[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49023-49025]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18911]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0015; FRL-8820-01-OCSPP]

Notice of Receipt of Requests To Voluntarily Cancel Certain
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests
by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations.
EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period
for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments
within the comment period that would merit its further review of the
requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these
requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed
in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been
cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with
the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0015, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Registration Division
(7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Christopher
Green.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited

exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC
services and docket access, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Green, Registration
Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from
registrants to cancel certain pesticide products registered under FIFRA
section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These
registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company
number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
    Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments
that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw
their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register
canceling all of the affected registrations.

                                              Table 1--Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Registration No.            Company No.      Product name                                     Active ingredients
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
228-564.......................               228  Brazen Herbicide  Clopyralid, monoethanolamine salt & Triclopyr, triethylamine salt.
71368-103.....................             71368  NUP-12060.......  Flumioxazin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.

         Table 2--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          EPA Company No.                 Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
228...............................  NuFarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial
                                     Center Pkwy., Ste. 101,
                                     Morrisville, NC 27560.
71368.............................  NuFarm, Inc., Agent Name: NuFarm
                                     Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center
                                     Pkwy., Suite 101, Morrisville, NC
                                     27560.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a
registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of
its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that,
before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of
any such request in the Federal Register.
    Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that
before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide
a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary
cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C)
(7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment
period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any
minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the
pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II have not requested that EPA
waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 180-
day comment period on the proposed requests.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation
should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products have been subject to a
previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and
all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are
controlling.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
that are currently in the United States and that were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant
potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon
cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II, EPA
anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks
of these products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation
Order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, registrants will be

prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in
Table 1 of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17
(7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants
will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks
until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution,
or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling
on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: August 27, 2021.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-18911 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 26415]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11815]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9994-73-Region 10]

Proposed Reissuance of NPDES General Permits for Aquaculture
Facilities in Idaho Excluding Facilities Discharging Into the Upper
Snake-Rock Subbasin (IDG131000) and Aquaculture Facilities Located in
Indian Country in Idaho (IDG133000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed reissuance of NPDES General Permits and
request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of the Water Division, EPA Region 10, is
proposing to reissue two aquaculture National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits; Aquaculture Facilities in
Idaho Excluding Facilities Discharging into the Upper Snake-Rock
Subbasin, and Aquaculture Facilities Located in Indian Country in
Idaho. As proposed, the General Permits will authorize discharges of
wastewater from cold water and warm water Concentrated Aquatic Animal
Production facilities (also referred to as CAAPs or ``hatcheries'').
The permits will largely replace and combine the NPDES General Permit
for Cold Water Aquaculture Facilities in Idaho (not subject to
Wasteload Allocations) (IDG131000) and the NPDES General Permit for
Aquaculture Facilities in Idaho (subject to Wasteload Allocations)
(IDG130000) but will exclude facilities discharging within the Upper
Snake-Rock Subbasin. The EPA is not taking action on coverage for
facilities that discharge within the Upper Snake-Rock Subbasin under
IDG130000 at this time; those facilities with coverage will remain
covered under IDG130000. Coverage for facilities under IDG130000 that
are not within the Upper Snake-Rock Subbasin will be terminated once
coverage under IDG131000 or IDG133000 is available. In addition, with
this reissuance, the EPA is separating out discharges from aquaculture
facilities located in Indian County in Idaho under a separate General
Permit number (IDG133000). This will facilitate the transfer of
IDG131000 to the State of Idaho in 2020 as part of the phased
implementation of Idaho's administration of the NPDES Program. EPA will
remain the permitting authority for IDG133000.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the draft General Permits may be mailed to:
Director, Water Division; USEPA Region 10; 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
155, WD19-C09; Seattle, WA 98101, or may also be submitted by fax to
(206) 553-0165 or electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Permit documents may be found on the
EPA Region 10 website at: www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/draft-npdes-general-permits-aquaculture-facilities-idaho. Copies of the draft
General Permits and Fact Sheet are also available upon request.
Requests may be made to Audrey Washington at<PHONE_NUMBER> or to Lisa
Kusnierz at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Requests may also be electronically mailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or c4afb1b7aaada1b6beeaa8adb7a584a1b4a5eaa3abb2.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    There are approximately 25 facilities eligible for coverage under
the two General Permits. The Permits generally share the same
conditions but differ in that IDG131000 is for facilities discharging
to waters of the U.S. in Idaho (excluding facilities discharging within
the Upper Snake-Rock Subbasin) and IDG133000 is for facilities
discharging to waters of the U.S. within Indian Country in Idaho.
Aquaculture facilities may use one of several types of production
systems, including ponds, flow-through systems, and recirculating
systems. Most of the facilities eligible for coverage by the General
Permits use flow-through systems. Most facilities have a quiescent zone
at the bottom of their raceways to allow solids and debris to settle
out (where they can be vacuumed and removed) and use a full-flow
settling basin or offline settling basin to remove sediment and
associated pollutants prior to discharge.
    The General Permits have numeric effluent limits for total
phosphorus and total suspended solids for all facilities and
temperature limits for some facilities, as well as prohibitions on
certain discharges and practices. Numeric limitations for facilities
may differ depending on applicable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
wasteload allocations. Permit conditions include reporting requirements
for the usage of drugs and chemicals and development of a Best
Management Practices Plan that addresses solids control, operational
requirements, materials storage, structural maintenance, recordkeeping,
and training.
    The basis for the conditions and requirements of the draft General
Permits are given in the Fact Sheet. Facilities will receive a written
notification from the EPA whether permit coverage and authorization to
discharge under one of the General Permits is approved. Major changes
in the permit conditions from the 2007 General Permit include: Removal
of the percent total suspended solids removal requirement for offline
settling basins, prohibition on copper usage, the addition of
continuous temperature monitoring for some facilities, and
miscellaneous monitoring revisions.
    The EPA has completed a Biological Evaluation for these Permit
actions. Consultation under the Endangered Species Act between the EPA
and the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has been completed. The Services concurred on the
EPA's determination that the Permit actions are not likely to adversely
affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act or designated
critical habitat.

II. Other Legal Requirements

    This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and was
determined to be not significant. Compliance with Endangered Species
Act, Essential Fish Habitat, Paperwork Reduction Act, and other
requirements are discussed in the Fact Sheet to the proposed permits.

    Dated: May 22, 2019.
Angela Chung,
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-11815 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Qualitative Assessment of the Impact of Changes in the Use of Methyl Bromide in Structural and Food Processing Facilities in Support of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED)

FROM: Jonathan Becker, Senior Science Advisor William Chism, Senior Agronomist Colwell Cook, Biologist Monisha Kaul, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

David Donaldson, Economist Elisa Rim, Economist T J Wyatt, Agricultural Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief, Biological Analysis Branch Istanbul Yusuf, Acting Chief, Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

TO: John Leahy, Senior Policy Analyst Eric Olson, Team Leader Steven Weiss, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Registration Division ( 7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL DATE: July 26, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY As part of the reregistration of methyl bromide, the Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) assessed the potential impacts of risk mitigation and enforcement/ compliance options. These options were outlined in the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Federal Register Notice of March 29, 2006. This document addresses the potential impacts to fumigations of structures and food processing facilities. Other assessments address the impacts on quarantine commodities, non quarantine commodities, and dry cured pork.

BEAD does not expect substantial impacts to result from lowering the air concentration limit of occupational exposure from five ( 5) parts per million ( ppm) to one ( 1) ppm as a 8 hour TWA, provided facilities have the option to utilize air purifying respirators to protect employees when air concentrations are between these points. BEAD also does not expect substantial impacts if EPA were to require Fumigation Management Plans and other actions that focus on compliance and/ or enforcement.

BEAD believes that a treatment buffer greater than 20 to 30 feet or an aeration buffer larger than 200 to 250 feet would be infeasible for most facilities. Facilities located in rural areas may be able to accommodate larger treatment and aeration buffers without substantial impacts on their operations. BEAD estimates the majority ( 72%) of the structures / food processing facilities to be greater than 500,000 cubic feet. Under the 99 whole field standard, the calculated treatment buffers for a 500,000 cubic foot facility, assuming the greatest gas retention and a 1 lb application rate, is 280 feet. Treatment buffers will be greater for larger volumes, higher rates and lower gas retention. The calculated aeration buffers for large facilities range from 90 to over 2,680 feet. These buffers, therefore, are likely to impose some impacts on medium to large facilities located in urban areas and possibly large facilities located in rural areas.

It appears that using various other risk mitigation options, including rate reduction, fumigating smaller volumes, improvements in sealing techniques, active aeration with fans and stacks, and/ or capture and destruction technology may help to reduce the size of the buffer zones. BEAD believes that most facilities, even the larger ones, would be able to accommodate aeration buffers using a combination of options, such as active aeration and stacks. Portable stacks appear particularly effective, although they may not be feasible for larger facilities. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the 99 percentile whole field buffer is the regulatory basis. However, there appear to be few feasible options to reduce the treatment buffers and few facilities are likely to be able to comply with those estimated in this document. Site specific modeling may result in smaller buffers that still meet safety standards.

If facilities are unable to meet the buffer requirements, even with the adoption of other measures, they would be unable to use methyl bromide. Since 2005, production of methyl bromide is only permitted under the Montreal Protocol for certain uses, including those that have been designated as a critical need. EPA and USDA have evaluated exemption requests based on current conditions and found that there are no alternatives that are technically and economically feasible to the use of methyl bromide in this sector ( USA, 2006a, 2006b). If medium to large food processing facilities cannot feasibly implement the required treatment zone, even with the additional mitigation options, they may have to cease operations. This could have detrimental Page 3 effects on U. S. producers of grains and other raw materials, on consumers of these products, and on the local economies. BEAD does not have adequate data about the specific site characteristics of these facilities to quantify the distribution and magnitude of these impacts.

BACKGROUND Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless gas that is widely used as a soil and structural fumigant to control a range of insect, fungal and weedy pests. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) is presently making a determination of methyl bromide's eligibility for reregistration. In this process, OPP is assessing the risks and benefits of methyl bromide use to control pests in food processing and storage facilities.

The Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances Methyl Bromide has been identified as an ozone depleting substance under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances to which the United States is a party. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty developed to protect the earth from the detrimental effects of ozone stratospheric depletion. Initially signed in 1987 by the United States and 26 other countries, there are now 189 signatories to the treaty. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have agreed to specific reduction steps that lead to the phaseout of production and use of ozonedepleting substances, including methyl bromide. The Protocol required an incremental reduction in methyl bromide, leading to a complete phase out, in industrialized nations, by January 1, 2005. Developing countries are to phase out use by January 1, 2015.

However, there are some cases where there are no available alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and acceptable from a public health standpoint. The treaty allows for exemptions to the phase out for critical uses, quarantine and preshipment uses, and emergency uses. Critical uses are those situations where there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives and market disruptions would occur if methyl bromide were not available. They are reviewed in EPA's Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption ( CUE) process. Quarantine and preshipment uses of methyl bromide are often required by national and international law to prevent the introduction of exotic pests into new areas. Unanticipated emergency use of methyl bromide, for example to address public health problems, is authorized by the Montreal Protocol, if there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives and the quantity used does not exceed 20 metric tons.

The uses addressed in this document have received critical use exemptions under the Montreal Protocol for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. A critical use exemption for 2008 is currently being evaluated by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. These represent situations of severe or unique pest problems for which the available alternatives are not feasible and will result in severe market disruptions if methyl bromide is not available.

The Parties to the Protocol approve an amount of methyl bromide that is allocated for soil and non soil uses. That amount is the maximum amount that can be used from newly produced methyl bromide or from critical use stockpiles. Entities that are users of " critical use" methyl Page 4 bromide do not have access to the general use methyl bromide stockpiles ( i. e., those methyl bromide stocks generated before January 1, 2005). This sets an upper limit on the amount of methyl bromide for structures, commodities, and dry cured hams, and consequently, on the total volume that can be fumigated in any one year. Individual entities are not allocated a specific quantity of methyl bromide.

Risks of Concern As part of OPP's determination of methyl bromide's eligibility for reregistration, OPP conducted risk assessments for methyl bromide use in enclosures, chambers, and food processing/ storage facilities. There are no aggregate dietary and water risks of concern. However, there are risks of concern associated with the use of methyl bromide for occupational exposure during both treatment and aeration and for bystanders during aeration ( EPA 2006). Occupational exposure may occur to fumigant applicators during and immediately after treatment and to certain employees at the treated sites, especially those handling treated commodities. Bystanders refer to site employees and people unaffiliated with the treated site who are present in the general vicinity. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has also assessed the potential impacts on the incidents of skin cancer due to stratospheric ozone depletion caused by the use of methyl bromide for non soil fumigations.

OPP is evaluating various means of managing the risks of concern from occupational and bystander exposure. In determining an appropriate risk management strategy, OPP considers a number of factors including efficacy of the measures, enforceability, the impact on users of methyl bromide and the extent to which these measures can also contribute to reduction in ozone depletion. This document presents OPP's evaluation of various risk reduction strategies according to these factors. However, because of the great diversity in sites being treated with methyl bromide, OPP has limited ability to make quantitative evaluations.

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Bystander and Occupational Exposure during Treatment and Aeration Broadly speaking, there are three risk management strategies for addressing bystander risk to be considered. Within these broad strategies some or all of the 17 different options suggested by EPA ( 2006) for public comment may be included. The broad strategies are adoption of a performance standard, command and control, and a hybrid approach that sets certain minimum requirements but permits flexibility to accommodate site specific characteristics. EPA believes the third option best addresses all the factors to be considered.

Performance Standard: EPA sets maximum air concentrations at reference points; sets criteria for determining reference point; sets criteria for monitoring; establishes penalties for exceedences.

Under this approach, EPA would establish performance standards to limit exposure to methyl bromide during treatment and during post treatment aeration. Essentially, this would entail defining how appropriate reference points ( potential bystanders) would be chosen, setting a Page 5 maximum air concentration at those reference points, and establishing criteria for monitoring at the reference points. Fumigators would be responsible, via whatever means available, including those suggested by EPA ( 2006), to insure that air concentrations of methyl bromide do not exceed limits. EPA would also establish methods to ensure compliance.

The main advantage of this strategy is that it provides maximum flexibility to methyl bromide users to meet the safety standard and, therefore, minimizes the impacts on the regulated community. That, in turn, means that it would have the least impact of the three options on the total amount of methyl bromide used and released into the atmosphere.

The primary disadvantage of this strategy is the basic question of whether it can be implemented effectively. Unless the number and location of bystanders is limited and well defined, extensive monitoring, both horizontally and vertically, around the treated facility would be necessary to insure that the statutory requirement of reasonable certainty of no harm is met. Further, because compliance would depend on post treatment penalties for exceedances, the reporting and oversight requirements on the fumigator and state and local regulators would be burdensome.

EPA does not believe a pure performance standard can be reliably implemented in a costeffective manner.

Single Approach: Buffer Zones: The second strategy represents the opposite end of the spectrum, where EPA would establish a command and control strategy to encompass all sites. The most likely option for addressing bystander risk would be to require treatment and aeration buffer zones that would be dependent on the amount of methyl bromide used in a 24 hour period that would result in a reasonable certainty of no harm for all possible fumigation scenarios. To account for all situations, the buffer zone would have to be substantial.

This strategy would be relatively easy to enforce because it would depend on so few factors. With minimal effort by EPA and State and local regulators, EPA could also be assured that all use of methyl bromide would meet the statutory safety requirement   in fact, most uses would substantially surpass what would be necessary to meet the requirements. This strategy would also result in the greatest decrease in the total amount of methyl bromide used and released into the atmosphere of the three strategies because many facilities would be unable to comply with a large buffer zone and would have to use alternative pest control methods or cease operation.

However, the inability of many facilities to comply with this strategy would lead to large impacts on methyl bromide users. As explained in this document and the U. S. nomination of critical use exemptions to the Montreal Protocol, use of methyl bromide remains necessary in many situations. Without methyl bromide, there would be serious disruptions in global and interstate trade and many items would be unable to meet federal health requirements for safe and unadulterated food products. Consumers could face substantially higher costs for goods and some goods would probably not be available year around.

EPA does not believe such a simplistic strategy would be a cost effective means of insuring the safe use of methyl bromide. Page 6 Flexible Approach: Buffer Zones as a Function of Other Mitigation Actions: The third strategy combines the flexibility of the performance standard with the relative simplicity of clear, minimum standards. Some of the options suggested by EPA ( EPA 2006) could be used in concert to achieve the statutory human health requirement. The basic requirement would be for a buffer zone, but the size of the buffer would depend on the use of other risk management options. EPA's concept is for two buffers: a treatment buffer during fumigation and an aeration buffer following treatment as the gas is vented. The size of each buffer would be positively related to the amount or rate of methyl bromide used and the size of the facility/ enclosure fumigated. Reductions in any of these factors would permit a smaller required buffer. The size of the treatment buffer would be negatively related to the retention of gas in the fumigated enclosure. The tighter the enclosure, the less gas would escape and the smaller the treatment buffer. The size of the aeration buffer would be negatively related to the relative height of the point methyl bromide is vented ( a stack) and the speed of aeration ( i. e., as defined by air exchange rate), which improves mixing and reduces air concentrations. Increases in either of these factors would permit a smaller buffer for bystanders.

As with the first possible strategy, this approach can reduce the cost of complying with the regulation by providing different facilities the ability to reduce bystander exposure according to the specific characteristics of the site. The clear, minimum requirements make it relatively easy to enforce and insure that the safety standards will be achieved. Some reductions in the total amount of methyl bromide will likely occur, contributing to reductions in ozone depletion.

The strategy will entail, however, some costs to the regulated community and to consumers of treated commodities. Some facilities may have to alter their fumigation practices or invest in mitigation measures. Despite its relative flexibility, some facilities may not be able to meet the requirements with the use of methyl bromide. They will be obligated to use other pest control measures or will be unable to operate. Some of these impacts will be passed on to consumers. This document describes in more detail the extent of EPA's information regarding these impacts.

Occupational Exposure Fumigators and employees who handle treated commodities soon after treatment may also be exposed to levels of methyl bromide exceeding EPA's level of concern. Current practice is that levels of methyl bromide are monitored and if concentrations are greater than five ( 5) ppm, respirators must be worn. Immediately after treatment, enclosures are often actively aerated to lower concentrations. Treatment buffers may also be enforced.

EPA's current plan is to lower the permissible concentration limit to one ( 1) ppm ( 8 hr TWA). Levels above this limit will require the use of respirators. Use of respirators may be burdensome for employees, especially in hot conditions, but should not otherwise significantly affect applicators or the operation of the facilities since it is common practice. Facilities would have the option of increasing aeration time to avoid the use of respirators, but where that would impinge on the movement of commodities, respirators can be used. Page 7 Enforcement/ Compliance Mechanisms The Agency is also considering several mechanisms to aid in enforcement and compliance. Chief among these would be a requirement to prepare and follow a Fumigation Management Plan ( FMP). The FMP would detail how a specific fumigation would comply with the label restrictions, including the establishment of buffer zones and the factors that determined the size of the buffers. EPA envisions certification so that the FMP conforms to the label requirements.

Currently, most fumigations already follow some kind of plan, although all plans would now have to be brought into compliance with the new requirements of use. Therefore, BEAD anticipates few impacts on applicators or facilities in preparing the FMP. Once prepared for a fixed facility, the plan may need few modifications for repeated fumigations. The certification of the FMP may entail added cost to the fumigation, but currently BEAD cannot predict that cost.

Other compliance mechanisms include record keeping requirements and posting notices of fumigation, both on treated commodities and to the general public prior to the treatment of facilities or commodities. Record keeping requirements may not entail significant added costs, since most fumigations are already closely monitored. Notices that a structure is to be treated should also not impose substantial costs.

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW Since 2002, EPA's Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption process reviews and nominates various structures or food facilities for continued use of methyl bromide. The following information is based on industry applications for a Critical Use Exemption and EPA proprietary data.

The Critical Use Exemption structures/ food facilities include flour and rice mills, pet food manufacturers, bakeries and other food processing facilities. Specific associations have submitted Critical Use Exemption applications, but when methyl bromide is allocated to these uses, all facilities in these industries will have the right to purchase methyl bromide from that allocation. These industries combined generate over $ 12 billion in annual sales revenue. These facilities may account for up to 90% or more of domestic production and manufacturing. Food processing is a value added activity that involves capital intensive specialty equipment and facilities. Post harvest food storage is an integral part of operations because in many cases the production season is separated from the peak demand season. Therefore it is imperative for these industries to fumigate in order to maintain the product's integrity and quality. Page 8 North American Millers Association: This industry trade association represents 46 members operating 169 mills in 38 states and accounts for approximately 90% of the milling capacity in the U. S. They represent wheat flour, corn, rye, and oat millers. This is one of the oldest industries in the U. S. with flour mills dating back to at least 1836. They operate on a domestic and global scale with much global competition in the marketplace with relatively inelastic demand. The industry generates gross revenues of approximately $ 8.3 billion in annual sales. The representative facility generates gross revenues of about $ 49 million in annual sales with a gross margin ( gross revenue minus cost of goods sold) of about 24% and a net profit margin ( gross margin minus total expenditures) of about 3%.

Pet Food Institute: This industry trade group represents 53 dog and cat food manufacturing plants or approximately 97% of the dog and cat food manufacturers in the U. S. They operate on a domestic and global scale with much global competition in the marketplace. They generate gross revenues of approximately $ 1.5 billion in annual sales. The representative facility generates gross revenues of about $ 28 million in annual sales with a gross margin of about 57% and a net profit margin of about 13%.

Rice Millers' Association: This industry trade association represents 32 rice milling facilities and accounts for almost all of the rice milling capacity in the U. S. with mill members in Arkansas, California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. This is one of the oldest agricultural industries in the U. S. dating back to at least 1685 and on of the oldest trade associations dating back to 1899. They operate on a domestic and global scale with much global competition in the marketplace with relatively inelastic demand. Almost 50% of the U. S. rice crop is exported to over 100 countries supplying approximately 13% of global trade. The industry generates gross revenues of approximately $ 1.7 billion in annual sales. The representative facility generates gross revenues of about $ 27 million in annual sales with a gross margin of about 33% and a net profit margin of about 4%.

Bakeries: This industry trade group represents 6 bakery facilities. They operate on a domestic and global scale with much global competition in the marketplace. The group generates gross revenues of approximately $ 621 million in annual sales.

National Pest Management Association: This association represents pest control entities engaging in post harvest fumigation of commodities such as spices, cocoa beans, cheese, as well as the commodities listed above. These commodities are produced and processed in a number of other food processing facilities.

SITE DESCRIPTIONS Purpose of Fumigation Food processing facilities and mills are under intense pressure from many insect pests. Some of the major pests are listed in Table 1. Insect pests will infest the ingredients and the product manufactured, as well as invading the equipment and structure itself. Insect pests leave their excrement, body parts, and exuviae which violate US Food and Drug Administration regulations ( FDA regulations can be found at: http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ dalbook. html and Page 9 http:// www. fda. gov/ opacom/ laws/ fdcact/ fdcact4. htm). In addition several insect pests pose health hazards either because they can cause choking in small children or because they can cause allergic reactions. Structural fumigations target the facilities and do not generally target the commodities, although some product may be present during fumigation.

TABLE 1: KEY PESTS TARGETED BY METHYL BROMIDE IN STRUCTURES Genus and Species of Major Pests Common Name Tribolium confusum Confused flour beetle Tribolium castaneum Red flour beetle Trogoderma variable Warehouse beetle Lasioderma serricorne Cigarette beetle Sitophilus oryzae Rice weevil Plodia interpunctella Indianmeal moth Oryzaephilus mercator Merchant grain beetle Cryptolestes pusillus Flat grain beetle Source: USA, 2006a, 2006b Structural/ Food Processing Plants Structural/ food processing facilities are highly variable in their sizes and shapes. The sites are typically more than 500,000 cubic feet ( cu ft) in size, but may be considerably smaller and some may be over 5 million cubic feet ( Table 2). Many of the structures were built 100 years ago and have had many additions over the years.

TABLE 2. STRUCTURAL / FOOD PROCESSING FACILITY SIZE Number of Facilities in Each Size Category 1 ( cu ft) Small Medium Large CUE Site < 50,000 50,001 to 500,000 > 500,0012 over 1 million Median Volume ( cu ft)

Flour Mills 3 18 52 18 1,126,000 Pet Food Processors 3 7 24 17 860,000 Rice Mills 0 2 8 4 538,000 Bakeries 1 0 0 10 975,000 Other Food Processors 2 12 7 0 1,420,000 TOTAL 9 39 91 49 47% 25% % Of TOTAL 5% 23% 72% Source: USA, 2006a, 2006b 1 Numbers do not include all the facilities that use methyl bromide as part of the Critical Use Exemption process but are representative of the size distribution 2 This category does not mean that the facility is greater than 500,001 but less than 1 million cubic feet. It means that the facility is greater than 500,001 cubic feet. Due to the format of the category, most of the facilities that fall into this category do not specify the exact size of the facility. Therefore the 1 million to 5 million cubic feet category and over 5 million cubic feet category may have a larger percentage of facilities in those categories.

Food processing facilities are located throughout the U. S. Mills and food processing facilities are usually located near transportation facilities such as railroad terminals, ports or intersections of major highways. These locations are also attractive to other manufacturing facilities are Page 10 frequently located in or near urban centers. Table 3 presents the number of U. S. structural and food processing plant facilities and estimates of location in urban settings for the three groups for which we have facility information. BEAD identified the location of each facility and compared it to areas defined as Urbanized Area or Urban Cluster by the 2000 U. S. Census ( www. census. gov). An Urbanized Area consists of contiguous census blocks and block groups of at least 1,000 persons per square mile that together encompass a population of at least 50,000 people. An Urban Cluster consists of contiguous census blocks and block groups that together encompass between 2,500 and 50,000 people.

TABLE 3: NUMBER OF STRUCTURAL / FOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES Total in U. S. Facilities with Street Addresses In Urban Areas Not in Urban Areas Facility Sites Unit: Number of Facilities Flour Mills 340 146 114 32 Rice Mills 76 21 12 9 Bakeries 2,616 244 222 22 Total 3,274 411 348 63 Source: 2002 Economic Census data. Available online at http:// www. census. gov/ prod/ www/ abs/ manuind2002 html Flour Mills: Based on currently available information, there are approximately 340 flour mill facilities in the U. S. ( Table 3). In general, these facilities are located primarily on the East Coast and in the Midwest ( Figure 1). BEAD estimates that at least 78% ( 114 of 146) of these facilities are located in urban centers. At least 22% ( 32 of 146) are located in more rural areas.

Rice Mills: Based on currently available information, there are approximately 76 rice mill facilities in the U. S. ( Table 3). In general, these facilities are located in the southern part of the United States, primarily Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas ( Figure 2). BEAD estimates that at least 57% ( 12 of 21) of these facilities are located in urban centers. At least 43% ( 9 of 21) are located in more rural areas.

Bakeries: Based on currently available information, there are approximately 2,616 bakery facilities in the U. S. ( Table 3). In general, these facilities are located primarily on the East Coast and in the Midwest ( Figure 3). BEAD estimates that at least 91% ( 222 of 244) of these facilities are located in urban centers. At least 9% ( 22 of 244) are located in more rural areas. Page 11 FIGURE 1. U. S. MAP OF FLOUR MILL FACILITIES IN URBAN AREAS Urban Facilities Non Urban Facilities Urban Areas Flour Mills and Urban Areas Page 12 FIGURE 2. U. S. MAP OF RICE MILL FACILITIES IN URBAN AREAS Urban Facilities Non Urban Facilites Urban Areas Rice Mills and Urban Areas FIGURE 3. U. S. MAP OF COMMERCIAL BAKERY FACILITIES IN URBAN AREAS Commercial Bakeries and Urban Areas Urban Facilities Non Urban Facilites Urban Area Page 13 Use and Usage of Methyl Bromide Methyl bromide is one of the most widely used fumigants to control insect pests in structural food processing and storage facilities. It is inexpensive, broad spectrum, kills insect eggs, and is efficacious at a wide range of temperatures.

Table 4 provides estimates of methyl bromide use in 2004, according to the U. S. Critical Use Exemption request to the parties of the Montreal Protocol ( USA, 2006a, 2006b). The amount of annual methyl bromide usage in the structural and food processing sector ranges from approximately 1,885,000 pounds in 2000 to about 1,492,000 pounds in 2004. Application rates range from less than 1.0 to 2.0 pounds active ingredient per 1,000 cubic feet with the average application rate of 1.25 pounds per 1,000 cubic feet. For the 2008 calendar year, about 958,000 pounds of methyl bromide were nominated by the U. S. for use in this sector.

TABLE 4: METHYL BROMIDE USE INFORMATION FOR STRUCTURAL / FOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES CUE Site Average Use Rate ( lbs/ 1,000 cu ft) Treatment Time ( hours/ fumigatio n) Aeration Time ( hours/ fumigatio n) 2004 Use ( pounds)

Flour Mills 1.2 24 24 750,000 Pet Food Manufacturers 1.1 24 24 69,000 Rice Mills 1.5 24 24 321,000 Bakeries 1.0 24 24 47,000 Other Food Processing 1.25 Variable Variable 305,000 Total 1,492,000 Source: United States of America, 2006a, 2006b.

Although fumigations occur anytime a pest population explosion occurs, food processing plants in warmer climates will usually be fumigated prescriptively with methyl bromide twice a year. These occur just prior to the summer and at summer's end, essentially just prior to and immediately after very warm temperatures that increase insect pressure. Fumigations of structures typically take advantage of 3 day holiday weekends when the facility would normally be closed and no employees would be present.

IMPACTS OF BUFFER ZONES ON FACILITIES Fumigated facilities are very diverse and will have varying capacity for establishing buffer zones. Those in urban areas especially may be very constrained by space. Even if site specific information were available, it would be very difficult to determine feasible distances. This assessment is, by necessity, very qualitative. There may also be differing capacity to enforce a buffer zone during fumigation ( treatment buffer) and during venting ( aeration).

Imagine a facility that occupies a square city block. Blocks are approximately 0.1 mile or about 500 feet. If this facility could vent methyl bromide near the center of the space, it would have an inherent aeration buffer of about 250 feet. Some of the largest facilities may occupy more area, ( see Table 2). Therefore, BEAD believes that a 500 foot buffer is the maximum any facility Page 14 could accommodate, most would struggle to achieve a 250 foot buffer and the smaller facilities may be able to maintain a buffer of about 100 feet. Any aeration buffer larger than these distances would require the facility to undertake additional mitigation measures. If those measures would not reduce the aeration buffer below the maximum, the facility would be unable to use methyl bromide.

However, during treatment, gas may leak from any point in the facility, not just from the center. Therefore, an enforceable treatment zone, measured from the edge of the building, may be much smaller. In fact, in some cases the edge of the building may be near the property line. For the purpose of this assessment, BEAD assumes that a zone of 10 to 50, about one tenth of the aeration zone, may be possible for a facility, depending on the size.

Calculated Buffers The Agency used the PERFUM air model to estimate buffer distances ( EPA, 2006). Two buffers were calculated   a treatment buffer ( which accounts for the amount of methyl bromide leaking from the structure during fumigation) and an aeration buffer ( which accounts for the amount of methyl bromide vented at the completion of the treatment).

The estimation of these buffers depend on a number of input parameters to the model such as atmospheric conditions, application rate, chamber/ enclosure conditions ( e. g., gas tightness), fumigated volume, the use of stacks, building effects, and the rate and type of aeration. The tables of buffer distances identify the various combinations of these input factors.

The PERFUM model generates distributions of buffers. Two distributions of buffers were developed from the model   a " maximum buffer" distance and the " whole field buffer" distance. Three values are presented in this document   the 95th percentile of the maximum buffer distribution ( abbreviated herein as " 95 max"), the 99th percentile of the whole field buffer distribution (" 99 whole") and the 99.9th percentile of the whole field buffer distribution (" 99.9 whole"). For more detail on the models and the results, please refer to EPA's risk assessment ( EPA, 2006).

Estimates of the buffer zones are taken from the PERFUM model used by EPA for the risk assessment ( EPA, 2006). We consider volumes ranging from 5,000 cubic feet, representing fumigation of a part of a facility, up to 1,000,000 cubic feet, representing a large size facility. Note that the majority of facilities exceed 500,000 cubic feet ( Table 2). Rates of 1 and 2 pounds methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet are considered. We also look at the effect of the gas tightness of the enclosure. Low loss rates, 5 to 10% per 24 hour period, represent new, wellsealed steel or concrete facilities while higher loss rates, 25 to 50% per 24 hours, are more representative of older buildings and wood construction. In contrast, the California regulatory buffer system assumes that 3% of the concentration is lost per hour unless specifically measured. This implies that a 12 hour treatment would lose 36% of the fumigation rate while a 24 hour treatment would lose 72% of the application rate. Page 15 Treatment Buffers Table 5 presents estimated treatment buffer for different percentile of exposures: 95 max, 99 whole, and 99.9 whole.

Treatment buffers under the 99 whole would be unlikely to impose impacts on small facilities or partial facility fumigations of 5,000 to 10,000 cubic feet, even at typical rates of less than 2 pounds per 1,000 cubic feet. Medium to large facilities, however, are likely to find treatment buffers burdensome for fumigations, even if the buildings are reasonably well sealed. Structures in this industry larger than 250,000 cubic feet, which account for at least three fourths of the structures ( Table 2), are not likely to find treatment buffers feasible without further mitigation efforts. Buffers associated with other regulatory standards would be infeasible except for the smaller, tightest facilities at low rates.

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION TREATMENT BUFFER DISTANCES Treatment Buffer ( feet) Site ( cubic ft) Rate ( lbs/ 1000 ft3) Loss During Treatment (%) 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole 5% 0 0 0 10% 0 0 0 5,000 1 25% 0 0 0 5% 0 0 0 10% 0 0 0 25% 100 0 99 1 40% 200 50 190 10% 70 0 70 10,000 2 50% 460 150 430 5% 180 30 170 10% 410 150 380 1 25% 830 300 760 5% 410 150 380 100,000 2 50% 3,430 1,150 3,280 5% 430 150 400 10% 780 300 710 1 25% 1,450 530 1,350 250,000 2 5% 780 300 710 5% 680 280 640 500,000 1 10% 1,190 480 1,120 5% 1,070 480 1,010 1,000,000 1 10% 1,810 740 1,690 Source: EPA 2006. Note: BEAD anticipates that some minimum buffer zone would be established for situations listed as zero. California currently has a 10 foot minimum.

Other mitigation options that would permit smaller treatment zones are limited. BEAD has identified three ways that a facility may reduce the required buffer: ( 1) reduce the use rate ( amount of methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet), ( 2) partition the facility and fumigate smaller volumes and ( 3) improve the gas retention of the structure. Page 16 Rate Reductions: Reducing the rate may not be practical in many situations because certain pests will not be destroyed at the lower rates. Moreover, this option may not be sufficient to obtain a feasible treatment buffer. As shown in Table 5, a 250,000 cubic feet facility that loses only 5% of the gas over 24 hours can reduce the treatment buffer from 300 ft with 2 pounds methyl bromide 1,000 cubic feet to 150 ft with 1 pound methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet. However, that still exceeds the likely maximum feasible treatment buffer.

Partitioning Structures: Many facilities already only fumigate portions of the facility and, so long as the buffer is measured from the source of methyl bromide, this practice may help to reduce the necessary buffer size. However, many facilities, particularly mills, have limited ability to partition the building. Mills have multiple stories to allow for all of the steps necessary in converting raw grain into a finished product. These include both fine cleaning and the repeated grindings and siftings necessary to produce flour and other food products appropriate to the final use. A second consequence is the multiple connections ( chutes) between the stories in a facility needed to move the intermediate products to the next processing point and to remove unwanted material to waste areas. For both of these reasons it is difficult to segregate areas of a facility and careful sealing is required.

Further, partitioning a facility may have limited effect on the buffer. The size of the buffer is not directly proportional to the size of the facility. As shown in Table 5, the treatment buffer for a 500,000 cubic feet facility is 480 ft for a 10% loss per 24 hours. Dividing that facility in half, to two 250,000 cubic feet fumigations, would only reduce the treatment buffer to 300 ft, less than a 40% reduction. Similarly, halving a 1 million cubic feet facility with a 10% loss rate reduces the treatment buffer from 740 ft to 480 ft, a 35% reduction in distance.

Finally, partitioning a structure and fumigating over several days could be costly. Typically, facilities fumigate when the plant will be closed anyway, but extending the period of downtime is costly in terms of lost production.

Improving Gas Retention: Newly constructed facilities are likely to have been constructed in a manner that would lower fumigant loss rates during treatment. However, it may be very difficult for older facilities to improve gas retention without complete and costly renovation. With very large structures, there are likely technical limits to the ability to avoid losses, even with newer materials and construction methods. However, this may be the most direct way of meeting the requirements of treatment buffers while maintaining operation.

Aeration Buffers Table 6 presents the estimated aeration zone for facilities with no active ventilation system (" passive" aeration) for different regulatory standards: 95 max, 99 whole, and 99.9 whole ( see EPA 2006 for details about the interpretation of these regulatory standards). This may be a restrictive assumption as facilities likely have some ventilation system that may be capable of venting methyl bromide. However, anecdotal evidence suggests to BEAD that many facilities simply open windows or doors and allow the gas to escape. Page 17 BEAD believes the maximum aeration buffer for most facilities will be around 200 250 ft, roughly half a city block. This represents the likely limit of the property and beyond this range, facilities would probably not be able to exert control to impose a buffer zone. Table 6 suggests that only the smallest facilities would find these buffers feasible. Buffers are beyond the maximum for facilities of 100,000 or more, which account for nearly 90% of these structures ( Table 2).

TABLE 6. ESTIMATED METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION AERATION BUFFER DISTANCES Aeration Buffer ( feet) Site ( cubic ft) Rate ( lbs/ 1000 cu ft) Air Exchange ( cu ft/ min) [ exchanges/ min] Stack Type 1 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole Passive 270 90 250 Minimum 100 0 80 5,000 1 2,500 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 Passive 270 90 250 Minimum 130 0 130 1 5,000 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 Passive 460 150 430 Minimum 220 90 200 10,000 2 5,000 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 Passive 1,940 680 1,860 Minimum 360 210 350 50,000 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 Minimum 590 300 560 1 5,000 [ 0.05] Portable 200 0 200 Passive 2,990 1,020 2,860 Minimum 1,040 380 910 50,000 [ 0.5] Portable 270 0 250 Minimum 1,500 500 1,430 100,000 2 5,000 [ 0.05] Portable 610 230 530 Passive 3,430 1,150 3,280 Minimum 840 280 740 125,000 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 25 ft 940 430 890 1 12,500 [ 0.05] Portable 580 280 560 Passive > 4,730* 1,690 > 4,730* 25 ft 1,170 430 960 125,000 [ 0.5] Portable 480 0 430 25 ft 2,530 780 2,330 250,000 2 25,000 [ 0.1] Portable 1,550 580 1,270 Passive > 4,730* 1,740 > 4,730* 25 ft 510 250 460 250,000 [ 0.5] Portable 250 0 220 500,000 1 100,000 [ 0.2] Portable 1,610 380 1,460 Passive > 4,730* 2,680 > 4,730* 25 ft 580 380 550 500,000 [ 0.5] Portable 380 0 330 1,000,000 1 200,000 [ 0.2] Portable 1,890 560 1,600 Source: EPA 2006. 1 Minimum stack is 10 feet above the highest building within 200 feet. * Aeration buffer greater than 4,730 feet, the maximum the model can calculate. Page 18 BEAD has identified four ways that a facility may reduce the required aeration buffer: ( 1) Reduce the rate ( amount of methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet), ( 2) fumigate smaller volumes, ( 3) install an active aeration system including stacks or other venting systems, and ( 4) install a capture and destruction system.

Rate Reductions: Reducing the application rate may not be practical in many situations because certain pests will not be destroyed at the lower rates.

Fumigate Smaller Volumes: Fumigating in smaller units may also present logistical problems, depending on the facility.

Table 6 also presents estimated aeration buffers when active air exchange and ventilation stacks are employed. Many facilities probably employ some kind of active aeration that could be used to vent methyl bromide. However, a venting stack some distance above ground may not be so common. A 50 foot portable stack, upon which the risk assessment is based, combined with active air exchange, has substantial impact on the estimated aeration buffer for smaller facilities. Such a system, which requires that methyl bromide be drawn from the building to a vent a minimum of 25 feet away, or far enough to eliminate building effects, may not be practical for a medium to large facility. However, such facilities can decrease the aeration zone by venting the gas through a stack. Air exchange systems also have a substantial effect on the aeration buffer. However, BEAD does not know what exchange rate larger facilities can reasonably be expected to achieve.

Active Aeration Systems: The cost to improve the active aeration of fumigated facilities is not known but some representative costs are available. Information submitted through the public comment process indicates that the cost of a 50 foot soft portable stack, including ducts and fittings, is approximately $ 1,000, and adding a stack to a 100,000 cubic foot warehouse would cost approximately $ 30,000. The comments did not, however, indicate the height or airflow capacity of these stacks. Fan costs range from $ 500 to $ 850 and range in capacity from 10,000 to 40,000 cubic feet per minute, but often require special engineering and design that can multiply the cost ( EPA, 2006).

Multiple fans increase air exchange in an additive fashion, therefore larger facilities may achieve sufficient air flow through a large enough stack to reduce the aeration buffer to a feasible distance. A factor in determining the viability of such an investment is that many facilities fumigate infrequently.

Capture and Destruction Technology: A capture and destruction system " scrubs" the exhaust stream to remove methyl bromide. These systems appear to be aimed primarily at commodity treatments, including sealed and tarped enclosures. It is not clear to what extent they would be feasible for structures. However, it may be assumed that they could be used in conjunction with or in place of a portable stack. Even if some proportion of the methyl bromide could be captured, the estimated aeration buffer could be reduced substantially. Further, these systems reduce the amount of methyl bromide released into the atmosphere and could have an impact on ozone depletion. Page 19 Alternatives to Methyl Bromide There are other fumigants that are available for use in the post harvest sector. Phosphine is often used when time is not critical, because it usually takes longer for a fumigation. In addition, phosphine is corrosive to certain metals and has temperature constraints. Sulfuryl fluoride was registered in January of 2004 in the U. S. and in California in May of 2005, for use in mills of cereal grains, dried fruits, and tree nuts. Use sites were extended in July of 2005 by the Federal government, but not by California. Research is ongoing to determine its capability to replace methyl bromide in all its critical uses. However, there have been some export issues that the registrant is trying to solve. Sulfuryl fluoride is currently undergoing review by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to establish maximum residue levels ( MRL) from the use of quarantine fumigations and by the Committee for the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures to set standards for its use. If approved by Codex MRL's would be established for foods such as: dried fruits and tree nuts, bran, cereal grains, and flour ( e. g. maize, rye, and wheat).

Other options for controlling pests in the post harvest sector include ( but are not limited to): manipulations of temperature, such as heat or cold; controlled atmospheres, such as ozonation, carbon dioxide; and increased sanitation, especially micro sanitation. Research is continuing in this field to identify both technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. However, at this time, these alternatives are not technically and economically feasible for the uses considered here or are prohibitively expensive ( United States of America, 2006a, 2006b)

CONCLUSION BEAD does not expect substantial impacts to result from lowering the air concentration limit of occupational exposure from five ( 5) parts per million ( ppm) to one ( 1) ppm as a 8 hour TWA, provided facilities have the option to utilize air purifying respirators to protect employees when air concentrations are between these points. BEAD also does not expect substantial impacts if EPA were to require Fumigation Management Plans and other actions that focus on compliance and/ or enforcement.

BEAD believes that a treatment buffer greater than 20 to 30 feet or an aeration buffer larger than 200 to 250 feet would be infeasible for most facilities. Facilities located in rural areas may be able to accommodate larger treatment and aeration buffers without substantial impacts on their operations. BEAD estimates the majority ( 72%) of the structures / food processing facilities to be greater than 500,000 cubic feet. Under the 99 whole field standard, the calculated treatment buffers for a 500,000 cubic foot facility, assuming the greatest gas retention and a 1 lb application rate, is 280 feet. Treatment buffers will be greater for larger volumes, higher rates and lower gas retention. The calculated aeration buffers for large facilities range from 90 to over 2,680 feet. These buffers, therefore, are likely to impose some impacts on medium to large facilities located in urban areas and possibly large facilities located in rural areas.

It appears that using various other risk mitigation options, including rate reduction, fumigating smaller volumes, improvements in sealing techniques, active aeration with fans and stacks, and/ or capture and destruction technology may help to reduce the size of the buffer zones. Page 20 BEAD believes that most facilities, even the larger ones, would be able to accommodate aeration buffers using a combination of options, such as active aeration and stacks. Portable stacks appear particularly effective, although they may not be feasible for larger facilities. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the 99 percentile whole field buffer is the regulatory basis. However, there appear to be few feasible options to reduce the treatment buffers and few facilities are likely to be able to comply with those estimated in this document. Site specific modeling may result in smaller buffers that still meet safety standards.

If facilities are unable to meet the buffer requirements, even with the adoption of other measures, they would be unable to use methyl bromide. Since 2005, production of methyl bromide is only permitted under the Montreal Protocol for certain uses, including those that have been designated as a critical need. EPA and USDA have evaluated exemption requests based on current conditions and found that there are no alternatives that are technically and economically feasible to the use of methyl bromide in this sector ( USA, 2006a, 2006b). If medium to large food processing facilities cannot feasibly implement the required treatment zone, even with the additional mitigation options, they may have to cease operations. This could have detrimental effects on U. S. producers of grains and other raw materials, on consumers of these products, and on the local economies. BEAD does not have adequate data about the specific site characteristics of these facilities to quantify the distribution and magnitude of these impacts.

REFERENCES CDPR ( California Department of Pesticide Regulation), 1994. Suggested Permit Conditions, Methyl Bromide Commodity Fumigation. State of California Environmental Protection Agency, August 8.

CAL DPR. 2006. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting ( PUR) data base. Available at http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ pur/ purmain. htm EPA. 2006. Methyl Bromide: Phase 5 health Effects Division ( HED) Human Health Risk Assessment for Commodity Uses. March 10, 2006.

EPA. 2006. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Docket on Methyl Bromide Risk Assessment for Fumigant Pesticide. Docket No. EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123. Available at http:// www. regulations. gov .

EPA Proprietary Data, 2003. Industrial Economics, Incorporated report entitled: " Financial Profiles and Alternative Costs Report 2002 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Application from Post Harvest/ Structure Users for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs ( 7503C)".

U. S. Census. 2002. Meat Processed from Carcasses: 2002 Economic Census. Manufacturing, Industry Series. Available at: http:// www. census. gov/ prod/ ec02/ ec0231i311612. pdf U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. Urban and Rural Classification. Available at http:// www. census. gov/ geo/ www/ ua/ ua_ 2k. html Page 21 United States of America. 2006a. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use for NPMA ( Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Use Season). Located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ 2008_ nomination. html United States of America. 2006b. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use in Structures   Food Processing Plants ( Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Use Season). Located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ 2008_ nomination. html


MEMORANDUM 	 Date:	December 11, 2013

Subject:	Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Risk Modeling File

From:	Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/RCG 		 To:	EPA Docket File (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012 - 0133)

The attached "Mact_1001.zip" file contains the emissions inventory used for the risk modeling of the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production (AMF) source category.

The attached "AMF HEM Inputs MACT Level.zip" file contains the Human Exposure Model (HEM) inputs for emissions from AMF processes at facilities in the AMF source category.

The attached "AMF HEM Inputs Whole Facility.zip" file contains the HEM inputs for facility-wide emissions from facilities in the AMF source category.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2221-2222]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-20-000, CP17-21-000, CP17-21-001, CP18-7-000]

Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Port Arthur Liquefaction Project, Texas
Connector Project, and Louisiana Connector Project: Port Arthur LNG,
LLC, PALNG Common Facilities Company LLC, and Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Port Arthur Liquefaction Project proposed by Port Arthur LNG,
LLC and PALNG Common Facilities Company LLC (collectively referred to
as PALNG), and the Texas Connector Project and Louisiana Connector
Project proposed by Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC (PAPL) in the above-
referenced dockets. PALNG requests authorization pursuant to section
3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to construct and operate liquefied
natural gas (LNG) export facilities in Jefferson County, Texas, and
PAPL requests a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA to construct, operate, and maintain
certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Jefferson and Orange
Counties, Texas and Cameron, Calcasieu, Beauregard, Allen, Evangeline,
and St. Landry Parishes, Louisiana. Together, these proposed facilities
are referred to as the Projects.
    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Projects in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Projects, with the
mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would have some adverse
environmental impact; however, these impacts would be avoided or
reduced to less-than-significant levels.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department
of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation
of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the
proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. Although the cooperating
agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations
presented in the final EIS, the agencies will present their own
conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records of Decision
for the Projects.
    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following proposed facilities:
     Two liquefaction trains, each with a capacity of 6.73
million tons per annum of LNG for export;
     three LNG storage tanks, each with a capacity of 160,000
cubic meters;
     a refrigerant storage area and truck unloading facilities;
     a condensate storage area and truck loading facilities;
     a new marine slip with two LNG vessel berths, an LNG
vessel and support vessel maneuvering area, and an LNG transfer system;
     a materials off-loading facility and Pioneer Dock;
     approximately 38.9 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline to
bring feed gas from interconnections with Kinder Morgan Louisiana
Pipeline LLC, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Houston Pipeline
Company LP, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (TETCO), Florida Gas
Transmission Company, LLC, and Golden Triangle Storage, Inc./Centana
Intrastate Pipeline, LLC to the terminal site;
     approximately 131.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline to
bring feed gas from interconnections with Centana Interstate Pipeline,
LP, TETCO, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, Market Hub Partners--Egan,
Pine Prairie Energy Center, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, ANR Pipeline
Company, and Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC to the terminal site;
     three compressor stations;
     meter stations at the pipeline interconnects; and
     other associated utilities, systems, and facilities
(mainline valves, pig launchers/receivers, contractor yards, access
roads, etc.).
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The final EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be
viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the final EIS may

be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on
the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp),
click on General Search, and enter the docket number in the Docket
Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-20, CP17-21,
or CP18-7). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: January 31, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-01190 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43076-43077]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-18-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Supplemental Notice of Intent
To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed White Oak
Mainline Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

    On January 22, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC
or Commission) issued in Docket No. CP15-18-000 a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed White Oak Mainline
Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). Since its application in the above-referenced docket, FERC staff
has requested information regarding the proposed facilities, as well as
alternative routes to the proposed Kemblesville Loop \1\ in Chester
County, Pennsylvania. On June 2, 2015, FERC staff also conducted an
onsite environmental review of the proposed pipeline and several
alternative routes. In response to data requested by FERC staff,
Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) provided information
on four alternative pipeline routes. FERC staff is further evaluating
Alternative Route 2 as described in Eastern Shore's April 21, 2015
response. This Supplemental Notice is being issued to seek comments on
Alternative Route 2 and opens a new scoping period for interested
parties to file comments on environmental issues specific to this
alternative route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is constructed parallel to an existing
pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The January 22, 2015 NOI announced that the FERC staff will prepare
an environmental assessment (EA) to address the environmental impacts
of the White Oak Mainline Expansion Project (Project). Please refer to
the NOI for more information about the overall facilities proposed by
Eastern Shore in Pennsylvania and Delaware, and FERC staff's EA
process. The Commission will use the EA in its decision-making process
to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    The Commission previously solicited public input on the Project in
the beginning of 2015. We \2\ are now specifically seeking comments on
the Kemblesville Loop Alternative Route 2 to help the Commission staff
evaluate the environmental impact associated with the alternative and
how that compares to the currently proposed route. Please note that
this special scoping period will close on August 8, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Supplemental Notice is being sent to the Commission's current
environmental mailing list for this Project, including new landowners
that would be affected by the alternative pipeline route.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if the easement negotiations fail
to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate
condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in
accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these instructions so that
your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Summary of Kemblesville Loop Alternative Route 2

    The Kemblesville Loop Alternative Route 2 would be collocated
entirely with the existing right-of-way for Eastern Shore's White Oak
mainline

pipeline and existing loop. This alternative route would involve
construction in residential areas as the surrounding area has been
developed into several residential subdivisions since installation of
the original mainline pipeline. The Kemblesville Loop Alternative Route
2 would be about 2.1 miles in length and would use previously disturbed
land and two existing crossing locations of the White Clay Creek
National Wild and Scenic River, administered by the U.S. Department of
Interior's National Park Service, using a flume and/or dam and pump
crossing method. In comparison, the currently proposed 3.9-mile-long
route would follow existing rights-of-way for 41.9 percent of the route
and would include two horizontal directional drill crossings of
tributaries of the White Clay Creek National Wild and Scenic River.
    An overview map of the Kemblesville Loop Alternative Route 2 that
follows the existing Eastern Shore pipeline right-of-way and the
currently proposed route is included in Appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have identified several issues that we think deserve attention
for our comparison of the proposed route and the Kemblesville Loop
Alternative Route 2 based on a review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Eastern Shore. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     crossings of the White Clay Creek National Wild and Scenic
River;
     old growth forested areas along the pipeline routes; and
     noxious weeds.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; commenters; and local libraries and newspapers.
This list also includes landowners affected by the pipelines as
currently proposed, as well as landowners that may be affected by the
Kemblesville Loop Alternative Route 2. We will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the
information related to this environmental review to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed Project.
    Copies of the completed EA will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of a CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
18). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: July 9, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17805 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 61802]
[DOCID:fr26oc05-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-32-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

October 19, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 14, 2005, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to
become effective November 15, 2005:

First Revised Sheet No. 33A
Second Revised Sheet No. 33B

    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5911 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P