of using iodomethane as an alternative to
methyl bromide are small.

8.  RESULTANT CHANGES TO REQUESTED EXEMPTION QUANTITIES

Table 4. Nomination Amount.

CITATIONS

Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, E. Nissen, O. Nissen, R. Hartman, R.
McSorley, E. Skvarch, T.J. Swaford, C. Owens, S. Brooks, and K.
Register. 2010.  Evaluation of currently available alternatives to
methyl bromide for ornamental crop production in Florida.  Proceedings
of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/082RosskopfAreawideOrnamenta.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/082RosskopfAreawideOrnamenta.pdf

Rosskopf, E.N., N. Kokalis-Burelle, D.M. Butler, J. Holzinger, S.
Fennimore.  2010.  Evalution of steam for nematode and weed control in
cut flower production inFlorida.  Proceedings of the Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/083RosskopfSteam.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/083RosskopfSteam.pdf

Gerik, JS; CL Elmore, ID Greene. 2002. Alternative soil treatments for
field grown ornamentals. Proceedings of the Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2002proc/093gerikj%20mbao_2002.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2002proc/093gerikj%20mbao_2002.pdf

Gerik, James and Dong Wang. 2008. Control of Agrobacterium tumafaciens
with soil fumigants. Proceedings of the Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.
HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/2008/110Gerik.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2008/110Gerik.pdf

Gerik, James. Personal communication via telephone. October 28, 2008.

Hanson, B.  2010.    HYPERLINK "85Hanson.pdf"  Steam Disinfestation as a
Methyl Bromide Alternative in California Cut Flower Nurseries.
Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2010/085HansonBSteamflowernursery.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2010/085HansonBSteamflowernursery.pdf

Klose, Susanne; Jim Gerik, Hussein Ajwa, Cheryl Wilen, Mike Mellano.
2008. Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2008/029Klose.pdf"  http://mbao.org/2008/029Klose.pdf

Kokalis-Burelle, Nancy; Erin Rosskopf, Randy Driggers. 2006. Efficacy of
Midas for control of Meloidognye incognita on Celosia in Florida.
Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/112BurelleNMBAOAbstractBurelleetal20
06.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/112BurelleNMBAOAbstractBurelleetal200
6.pdf

McSorley, R., Wang, K.H., Church, G. 2004. Fumigant alternatives to
methyl bromide for managing nematodes and weeds in snapdragon.
Proceedings of Florida State Horticulture Society. 117:334-337.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2008. Floriculture
Crops 2007 Summary. USDA Sp Cr 6-1 (08)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FlorCrop/FlorCrop-04-24-200
8.pdf

Noling, J.W; J.P. Gilreath, E.R. Rosskopf. 2001. Alternatives to methyl
bromide field research efforts for nematode control in Florida.
Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.
http://mbao.org/2001proc/014%20Noling%20JW%20MBAO2-2001.pdf

Rosskopf, Erin; D.O. Chellemi, N. Kokalis-Burelle, G.T. Church. 2005.
Alternatives to methyl bromide: a Florida perspective.  APSnet Feature
June 2005:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/methylbromide/"
http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/methylbromide/

Rosskopf, Erin; Nancy Kokalis-Burelle, Randy Driggers. 2006. Evaluation
of Midas for production of ornamental cockscomb in Florida. Proceedings
of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.     HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/037Rosskopfetalcelosia2006.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/037Rosskopfetalcelosia2006.pdf

Rosskopf, Erin; Nancy Kokalis-Burelle, and Randy Driggers. 2007a.
Reduced rates and alternatives to methyl bromide for snapdragon
production in Florida. Proceedings of the Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.
HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/106RosskopfEMBAOsnapdragon2007.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/106RosskopfEMBAOsnapdragon2007.pdf

Rosskopf, EN; JS Gerik, NK Burelle, G Church, R McSorley. 2007b. Status
of methyl bromide alternatives for ornamental crop production in Florida
and California. American Phytopathological Society Annual Meeting.

Rosskopf, Erin and Nancy Kokalis-Burelle. 2008. Area-wide demonstration
of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for Florida ornamentals.
Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.    HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2008/028Rosskopf.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2008/028Rosskopf.pdf

Segawa, Randy. 2005. Methods for developing fumigant regulatory
requirements in California. Proceedings of the Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions.   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/001%20SegawaR%20mbao_2005_conf_segaw
a_summary.pdf"
http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/001%20SegawaR%20mbao_2005_conf_segawa
_summary.pdf

Zinati, Gladis; Herbert Bryan and Merlyn Codallo. 2002. Solarization as
a potential approach for recycling wastes for potting media and as an
alternative to methyl bromide for field-grown bedding plants.
Proceedings of Florida State Horticulture Society. 115: 123 – 127.

APPENDIX A: ORNAMENTAL SPECIES GROWN   TC "APPENDIX B  ORNAMENTAL
SPECIES GROWN AND TARGET PESTS" \f C \l "1"

The very large and constantly changing number of species and cultivars
grown in the ornamentals sector means that compiling a complete list of
species and acreage grown is not possible.  There are hundreds of types
of cut flower, foliage, and bulb crops grown each year and often several
species are grown in the same field simultaneously. However, the U.S.
has tried to describe the major crops below.  Additional information is
not available from public or private sources.

California

APPENDIX B -Table 1:  California Ornamentals - Production of Major
Species

Species	# Flower Bunches in 2003

Alstroemeria	892,789

Carnations	1,694,870

Delphinium	3,617,186

Gladiolus	Data not released

Gerbera	62,638,650

Iris	5,823,242

Lilium	6,247,027

Chrysanthemums	1,273,742

Pompons	6,350,127

Roses	7,360,729

Snapdragons	2,976,219

Appendix B - Table 2: California Ornamentals - Partial Listing and
Estimate of Cut Flower and Foliage Area Produced in California in 2002

Crop	Area (usually field) - ha	Area (usually greenhouse) - HA

Alstroemeria	8	 5

Antirrhinum (snapdragon)	126	 17

Aster

6

Calla lily	16

	Carnation	30	2

Chrysanthemum	88	28

Delphinium	22

	Eucalyptus	54

	Gerbera

21

Gypsophila	55

	Iris (Dutch)	18

	Larkspur	6

	Lilium	32	21

Limonium spp.	13

	Lisianthus	13

	Protea	190

	Rose	41	12

Stock (Matthiola)	26

	Wax flower	317

	Other	791	6

Greenhouse misc.	70	28

Field misc.	303

	Cut greens misc.	389

	Total	2609	145 ha

1  Total does not add due to rounding.

Florida

The only three cut flower species identified by the Florida Agricultural
Statistics Service are gladioli, lilies and snapdragon.  These are
assumed to have the highest acreage and they have been identified by the
applicant as using methyl bromide.

Appendix B Table 3.  Florida Ornamentals - Crop Production for Certain
Cut Flower Species2

	2001	2002	2003

Crop	# of producers	Quantity sold (1000 spikes)1	# of producers	Quantity
sold (1000 spikes)1	# of producers	Quantity sold (1000 spikes)

Gladioli	4	40,331	4	49,581	4	39,444

Snapdragons	5	6,806	4	4,415	4	4,757

Lilies	4	3,031	3	2,257	-	-

1 Quantity of lilies sold 1000 stems.

2 This table only includes data for growers with sales over $100,000.

APPENDIX B: KEY TARGET PESTS

The ornamentals industry is complex; therefore, the following list is
not comprehensive but is intended to demonstrate the large number of
pests affecting ornamental production and creating a critical need for
methyl bromide in the U.S. for the 2013 growing season.

TABLE C 1.  KEY PESTS  TC "Table 1.  KEY PESTS" \f F \l "1"

Region where methyl bromide use is requested	Key disease(s) and weed(s)
to species and, if known, to level of race	Specific reasons why methyl
bromide needed (e.g. Effective herbicide available, but not registered
for this crop; mandatory requirement to meet certification for disease
tolerance; no host resistance for a specific race)

A:  California Cut Flowers, Cut Greens and Perennials	Verticillium spp.,
Fusarium spp., Pythium spp., Meloidogyne spp., Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.),
Malva spp., Poa spp., and previous crop propagules.  Specific pest
problems vary by individual crop and variety.  	The diversity and
complexity of the industry, makes it difficult to control all root
pathogens and weeds with currently available pest control methods. Some
methyl bromide alternatives used for other sectors are not feasible for
floriculture due to high costs, difficulty timing applications to allow
intercropping, and regulatory restrictions including township caps and
buffer zone requirements.

B:  Florida Floriculture	Soilborne diseases, weeds, and nematodes
including Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Phytoplithora, Stromatinia,
Pythium spp., Erwinia, and most soil nematodes e.g. Meliodogyne spp.,
and previous crop propagules. Specific pest problems vary by individual
crop and variety.  	These diseases are common, abundant, and spread via
water, exacerbated by Florida’s regions of tropical and sub-tropical
climates. Due to the complexity of the ornamentals sector, alternative
pest control measures have not been found for all species but research
efforts are ongoing.  Iodomethane is now registered; however, other
methyl bromide alternatives preliminarily considered effective, such as
dimethyl disulfide, are not currently registered for use.

APPENDIX C: STATUS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES

Table C 1.  Reason for alternatives n ot being feasible  TC "Table C 1.
Reason for alternatives n ot being feasible" \f F \l "1"

Name of alternative	Technical and regulatory* reasons for the
alternative not being feasible or available

1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) 	Technical

Controls nematodes but will not provide adequate control of diseases and
weeds at label rates.

Regulatory

Buffer zones limit its use and township caps in Florida and California
further restrict its use in those states.  Mandated plant-back times can
be 1 to 2 weeks longer with 1,3-D than with other fumigants.  1,3-D is
not registered for use in greenhouses.

Chloropicrin	Technical

Weed control is poorer than with methyl bromide Control of the entire
pest spectrum cannot be achieved with lower use rates, but there are
concerns about phytotoxicity to nearby plantings if greater than 2%
chloropicrin is used in a fumigant combination

Regulatory

There is concern over the real or perceived public exposure to higher
rates of  chloropicrin, especially in highly populated urban areas,  due
to increased worker exposure, offsite movement, and smells.

Metam sodium	Technical

Efficacy data is inconsistent, depending on soil type, moisture content,
and temperature.

Regulatory

Metam sodium is not registered for use in greenhouses.

Iodomethane	Technical

More research needs to be done to understand application and long-term
efficacy issues.

Regulatory

Iodomethane is not registered for use in California.  Large buffer zones
and lower use rates may also prevent widespread adoption.

1,3-D + chloropicrin	Technical

This alternative does not control the entire pest spectrum.

Regulatory

In California, 1,3-D + chloropicrin is considered one of tthe best
currently available alternatives, if label application rates were
increased Township caps and buffer zones that exist for the individual
chemicals also apply for the combination.

Metam sodium + chloropicrin	Technical

This combination does not adequately control nematodes and weeds, and
performance is inconsistent.

Regulatory

Restrictions and concerns existing for the individual chemicals also
apply for the combination.

1,3-D + metam sodium	Technical

Efficacy data is inconsistent.

Regulatory

Restrictions for the individual chemicals also apply for the
combinations.

1,3-D + chloropicrin + metam sodium	Technical

Weed control is incomplete.

Regulatory

In California, 1,3-D + chloropicrin is considered the best currently
available alternative, if use restrictions, such as township caps, were
removed.  Restrictions existing for the individual chemicals also apply
for the combinations.

1,3-D + chloropicrin + herbicides	Technical

None.

Regulatory

Restrictions existing for the individual chemicals also apply for
combinations.

Dazomet	Technical:

Dazomet does not control the entire pest spectrum unless in combination
with 1,3-D, chloropicrin, and/or herbicides.

Regulatory:

Restrictions on 1,3-D and chloropicrin prevent the use of Dazomet as a
methyl bromide alternative.

Metam sodium + crop rotation	Technical

Treatment does not control the entire pest spectrum.

Regulatory

Restrictions existing for metam sodium also apply to its use in
combination with other pest control measures.

Steam

	Technical

Steam sterilization is not feasible in open field production due to the
need to remove the steam piping after application in order to
accommodate cultural management practices.  In greenhouses, steam has
been successfully used in previous decades as a pest control method.

Regulatory

None.

Biological control agents	Technical

No biological controls have been developed to cover all of the pests.

Regulatory

None.

Crop rotation	Technical:

Previous crops’ bulbs and corms often contaminate the following crop
as volunteer weeds or reservoirs for pathogens.

Regulatory

None.

Herbicides	Technical:

Crop damage may occur from contact with certain herbicides or in the
following crop if soil residues remain.

Regulatory

Restrictions for registered pesticides vary depending on the active
ingredient(s) and individual product labels.

Biofumigation	Technica:l

Biofumigation is still largely in the experimental stages.  Specific
brassicas as well as specific years yield variable amounts of activity.
While this alternative may provide some control, the control of all
target pests is not sufficient.

Regulatory:

None.

Substrates	Technical:

The use of substrates is only technically feasible in greenhouses using
benches,

Regulatory

None.

Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS)	Technical:

Studies are currently being conducted to test the efficacy of DMDS in
ornamentals under an Experimental Use Permit.

Regulatory:

DMDS is not currently registered in Florida or California, and its
future registration status is not known.

Acrolein	Technical:

Studies are currently being conducted to determine the efficacy of
acrolein for ornamentals.

Regulatory:

Acrolein is currently only registered as an aquatic herbicide and cannot
be used on soil for this use. Its future registration status is unknown.

Propargyl bromide	Technical:

More research is needed to understand its efficacy as a methyl bromide
alternative.

Regulatory:

This alternative is not currently registered and its future regulatory
status is unknown.

Sodium azide	Technical:

More research is needed to understand its efficacy.

Regulatory:

This alternative is not currently registered and its future regulatory
status is unknown.

Muscador albus Strain QST 20779	Technical:

No commercially available formulation.

Regulatory:

None.

Ethane dinitrile (Cyanogen)	Technical:

Considered a viable alternative in Australia, no studies have been
conducted in the U.S. comparing efficacy with methyl bromide and other
alternatives.

Regulatory:

This product is not currently registered in the U.S. and its future
registration status is unknown.

Acidic electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water	Technical:

EO water only controls foliar fungal diseases in greenhouse ornamentals.
No research has been conducted on this product as a pre-plant pesticide
in at least 6 years.

Regulatory:

There is no commercial development or planned registration of this
product currently.

Solarization	Technical:

Efficacy data is inconsistent between research trials. Regional
subclimates with significant cloud cover or cooler annual temperatures
will not receive enough degrees for solarization to be a feasible pest
control option.

Regulatory:

None.

Furfural	Technical:

It does not control the entire pest spectrum.

Regulatory:

Furfural has a federal registration for ornamentals and non-food
commodities for greenhouse soil use only. However, it does not have
state registrations currently, and its future registration status is
unknown..

Regulatory reasons include local restrictions (e.g. occupational health
and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration.

USA CUN13 SOIL Ornamentals Open Field and Protected Environments


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73995-73998]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30108]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0686; FRL-9939-38-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compound

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia's
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision adds a compound to the
list of substances not considered to be volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on January 26, 2016 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by December 28,
2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0686 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0686, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0686. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 www.regulations.gov or email.
The 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email 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 electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in

www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at
the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies
of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight.
Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state
governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be released into the
atmosphere. VOCs have different levels of reactivity, that is, some
VOCs react slowly or form less ozone, and therefore, changes in their
emissions have limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution
episodes. It has been EPA's policy that VOCs with a negligible level of
reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC
contained at 40 CFR 51.100(s) so as to focus control efforts on
compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. This is
accomplished by adding the substance to a list of compounds not
considered to be VOCs, and thus, excluded from the definition of VOC.
EPA believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for
industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly
reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. On March 27, 2014 (79 FR
17037), EPA revised the definition of VOC contained in 40 CFR 51.100 to
exclude one substance from the definition of VOC. The compound excluded
from the definition of VOC is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On September 17, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia)
submitted a formal revision to its SIP which consists of adding AMP to
the list of substances that are not considered VOCs found at 9VAC5-10-
20. The September 17, 2015 SIP revision will allow the Virginia SIP to
mirror the Federal definition of VOC. EPA believes that by excluding
this negligibly reactive compound from the definition of VOC an
incentive is created for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds
in place of more highly reactive compounds; therefore, the air quality
in Virginia will not be negatively affected by the approval of this SIP
revision particularly as EPA has found this compound negligibly
reactive for ozone formation.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revision to the definition of VOC
submitted by Virginia on September 17, 2015. EPA is publishing this
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on January 26, 2016 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by December 28, 2015. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.  10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or

any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by
reference of the definition of VOC. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the EPA Region III office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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, 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 January 26, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action, revising Virginia's definition of VOC,
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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: November 12, 2015.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    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 VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Section 5-10-20'' after the entry for ``Section 5-10-20''
(with the State effective date of 3/12/15) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                     EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          State citation                Title/Subject      effective date             EPA Approval date              Explanation [former SIP citation]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    9 VAC 5, Chapter 10 General Definitions [Part I]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
5-10-20...........................  Terms Defined........         7/30/15  11/27/15 [Insert Federal Register       Definition of VOC is revised by
                                                                            Citation].                              adding 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol
                                                                                to the list of substances not
                                                                                considered to be VOCs.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-30108 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 69748]
[DOCID:fr17no05-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC06-25-000]

Dispersed Generating Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

November 9, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 4, 2005, Dispersed Generating Company,
LLC (Dispersed Gen) pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act,
filed an application requesting authorization for the disposition of
jurisdictional assets related to the proposed sale of two currently
non-operational combustion turbine generating facilities to MMC Energy
North America, LLC, or its wholly-owned and newly formed special
purpose subsidiaries, MMC Chula Vista LLC. Dispersed Gen respectfully
requests confidential treatment of some of the documents attached to
the application.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 25, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6338 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35837]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13847]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R04-RCRA-2012-0173; FRL-9822-9]

North Carolina: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: North Carolina has applied to EPA for final authorization of
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes correspond to certain Federal
rules promulgated between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2008 (also known
as RCRA Clusters XV through XVIII). With this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to grant final authorization to North Carolina for these
changes. Along with this proposed rule, EPA is publishing an immediate
final rule in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal
Register pursuant to which EPA is authorizing these changes. EPA did
not issue a proposed rule before today because EPA believes this action
is not controversial and does not expect comments that oppose it. EPA
has explained the reasons for this authorization in the immediate final
rule. Unless EPA receives written comments that oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule in
today's Federal Register will become effective on the date it
establishes, and EPA will not take further action on this proposal. If
EPA receives comments that oppose this action, EPA will withdraw the
immediate final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will then respond
to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposed rule.
You may not have another opportunity to comment on these State program
changes. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by July 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
RCRA-2012-0173, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (prior to faxing, please notify the
EPA contact listed below)
     Mail: Send written comments to Gwendolyn Gleaton, Permits
and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management
Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Gwendolyn Gleaton, Permits and
State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch,
RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-
2012-0173. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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. (For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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
in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy. You may view and copy North
Carolina's application at the EPA, Region 4, RCRA Division, Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    You may also view and copy North Carolina's application from 8:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, 217 West Jones Street, Raleigh, North Carolina
27603; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at
least a week in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwendolyn Gleaton, Permits and State
Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch, RCRA
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center,
61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number:
(404) 562-8500; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-13847 Filed 6-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P