[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45793-45795]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC14-119-000.
    Applicants: Grays Harbor Energy LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Grays
Harbor Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-011.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Second Supplement to June 21, 2013 Updated Market
Power Analysis for the Southwest Region of Merrill Lynch Commodities,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3643-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Refund Report Filing (2013 True-Up and Schedule 5 & 6)
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1489-003.
    Applicants: Quantum Lake Power, LP.
    Description: Amendment containing Workpapers of Dr. John R. Morris
to March 26, 2014 Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of
Quantum Lake Power, LP.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1489-003.
    Applicants: Quantum Lake Power, LP.
    Description: Amendment to March 26, 2014 Notification of Non-
Material Change in Status of Quantum Lake Power, LP.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1872-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-07-30--SA 2650 METC E&P Supplement Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2223-000.
    Applicants: Sabine Cogen, LP.
    Description: Second Amendment to June 19, 2014 Sabine Cogen, LP
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2526-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service
with City of Industry to be effective 7/31/2014.

    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2527-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Service Agreement No. 3686; Queue No. Y3-023 to be
effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2528-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-07-30 Attachment P GFA Clean-up to be effective
9/29/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2529-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Transmission Owner Rate Case 2015 (TO16) to be
effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2530-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Service Agreement No. 218, Exhibit F Revision No. 8--
Mead Phoenix Project to be effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2531-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Service Agreement No. 3911; Queue No. Y3-024 to be
effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2532-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: TEC's Compliance Filing Order 792 to be effective 8/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2533-000.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: Replacement for 792 Language to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2534-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: New England Power Filing of SGIA with Centennial
Island Hydroelectric Company to be effective 6/23/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2535-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Service Agreement No. 3330; Queue No. X1-095 to be
effective 7/2/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2536-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2014-07-30--ContingencyReserveCostAllocation to be
effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2537-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: FPL and Landfill Energy Systems, LLC Service Agreement
No. 327 to be effective 11/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES14-46-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Application for Financing Authorization under Federal
Power Act Section 204 of Ameren Illinois Company.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA14-2-000.
    Applicants: Auburndale Peaker Energy Center, LLC, Bethpage Energy
Center 3, LLC, Calpine Bethlehem, LLC, Calpine Construction Finance
Co., L.P., Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P.,
Calpine Greenleaf, Inc., Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC, Calpine
Mid-Atlantic Marketing, LLC, Calpine Mid Merit, LLC, Calpine New Jersey
Generation, LLC, Calpine Newark, LLC, Calpine Power America--CA, LLC,
Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC, CCFC Sutter Energy, LLC, CES Marketing V,
LLC, CES Marketing IX, LLC, CES Marketing X, LLC, CPN Bethpage 3rd
Turbine, Inc., Creed Energy Center, LLC, Delta Energy Center, LLC,
Geysers Power Company, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Goose Haven
Energy Center, LLC, Hermiston Power, LLC, KIAC Partners, Los Esteros
Critical Energy Facility, LLC, Los Medanos Energy Center, LLC, Mankato
Energy Center, LLC, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC, Morgan Energy Center,
LLC, Nissequogue Cogen Partners, O.L.S. Energy-Agnews, Inc., Osprey
Energy Center, LLC, Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC, Pastoria Energy
Facility L.L.C., Pine Bluff Energy, LLC, Power Contract Financing,
L.L.C., RockGen Energy, LLC, Russell City Energy Company, LLC, South
Point Energy Center, LLC, TBG Cogen Partners, Westbrook Energy Center,
LLC, Zion Energy LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the Calpine MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-2-000.
    Applicants: Cedar Creek II, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 1, LLC,
Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 3, LLC, Energia
Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC, Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy LLC, Fowler Ridge II
Wind Farm LLC, Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC, Mesquite Power, LLC, Mesquite
Solar 1, LLC, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Sempra Generation, LLC,
Termoelectrica U.S., LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Sempra
Generation, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5137
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-2-000.
    Applicants: All Dams Generation, LLC, Arlington Valley Solar Energy
II, LLC, Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C., Calhoun Power Company,
LLC, Carville Energy LLC, Centinela Solar Energy, LLC, Cherokee County
Cogeneration Partners, LLC, Columbia Energy LLC, Decatur Energy Center,
LLC, DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC, Doswell Limited
Partnership, Lake Lynn Generation, LLC, Las Vegas Power Company, LLC,
LS Power Marketing, LLC, LSP University Park, LLC, Mobile Energy LLC,
Oneta Power, LLC, PE Hydro Generation, LLC, Renaissance Power, L.L.C.,
Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C., Rocky Road Power, LLC, Santa Rosa
Energy Center, LLC, Seneca Generation, LLC, Tilton Energy LLC,
University Park Energy, LLC, Wallingford Energy LLC, West Deptford
Energy, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the LS MBR
Sellers.

    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5138
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-2-000.
    Applicants: Iberdrola Renewables, LLC, Atlantic Renewable Projects
II LLC, Barton Windpower LLC, Big Horn Wind Project LLC, Big Horn II
Wind Project LLC, Blue Creek Wind Farm LLC, Buffalo Ridge I LLC,
Buffalo Ridge II LLC, Casselman Windpower LLC, Colorado Green Holdings
LLC, Dillon Wind LLC, Dry Lake Wind Power, LLC, Dry Lake Wind Power II
LLC, Elk River Windfarm, LLC, Elm Creek Wind, LLC, Elm Creek Wind II
LLC, Farmers City Wind, LLC, Flat Rock Windpower LLC, Flat Rock
Windpower II LLC, Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC, Groton Wind, LLC,
Hardscrabble Wind Power LLC, Hay Canyon Wind LLC, Juniper Canyon Wind
Power LLC, Klamath Energy LLC, Klamath Generation LLC, Klondike Wind
Power LLC, Klondike Wind Power II LLC, Klondike Wind Power III LLC,
Leaning Juniper Wind Power II LLC, Lempster Wind, LLC, Locust Ridge
Wind Farm, LLC, Locust Ridge II, LLC, Manzana Wind LLC, MinnDakota Wind
LLC, Moraine Wind LLC, Moraine Wind II LLC, Mountain View Power
Partners III, LLC, New England Wind, LLC, New Harvest Wind Project LLC,
Northern Iowa Windpower II LLC, Pebble Springs Wind LLC, Providence
Heights Wind, LLC, Rugby Wind LLC, San Luis Solar LLC, Shiloh I Wind
Project, LLC, South Chestnut LLC, Star Point Wind Project LLC,
Streator-Cayuga Ridge Wind Power LLC, Trimont Wind I LLC, and Twin
Buttes Wind LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the Iberdrola MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 7/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20140729-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-2-000.
    Applicants: Blue Sky East, LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC,
Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Erie Wind, LLC, Evergreen Wind
Power, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC, First Wind Energy Marketing,
LLC, Longfellow Wind, LLC, Milford Wind Corridor Phase I, LLC, Milford
Wind Corridor Phase II, LLC, Palouse Wind, LLC, Niagara Wind Power,
LLC, Stetson Holdings, LLC, Stetson Wind II, LLC, Vermont Wind, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the First Wind
MBR Companies.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-2-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc., Alabama Power Company,
Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company,
Southern Power Company.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Southern Company
Services, Inc. (as Agent).
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: LA14-2-000.
    Applicants: Alta Wind I, LLC, Alta Wind II, LLC, Alta Wind III,
LLC, Alta Wind IV, LLC, Alta Wind V, LLC, Alta Wind X, LLC, Alta Wind
XI, LLC, ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC, Badger Creek Limited, Coso
Geothermal Power Holdings, LLC, Double ``C'' Limited, High Sierra
Limited, Kern Front Limited, Oak Creek Wind Power, LLC, TGP Energy
Management, LLC, and Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Alta Wind I, LLC,
et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 30, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18580 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Memorandum From: James Covington, III USEPA/ OW/ OST To: Public Record for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number OW 2004 0032 ( www. epa. gov/ edockets/)

Date: August 10, 2005 Re: Tobacco Manufacturing Industry: Economic Profile 1. INTRODUCTION This memo describes the tobacco manufacturing industry in the United States from an economic perspective. Information contained in this memo is drawn from public sources, site visits, and discussions with industry.

The results are summarized in Section 2. Section 3 describes the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for this industry. Whether a source reports the data according to NAICS or SIC can depend on the date of publication. While the Small Business Administration shifted from SIC to NAICS in 2000, older EPA databases ( such as the Toxic Release Inventory and Permit Compliance System) classify facilities according to SIC code. The Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC) still uses SIC codes on its 10 K forms.

Section 4 describes the facility counts, geographic distributions, company counts, and other information as identified from publicly available sources. Section 4.6 contains most of the new material concerning market structure, Master Settlement Agreement, and the ability of companies to pass through costs to the consumers. Section 5 compares this information with what EPA found when compiling a facility list. Section 6 is a small business analysis. Section provides additional information on resolving inconsistencies in between data sources on the number of companies and facilities operating in the stemming and re drying sector.

1. Differences Between Engineering and Economic Views of the Industry This memo and the accompanying spreadsheet seek to identify all tobacco producing facilities in the United States. Not all of these facilities are likely to generate significant amounts of wastewater. Many employ small numbers of people and produce very small amounts of tobacco products. This is especially true in certain sectors, such as cigar production, where there are a number of single employee facilities.

EPA has collected significant amounts of process and technical data on the tobacco production industry. Much of this data was obtained in site visits, or through discussion with industry representatives. This process information has allowed EPA to focus on a small number of facilities, in certain sectors of the industry, that EPA believes are direct dischargers generating the majority large amounts of waste water in 2 this industrial sector. EPA's technical documents examine this smaller number of facilities rather than the entire industry, as explored in this memo.

2. SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS EPA identified 118 facilities and 82 companies in the tobacco manufacturing industry. Of the 82 companies, 14 are large, 2 belong to Native American Nations, and the remaining 66 are small. Nearly 70 percent of the small businesses ( 46 of 67 companies) are in NAICS 31229   Other Tobacco Manufacturing   and reflect a wide range in products such as smokeless tobacco, cigars, and loose tobacco for pipes and roll your own cigarettes. EPA prepared a spreadsheet ) that contains all 118 facilities.

The industry is extremely concentrated, particularly in the cigarette segment, with most production controlled by large international companies. In addition, these companies concentrate their manufacturing in very large facilities to capture economies of scale in production. For example, the six largest facilities ( in terms of employment) account for about 60 percent of total industry employment. The large facilities are concentrated in North Carolina ( which has three) while one each is located in Florida, Georgia, and Virginia. Five of the six very large facilities manufacture cigarettes while the sixth manufactures cigars. This implies that there are a limited number of facilities in the United States with operations large enough to involve direct discharge of process waste water. This finding is consistent with the engineering search for NPDES permits for tobacco manufacturing facilities. It is unlikely that a two person hand rolling cigar operation would generate enough wastewater to be of interest even as an indirect discharger.

The large cigarette companies that operate almost all of the largest facilities have the ability to pass all regulatory costs through to costumers. Evidence from the Master Settlement Agreement signed in 1998 shows that these companies have passed on all tax and legal settlement costs incurred directly to the consumer. This suggests that these companies could also pass on costs incurred by an EPA rule.

3. NAICS AND SIC CODES The NAICS codes identifying the tobacco manufacturing industry and their definitions are:

# 312210 Tobacco Stemming and Redrying # 312221 Cigarette Manufacturing # 312229 Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing In its raw form, tobacco is a highly perishable product. It must be stemmed and re dried soon after harvest to create a product that can be stored until it is needed for use in cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco. Companies in NAICS 312210 stem and re dry green   recently harvested   tobacco. These facilities are located close to tobacco farms. Stemming and re drying operations thus show seasonal employment patterns relating to the harvest cycle. Stemming and re drying companies purchase tobacco to meet the specific needs of end product manufacturers with whom they have long standing relationships. After purchase, the company grades, blends, and removes the stems from the leaves then re dries the leaves to remove moisture and ensure they can be stored. Both stems and leaves are shipped to the end product 3 manufacturer ( Gale, 2001). Based on information collected from industry, EPA does not believe that this industry is associated with significant volumes of wastewater ( USEPA, 2005a).

NAICS 312210 corresponds primarily, but not entirely, to SIC 2141. The overlap is about 94 percent. NAICS 312221 corresponds completely to SIC 2111. NAICS 312229, however, combines activities that were separate SIC codes; see Table 1. That is, NAICS 312229 contains all of SIC 2121 ( cigar manufacturing), SIC 2131 ( non smoking tobacco), SIC 7389 ( tobacco sheeting services), imitation tobacco products, and the remainder of SIC 2141.

Table 1 Correspondence Between NAICS 312229 and SIC Codes 2002 NAICS 1987 SIC Corresponding Index Entries 312229 2131 Chewing tobacco manufacturing 312229 2121 Cigar manufacturing 312229 2131 Pipe tobacco, prepared, manufacturing 312229 2141 Reconstituting tobacco 312229 2131 Smoking tobacco ( e. g., cigarette, pipe) manufacturing 312229 2131 Snuff manufacturing 312229 2131 Tobacco products ( e. g., chewing, smoking, snuff) manufacturing 312229 Tobacco products, imitation ( except cigarettes) manufacturing 312229 7389 Tobacco sheeting services Souce: http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ naics02/ def/ NDEF312. HTM# N31221, accessed 28 December 2004.

4. INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC SOURCES 4.1 Facility Counts EPA used several sources to obtain a preliminary estimate of the number of facilities in the tobacco manufacturing industry:

# Census Bureau  2002 Economic Census, Industry Series S Tobacco Stemming and Redrying: 2002, EC02 31I 312210, August 2004 ( Census, 2004a).

S Cigarette Manufacturing: 2002, EC02 31I 312221, July 2004 ( Census, 2004b).

S Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing: 2002, EC02 31I 312229, August 2004 ( Census, 2004c). 4 # Census Bureau  2002 County Business Patterns by NAICS S CenStats database at http:// censtats. census. gov/ cbpnaic/ cbpnaic. shtml ( Census, 2004d).

# Harris InfoSource International. Tobacco Production Industry Report. 2003 data. Published 2004 ( Harris InfoSource, 2004).

The Harris InfoSource data present the counts as " firms" even when the same company name appears as multiple entries in their list of major companies. We therefore suspect the Harris counts correspond more closely to facility counts rather than firms.

These data are compared in Table 2. We have no explanation for the difference of 19 facilities from the two sources of Census data. The range is from 16 to 20 tobacco stemming and redrying establishments, 15 to 23 cigarette manufacturing establishments, and 83 to 90 other tobacco product manufacturing establishments. In total numbers, the Harris data fall between the two estimates. However, they follow a very different distribution. The Harris data have about twice as many facilities in tobacco stemming and redrying and cigarette manufacturing and half as many in other tobacco product manufacturing.

Table 2 Different Sources for Facility Counts Facility Counts NAICS Census: 2002 Census Census: 2002 CPB Harris InfoSource 312220 Tobacco Stemming and Redrying 16 20 41 312221 Cigarette Manufacturing 15 23 42 312229 Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing 83 90 45 Totals 114 133 128 Sources: Census, 2004a 2004d and Harris InfoSource, 2004.

4.2 Facility Locations Census 2004a 2004c do not present state by state information for reasons of confidentiality. Census 2004d   County Business Patterns   provides a count of establishments by county and state. Table 3 compares the counts by state for Country Business Patterns and Harris InfoSource ( 2004). Although the overall counts between the two sources differ only by five facilities, there are substantial differences in the number of facilities in a particular state. The Census data show 24 more facilities in Florida and Pennsylvania than those reported by Harris InfoSource. 5 4.3 Facility Size Table 4 crosstabulates the number of facilities by state and the number of employees. The data are taken from County Business Patterns so the total estimated number of facilities is 133. What is evident from Table 4 is that over half the facilities have fewer than 20 employees. That is, the six facilities in the final category (> 1,000 employees) account for about 60 percent of total industry employment. The large facilities are concentrated in North Carolina ( which has three) while one each is located in Florida, Georgia, and Virginia. That is, the industry is marked by a few very large facilities that account for the bulk of the production with a plethora of small widely dispersed facilities accounting for the rest. Comparing Table 4 with Table 5, we see that the five of the six largest facilities in terms of employment are in cigarette manufacturing.

4.4 Number of Employees Census presents slightly different numbers for total employees in tobacco manufacturing in the industry surveys and county business patterns. Table 6 shows the number of employees by sector as reported in the industry surveys for a total of 24,560 employees. County Business Patterns reports a total employment of 24,031 which is about 2 percent fewer than that reported in the industry surveys ( Census, 2004d).

4.5 Number of Companies, Industry Concentration, and Value of Shipments The Census Bureau develops concentration ratios by industry from the 5 year industry census. The data from the 2002 Census are not yet available but we can compare the number of companies for 1997 and 2002 with the concentration ratios for 1997. These are shown in Table 7.

For the stemming and re drying industry ( NAICS 312210), the number of companies remained the same at 13 from 1997 to 2002. The total value of shipments dropped by nearly two thirds from $ 3 billion in 1997 to $ 1 billion in 2002. While the value of shipments for this segment is down substantially from 1997 to 2002, the profitability of firms has not changed. This drop in revenue yet retention of profit is attributable to structural changes in the way tobacco is purchased in the US; see " Changes in Market Structure in Section 4.6.1 for more details. The industry is concentrated with the four largest companies accounting for nearly 84 percent of the value of sales. The top eight companies account for nearly all ( 98 percent) of sales. 6 Table 3 Geographic Distribution of Tobacco Manufacturing Facilities State Counts Census, 2004d 2002 CBP Harris InfoSource, 2004 Difference AL 2 3  1 CA 1 2  1 CT 1 2  1 DE 1 0 1 FL 22 13 9 GA 4 4 0 IA 1 0 1 IL 1 1 0 IN 1 1 0 KY 9 12  3 LA 2 0 2 MA 1 1 0 MD 0 1  1 MI 0 1  1 MO 2 3  1 NC 17 26  9 NE 1 1 0 NJ 5 4 1 NV 3 1 2 NY 5 8  3 OK 1 1 0 OR 0 1  1 PA 25 10 15 SC 2 0 2 TN 8 10  2 TX 4 2 2 VA 11 19  8 WI 1 0 1 WV 1 1 0 WY 1 0 1 Total 133 128 5 7 Table 4 Facilities by State by Employment NAICS 3122 All Tobacco Manufacturing Number of Establishments Area Name Total 1 4 5 9 10 19 20 49 50 99 100 249 250 499 500 999 1,000 or more Alabama 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 California 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connecticut 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Delaware 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 22 17 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Georgia 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Illinois 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Indiana 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Iowa 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky 9 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 Louisiana 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Massachusetts 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Missouri 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Nebraska 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New York 5 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 17 4 0 0 2 1 5 0 2 3 Oklahoma 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 25 11 2 5 4 1 0 1 1 0 South Carolina 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tennessee 8 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 0 0 Texas 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Virginia 11 0 1 0 1 3 3 2 0 1 West Virginia 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Wisconsin 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wyoming 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Counts 133 51 9 12 15 14 14 9 3 6 Source: Census, 2004d. 8 Table 5 Facilities by State by Employment NAICS 312221 Cigarette Manufacturing Number of Establishments Area Name Total 1 4 5 9 10 19 20 49 50 99 100 249 250 499 500 999 1000 or more Georgia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Kentucky 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nebraska 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New York 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 Oklahoma 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Wyoming 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Counts 23 8 1 3 0 2 3 0 1 5 Source: Census, 2004d.

Table 6 Number of Employees Number of NAICS Industry Employees 312210 Stemming & Redrying 2,721 312221 Cigarettes 15,190 312229 Other Tobacco 6,649 Total 24,560 Source: Census, 2004a c. 9 Table 7 Concentration Ratios Number of Companies Value of Shipments Percent of Value NAICS Industry Year ( Millions) Top 4 Top 8 HH Index 312210 Stemming & Redrying 13 2002 $ 1,077 13 1997 $ 3,263 83.7 97.8 2320 312221 Cigarettes 13 2002 $ 34,563 9 1997 $ 29,253 98.9 D D 312229 Other Tobacco 70 2002 $ 3,628 56 1997 $ 3,559 62.4 83.5 1846 Notes: HH Index: Herfindahl Hershmann index for the 50 largest companies. D: not disclosed due to confidentiality. Source: Census, 2004a c and 2001.

The cigarette manufacturing industry ( NAICS 312221) shows an increase of four companies from 1997 to 2002. The additional companies, however, are unlikely to strongly dilute the intense concentration of this industry. The top four companies accounted for about 99 percent of the value of sales in 1997 and Census could not report the information for the top eight companies or the Herfindahl Hershmann index. That is, cigarette manufacturing in the United States is an oligopoly. Note that the value of cigarette sales increased from $ 29 billion in 1997 to $ 35 billion in 2002 even though the Master Settlement Agreement ( MSA) was signed in 1998. The MSA requires the tobacco industry to pay $ 200 billion over 25 years to reimburse states for healthcare costs related to smoking. The increase in the value of sales might be indicative of the ability of the industry to push regulatory costs through to the consumers. A side effect of the MSA is the emergence of small cigarette manufacturers that are not part of the settlement. These new companies tend to be discount manufacturers that sell cigarettes for 40 percent to 50 percent below the cost of premium cigarettes ( S& P, 2004).

The number of other tobacco manufacturers increased by 25 percent ( from 56 to 70 companies) from 1997 to 2002 even though the value of sales remained at about $ 3.6 million. The four largest companies accounts for less than two thirds of the value of sales. The eight largest companies account for about 84 percent of the value of sales. This industry appears to be much less concentrated than the other two sectors but this may be an artifact of merging several SIC codes within a single NAICS code. When the two main components pieces of other tobacco manufacturing   cigars and smokeless tobacco   when examined individually, they are just as concentrated as the rest of the tobacco industry. Because few companies compete in both segments, combining them makes the overall concentration ratio lower. Concentration statistics for the smokeless and cigar segments are detailed more fully in Section 4.6.3. 1The contract included provisions for the construction of a large stemming and re drying plant in Nash County, North Carolina. At 1.2 million square feet, this factory is a third larger than the next largest Universal plant.

10 4.6 Companies and Recent Developments In this section, we use four sources to identify companies in the different tobacco sub industries: D& B, 2004; Gale, 2001; Harris InfoSource, 2004; and S& P, 2004. We report the findings separately for each sector.

4.6.1 Stemming and Re drying Number of Companies.. Public sources differed on the number of companies and facilities that exist in the stemming and re drying sector. EPA conducted additional research to clarify the number of companies involved in stemming and re drying. Additional details on how EPA resolved inconsistencies can be found in Section 7 of this memo.

EPA identified 10 companies operating 17 facilities. The two largest companies operating in this sector   Universal and Alliance One International   operate on a global scale and sell to all the major tobacco companies. Each maintains a presence in all important tobacco growing regions around the world. Based on SEC 10K filings, both operate multiple facilities in the United States. However, since raw tobacco is highly perishable, it is unlikely that stemming and re drying plants in the United States handle foreign grown tobacco. The remaining eight independent stemming and re drying companies are classified as small businesses. They operate only in the United States and typically operate only one facility. A full listing of stemming and re drying facilities, along with their corporate ownership is listed in the accompanying spreadsheet, tobacco_ sites. wk4.

Change in Market Structure. Table 7 ( above) indicates that the value of shipments from the stemming and re drying NAICS decreased by two thirds from 1997 to 2002. This decrease in revenues is tied to structural changes in the way cigarette companies, which consume 95 percent of tobacco globally, purchase tobacco ( Standard, 2004). Traditionally in the United States, tobacco farmers harvested their crop, then brought it to an auction house where a number of stemming and re drying operators would bid on the leaves. These companies would then transform the leaves into a form usable by end product manufacturers, such a cigarette or cigar manufacturers. Companies such as Philip Morris would then purchase the tobacco and manufacture cigarettes.

However, in recent years this historic chain has broken down. Large manufacturers attempted to cut costs, reduce uncertainty, and gain increased control over the tobacco used in its cigarettes by purchasing tobacco through a contractual system encompassing both farmers and stemming and re drying firms. In 2000, Philip Morris began constructing an alternative supply route, bypassing the auction system by contracting directly with tobacco farmers to purchase tobacco. Instead of entering the stemming and redrying business, Philip Morris contracted with existing companies to stem and re dry its tobacco. For example, in 2001, Philip Morris signed a 10 year contract with Universal Corporation to stem and re dry its green tobacco into a form usable in cigarette manufacturing. 1 Since then, Reynolds America has 2Public sources identify this facility as belonging to the cigarette manufacturing NAICS, rather than the stemming and re drying NAICS. EPA has followed this pattern. At this time it is unclear if the cooperative is selling any re dried tobacco.

11 created a similar supply system. In 2004, Standard Commercial Corporation   at the time, the 3rd largest stemming and re drying company, now part of Alliance One International   estimated 75 percent of the U. S. tobacco crop was sold via contracts at the farm level ( Standard, 2004).

The shift to contracting tobacco is a change in the economic structure of this industry. However, from a process perspective, the tobacco still moves in the traditional manner from farmer, to stemming and re drying, to cigarette manufacturer. The shift to contracting eliminates the separate economic transactions that used to occur between farmers, stemming and re drying companies, and cigarette manufacturers.

Because Philip Morris and Reynolds American use a significant share of domestic tobacco production, their actions have affected the entire supply chain. The decline in value of shipments reported by the Census reflects the decrease in stemming and re drying companies' sales. By purchasing tobacco directly, cigarette companies have co opted the revenues companies such as Universal Corporation made purchasing raw tobacco at auction and selling it to cigarette companies. Stemming and re drying companies have remained profitable. Although revenues are down, costs for stemming and re drying firms have also declined because they no longer need to maintain a large staff of buyers to purchase tobacco. The contractual arrangement allows stemming and re drying firms to focus on their core business of adding value to tobacco by stemming and re drying.

Further, tobacco farmers are finding significantly less demand at auction for their products because larger purchasers like Philip Morris are no longer participating. The fear of not finding a buyer at auction has driven many farmers into contract relationships with cigarette manufacturers. Others have sought alternatives to the contract relationship and the auction system. The Flue Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp.   a farmer owned cooperative founded in 1946 as a buyer of last resort for tobacco   has begun moving out of its traditional role as solely a purchaser and reseller of tobacco. In 2004 the Cooperative purchased a plant located near Roxboro, North Carolina, from the Vector Group ( formerly Liggett). The plant can both stem and re dry green tobacco and produce 10 billion cigarettes per year ( Thompson, 2004). This brings the cooperative into direct competition with both stemming and redrying companies and cigarette manufacturers. 2 In addition to the changes brought on by the shift to contract buying, the industry is becoming more concentrated. On November 8, 2004 DIMON International and Standard Commercial Corporation announced plans to merge. DIMON and Standard hold the 2nd and 3rd largest market share in the stemming and re drying segment. Regulators and shareholders approved the merger in April 2005. It became final in May ( DIMON, 2005). The new firm   named Alliance One International, Inc.   is the 2nd largest player in the industry after Universal Corporation. On November 9, 2004   the day the merger was announced   the combined company was estimated to have a projected market value of $ 538 million, while Universal would have a market value of almost $ 1.2 billion. The companies cited the need to cut costs and increase their global reach as the top reasons for the merger ( Hagel, 2004). 12 13 Companies are also consolidating their operations, closing less efficient smaller facilities and shifting production to larger, more efficient plants. In 2004, DIMON announced it would close its Danville, Virginia, location and shift production to their Farmville, North Carolina, facility ( Hagel, 2004). In 2002, Universal Corporation closed a plant in Henderson, North Carolina, shifting production to expanded facilities in Virginia and North Carolina ( Universal, 2002). The merger between DIMON and Standard Commercial Corporation will result in more consolidation. The company plans to centralize operation into their Wilson and Farmville North Carolina locations ( Hale, 2005). This shift to fewer, larger operations could create increased pollution from the remaining large factories.

Large Facilities. Table 8 contains a listing of stemming and re drying facilities larger than 500,000 square feet. These facilities are concentrated in the southeastern United States near tobacco growing areas. In terms of employment, County Business Patterns lists the largest stemming and re dryng facility as located in North Carolina and employing between 500 and 999 people. EPA believes that this is the Universal Corporation facility in Rocky Mount. This facility was built recently and primarily serves Philip Morris contract orders. Standard Commercial Corporation's Wilson North Carolina facility, while large, also houses company headquarters, so stemming and redrying facilities are likely smaller than it might initially appear.

Table 8 Large Stemming and Re drying Facilities ( Larger than 500,000 square feet)

Company City, State Square Feet*

Universal Corporation Rocky Mount, NC 1,244,000 Danville, VA 895,0000 Lancaster, PA 636,000 Alliance One International Danville, VA** 1,867,000 Farmville, NC 895,000 Wilson, NC 2,304,714 * Includes storage areas. ** Alliance One International has told EPA that this facility is closed. Since it is still listed as active in the company SEC filings, EPA has included it on the list ( USEPA, 2005a).

Cost Pass Through. The shift to contract relationships with cigarette companies makes it unclear which company might incur the costs of any proposed rule. However, since the move toward contracting stemming and redrying was driven by concerns about costs and leaf quality it is unlikely the current contracts contain stipulations relating to wastewater. EPA believes that stemming and redrying companies, considering their size and their small number ( three major companies with two planning a merger) would be able to pass on costs relating to any proposed rule. Smaller stemming and redrying firms might have more difficulty, however it is not clear whether the size of their wastewater streams would make them within the scope of any proposed rule. In the CAFOs Rule, EPA found that contract growers   even small growers   would be able to pass costs through some costs to producers and consumers ( USEPA, 2001). 3 See Section 5.3 for a listing of facilities employing more than 1,000.

14 4.6.2 Cigarette Manufacturing Cigarette manufacturers dominate the other tobacco manufacturing segments in terms of value of shipments and tobacco consumption. Cigarette sales totaled more than $ 34 billion ( Census, 2004b), and accounted for more than 95% of global tobacco consumption ( Standard, 2004).

Number of Companies. Census ( 2004b) provides a count of 13 companies in the cigarette manufacturing sector. From 1997 to 2002 there was an overall increase of four companies in this sector, however, the concentration is actually increasing. Large firms are consolidating further while new small firms, which are not part of the Master Settlement Agreement, are entering the market. The new firms account for small percentages of the market. Reynolds America reflects R. J. Reynolds' purchase of the Brown and Williamson division of British American Tobacco in 2004. Prior to the merger, R. J. Reynolds and Brown and Williamson held the 2nd and 3rd largest market share respectively. Philip Morris USA, a subsidiary of the Altria Group, controls 49 percent of the U. S. market, while Reynolds America owns 32 percent of the domestic market. That is, these two firms dominate the industry, controlling over 80 percent of the domestic market between them. After these two giants, the next largest companies in terms of market share are Lolliards ( part of Loews) with 9 percent of the market, Commonwealth Tobacco with 3 percent, and the Liggett Group ( owned by the Vector Group) with 2.4 percent ( American Antitrust Institute, 2004).

Number of Facilities. Census ( 2004d) reports 23 cigarette manufacturing facilities operating in the United States. Seventeen of these facilities employed less than 250 people, one reported employing between 500 999 people, while the remaining five employed over 1000 people. 3 The large cigarette companies that dominate the industry have highly concentrated manufacturing facilities located in the southeastern United States. Philip Morris, for instance, manufactures all of its cigarettes in two facilities. One, located near Charlotte, North Carolina is located on 2,100 acres of land with over 2.4 million square feet under one roof. The facility employs 2,700 people ( Philip Morris, 2005). The second facility in Richmond, Virginia can produce more than 600 million cigarettes per day and employs 3,500 people. Reynolds America boasts a 2.5 million square foot facility in Tobaccoville, North Carolina ( Reynolds America, 2004).

Master Settlement Agreement ( MSA). In 1998, the four largest cigarette companies   Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds, Lolliards, and Ligget   and the attorney generals from 46 states entered into an agreement known as the Master Settlement Agreement ( MSA) that transformed the competitive environment for tobacco companies in the United States. The agreement grew out of lawsuits attempting to recover Medicaid costs attributable to tobacco use. Talks between the parties led to a settlement that includes restrictions on advertising and payments to states in return for immunity from Medicaid lawsuits. Payments are calculated using a complex formula that is based on 1997 market share. Initial estimates put the total value of the settlement at $ 200 billion over the next 25 years. In reality, however, the total costs for the MSA are unknown. First, payments will not stop after 25 years, it was simply used as a convenient time frame. Second, payments are calculated yearly, for each company, based on deviations from total cigarettes sold in 1997. Companies selling significantly more, or less than their 1997 totals are subject to 15 higher, or lower payments ( Parloff, 2005). Since 1998, 40 cigarette companies have entered into the MSA in order to receive immunity from Medicaid lawsuits ( Stith, 2004).

However, major companies worried that smaller cigarette manufacturers that were not part of the settlement would undercut their prices and steal market share. To ease these concerns, the MSA stipulated that, before states could receive payment, they must pass legislation that required non signatories ( known as nonparticipating manufacturers) to pay amounts equivalent to MSA payments into escrow accounts. The money was justified as payments for any future Medicare suit brought against the companies by the states. Held in escrow, these payments will be returned in 25 years if no suit is filed. The MSA stipulated that States which did not enact escrow laws would forfeit future payments. Payments would also be cut if a judge struck down escrow payment laws ( Parloff, 2005).

Implications for Cost Pass Through. Since 1998, MSA signatories have   in concert   raised wholesale prices by $ 11.20 per carton. This exceeds expert estimates of $ 4.50 per carton cost of the settlement by almost $ 7 per carton ( Parloff, 2005). The increased price offset sales losses to nonparticipating manufacturers. In their 2004 study of the impact of the MSA, two professors at Middle Tennessee University, Ford and Fowler, found that cigarette companies had increased their profits and share prices under MSA. Critics of the MSA argue that the provisions of the MSA that dictate escrow payments violates the law twice. First, the MSA violates the interstate commerce provisions of the Constitution by, in effect, levying a national cigarette tax without the approval of Congress. Second it creates an output cartel for cigarettes. Critics further charge that the structure of the MSA creates incentives for state governments and attorney generals to enforce the cartel. Since MSA payments from participating manufacturers decline as their market share slips from 1997 levels ( when participating manufacturers controlled 99 percent of the market), and states do not receive non participating manufacturers' escrow payments directly, but rather hold them for 25 years. States have a strong incentive to insure that major manufacturers maintain their dominant market position ( Stith, 2004). This incentive was evidenced by the spate of actions by attorney generals against non participating manufacturers soon after the beginning of the recession   and declining tax receipts   in 2001 ( Parloff 2005).

Given the evidence from the MSA it is likely that the major cigarette companies will be able to pass regulatory costs through to consumers.

Cigarettes and the Consumer's Dollar. Other government data strongly suggests that major tobacco companies have formed an output cartel. In 2004 the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service ( ERS) published a study that investigated what tobacco products consumers were purchasing and how the consumers dollar was divided among the component costs of a cigarette. Though the report does not mention cartels or monopoly, data in the report point in that direction.

In 2003, Americans spent 1.11 percent of their disposable income on all tobacco products. Of this, 1.04 percent went to cigarettes. That is, more than 93 percent of the disposable income Americans spend on tobacco products goes toward the purchase of cigarettes. Cigars accounted for 0.03 percent of disposable income, while other products ( chewing tobacco, snuff, and smoking tobacco) totaled 0.04 percent ( ERS, 2004). 16 Table 9 details the cost components of a cigarette in terms of the consumers dollar.. In 2003, farmers received 1 percent of money spent on cigarettes, wholesalers and retailers got 14 percent, and manufacturers received 58 percent. Taxes comprised 27 percent. Compared with 1998   the year the MSA was signed   manufactures have increased their share of the consumers dollar from 50 to 58 percent ( ERS 2004). Some of this increase is due to the MSA, however, cigarette makers' ability their to expand their share of the consumer's dollar and increase profits, over a time period when excise taxes and leaf prices increased significantly, and total cigarette output fell by 180 billion cigarettes ( 27 percent) suggests that cigarette companies might have formed a cartel ( ERS, 2004) ( Ford and Fowler, 2004). Table 10 provides data on U. S. cigarette production from 1997   the year before the MSA was signed   to 2003.

The competitive effects of the MSA imply that signatories to the MSA would be able to pass on all costs associated with any environmental regulations.

Table 9 Percent of Cigarette Users Dollar Percent of Cigarette User's Dollar Cost Component 2003 1998 Farming 1 2 Wholesaler/ Retailer 14 18 Manufacturers* 58 50 Taxes 27 30 Total 100 100 * This includes stemming and redrying costs. Source: ERS, 2004. 17 Table 10 Cigarette Production in the United States Year Total Production ( in billions of cigarettes)

1997 719.6 1998 679.7 1999 606.6 2000 594.6 2001 562.4 2002 497.0 2003 499.4 Source: ERS, 2004.

4.6.3 Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing This category includes a number of very different tobacco products. The most important are smokeless tobacco, cigars, and cigarette and pipe tobacco. Each major product is discussed below in its own section. Overall, Census ( 2004c) reports 70 companies in this sector.

<IP_ADDRESS> Smokeless Tobacco The smokeless tobacco category includes dry snuff, moist snuff, plug/ twist, and loose leaf chewing tobacco. The Federal Trade Commission ( FTC) estimates that consumers spent $ 2.1 billion on smokeless tobacco products in 2001. Moist snuff accounted for over 83 percent of smokeless tobacco sales, followed by loose leaf chewing tobacco with more than 13 percent of sales. All other smokeless tobacco products account for less than four percent of sales ( FTC, 2003).

As with other segments of the tobacco manufacturing industry, the smokeless segment is highly concentrated. The FTC reports that in 2001 the five largest companies accounted for 99 percent of pounds sold ( FTC, 2003). These companies are a mix of public, foreign, and privately held firms. The market leader, US Smokeless Tobacco Company ( USSTC) controls 43 percent of the market and is a subsidiary of publicly held UST Inc. Most of USSTC sales are in the moist suff segment, where it controlled 74 percent of pounds sold in 2001 ( FTC, 2003). Conwood, LLP, a private firm, held the second largest share at 23 percent. Swedish Match AB   a foreign company that sell cigars, matches, and other tobacco products with over $ 1.8 billion in sales   controls 20 percent of the smokeless tobacco market. Swisher is a private firm that controls 6.3 percent of the smokeless market and also produces cigars. National Tobacco company has the smallest share at 5.9 percent and is a subsidiary of North Atlantic Trading company, which also sells cigarettes. 18 <IP_ADDRESS> Cigars There are three categories of cigars: premium cigars, large cigars, and little cigars. Premium cigars are hand made from the best tobacco and sell for $ 1 to more than $ 25 dollars each ( Knight et al, 1998). The Congressional Research Service estimates that 99 percent of premium cigars are imported ( Knight et al, 1998). Through our research, EPA believes that the remainder are made in very small shops located in cities with large Hispanic populations such as Miami. Outside of these small shops, the only other premium cigars manufactured in the United States are produced in Puerto Rico.

Large cigars are mass produced by machines from lower quality tobacco and sell for under a dollar each. Small cigars are machine made and defined as cigars that weigh less than three pounds per thousand. In 1997, approximately 2.3 billion large cigars were manufactured in the United States   about 61 percent of cigars   while small cigars made up about 39 percent of the market. ( Knight et al, 1998). In terms of production, cigarettes dwarf cigars. For comparison, it would take the Philip Morris cigarette manufacturing plant in Richmond less than 7 days to make 3.8 billion cigarettes, the number of cigars manufactured in the United States in all of 1997.

Cigar production is highly concentrated. In 1997 the top four manufacturers   Swisher International Group, Inc., General Cigar Holdings, Inc., Consolidated Cigar Holdings, Inc. and Havatampa, Inc.   controlled 80 percent of the market ( Knight et al, 1998). Since then the market has become further concentrated; Consolidated Cigar Holdings and Havatampa are now owned by Altadis while Swedish Match AB took control of General Cigar Holdings.

Swisher's ( a private firm) strength is concentrated in the small cigar category, where its products had a 46 percent market share. EPA believes Swisher's 500,000 square foot Jacksonville facility is the largest cigar factory in the United States. Swisher's 1998 10K form   the last published before the firm was taken private   states that the firm believes its Jacksonville factory " is the most automated cigar manufacturing facility in the United States" ( Swisher, 1999).

<IP_ADDRESS> Loose Tobacco This segment encompasses loose tobacco for use in pipes and roll your own cigarettes. The rollyour own ( RYO) cigarette segment has grown since the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement and State taxes have raised the price of a traditional pack of cigarettes. Consumers looking to save money can make their own cigarettes for less money. Additionally others are turning to RYO companies because of concerns about cigarette additives. Reynolds America recently showed interest in the RYO segment, purchasing Santa Fee National Tobacco ( Tobacco Retailer, 2002). Despite the recent growth, loose tobacco is a small area. EPA identified several facilities that produce loose tobacco. They tend to be small, privately held, and less technologically advanced than other tobacco manufacturing segments. 19 <IP_ADDRESS> Cost Pass Through Given the different types products that comprise this segment, the ability to pass through costs are likely vary. As a highly concentrated segment, smokeless tobacco could probably pass on regulatory costs to the consumer. In 1998 UST, Inc. signed an agreement with the states known as the Smokeless Master Settlement Agreement. As with the MSA the agreement required UST to cease certain marketing practices perceived to be targeted at children and make payments of $ 125 million over ten years. Analysts predict that the cost of the settlement are about $ 0.02 per can, and are passed to the consumer through price increases ( Credit Suisse First Boston, 1999). Unlike the cigarette MSA, no payments go directly to the states. All the money is given to a foundation aimed at reducing teen tobacco use. UST is the only signatory to this agreement ( Credit Suisse First Boston, 1999).

Loose tobacco companies would likely have a mixed ability to pass on costs. Some higher priced pipe tobacco producers, for example, do not compete on price and would likely have the ability to increase prices to offset regulatory costs. In contrast, cigarette tobacco producers compete more strongly on price. Many consumers of this product prefer it to pre rolled cigarettes because of the cost savings. These companies would likely have the least ability to pass on costs. However, given the small size of this market it is unclear whether any facility would generate enough wastewater to concern EPA.

Cigar companies would likely show the same mixed ability to pass through costs. The small cigar market   dominated by Swisher   seem to mimic the cigarette industry in terms of industrial scale and could likely pass most regulatory costs to consumers. Other smaller firms would likely be less able to pass on costs but, like many other smaller firms in other segments, it is unclear whether their waste streams would justify regulation. As EPA moves forward in its investigation of this industry, EPA will be better able to develop more concrete cost pass though assumptions based on the in scope population.

5. EPA FINDINGS 5.1 Facilities In addition to developing an industry profile, EPA developed a facility list with contact information, mailing address, NAICS code, revenues, employment, and whether it belonged to a large or small company. Given the data inconsistencies about the number of facilities and companies in this industry and the identification of which companies are active in which sectors shown in Tables 2, 8, and 9, creating a facility list was neither straightforward nor simple. The sources and process for developing the list are discussed in a separate memo ( ERG, 2005). The complete list , includes contact information such as addresses and phone numbers, where available.

Table 11 compares the facility counts by NAICS code for the different sources. The EPA count for stemming and re drying facilities matches that in the 2002 industry census ( Census, 2004a). The EPA count for cigarette manufacturing facilities is larger than either Census count ( Census, 2004b and 2004d), but smaller than that reported in Harris InfoSource, 2004. The EPA count of 65 facilities in the other tobacco manufacturing sector is smaller than either Census count ( Census, 2004c and 2004d), but larger than that reported in Harris InfoSource, 2004. Overall, EPA found 118 facilities while the other counts range from 114 to 133 facilities. The EPA counts, then, fall within the range shown in the public sources. 4EPA compared the sites for a company that list themselves under a tobacco manufacturing SIC or NAICS code in industry databases such as Harris InfoSource or Dun and Bradstreet with the manufacturing plants identified in the company's 10 K form. EPA found that many locations without manufacturing operations still classify themselves with the manufacturing codes. We do not know if Census runs into the same difficulty when collecting data.

20 We believe that the EPA count includes all major manufacturing facilities. It is possible that our counts missed some small cigar manufacturers.

Since no source published a complete list identifying the facilities in their counts, it is impossible for EPA to conducts a site by site comparison. However, the higher counts found in County Business Patterns could be the result of including non manufacturing locations such as storage, distribution, and headquarters in the count. 4 Table 11 Facility Counts: Comparison of EPA and Other Sources Facility Counts NAICS Census: 2002 Census EPA Harris InfoSource Census: 2002 CPB 312220 Tobacco Stemming and Redrying 16 17 41 20 312221 Cigarette Manufacturing 15 36 42 23 312229 Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing 83 65 45 90 Totals 114 118 128 133 Sources: Census, 2004a 2004d, Harris InfoSource, 2004, and EPA estimates.

5.2 Company Counts Table 12 compares the company counts from the 2002 Census of Manufactures ( Census, 2004a 2004c) with the EPA counts. The Census data reflect 2002 conditions while the EPA data reflect 2004 conditions. As a result of their recent merger, EPA counts the DIMON and Standard Commercial Corporation as one company. EPA also counts both Lancaster Leaf Tobacco Company and Luckett Tobacco, Inc. under their parent corporation Universal Corporation. This might explain some discrepancies in the numbers. 21 The difference in the count of cigarette manufacturers might be a result of the recent start up of new manufacturing companies. Two companies belong to Tribal Entities   Seneca Cayuga Tobacco and Omaha Nation Tobacco Manufacturing. Several of the newer, smaller companies emphasize that they produce a " natural" product without additives.

The EPA count of companies in the other tobacco manufacturing sector is substantially lower than the Census count ( by 18 companies or 25 percent lower). Some of this is due to recent consolidations, such as Altadis now owning Consolidated Cigar Holdings and Havatampa and Swedish Match AB owning General Cigar Holdings. Some companies failed after the interest in cigars peaked in the late 1990s ( Savona, 2003) Some small cigar companies have recently moved manufacturing operations from the United States to other countries such as the Dominican Republic ( ). For some locations, it is difficult to ascertain whether they only import tobacco or manufacture products from imported tobacco. Without a company list from Census, EPA cannot do a company by company comparison to identify where different classifications have occurred. However, EPA believes every company on its list is engaged in tobacco manufacturing activities. EPA is aware of the name of several other small, privately owned cigar manufacturing locations from industry magazines but could find no other data on them ( . These could not be included in our facility list for lack of data. Thus, if we have missed a few companies, it is likely that they are small, privately owned, and unlikely to play a substantial role in any investigation of pollutant discharges from this industry.

Table 12 Company Counts: Comparison of EPA and Other Sources Number of Companies NAICS Industry Census EPA 312210 Stemming & Redrying 13 10 312221 Cigarettes 13 20 312229 Other Tobacco 70 52 Total 96 82 Source: Census, 2004a 2004c and EPA estimates.

5.2 Company Financials Of the 82 companies identified by EPA, only 12 are publicly held and thus have financial data available for analysis. However, since tobacco production is highly concentrated and the largest firms tend to be publically held, these 12 companies control most of the tobacco production in the United States. For example, the five cigarette companies listed account for over 99 percent of production in the US in 1997. Table 13 lists selected financial results for these firms. Except where noted, financial data is for 2004. 22 Of the 12 firms in Table 13 two companies   Swedish Match, and Altadis   are foreign. Three of the 12   Altria, Loews, and Swedish Match   have significant businesses outside of tobacco manufacturing. Financials listed in Table 15 include proceeds from these business.

Star Scientific and North Atlantic Trading Company   as the only companies with negative cash flow   illustrate the stark differences between companies in the same market. Reynolds American and Star Scientific compete at different ends of the same market. Reynolds American, with many of the best known cigarette brands, produces premium products that do not compete on price. In contrast Star Scientific owns discount brands that lack strong loyalty and must compete on price against a large number of other tiny discount manufacturers and importers. Reynolds American in turn is highly profitable, while Star Scientific is more marginal.

North Atlantic Trading bears much the same relationship with UST. North Atlantic smokeless brands are sold at a discount, while UST operates at the premium end of the market with good margins. The importance of strong brands leads EPA to believe that most of the smaller private firms would likely be far more marginal than the largest firms in the industry.

5.3 Large Tobacco Manufacturing Facilities Table 14 contains a listing of tobacco manufacturing facilities employing more than 1,000 people. All but one produce cigarettes, and all are located in the southeastern United States. All companies except Swisher are publicly held.

EPA believes that the cigarette facilities listed in Table 14 produce nearly all the cigarettes sold by Altria, Reynolds American, and Lolliards. Therefore it is likely that these facilities account for close to 90 percent of domestic cigarette production. 23 Table 13 Selected Financial Results for Publically Held Tobacco Companies ( in thousands of Dollars)

Company Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Long Term Liabilities Total Liabilities Total Revenues Net Income Depreciation Cash Flow Stemming and Redrying Dimon*,*** $ 839,768 $ 1,353,152 $ 403,224 $ 424,897 $ 1,353,152 $ 1,268,752 $ 28,057 $ 35,261 $ 63,318 Standard Commercial Corporation*** $ 618,150 $ 840,014 $ 451,298 $ 91,814 $ 840,014 $ 780,044 $ 13,638 $ 18,025 $ 4,387 Universal Corporation* $ 1,374,997 $ 2,243,074 $ 824,281 $ 614,994 $ 2,243,074 $ 2,636,776 $ 110,594 $ 45,519 $ 156,113 Cigarette Altria $ 25,901,000 $ 101,648,00 0 $ 23,574,000 $ 16,462,000 $ 101,648,000 $ 89,610,000 $ 9,416,000 $ 1,607,000 $ 11,023,000 Reynolds American $ 4,624,000 $ 14,428,000 $ 4,055,000 $ 1,595,000 $ 14,428,000 $ 6,437,000 $ 688,000 $ 153,000 $ 841,000 Vector Group ( Ligget) $ 242,124 $ 535,895 $ 119,835 $ 254,603 $ 535,895 $ 498,860 $ 6,728 $ 11,823 $ 18,551 Loews ( Lorillards) $ 19,027,100 $ 73,749,500 $ 2,523,600 $ 5,980,200 $ 73,749,500 $ 1,401,600 $ 1,231,300 $ 350,800 $ 1,582,100 Star Scientific $ 17,610 $ 69,517 $ 11,961 $ 34,164 $ 69,517 $ 66,657 $ 16,576 $ 3,414 $ 13,163 Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing Altadis** $ 5,872,703 $ 11,498,584 $ 6,318,012 $ 2,569,948 $ 11,498,584 $ 11,915,909 $ 368,743 $ 353,015 $ 721,758 Swedish Match** $ 1,109,000 $ 2,099,000 $ 525,000 $ 639,000 $ 2,099,000 $ 1,812,000 $ 217,000 $ 92,000 $ 309,000 UST $ 1,173,133 $ 1,659,483 $ 618,873 $ 840,000 $ 1,649,918 $ 1,838,238 $ 530,837 $ 47,647 $ 57,848 North Atlantic Trading Company $ 54,005 $ 228,699 $ 32,421 $ 200,000 $ 288,699 $ 115,320 $ 18,029 $ 816 $ 1,213 * In 2004 Dimon and Universal shifted its financial year end from June to March and only reported results for 8 months. Therefore this table includes 2003 financials, the last full year available.

** 2003 Financials 24 *** Standard Commercial Corporation and DIMON will merged in May 2005. Combined financials are unavailable. 25 Table 14 Largest Tobacco Manufacturing Facilities by Employment Company Segment Employment City, State Philip Morris Cigarettes 3,500 Richmond, VA Cigarettes 2,700 Concord, NC Reynolds American Cigarettes 2,100 Tobaccoville, NC Cigarettes 1,100 Macon, GA*

Cigarettes Unknown Winston Salem*

Lolliards Cigarettes 2,300 Greensboro, NC Swisher Cigars 1,100 Jacksonville, FL * Reynolds American is the result of a 2003 merger between Brown and Williamson and R. J. Reynolds. After the merger the company announced that operations in the former Brown and Williamson plant in Macon, Georgia, would cease in 2006. Production would be transferred to a unused R. J. Reynolds facility in Winston Salem. As of December 2004 the Macon Telegraph reported that 1,100 people ( down from 3,000) were still working in the Macon facility. The size of the Winston Salem facility is unknown. ( Morris, 2004)

6. SMALL BUSINESS ANALYSIS 6.1 Definition of a Small Business The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires EPA to consider the economic impacts of this regulatory action on small entities. Companies operating tobacco manufacturing facilities can be grouped into large or small businesses based on the Small Business Administrations ( SBA) general size standard definitions ( SBA, 2004). Table 15 lists the NAICS codes and size standards for the companies owning tobacco manufacturing facilities.

Table 15 NAICS Codes and Small Business Size Standards NAICS Codes Size Standard 312210 312221 312229 Number of Employees 500 1,000 500 Source: SBA, 2004. 26 6.2 Number of Small Businesses The identification and count of small businesses in the tobacco manufacturing industry is based on the facility list developed by EPA. Table 16 presents the counts for the number of small business owned facilities by NAICS code. In the stemming and re drying category, EPA found eight small companies that operate eight facilities and two large companies that operate a total of nine facilities.

For cigarette manufacturers, 13 small companies operate 15 facilities, while five large companies control 19 factories.

In the other tobacco category, 46 small companies operate 46 facilities and six large companies own 19 facilities. Additionally, two Native American Nations   the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and the Seneca Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma   operate cigarette manufacturing facilities. Overall, EPA found tobacco manufacturing companies that own 118 facilities. Of these 82 companies, 14 are large, 2 belong to Native American Nations, and the remaining 66 are small.

Table 16 Company and Facility Counts by Small Business Classification NAICS Business Size Companies Facilities 312210 Small 8 8 Stemming and Redrying Large 2 9 312221 Small 13 15 Cigarette Manufacturing Large 5 19 Native American Tribe 2 2 312229 Small 46 46 Other Tobacco Manufacturing Large 6 19 Total 82 118 Source: EPA list.

7. STEMMING AND RE DRYING COMPANIES: RESOLVING INCONSISTENCIES AMONG SOURCES This section presents information on how EPA resolved inconsistencies between data sources listing the number of companies operating in the stemming and re drying sector. This is meant to be an example of the confused and contradictory data in public sources for all portions on the tobacco manufacturing industry. 5Alliance One International is the product of the May 2005 merger of DIMON, Inc. and Standard Commercial Corporation.

6Philip Morris USA is a subsidiary of the Altria Group. Through conversations with industry EPA has learned that internally, and within the industry the company is referred to as Philip Morris, rather than Altria. This memo will follow these conventions and refer to the company as Philip Morris.

7This company's inclusion in the list seems to be an error, Gale ( 2001) possibly mistook Brown and Root for Brown and Williamson, a producer of cigarettes that is now part of Reynolds America.

27 EPA needed to go through similar take similar actions with the other NAICS codes to create a final list of facilities and companies in the tobacco manufacturing industry.

Table 17 summarizes the companies listed in the stemming and re drying industry by three information sources. Comparing the lists shows significant disagreement. Only three companies appear on all of the lists. Additionally, EPA identified other companies performing stemming and re drying on tobacco from other public sources. These are listed in tobacco_ sites. wk4.

EPA conducted additional research to clarify the number of companies involved in stemming and redrying EPA combined all three lists and then adjusted for mergers ( see Table 18). Of the all the companies in all three lists EPA identified three companies that operate primarily as stemming and re drying businesses ( Universal Corp, Alliance One International5, and Parker Industries). Four companies listed in the three sources operate in the tobacco production industry, but do not appear to conduct any stemming and re drying ( Reynolds America, Philip Morris, Altadis USA Inc, and UST Inc.).

The Philip Morris's6 Park 500 plant provides a useful example of how facilities and companies became mis classified. Harris InfoSource's 2004 Tobacco Production Industry Report lists the plant in the stemming and re drying category. This facility processes the remainders left over from the cigarette production at other facilities into a product known as reconstituted tobacco. This paper like tobacco is then used as a cheap filler in cigarettes ( Neergaard, 1996).

EPA believes the classification discrepencies arose during the shift from SIC to NAICS. When SIC 2141 was split   see Table 1   Reconstituted tobacco was in SIC 2141 with stemming and re drying operations. However, under NAICS, stemming and re drying became NAICS 312220 while tobacco reconstituting moved to NAICS 312229 ( other tobacco). Harris InfoSource probably simply shifted the SIC 2141 characterization to NAICS 31220 when the plant should have been classified as NAICS 312229. July 2005 site visits conducted by EPA confirmed that this facility makes reconstituted tobacco and conducts no stemming and re drying ( USEPA, 2005b)

Two companies, Brown and Root International and Schweitzer Mauduit International, Inc., do not have stemming and re drying operations or other tobacco manufacturing operations. Schweitzer manufactures cigarette papers and other associated items, while Brown and Root ( a subsidiary of Halliburton) deals in construction and natural resources. EPA found no evidence that the company ever engaged in any tobacco manufacturing activities. 7 28 Additionally, several of the listed companies are owned by either Universal Corporation or Alliance One International. The combined list from the three data sources   that originally contained over 20 companies   should only be a maximum of four companies. Based on additional information from publicly available sources, EPA then added another 7 companies not included in Table 17 for a total of 10 firms.

Table 17 Companies Listed in the Stemming and Re drying Industry D& B, 2004 ( SIC 2141) Gale, 2001 ( SIC 2141) Harris InfoSource, 2004 ( SIC 2141)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. DIMON Inc. Lancaster Leaf Tobacco Company of Pennsylvania, Inc. Lane Limited Philip Morris USA Inc. Schweitzer Mauduit International Inc. Southwestern Tobacco Inc. Standard Commercial Services, Inc. Tobacco Processors, Inc. Universal Corp. Brown & Root International, Inc. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. Dibrell Brothers, Inc. DIMON Inc. Flue Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. K. R. Edwards Leaf Tobacco, Inc. Monk Austin Inc. Philip Morris, Inc. Standard Commercial Corp. Standard Commercial Tobacco, Inc. Universal Corp. Universal Leaf Tobacco Company, Inc. UST, Inc. Altadis USA, Inc. Park 500 Parker Industries Phillip Morris USA Standard Commercial Services, Inc. Standard Commercial Tobacco, Inc. Taylor Company Inc. JP Universal Corp. 8Note that these are companies, not facilities. Many names here represent entities that once owned the same facility, but no longer exist as corporate entities following acquisitions or mergers.

9This facility operates, primarily, as a cigarette manufacturing facility. Thus, it is included in EPA counts as a cigarette facility.

29 Table 18 Reorganized list of Companies Listed in the Stemming and Re drying Industry8 Companies whose primary business is stemming and re drying:

Alliance One International ° Standard Commercial Services, Inc. ° Standard Commercial Tobacco, Inc. ° Dibrell Brothers, Inc. ° Monk Austin, Inc. ° DIMON, Inc Universal Corp ° Lancaster Leaf Tobacco Company of Pennsylvania, Inc. ° Southwestern Tobacco Inc. ° Tobacco Processors, Inc. ° K. R. Edwards Leaf Tobacco, Inc. ° Universal Leaf Tobacco Company, Inc. ° Taylor Company, Inc, JP Parker Industries ( Small Business)

Companies that own a facility with stemming and re drying capabilities ( the primary activity is cigarette manufacturing)

Flue Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. 9 Companies that do not own stemming and re drying facility:

Reynolds America ° Lane Limited ( Pipe and Cigarette Tobacco) ° Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Altria Group ° Philip Morris USA Inc. ° Park 500 Altadis USA, Inc UST, Inc.

Companies that do not process tobacco:

Schweitzer Mauduit International Inc.   ( manufactures tobacco papers)

Companies that EPA believes does not process tobacco Brown & Root International, Inc. 30 8. REFERENCES American Antitrust Institute. 2004. Antitrust Analysis of the Proposed Merger of R. J. Reynolds and British American Tobacco. March 4, 2004.

Census. 2004a. U. S. Census Bureau. Tobacco Stemming and Redrying: 2002. 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series EC02 31I 312210, August 2004.

Census. 2004b. U. S. Census Bureau. Cigarette Manufacturing: 2002. 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series EC02 31I 312221, July 2004.

Census. 2004c. U. S. Census Bureau. Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing: 2002. 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series EC02 31I 312229, August 2004.

Census. 2004d. U. S. Census Bureau. 2002 County Business Patterns by NAICS. CenStats database at http:// censtats. census. gov/ cbpnaic/ cbpnaic. shtml. Accessed December.

Census. 2001. U. S. Census Bureau. Concentration Ratios in Manufacturing. 1997 Economic Census. Manufacturing. Subject Series. EC97M31S CR. June.

Dimon. 2005. Shareholders of Dimon Incorporated and Standard Commercial Corporation Approve Merger. Press Release. April 1, 2005 Drew Estate. 2005. About Us Section of the Drew Estate Company Website. Downloaded on January 14, 2005.

Edward Knight, Patricia C. Ayers and Gerald Mayer. 1998. The U. S. Tobacco Industry in Domestic and World Markets. Congressional Research Service. June 9, 1998. Downloaded from http:// countingcalifornia. cdlib. org/ crs/ pdf/ 98 506. pdf EPA. 2005. " Development of a Facility Mailing List for the Tobacco Manufacturing Industry," memorandum to James Covington, III, EPA, from Ian Cadillac and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern Research Group, Inc., forthcoming.

Ford, William F. and Stuart J. Fowler. 2004. Has a Quarter of a Trillion Dollar Settlement Helped the Tobacco Industry? Middle Tennessee University. September 5, 2004.

Frank, Michael. 1993. Wise Old Hands: Cigar Rolling Factories Are Closer to Home Than You Think. Cigar Aficionado. Winter 1993.

FTC. 2003. Federal Trade Commission. Smokeless Tobacco Report for the Years 2000 and 2001. August 2003. Downloaded from http:// www. ftc. gov/ os/ 2003/ 08/ 2k2k1smokeless. pdf Gale. 2001. Gale Group. Encyclopedia of American Industries. Farmington Hills, MI. 3rd Edition.

Hagel, Jack. 2004. Merger Planned by Tobacco Dealers. News Observer. November 9, 2004. Downloaded on January 10, 2004 from http:// newsobserver. com/ business/ story/ 1812589p 8117230c. html 31 Hale, John and Jonnelle Davis. 2005. Dimon prepares to close doors. Danville Register and Bee. March 12, 2005.

Harris InfoSource. 2004. Tobacco Production Industry Report. Twinsburg, OH. http:// www. harrisinfo. com/ servlet/ HIServlet? moduleName= catalog& methodName= getSpecialProducts& subT ype= 50506& detail= n& sector= MULTIPLE. Accessed December.

Morris, Linda. 2004. One Year Later: Community Waits for Full Impact of Tobacco Plant Closing. Macon Telegraph. December 10, 2004.

Neergaard, Lauran. Behind the Walls of Philip Morris" Ark 500 Factory. The Virginian Pilot. March 27, 1996. Downloaded 1/ 4/ 05 at http:// scholar. lib. vt. edu/ VA news/ VA Pilot/ issues/ 1996/ vp960327/ 03270397. htm Parloff, Roger. 2005. Is the $ 200 Billion Tobacco Deal Going Up In Smoke? Fortune. March 7, 2005. Downloaded from http:// www. fortune. com/ fortune/ articles/ 0,15114,1030157,00. html on March 31, 2005.

Philip Morris. 2005. Philip Morris USA Offices and Facilities Information on Company Website. Downloaded on January 14, 2005 from http:// www. philipmorrisusa. com/ en/ about_ us/ company_ information/ offices_ facilities. asp Reynolds American. 2004. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. 2003 Annual Report ( SEC 10K Form). March 5, 2004.

Savona, David. 2003. Trends: A New Boom? Cigar Aficionado. March/ April 2003. Downloaded on January 14, 2004 at http:// www. cigaraficionado. com/ Cigar/ CA_ Archives/ CA_ Show_ Article/ 0,2322,1275,00. html SBA. 2004. Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Dated January 28, 2004. Http:// www. sba. gov/ size/ sizetable2002. pdf SEC. 2003. Security and Exchange Commission Edgar Database of Corporate Filings. http:// www. sec. gov/ edgar. shtml S& P. 2004. Standard & Poor's. Industry Surveys. Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco. September 2.

Stith, Pat. 2004. Upstart brands hurt Big Tobacco. The News and Observer ( Raleigh, North Carolina). January 4, 2004.

Swisher. 1999. 1998 Annual Report ( SEC 10K Form). March 30, 1999 Standard. 2004. Standard Commercial Corporation. 2003 Annual Report ( SEC 10K Form). June 14, 2004.

Thompson, Estes. 2004. Farmers to make smokes. The Kentucky Courier Journal. July 2, 2004. Downloaded on 1/ 7/ 04 from http:// www. courier journal. com/ business/ news2004/ 07/ 02/ F3 coopcigs02 6397. html Tobacco Retailer. 2002. RJR Acquires Santa Fe Natural Tobacco. February 2002. Downloaded from http:// www. findarticles. com/ p/ articles/ mi_ hb325/ is_ 200202/ ai_ hibm1G183665501 USDA Economic Research Service ( ERS). 2005. The Changing Tobacco Users' Dollar. October 2004. TBS 257 01. 32 USEPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. Telephone Call Notes  Alliance One International. July, 12, 2005.

USEPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. Meeting Notes  Philip Morris USA. May 31, 2005.

USEPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA 821 R 01 001. January.

Universal Corporation. 2002 Universal Leaf North America To Close Henderson Plant Earlier Than Planned. Press Release. May 30, 2002.


[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57831-57832]
[DOCID:fr22se10-126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Application for
Special Permits

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

ACTION: List of Applications for Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2010.

ADDRESS COMMENTS TO: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous, Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC, or at http://
regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 14, 2010.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Special Permits and Approvals Branch.

                                               New Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Application Number                                                   Regulation(s)         Nature of special
         No.                Docket No.             Applicant             affected            permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15110-N.............  ......................  Kidde Aerospace and  49 CFR 178.65......  To authorize the
                                               Defense (KAD)                             manufacture, marking,
                                               Wilson, NC.                               sale and use of non-DOT
                                                                                specification cylinders
                                                                                (fire extinguishers)
                                                                                that are used as
                                                                                components on US Army
                                                                                tactical vehicles and
                                                                                commercial buses.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4).
15125-N.............  ......................  Essex Cryogenics of  49 CFR 178.57(f)...  To authorize an
                                               Missouri, Inc.,                           alternative method of
                                               St. Louis, MO.                            calculating wall
                                                                                thickness in spherical
                                                                                pressure vessels
                                                                                manufactured to DOT
                                                                                Specification 4L.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4).
15126-N.............  ......................  Trans Aero Ltd.,     49 CFR 172.101,      To authorize the
                                               Cheyenne, WY.        Column (9B),         transportation of
                                                                    172.200, 172.300,    certain forbidden
                                                                    172.400,             explosives and other
                                                                    172.204(c)(3),       hazardous materials by
                                                                    173.27(b)(2),        helicopter in remote
                                                                    175.30(a)(1).        areas of the U.S. only
                                                                                without being subject
                                                                                to hazard communication
                                                                                requirements and
                                                                                quantity limitations.
                                                                                (mode 4).
15127-N.............  ......................  EnerSys, Reading,    49 CFR               To authorize the
                                               PA.                  173.159(e)(4).       transportation in
                                                                                commerce of lead
                                                                                batteries from more
                                                                                than one shipper
                                                                                without voiding the
                                                                                exception in Sec.
                                                                                173.159(e). (mode 1).

15128-N.............  ......................  Crown Battery,       49 CFR               To authorize the
                                               Fremont, OH.         173.159(e)(4).       transportation in
                                                                                commerce of lead
                                                                                batteries from more
                                                                                than one shipper
                                                                                without voiding the
                                                                                exception in Sec.
                                                                                173.159(e). (mode 1).
15129-N.............  ......................  KaVan Air,           49 CFR 172.101       To authorize the
                                               Anchorage, AK.       Column (9B).         transportation in
                                                                                commerce of certain
                                                                                Class 1 explosive
                                                                                materials which are
                                                                                forbidden for
                                                                                transportation by air,
                                                                                to be transported by
                                                                                cargo aircraft within
                                                                                and around the State of
                                                                                Alaska when other means
                                                                                of transportation are
                                                                                impracticable or not
                                                                                available. (mode 4).
15130-N.............  ......................  Sundance             49 CFR 173.242.....  To authorize the
                                               Helicopters, Inc.,                        transportation in
                                               Las Vegas, NV.                            commerce of gasoline in
                                                                                55 gallon drums
                                                                                attached to or
                                                                                suspended from an
                                                                                aircraft by Part 133
                                                                                Rotorcraft External
                                                                                Load Operations, in
                                                                                remote areas of the
                                                                                U.S. (mode 4).
15131-N.............  ......................  CVA Inc., Mont       49 CFR 173.319 and   To authorize the
                                               Belvieu, TX.         179.401-1.           manufacture, marking,
                                                                                sale and use of DOT
                                                                                Specification 113A90W
                                                                                tank cars for the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce of certain non-
                                                                                flammable cryogenic
                                                                                liquids. The tank car
                                                                                is excepted from the
                                                                                requirement to replace
                                                                                the rupture disc every
                                                                                year, rather they must
                                                                                be replaced every five
                                                                                years. (mode 2).
15132-N.............  ......................  National             49 CFR 173.301 and   To authorize the
                                               Aeronautics and      178.53.              transportation in
                                               Space                                     commerce of certain
                                               Administration                            Division 2.1 and 2.2
                                               (NASA),                                   gases in alterative
                                               Washington, DC.                           packaging when
                                                                                transported by motor
                                                                                vehicle. (mode 1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-23452 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2385-2386]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-421-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits Penalty Revenue
Crediting Report for 2011-2012 contract year.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20121228-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-422-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company's submits Penalty
Revenue Crediting Report for 2011-2012 contract year.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20121228-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-423-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Reservation Charge Credits to be effective 2/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20121228-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-424-000.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Central Kentucky Transmission Company submits Penalty
Revenue Crediting Report for 2011-2012 contract year.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20121228-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-425-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Crossroads Pipeline Company submits Penalty Revenue
Crediting Report for 2011-2012 contract year.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20121228-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-426-000.
    Applicants: Leaf River Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Leaf River Energy Center LLC--Tariff Modifications to
Add FSS Overrun Services to be effective 2/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.

    Accession Number: 20121228-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-427-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 12/28/12 Negotiated Rates--Citigroup Energy (RTS)
Amend 2 to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20121228-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-428-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 12/31/12 Negotiated Rates--United Energy Trading,
LLC--(HUB) 5095-89 to be effective 12/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/14/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

     Dated: December 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00404 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31932-31933]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12714]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-218-000.
    Applicants: High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.
    Description: HIOS Motion Rate Filing (RP14-218) to be effective 6/
1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/21/14.
    Accession Number: 20140521-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-989-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Order to Show Cause Compliance Filing to be effective
5/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/20/14.
    Accession Number: 20140520-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-990-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Xpress to DART Conversion Filing to be effective 12/
31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/21/14.
    Accession Number: 20140521-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-991-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Xpress to DART Conversion Filing to be effective 12/
31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/21/14.

    Accession Number: 20140521-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-992-000.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Filing to be effective 6/23/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/22/14.
    Accession Number: 20140522-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/14.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR Sec.  385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-941-005.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Rate Case (RP13-941) Settlement Filing to be effective
12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 5/21/14.
    Accession Number: 20140521-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/14.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 22, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12714 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P