[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 36144-36147]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62323; File No. SR-C2-2010-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Corporate Restructuring of C2 in Connection With the Demutualization of
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

June 17, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On May 14, 2010, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change relating to
its corporate structure in connection with the plan of its parent
company, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''),
to restructure from a Delaware non-stock corporation to a Delaware
stock corporation that would be a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE
Holdings, Inc. (``CBOE Holdings''), a holding company organized as a
Delaware stock corporation (``CBOE Demutualization'').\3\ The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May
25, 2010.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62158 (May 24,
2010), 75 FR 30082 (May 28, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2008-88) (order approving
the CBOE Demutualization).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62118 (May 18,
2010), 75 FR 29375.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\5\ In particular, as discussed in more detail
below, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange Act,\7\ in particular, in
that it enables C2 to be so organized as to have the capacity to be
able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce
compliance by its members and persons associated with its members, with
the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and
the rules of C2. The Commission also finds that this filing furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act insofar as it would result
in an exchange governance structure designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\8\ In particular, the Commission
believes that the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of CBOE
Holdings and C2 are designed to protect and maintain the integrity of
the self-regulatory functions of C2 and to allow it to carry out it
regulatory responsibilities under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE.\9\ When the
corporate restructuring in connection with the CBOE Demutualization is
complete, CBOE will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings.
At the same time, C2 has proposed to become a wholly-owned subsidiary
CBOE Holdings by having CBOE dividend-up to CBOE Holdings all of the
shares of C2.\10\ Consequently, after the corporate restructuring in
connection with the CBOE Demutualization is completed, CBOE Holdings
would hold all of the outstanding common stock of both C2 and CBOE, as
well as certain other entities that are currently

subsidiaries of CBOE.\11\ C2 and CBOE, however, would continue to be
separately registered national securities exchanges under Section 6 of
the Act \12\ and would continue to operate their exchange businesses
and facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61152 (December 10,
2009), 74 FR 66699 (December 16, 2009) (File No. 10-191) (order
approving the application of C2 for registration as a national
securities exchange). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61140 (December 10, 2009), 74 FR 67294 (December 18, 2009) (SR-CBOE-
2009-048) (order approving a proposed rule change regarding
authority over C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated).
    \10\ After the restructuring, the owners of membership interests
in CBOE will become stockholders of CBOE Holdings through the
conversion of their memberships into shares of common stock of CBOE
Holdings. In addition, members of the settlement class in the
lawsuit brought by The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.,
its parent company, CME Group, Inc., and a class of individuals
(collectively, the ``CBOT Parties'') against CBOE and CBOE's board
of directors will become stockholders of CBOE Holdings. CME Group
Inc. et al. v. CBOE Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2369-VCN (Filed
Aug. 23, 2006). CBOE entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
(``Stipulation'') on August 20, 2008 with the CBOT Parties to
resolve this lawsuit. The Stipulation and amendments to it can be
found at (http://www.cboe.org/Legal/).
    \11\ These subsidiaries are: CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, which
operates an electronic futures exchange; Chicago Options Exchange
Building Corporation, which owns the building in which CBOE
operates; CBOE, LLC, which holds a 24.01% interest in OneChicago,
LLC, a security futures exchange; CBOE II, LLC, which has no assets
or activities; DerivaTech Corporation, which owns certain
educational software; Market Data Express, LLC, which distributes
various types of market data; and The Options Exchange,
Incorporated, which currently has no assets or activities.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recently approved C2's registration as a national
securities exchange and, in that context, approved C2's Certificate of
Incorporation and Bylaws.\13\ In connection with its currently proposed
corporate restructuring, C2 does not propose any significant changes to
these governing documents but does propose, as discussed further below,
to make certain changes to its Certificate of Incorporation to effect
the change of ownership of C2 from CBOE to CBOE Holdings, to clarify
certain aspects of C2's Bylaws as a result of this transfer of
ownership, and to make certain ministerial changes to C2's Certificate
of Incorporation and Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61152, supra note
9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBOE Holdings

    As mentioned above, C2 is now proposing a corporate restructuring
that would transfer ownership of C2 from CBOE to CBOE Holdings. C2 is
not proposing any changes to the governing documents of CBOE Holdings,
which already contemplate the ownership by CBOE Holdings of one or more
self-regulatory organizations (``SRO'') (e.g., CBOE and C2) (the
``Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiaries'').\14\ Consequently, CBOE
Holdings' Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws approved by the
Commission in connection with the CBOE Demutualization will continue to
govern the activities of CBOE Holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See infra note 15 (discussing the term ``Regulated
Securities Exchange Subsidiary'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although CBOE Holdings is not itself an SRO, its activities with
respect to the operation of any SRO subsidiary, including C2, must be
consistent with, and must not interfere with, the self-regulatory
obligations of that SRO subsidiary. To this end, certain provisions of
CBOE Holdings' Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws are designed
to ensure that C2, though a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings,
is able to maintain the independence of its self-regulatory function
and operate unencumbered in a manner that complies with the federal
securities laws, and, along with the Commission, is able to fulfill its
regulatory and oversight obligations under the Act.
    Specifically, the Certificate of Incorporation of CBOE Holdings
provides that CBOE Holdings, its officers, directors, employees, and
agents must irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the United States
federal courts, the Commission, and the Regulated Securities Exchange
Subsidiaries \15\ for the purposes of any suit, action or proceeding
pursuant to the United States federal securities laws, and the rules
and regulations thereunder, commenced or initiated by the Commission
arising out of, or relating to, the Regulated Securities Exchange
Subsidiaries' activities.\16\ Further, so long as CBOE Holdings
controls any Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiaries, the books,
records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of CBOE Holdings
is deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, and
employees of the Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary for purposes
of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Act to the extent that they
relate to the business of such Regulated Securities Exchange
Subsidiary.\17\ In addition, all confidential information pertaining to
the self-regulatory function of Regulated Securities Exchange
Subsidiaries contained in the books and records of an exchange that
comes into the possession of CBOE Holdings must not be made available
to any persons other than to those officers, directors, employees and
agents of CBOE Holdings that have a reasonable need to know the
contents thereof, be retained in confidence by CBOE Holdings and the
officers, directors, employees and agents of CBOE Holdings, and not be
used for any commercial purposes.\18\ CBOE Holdings Certificate of
Incorporation also contains a provision requiring each director of the
CBOE Holdings board to take into consideration the effect that CBOE
Holdings' actions would have on CBOE's ability to carry out its
responsibilities under the Act.\19\ Pursuant to the CBOE Holdings
Certificate of Incorporation, for so long as CBOE Holdings controls any
Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary, each officer, director and
employee of CBOE Holdings must give due regard to the preservation of
the independence of the self-regulatory function of the Regulated
Securities Exchange Subsidiaries and to their obligations under the
Exchange Act.\20\ Finally, CBOE Holdings Certificate of Incorporation
provides that for so long as CBOE Holdings controls any Regulated
Securities Exchange Subsidiary, before any amendment, alteration or
repeal of any provision of the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws
of CBOE Holdings becomes effective, such amendment, alteration or
repeal will be submitted to the board of directors of each Regulated
Securities Exchange Subsidiary, and if such amendment, alteration or
repeal must be filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission,
then such amendment, alteration or repeal will not become effective
until filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission, as the
case may be.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary'' means any
national securities exchange controlled, directly or indirectly, by
the Corporation, including, but not limited to CBOE. See Article
Fifth(xi) of the CBOE Holdings Certificate of Incorporation. Thus,
C2 as a registered national securities exchange would fit within the
definition of a Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary.
    \16\ See Article Fourteen of the CBOE Holdings Certificate of
Incorporation.
    \17\ The books and records of CBOE Holdings relating to the
business of a Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary is subject at
all times to inspection and copying by the Commission and the
Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary. See Article Fifteen of the
CBOE Holdings Certificate of Incorporation. In addition, the CBOE
Holdings Bylaws provide that the books of CBOE Holdings must be kept
within the United States. See Section 1.3 of the CBOE Holdings
Bylaws.
    \18\ Notwithstanding this restriction, nothing in the CBOE
Holdings Certificate of Incorporation is to be interpreted so as to
limit or impede the rights of the Commission or CBOE to access and
examine such confidential information or to limit or impede the
ability of any officers, directors, employees or agents of CBOE
Holdings to disclose such confidential information to the Commission
or CBOE. See Article Fifteen of the CBOE Holdings Certificate of
Incorporation.
    \19\ See Article Sixteen(d) of the CBOE Holdings Certificate of
Incorporation.
    \20\ See Article Sixteen(c) of the CBOE Holdings Certificate of
Incorporation.
    \21\ See Article Eleven of the CBOE Holdings Certificate of
Incorporation and Section 10.2 of the CBOE Holdings Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the CBOE Demutualization and permitting CBOE Holdings
to wholly own CBOE, the Commission noted that the governing documents
of CBOE Holdings are designed to facilitate Regulated Securities
Exchange Subsidiaries' ability to fulfill their self-regulatory
obligations and are, therefore, consistent with the Act.\22\ C2's
proposal to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings is
identical to the SRO ownership structure the Commission approved in the
CBOE Demutualization

and does not raise any new regulatory issues. Consistent with its
approval of the CBOE Demutualization, the Commission similarly believes
that the governing documents of CBOE Holdings are designed to protect
the independence of the self-regulatory function of a wholly-owned C2,
enable C2 to operate in a manner that complies with the Federal
securities laws, and facilitate the ability of C2 and the Commission to
fulfill their regulatory and oversight obligations under the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 3.
    \23\ The Commission also notes that the Certificate of
Incorporation of CBOE Holdings places certain ownership and voting
limits on the holders of CBOE Holdings stock and their Related
Persons. These restrictions are intended to address the possibility
that a person holding a controlling interest in an SRO could use
that interest to affect the SRO's regulatory responsibilities under
the Act. In particular, these restrictions provide that no person,
either alone or together with its Related Persons, may own directly
or indirectly more than 10% of the CBOE Holdings or more than 20% in
the event a public offering of the CBOE Holdings. Further, no
person, either alone or together with its Related Persons, will be
entitled to vote more than 10% of the CBOE Holdings common interest
or more than 20% in the event a public offering of the CBOE
Holdings. See Article Six(a) and (b) of the CBOE Holdings
Certificate of Incorporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C2

    Although CBOE Holdings would replace CBOE as the parent company and
sole shareholder of C2, C2 would continue to be registered as a
national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Exchange Act. In
this respect, certain provisions of C2's Certificate of Incorporation
and Bylaws are designed to enable C2 to carry out the purposes of the
Act and to comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons
associated with its members with all applicable rules and
regulations.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, C2's current board composition is designed to
be comparable to the board compositions the Commission has approved
for other SROs. Namely, the number of Non-Industry Directors on C2
board must equal or exceed the sum of the number of Industry
Directors and the number of Industry Directors must equal or exceed
30% of the board. Further, at least 20% of the directors on the
board must be nominated (or otherwise selected by a petition of C2
members) by the Industry-Director Subcommittee of the Nominating and
Governance Committee (such directors, ``Representative Directors'').
See Section 3.1 of the C2 Bylaws. For definitions of ``Non-Industry
Directors'' and ``Industry Directors,'' see Section 3.1 of the C2
Bylaws. For the definition of ``Industry-Director Subcommittee of
the Nominating and Governance Committee,'' see Section 3.2 of the C2
Bylaws. Further, C2 has a Regulatory Oversight Committee (``ROC'')
that monitors its regulatory operations. See Section 4.6 of C2
Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, C2 does not propose any significant changes to its
governing documents but does propose to make certain changes to its
Certificate of Incorporation to effect the change of ownership of C2
from CBOE to CBOE Holdings, to clarify certain aspects of C2's Bylaws
as a result of this transfer of ownership, and to make certain
ministerial changes to C2's Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws.
Namely, C2 proposes to amend its Certificate of Incorporation in
connection with the transfer of ownership of all of the common stock of
C2 from CBOE to CBOE Holdings and to require Commission approval if
CBOE Holdings sells, transfers, or assigns any shares of C2 common
stock.\25\ In addition, C2 proposes a number of other changes to
reflect and generally conform to the most recent version of the
corresponding governing documents of CBOE that were approved by the
Commission in connection with the CBOE Demutualization. These changes
include amending C2's Bylaws to provide that all directors of the C2
board would serve one-year terms, rather than staggered two-year terms
\26\ and to remove a reference to electing a class of directors; \27\
amending its Bylaws to provide that Representative Directors (as
opposed to any Director) may be removed for cause by the holders of a
majority of the shares of stock then entitled to vote at an election of
directors; \28\ and amending its Bylaws to provide that the C2
Regulatory Oversight Committee would consist of at least three
directors instead of at least four directors.\29\ Finally, because the
rules of C2 use terms from the CBOE rules, and also incorporate by
reference certain CBOE rules, C2 also proposes to make minor, non-
substantive changes to its rules to reflect the changes in terminology
and other technical changes that CBOE plans to make to its rules in
connection with the CBOE Demutualization.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Article Four of the C2 Certificate of Incorporation. In
addition, C2 proposes to delete Article Twelve of the Certificate of
Incorporation because it is no longer necessary.
    \26\ See Section 3.1 of the C2 Bylaws. Further, C2 proposes to
delete the second sentence of Section 3.1, which provides that
``[t]he Board shall initially consist of 23 directors, including the
Chief Executive Officer, twelve Non-Industry Directors and ten
Industry Directors,'' because the initial board of directors of C2
has already been appointed. C2 also proposes to change the reference
to the ``Board of the Corporation'' in Section 3.1 to the ``Board''
and to delete a reference in the last sentence of the first
paragraph regarding the initial C2 Board, because that Board has
already been appointed.
    \27\ See Section 3.2 of the C2 Bylaws. C2 would no longer have
different classes of directors.
    \28\ See Section 3.4(c) of the C2 Bylaws. C2 also proposes to
amend Section 3.4(c) to replace a reference to ``SEC'' with
``Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'').'' In addition, C2
proposes to move a reference to ``Representative Directors''
(described below) in the first sentence of the seventh paragraph of
Section 3.1 of the C2 Bylaws to clarify the intent of that sentence.
    \29\ See Section 4.6 of the C2 Bylaws. C2 also proposes to amend
Section 5.8 of the Bylaws to modify the responsibilities of the
Treasurer of C2. Specifically, C2 is proposing to delete the second
sentence in Section 5.8, which reads ``[i]n addition, the Treasurer
shall perform such duties and have such powers that are incident to
the office of Treasurer, including without limitation the duty to
keep and be responsible for all funds of the Corporation,'' to make
this section consistent with the Treasurer provision in CBOE's post-
demutualization Bylaws.
    \30\ For example, CBOE is replacing the term ``member'' (or
variations of it) with the term ``Trading Permit Holder'' (or
variations of it) throughout its rulebook in connection with its
demutualization. Similarly, C2 proposes to replace references in its
rules to a CBOE ``member'' with the term ``CBOE Trading Permit
Holder'' (or ``Trading Permit Holder'' in certain instances where
there is a direct cross-reference to CBOE rules). Further, C2
proposes to adopt in C2 Rule 1.1 the term ``CBOE Trading Permit,''
which is defined as a ``Trading Permit'' as such term is defined in
CBOE's Bylaws and rules, and the term ``CBOE Trading Permit
Holder,'' which is defined as a ``Trading Permit Holder'' as such
term is defined in CBOE's Bylaws and rules. C2 also proposes to
replace the term CBOE ``membership'' with the term ``CBOE Trading
Permit'' (or ``Trading Permit'' in certain instances where there is
a direct cross-reference to CBOE rules) and a CBOE ``Clearing
Member'' (or variations of it) with the term ``Clearing Trading
Permit Holder.'' In addition, C2 proposes to make a few minor, non-
substantive fixes to its rules. For example, C2 proposes to replace
references to a C2 ``member'' in its rules with the term ``Permit
Holder'' or ``Participant'' (which both have the same meaning under
C2 rules). C2 also proposes to delete a reference in C2 Rule 3.3(b)
regarding member organizations not registered as broker-dealers,
because C2 does not have such organizations (i.e., all Permit
Holders of C2 are required to be registered as broker-dealers). In
addition, C2 proposes to fix some of the cross-references in its
rules to CBOE rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 currently has in place a voting agreement with CBOE in which
CBOE agrees to vote in favor of those individuals nominated by C2's
Nominating and Governance Committee for election as C2 Representative
Directors. After the demutualization, CBOE Holdings, and not CBOE,
would be the sole stockholder of C2. Accordingly, C2 has proposed to
enter into a new voting agreement with CBOE Holdings that similarly
would require CBOE Holding to vote in favor of those individuals
nominated by C2's Nominating and Governance Committee for election as
C2 Representative Directors. In addition, C2 proposes to add a
provision in the voting agreement to reflect the ``for cause'' removal
standard for Representative Directors in C2's Bylaws, as discussed
above.
    The Commission notes that changes proposed by C2 in its governing
documents and rules are mostly technical in nature. Further, the
Commission notes that C2's proposed amendment to require the removal of
Representative Directors, rather than any director, for cause by the
holders of a majority of the shares of stock is consistent with
provisions approved by the Commission for other SROs'

governing documents.\31\ Moreover, as the ROC would continue to be
composed solely of Non-Industry Directors, the Commission does not
believe C2's proposal to decreased size of the committee compromises
its ability to monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of C2's
regulatory program. Finally, the Commission believes that a new voting
agreement, as proposed by C2, is appropriate to ensure that C2 meet its
statutory obligation to provide for the fair representation of its
members in the administration of C2.\32\ As the Commission has
previously noted in the context of other exchange governance proposals,
this requirement helps to ensure that an exchange's members have a
voice in the governing body of the exchange and the corresponding
exercise by the exchange of its self-regulatory authority, and that the
exchange is administered in a way that is equitable to all who trade on
its market or through its facilities.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., Section 7 of the Amended and Restated By-Laws of
BATS Exchange, Inc. and Section 7 of the Amended and Restated Bylaws
of EDGX Exchange, Inc.
    \32\ Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \33\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53128
(January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550, 3553 (January 23, 2006) (File No.
10-131); 53382 (February 27, 2006), 71 FR 11251, 11259 (March 6,
2006) (File No. SR-NYSE-2005-77); and 58375 (August 18, 2008), 73 FR
49498, 49501 (August 21, 2008) (File No. 10-182).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule changes in connection with the transfer of ownership of
C2 from CBOE to CBOE Holdings is consistent with the Act and that C2
will be so organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act. The provisions in the applicable governing
documents, discussed above, should minimize the potential that any
person could interfere with or restrict the ability of C2 or the
Commission to effectively carry out their respective regulatory
oversight responsibilities. Further, the Commission notes that CBOE
Holding has undertaken to ensure and maintain the regulatory
independence of C2 to enable C2 to operate in a manner that complies
with the federal securities laws, including the objectives of Sections
6(b) of the Act.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-C2-2010-002) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15281 Filed 6-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 33459]
[DOCID:fr18jn07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-476-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

June 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Colorado Interstate Gas Company
(CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective July 7,
2007:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 180
Original Sheet No. 180A
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 282
Original Sheet No. 282A
Third Revised Sheet No. 319

    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 on-line 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11652 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56669-56670]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22504]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1265]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1265, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange

(FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
www.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets/2010/srp_fs.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Sonoma County, California, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.r9map.org/Pages/ProjectDetailsPage.aspx?choLoco=49&choProj=372
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Petaluma.......................  Community Development
                                          Department, 11 English Street,
                                          Petaluma, CA 95952.
Unincorporated Areas of Sonoma County..  Sonoma County Permit and
                                          Resource Management, 2550
                                          Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA
                                          95403.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Lander County, Nevada (All Jurisdictions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.r9map.org/Pages/ProjectDetailsPage.aspx?choLoco=81&choProj=220
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Lander County..  Lander County Planning
                                          Department, 825 North Second
                                          Street, Battle Mountain, NV
                                          89820.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance''.)

    Dated: August 23, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-22504 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15678-15679]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER01-1558-004; ER07-212-000; ER07-212-001; ER07-212-002
and ER07-212-003]

NEO California Power, LLC; Wayzata California Power Holdings,
LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 26, 2007.
    Wayzata California Power Holdings, LLC (California Power Holdings)
filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff
provides for the sale of energy, capacity and certain ancillary
services at market-based rates. California Power Holdings also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
California Power Holdings requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by California Power Holdings.
    On March 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Rates--West, granted the requests for blanket
approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the
Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly,
any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of
issuances of securities or assumptions

of liability by California Power Holdings should file a motion to
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR
385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
California Power Holdings is authorized to issue securities and assume
obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or
otherwise in respect of any security of another person, provided that
such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of California Power Holdings, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of California Power Holdings' issuance of
securities or assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5941 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 58620-58621]
[DOCID:fr13no09-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2660-024]

Domtar Maine LLC; Notice Of Application Ready for Environmental
Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and
Conditions, and Prescriptions

November 5, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New license.
    b. Project No.: 2660-024.
    c. Date filed: March 19, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Domtar Maine LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Forest City Project.
    f. Location: On Forest City Stream, a tributary of the St. Croix
River in Washington and Aroostock Counties, Maine and Canada.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Scott Beal, Domtar Maine LLC, 144 Main
Street, Baileyville, Maine 04694<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John Costello<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``e-filing''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``Quick Comment.''
    k. This application has been accepted, and is ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Forest City Project comprise an earth embankment
dam containing a gated timber spillway and two impoundments (East Grand
and North lakes). There are no generating facilities located at the
project. Approximately one-quarter of the 544-foot-long dam (i.e.,
approximately 147 feet) is within the United States. The United States
(western) section of the dam is an earth embankment measuring
approximately 110-feet-long with a maximum height of 12 feet. The
center section of the dam (i.e., that portion located in the river
channel) contains a 55-foot-wide gated timber crib spillway structure
with three wooden gates (gates 1 and 2 are located within the United
States). The spillway is approximately 33 feet-wide with an elevation
of 426.61 feet. A 5 foot-wide vertical slot design fishway is located
in Canada. The eastern (Canadian) embankment is an earth structure
approximately 397 feet-long, 30 feet-long with a crest elevation of
437.27 feet msl. No new construction is planned.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27295 Filed 11-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U. S. Pork i METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE NOMINATION FOR POST HARVEST USE ON DRY CURED PORK PRODUCTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY: DATE RECEIVED BY OZONE SECRETARIAT:

YEAR: CUN:

NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use on Dry Cured Pork Products ( Prepared in 2005)

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS Contact Person: John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Title: International Affairs Officer Address: Office of Environmental Policy U. S. Department of State 2201 C Street N. W. Room 4325 Washington, DC 20520 U. S. A. Telephone: ( 202) 647 9799 Fax: ( 202) 647 5947 E mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov 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: U. S. Pork ii CONTACT OR EXPERT( S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS Contact/ Expert Person: Steve Knizner Title: Acting Division Director Address: Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 7503C Washington, DC 20460 U. S. A. Telephone: ( 703) 305 6903 Fax: ( 703) 308 8090 E mail: knizner. steve@ epa. gov LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION PACKAGE List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating Party to the Ozone Secretariat 1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Paper Documents and Appendices Number of Pages Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat 2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Electronic Files Size of File ( kb) Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat U. S. Pork iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Part A: Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Nominating Party................................................................................................................ 5 2. Descriptive Title of Nomination .......................................................................................... 5 3. Situation of Nominated Methyl Bromide Use ...................................................................... 5 4. Methyl Bromide Nominated................................................................................................ 5 5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use....................................... 5 6. Methyl Bromide Consumption for Past 5 Years and Amount Required in the Year( s) Nominated .............................................................................................................................. 7 7. Location of the Facility or Facilities Where the Proposed Critical Use of Methyl Bromide Will Take Place....................................................................................................................... 7 Part B: Situation Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use ...................................................................................... 8 9. Summary of the Circumstances in which Methyl Bromide is Currently Being Used ............ 9 10. List Alternative Techniques that are being Used to Control Key Target Pest Species in this Sector.................................................................................................................................... 10 Part C: Technical Validation................................................................................................................................. 10 11. Summarize the Alternative( s) Tested, Starting with the Most Promising Alternative( s) .. 10 12. Summarize Technical Reasons, if any, for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available for your Circumstances ......................................................................................................... 10 Part D: Emission Control...................................................................................................................................... 11 13. How has this Sector Reduced the Use and Emissions of Methyl Bromide in the Situation of the Nomination? ............................................................................................................... 11 Part E: Economic Assessment............................................................................................................................... 11 14. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period ........................ 11 15. Summarize Economic Reasons, if any, for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available for your Circumstances ......................................................................................... 11 Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives .......................................... 11 Part F: Future Plans.............................................................................................................................................. 12 16. Provide a Detailed Plan Describing how the Use and Emissions of Methyl Bromide will be Minimized in the Future for the Nominated Use.................................................................... 12 17. Provide a Detailed Plan Describing what Actions will be Undertaken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for this Use ..................................................................................... 12 18. Additional Comments...................................................................................................... 12 19. Citations.......................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX A. 2007 METHYL BROMIDE USAGE NUMERICAL INDEX ...................................................... 13 APPENDIX B. Description of Dry curing Pork in the US................................................................................ 17 APPENDIX C. . 2006 Methyl Bromide Reconsideration for Rice Mills.......................................................... 19 U. S. Pork iv List of Tables Part A: Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated ....................................................................................... 5 Table A. 1: Executive Summary................................................................................................... 6 Table 6.1: Methyl Bromide Consumption for the Past 5 Years and the Amount Required in the Year( s) Nominated.............................................................................................................. 7 Part B: Situation Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use......................................................... 8 Table B. 1: Characteristic of Sector.............................................................................................. 8 Table 9.1( a.): Dry Cured Pork Products ...................................................................................... 9 Table 9.1( b.): Fixed Facilities ..................................................................................................... 9 Part C: Technical Validation .................................................................................................... 10 Table 12.1. Summary of Technical Reason for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Part E: Economic Assessment ................................................................................................... 11 Table 15.1. Summary of Economic Reasons for each Alternative not being Feasible or Available .......................................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX A. 2007 METHYL BROMIDE USAGE NUMERICAL INDEX.......................... 13 U. S. Pork 5 PART A: SUMMARY 1. NOMINATING PARTY The United States of America ( U. S.)

2. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination For Post Harvest Use on Dry Cured Pork Products ( Prepared in 2005)

3. SITUATION OF NOMINATED METHYL BROMIDE USE This sector is for the production of cured meat products, such as country hams. These are produced primarily in the southern U. S. This sector has no viable alternatives available. Heat would destroy the product and phosphine does not control mites on the curing hams.

4. METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED TABLE 4.1: METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED YEAR NOMINATION AMOUNT ( KG) NOMINATION VOLUME ( 1,000 M 3) 2007 40,854 2040 5. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE Currently there are no viable alternatives to methyl bromide for the dried meat industry: phosphine does not control mites ( a major pest) and heat would alter the product. In U. S. pork processing plants that produce dry cured pork products there are several factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. These include:  Pest control efficacy of alternatives: the efficacy of alternatives may not be comparable to MB, making these alternatives technically and/ or economically infeasible. Phosphine, alone or in combination with carbon dioxide does not control mites, a major pest on cured hams.  Geographic distribution of the facilities: Facilities included in this nomination are located in the southern U. S. where mild temperatures and high relative humidity result in key pest pressures that are moderate to severe. These ambient conditions require that pests be killed because they will only reinfest the facility after fumigation.  Age and type of facility: older food processing facilities, especially those constructed of wood, experience more frequent and severe pest infestations that must be controlled by fumigation. In the U. S. it is usual for dry cured processed pork to be produced in traditional facilities. These facilities are usually constructed of wood and many are decades old, if not older. Many newer facilities are constructed using the older facilities as models. U. S. Pork 6  Constraints of the alternatives: some types of commodities ( e. g., those containing high levels of fats and oils) prevent the use of heat as an alternative because of its effect on the final product ( e. g., rancidity). All of the pork products are relatively high fat products so rancidity would be a problem. In addition, using heat will alter the character of the final product, producing, for example, a cooked pork product rather than a dry cured pork product with the attendant flavor differences.  Transition to newly available alternatives: Sulfuryl fluoride recently received a Federal registration for certain commodities and structures, such as cereal mills. At present, pork and pork products are not included among the legal uses of sulfuryl fluoride, so this chemical is not an option for these facilities.  Delay in plant operations: e. g., the use of some alternatives can add a delay to production by requiring additional time to complete the fumigation process. Production delays can result in significant economic impacts to the processors.

It is common for producers of cured pork products to experience pest pressure from insects such as the ham skipper, the red legged ham beetle, dermestid beetles, and mites. These insects infest and feed on meat as it cures and ages. Environmental conditions ( temperature and humidity) in and around the facility strongly influence the level of pest pressure. Under favorable ambient conditions, such as those seen in silo curing, pest pressure increases and a regular fumigation schedule is recommended. In the U. S., the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) regulates the maximum levels of live or dead insects or insect parts that may be present in stored food products. Food commodities that exceed maximum limits allowed are considered adulterated by FDA and thus unfit for human consumption. There are currently no alternatives registered for use on hams in the U. S. that would provide the same level of pest control.

TABLE A. 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY National Country Ham Association American Association of Meat Processors Nahunta Pork Center AMOUNT OF REQUEST 2007 Kilograms 1,242 168,283 145 AMOUNT OF NOMINATION* 2007 Kilograms 709 40,000 145 * See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated. U. S. Pork 7 6. METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION FOR PAST 5 YEARS AND AMOUNT REQUIRED IN THE YEAR( S) NOMINATED:

TABLE 6.1: METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS AND THE AMOUNT REQUIRED IN THE YEAR( S) NOMINATED Historical Use1 Requested Use For each year specify: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20032 2007 Amount of MB ( kg) 1,139 1,112 803 1,020 899 169,670 Volume Treated 1000 m ³ 48 46 35 40 35 7,087 Formulation of MB Information not provided Information not provided Dosage Rate ( kg/ 1000 m ³ ) 24 24 23 25 25 42.4 Actual ( A) or Estimate ( E) Information not provided Information not provided 1 American Association of Meat Processors did not provide historical data. 2 None of Applicants provided data for 2003.

7. LOCATION OF THE FACILITIES WHERE THE PROPOSED CRITICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE WILL TAKE PLACE:

There more than 1,650 pork production facilities in the United States. Of these, approximately 850 facilities require the use of methyl bromide to fumigate dry cured pork products. The other facilities smoke their products and smoking prevents insects from invading their facilities.

The specific name and physical address of each facility was not requested in the forms filled out by the applicants in the United States. However, general location information for the following facilities is known: Kentucky ( Cadiz, Greenville counties), Missouri ( California county), North Carolina ( Boone, Goldsboro, Smithfield, Wayne counties), Virginia ( Surry county), Tennessee ( various locations), and South Carolina ( various locations).

The USG has sent out an additional survey requesting this information, after receipt, compilation, analysis, and fact checking, this information will be sent to MBTOC. In addition, a full list of all processing plants that apply any registered pesticide in the U. S. is available from the U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration website located at http:// www. osha. gov/ pls/ imis/ sicsearch. html. EPA's Facility Registry System is publicly available and is located at http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ fii/ ez. html. This information was previously submitted in August of 2004. U. S. Pork 8 PART B: SITUATION CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE GENUS AND SPECIES FOR WHICH THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IS CRITICAL COMMON NAME SPECIFIC REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED Necrobia rufipes   common pest Red Legged Ham Beetle (" Ham Borer") The adults feed on the cured meat. The larvae burrow into the meat and/ or fat. Insect infested meat is adulterated and cannot be sold. 1 Piophila casei   common pest Cheese/ Ham Skipper The Skippers are larval stages of small flies that burrow into the cured meat.

Dermestes spp common pests Dermested beetles Mite species  common pest Ham Mites These mites feed and breed on the surface of cured meats. Uncontrolled, mite populations can increase rapidly, reaching enormous numbers. 1 FDA regulations can be found at: http:// www. fda. gov/ opacom/ laws/ fdcact/ fdcact4. htm and http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ dalbook. html.

TABLE B. 1: CHARACTERISTIC OF SECTOR Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Raw Material In X X X X X X X X X X X X Fumigation Schedule ( MB) X X X X X X X X X X X X Retail Target Market Window X X X X X X X X X X X X Raw pork product material can come into a curing facility in any month of the year.

The Methyl Bromide fumigation schedule will vary depending on several factors such as:

1. Type of pork product  Bone in products have a higher probability of pest infestation since the pests are attracted to the bone, and these products typically age for longer periods of time.

2. Type of structure/ facility  Typically, older curing facilities have a higher probability of pest infestations, which could be attributed to the lack of air tightness of the facility. A majority of the newer facilities have lower pest pressure due to increased air tightness. Additionally, silo facilities, those that are two to three stories in height, have a higher probability of insect infestations when compared to a single story facility.

A single curing and ham storage operation can typically process 10,307,878 kilograms ( 11,362.5 U. S. tons) of pork products each year. The curing facilities are fumigated with methyl bromide when pests are detected in the product or the smokehouses. This fumigation typically occurs about three to five times during a typical year. During this process, the curing house, typically a small building ( e. g. four stories), is covered with tarp and fumigated while full of hams. U. S. Pork 9 3. Type of curing  Curing can be achieved by either temperature controlled room curing, or by ambient curing. Ambient curing, which involves uncontrolled environmental conditions, typically requires a regular fumigation schedule due to consistently high levels of pest infestations.

4. Location/ climate of structure/ facility  These curing facilities are located in southeastern states, where the temperature and humidity are higher for longer periods of time throughout the year and, therefore, there is a greater opportunity for pests to be active for longer periods of time. As the pest pressure increases, so does the need to fumigate with methyl bromide. Curing facilities are located near slaughter houses and feed lots, thereby having high insect populations nearby.

The retail target market window varies, but there are higher demands for cured pork products around holidays such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter.

9. SUMMARY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS CURRENTLY BEING USED TABLE 9.1( a.): Dry Cured Pork Products METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE ( g/ m ³ ) EXPOSURE TIME ( hours) TEMP. ( º C) NUMBER OF FUMIGATIONS PER YEAR PROPORTION OF PRODUCT TREATED AT THIS DOSE FIXED ( F), MOBILE ( M) OR STACK ( S)

32 Varies Varies with facility, but typically in excess of 27 ° C ( 80 ° F) Varies from 2 8 fumigations per year. 3 5 times per year common Up to 100% in some facilities. Fixed TABLE 9.1( b.): FIXED FACILITIES TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND APPROXIMATE AGE IN YEARS VOL ( m ³ ) OR RANGE NUMBER OF FACILITIES ( E. G. 5 SILOS) GASTIGHTNESS ESTIMATE*

More than 850 curing facilities use methyl bromide. The age of the facilities varies. Varies Ranges from 1 story to silo facilities. Varies U. S. Pork 10 10. LIST ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE BEING USED TO CONTROL KEY TARGET PEST SPECIES IN THIS SECTOR Currently, no alternative techniques are being used.

PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION 11. SUMMARIZE THE ALTERNATIVE( S) TESTED STARTING WITH THE MOST PROMISING ALTERNATIVE( S):

Phosphine, alone and in combination with carbon dioxide, does not control mites, a major pest in cured pork products. Additionally, according to the phosphine label, the state of North Carolina has further restricted the use of this alternative. According to state regulations, phosphine may only be used to control rats and mice, but not insects.

12. SUMMARIZE TECHNICAL REASONS, IF ANY, FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE FOR YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES ( For economic constraints, see Question 15):

TABLE 12.1. SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL REASON FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE NO. METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL REASON ( IF ANY) FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE ESTIMATED MONTH/ YEAR WHEN THE TECHNICAL CONSTRAINT COULD BE SOLVED 1 Phosphine alone & in combination Does not control mites. North Carolina has more restrictions. 2 Propylene oxide Not registered for this use in the U. S. 3 Contact insecticides None registered for this use in the U. S. 4 Irradiation See Note below 5 Sulfuryl fluoride Not registered for this use. Sulfuryl fluoride adsorbs to fats, so anticipated residues would likely be high. The applicants did not provide any information on this topic.

Further details on why an alternative was not technically feasible:

Note: Irradiation does not readily kill exposed insects, but rather prevents further feeding and reproduction. Although unable to feed or reproduce, the surviving insects would still create phytosanitary problems and the high doses required to kill exposed insects may affect product quality. Consumer acceptance of irradiated food would hinder the adoption of this method. U. S. Pork 11 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL 13. HOW HAS THIS SECTOR REDUCED THE USE AND EMISSIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE SITUATION OF THE NOMINATION?

No information on how this sector has reduced the use and emission of methyl bromide was provided by the applicants.

PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 14. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD No alternatives are currently registered for use on cured pork products in the U. S. therefore no economic analysis was conducted 15. SUMMARIZE ECONOMIC REASONS, IF ANY, FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE FOR YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES TABLE 15.1. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC REASONS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE No information was provided by the applicants.

MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES TABLE E. 1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES T here are no legal or technically feasible alternatives available for this sector. U. S. Pork 12 PART F: FUTURE PLANS 16. PROVIDE A DETAILED PLAN DESCRIBING HOW THE USE AND EMISSIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE WILL BE MINIMIZED IN THE FUTURE FOR THE NOMINATED USE.

17. PROVIDE A DETAILED PLAN DESCRIBING WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS USE:

No alternatives have been researched.

18. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS No additional comments were provided by the applicants.

19. CITATIONS Bell, C. H. 2000. Fumigation in the 21st Century. Crop Protection, 19: 563 69. U. S. Pork 13 APPENDIX A. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI).

Date: Sector:

Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m 3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3) Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m 3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3) 2001 Volume % of Volume 1,242 15 83 796 31 26 0%

145 7 20 163 7 23 0%

168,283 7,004 24 40,000 1,998 20 0%

169,670 7,026 24 40,960 2,036 20 0%

2007 Request () Double Counting () Growth () Use Rate Adjustment () QPS HIGH LOW Amount ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m 3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3)

1,242  446 87  709 709 709 35 20 145     145 145 145 7 20 168,283  128,283   40,000 40,000 40,000 1,998 20 169,670 169,670 40,941 40,854 40,854 40,854 40,854 40,854 2,040 20 0% 0% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 71% 17%

Low EPA High Low High Low HIGH LOW 26 20 100% 100% 0 0 100% 100%

20 20 100% 100% 0 0 100% 100%

20 20 100% 100% 0 0 100% 100%

Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Pest free Market Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use /

State Frequency of Treatment of Product Loss per 1000 m 3 ( US$/ 1000m) Loss per Kg of MeBr ( US$/ kg) Loss as a % of Gross Revenue Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue No No Yes 0 No 1 No No Yes 0 No 1 No No Yes 0 No 1 Notes Conversion Units: 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms 0.02831685 1,000 cubic meters Most Likely Impact Value: High 24% Low 77% Not Available % of Average Volume Requested: Research Amount ( kgs)

0 Average Volume in the US:

Est. 40,000 kgs 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Volume NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3)

2007 Amount of Request HAM ASSOCIATION HAM ASSOCIATION TOTAL OR AVERAGE Adjustments to Requested Amounts NAHUNTA PORK CENTER AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS 2007 Nomination Options Nomination Amount % Reduction from Initial Request NAHUNTA PORK CENTER HAM ASSOCIATION NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION NAHUNTA PORK CENTER AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION Other Considerations NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION NAHUNTA PORK CENTER AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS HAM ASSOCIATION Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs)

1,000 cu ft =

Other Issues (%) Key Pest Distribution (%) Adopt New Fumigants Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N)

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 1/ 28/ 2005 2007 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) HAM No technically feasible alternatives available (%) Combined Impacts Time, Quality, or Product Loss Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) Marginal Strategy Phosphine not registered for mites or in NC.

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE Economic Analysis U. S. Pork 14 Footnotes for Appendix A:

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Volume in the U. S.   Average Volume in the U. S. is the average of 2001 and 2002 total volume fumigated with methyl bromide in the U. S. in this sector ( when available). 2. % of Average Volume Requested  Percent (%) of Average Volume Requested is the total volume in the sector's request divided by the Average Volume in the U. S. ( when available). 3. 2007 Amount of Request   The 2007 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total volume of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per thousand cubic feet. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the U. S. nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in kilograms active ingredient of methyl bromide, total volume of methyl bromide use, and application rate in kilograms active ingredient of methyl bromide per thousand cubic meters. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) is the percentage (%) of the applicant's requested amount subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume   Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of volume of methyl bromide used within the defined region ( when available). 7. Regional Volume, Requested Volume %  Regional Volume, Requested Volume % is the volume in the applicant's request divided by the total volume fumigated with methyl bromide in the sector in the region covered by the request. 8. 2007 Nomination Options   2007 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while a consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2007 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2007 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2007 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could U. S. Pork 15 use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. Use Rate kg/ 1000 m3 2007   Use rate in pounds per thousand cubic feet, 2007, is the use rate requested by the applicant as derived from the total volume to be fumigated divided by the total amount ( in pounds) of methyl bromide requested. 17. Use Rate kg/ 1000 m3 low   Use rate in pounds per thousand cubic feet, low, is the lowest historic use rate reported by the applicant. The use rate selected for determining the amount to nominate is the lower of this rate or the 2007 use rate ( above). 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For structures/ food facilities and commodities, key pests are assumed to infest 100% of the volume for the specific uses requested in that 100% of the problem must be eradicated. 19. Adopt New Fumigants (%)   Adopt new fumigants (%) is the percent (%) of the requested volume where we expect alternatives could be adopted to replace methyl bromide during the year of the CUE request. 20. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, and new fumigants. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). 21. Adaptation / Transition  Estimate of the percentage of the weighted usage that can be transitioned to a marginal strategy. This estimate is for areas of the country where some processors may employ a marginal strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time frame for the transition. 22. Qualifying Volume  Qualifying volume ( 1000 cubic meters) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted volume by the combined impacts. 23. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying volume by the use rate. 24. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 25. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 26. Total U. S. Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 27. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 28. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. 29. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 30. Pest free Market. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be pest free in order to be sold either because of U. S. sanitary requirements or because of consumer acceptance. 31. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 32. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. If the applicant has not previously applied the word ` new' appears in this column. 33. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 34. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 35. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 36. Loss per 1000 m3   This measures the total loss per 1000 m3 of fumigation when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative, such as longer time spent in the fumigation chamber. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. U. S. Pork 16 37. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. 38. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. 39. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 40. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 41. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. U. S. Pork 17 APPENDIX B. Description of Dry curing Pork in the US.

Curing is a method of preserving meat that prevents harmful microorganisms from developing. Two curing methods have been developed   wet ( or brine) curing and dry curing. In wet curing, the curing ingredients are mixed with boiling water to form " pickling" brine. In dry curing, the ingredients are simply rubbed into the meat several times over the period of the cure. This nomination is for dry cured pork products such as dry cured ham, dry cured country ham, hard salami, pepperoni, and sausage. Other types of preserved pork products are not included in this request.

Dry Curing Pork in the United States Dry cured country hams are traditional in the southern part of the United States. Historically, this process was calendar based   beginning in the winter months and ending the following autumn. Pigs would be slaughtered and the ham curing process always started during the winter months. The cold winter temperatures would keep the meat cool enough to slow the growth of bacteria that would spoil the ham. Each ham was covered with a salt and sugar cure at least twice and stacked for the winter. In the spring, the ham was washed free of the salt and sugar cure, placed in a woven bag, and left to hang for the summer and into the fall. By late fall, the ham reached peak flavor and was ready for consumption.

Modern commercial production now uses environmentally controlled conditions that mimic the historical process and allows the manufacture of a consistently high quality product year round. Some processors, however, still chose to produce their cured meats in the traditional manner. The time required to cure hams vary from about 20 days to more than 120 days. Key parameters in the curing process are temperature and relative humidity, both of which are controlled by air flow. In addition to curing, smoking may occur.

Curing facilities may be up to 2 3 stories in height and typically have curing rooms that use either wood or stainless steel racks to hang the hams. The curing rooms can hold up to 4000 hams.

Pest Pressure It is common for producers of dry cured pork products to experience considerable pest pressure from insects such as the ham skipper, the red legged ham beetle, and mites. These insects infest and feed on meat as it cures and ages. Environmental conditions such as rain, temperature, and humidity in and around the curing facility influence the level of pest pressure. In general, higher temperature and humidity levels result in higher pest pressure. In addition, most of the curing facilities are located near slaughter houses and feed lots, which often support residual populations of insects that feed and breed on dry meats.

Steps in the Curing Process U. S. Pork 18 Step 1 ( Winter Room)  Ham is typically salted and sugared using a dry rub method on Day 1 and Day 15. The temperature is approximately 38 ° F ( 3.3 ° C) with low humidity. Sometime between days 42 ° F   50 ° F ( 4.4 ° C  10 ° C), the salt and sugar are scraped and rubbed off of the ham. In this room, the low temperatures and high salt content is sufficient to keep insect pest pressure to a minimum.

Step 2 ( Spring Room)  After being removed from the winter room, the hams are wrapped in cotton netting and placed in the spring room for only 10  15 days. The temperature is approximately 50 ° F   55 ° F ( 10 ° C  12.8 ° C) at 50% humidity. The humidity is very important at this stage and it is monitored closely. Most hams are equalized in the spring room. Equalization is a process whereby the salt cure penetrates from the surface of the ham, through the skin, and to the inner portion of the ham.

There are no insect problems here due to the low temperature and the limited amount of time that the hams are in this room.

Step 3 ( Summer or Aging Room)   Hams are next moved to the summer ( or aging room) for up to 120 days. The temperature is maintained between 80 º F  90 º F ( 21 ° C   32 ° C) at 55% humidity. These conditions are very important to develop an intense, concentrated flavor and aroma.

As the ham ages, the moisture content of the ham will decrease, the salt content increases, and the chances of bacterial action become limited. If desired, smoking of the hams may occur here, or in a separate " smoke house."

Since the temperature and humidity are higher in this room, conditions are ideal for insect and mite infestation. It is at this stage that the application of MB is necessary. U. S. Pork 19 APPENDIX C. 2006 Methyl Bromide Reconsideration for Rice Mills Overview of the US Nomination The U. S. has requested 135.742 metric tons of methyl bromide for use on uncooked ( dry cured or ` country') hams for 2006. MBTOC was unable to make a recommendation for this sector.

Currently there are no viable alternatives to methyl bromide for the dried meat industry: phosphine does not control mites ( a major pest affecting this sector) and heat would alter the product. In U. S. pork processing plants that produce dry cured pork products there are several factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. These include:  Pest control efficacy of alternatives: the efficacy of alternatives may not be comparable to MB, making these alternatives technically and/ or economically infeasible. Phosphine, alone or in combination with carbon dioxide does not control mites, a major pest on cured hams.  Geographic distribution of the facilities: Facilities included in this nomination are located in the southern U. S. where mild temperatures and high relative humidity result in key pest pressures that are moderate to severe. These ambient conditions require that pests be killed because they will only reinfest the facility after fumigation.  Age and type of facility: older food processing facilities, especially those constructed of wood, experience more frequent and severe pest infestations that must be controlled by fumigation. In the U. S. it is usual for dry cured processed pork to be produced in traditional facilities. These facilities are usually constructed of wood and many are decades old, if not older. Many newer facilities are constructed using the older facilities as models.  Constraints of the alternatives: some types of commodities ( e. g., those containing high levels of fats and oils) prevent the use of heat as an alternative because of its effect on the final product ( e. g., rancidity). All of the pork products are relatively high fat products so rancidity would be a problem. In addition, using heat will alter the character of the final product, producing, for example, a cooked pork product rather than a dry cured pork product with the attendant flavor differences.  Transition to newly available alternatives: Sulfuryl fluoride recently received a Federal registration for certain commodities and structures, such as cereal mills. At present, pork and pork products are not included among the legal uses of sulfuryl fluoride, so this chemical is not an option for these facilities.  Delay in plant operations: e. g., the use of some alternatives can add a delay to production by requiring additional time to complete the fumigation process. Production delays can result in significant economic impacts to the processors.

It is common for producers of cured pork products to experience pest pressure from insects such as the ham skipper, the red legged ham beetle, dermestid beetles, and mites. These insects infest and feed on meat as it cures and ages. Environmental conditions ( temperature and humidity) in and around the facility strongly influence the level of pest pressure. Under favorable ambient conditions, such as those seen in silo curing, pest pressure increases and a regular fumigation schedule is recommended. In the U. S., the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) regulates the U. S. Pork 20 maximum levels of live or dead insects or insect parts that may be present in stored food products. Food commodities that exceed maximum limits allowed are considered adulterated by FDA and thus unfit for human consumption. There are currently no alternatives registered for use on hams in the U. S. that would provide the same level of pest control.

The specific name and physical address of each facility was not requested in the forms filled out by the applicants in the United States. However, general location information for the following facilities is known:

  Kentucky ( Cadiz, Greenville)   Missouri ( California)   North Carolina ( Boone, Goldsboro, Smithfield, Wayne County)   Virginia ( Surry)   Tennessee ( Various locations)   South Carolina ( Various locations).

In order to address this concern, USG has requested location information from the post harvest sector participants. The forms have begun to come in from the applicants and are currently under review. When the analysis is complete it will be forwarded to MBTOC.

It has been difficult to determine the amount of methyl bromide used historically in this sector. Some data have been supplied by applicants1:

METHYL BROMIDE CONSUMPTION FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS AND THE AMOUNT REQUIRED IN THE YEAR( S) NOMINATED Historical Use Requested Use For each year specify: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 Amount of MB ( kg) 1,159 1,309 1,291 972 1,659 1,528 170,350 170,350 Volume Treated 1000 m ³ 50 53 52 41 48 43 7,087 7,087 Formulation of MB Information not provided Information not provided Dosage Rate ( kg/ 1000 m ³ ) 31 30 32 29 38 35 25 25 Actual ( A) or Estimate ( E) Information not provided Information not provided There are currently no alternatives to methyl Bromide in Ham fumigation. Phosphine, alone and in combination with carbon dioxide, does not control mites, a major pest in cured pork products. Additionally, according to the phosphine label, the state of North Carolina has further restricted 1 Data for only one company. Given the small share of the market for dry cured pork products represented by the reporting company, these data cannot be taken as representative. U. S. Pork 21 the use of this alternative. According to state regulations, phosphine may only be used to control rats and mice, but not insects.

In the U. S., the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) regulates the maximum levels of live or dead insects or insect parts that may be present in stored food products. Food commodities that exceed maximum limits allowed are considered adulterated by FDA and thus unfit for human consumption and cannot be sold. The law is part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and available on the World Wide Web at: http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ dalbook. html). Another source for the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act can be found at: http:// www. fda. gov/ opacom/ laws/ fdcact/ fdcact4. htm Meat Inspections are through the Food Safety and Inspection Service ( FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA). Under authority of the Federal Meat, Poultry and Egg Products Inspection Acts, FSIS inspects and monitors all meat, poultry and egg products sold in interstate and foreign commerce to ensure compliance with mandatory U. S. food safety standards and inspection legislation. http:// www. fsis. usda. gov/ regulations_&_ policies/ federal_ inspection_ programs/ index. asp Establishments have the option to apply for Federal or State inspection. Under the agreement, a State's program must enforce requirements " at least equal to" those imposed under the Federal Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Acts. However, product produced under State inspection is limited to intrastate commerce. FSIS provides up to 50% of the State's operating funds, as well as training and other assistance.

http:// www. fsis. usda. gov/ regulations_&_ policies/ state_ inspection_ programs/ index. asp Technical and Economic Assessment of MBTOC/ TEAP Report. We have not been provided by MBTOC with information on their technical assessment of the performance of alternatives, ortheir economic assessment on the impact of converting to alternatives. To support the MBTOC's recommended change in the U. S. request citations of the research references and economic assessments that led to the MBTOC conclusions are needed so we can understand the justification. The technical references should describe the species tested, pest numbers, concentrations, times, and commodity volumes. Economic references should describe the costs of converting from methyl bromide to alternatives, the impact of higher yield losses, longer plant back intervals, the economic feasibility if key market windows are missed, and the economic impact of a 20% transition to alternatives including estimates of management costs for more intensive programs and how the impact of less reliable alternatives is calculated. The sources of estimates of the extent of pest pressure should describe the rationale for using other estimates, a description of the questions, species being surveyed and quantitative levels used.

U. S. 2006 nomination In responding to MBTOC concerns USG has developed some information suggesting that less methyl bromide is needed in this sector than previously thought. Accordingly, USG is submitting an amended request for this sector of 40.854 metric tons of methyl bromide, a reduction to less than 1/ 3 of the previously requested amount. U. S. Pork 22 Citations Bell, C. H. 2000. Fumigation in the 21st Century. Crop Protection, 19: 563 69.