1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 April 25, 2006 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Impact assessment of extensions to restricted entry intervals for highbush blueberries ( DP # 296575)

FROM: Nikhil Mallampalli, Entomologist Biological Analysis Branch Elisa Rim, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Tim Kiely, Chief, Acting Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Diane Isbell, Chemical Review Manager Margaret Rice, Chief Reregistration Branch Two Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Product Review Panel date: April 7, 2006 Summary BEAD conducted a preliminary assessment of the impact to growers of extending the restricted entry interval ( REI) for phosmet on highbush blueberries from 24 hours to 23 days, primarily due to worker exposure concerns. Because a 23 day REI for phosmet 2 would interfere with key crop production and protection practices, growers would likely stop using phosmet and use in its place one or more of several available alternatives. Based on its 2001 assessment, as well as recent high usage of phosmet, and the lack of availability of new alternatives, BEAD tentatively concludes that quality losses are likely if phosmet were no longer available. BEAD believes, as it did in 2001, that phosmet would probably not be used if the REI exceeds 3 days ( the current pre harvest interval), since critical phosmet use occurs around harvest activities. Losses are estimated to continue to be at the level discussed in BEAD's 2001 impact assessment ( Anderson et al. 2001). These losses would be a result of quality reduction ( due to insect contamination of harvest) and there would probably also be increases in production costs due to use of the alternatives. Increases in production costs were not quantified in this assessment. If azinphos methyl ( AZM) use were also unavailable, quality losses and production costs would increase, since growers may face additional losses from fruitworms targeted by AZM. Since this is a preliminary assessment, BEAD would welcome data that could be used to refine this assessment.

Background Based on post application worker risk assessments, EPA is considering extending the restricted entry interval ( REI) for phosmet use on blueberries from 24 hours to 23 days due to worker exposure concerns. The purpose of this assessment is to provide a preliminary assessment of the impact of the proposed mitigation on the blueberry industry.

Recent Use of Phosmet In 2003, 30,300 pounds of phosmet was applied on highbush blueberries in the U. S. Table 1 ( below) describes usage by individual states. Phosmet may be used in other states on blueberries but usage may be so low that NASS surveys do not reflect the usage. The highest phosmet use occurs in Michigan and New Jersey where phosmet use appears to be increasing after 2001. 3 Table 1. Phosmet Usage on Blueberries  U. S. Total, 1997 19991 and 2001 2003.2 Bearing Acreage Total Applied per Year ( pounds) % Area Treated Rate per Application ( lbs a. i./ acre) Number of Applications per Year State 1995 1999 2001 2003 1995 1999 2001 2003 1995 1999 2001 2003 1995 1999 2001 2003 1995 1999 2001 2003 Georgia 4,133 4,600 1,200 N/ A 12% N/ A 1.03 N/ A 2.4 N/ A Michigan 16,633 16,400 13,000 24,050 48% 74% 0.87 0.85 1.8 2.3 North Carolina 3,100 4,200 No Data Available New Jersey 7,667 7,450 3,300 5,200 27% 47% 0.88 0.85 1.6 1.7 Oregon 2,250 2,900 No Data Available U. S. Total 32,750 33,250 17,333 29,700 32% 52% 0.86 0.79 1.8 2.2 1 Source: USDA/ NASS, Agricultural Chemical Usage 1993, 1997, and 1999 Fruit Summary 2 Source: USDA/ NASS, Agricultural Chemical Usage 2001 and 2003 Fruit Summary Summary of 2001 BEAD Assessment for Phosmet on Blueberries In 2001, the REIs for phosmet use on blueberries increased from 24 hrs to 3 days. In its 2001 assessment, BEAD estimated the maximum feasible REI possible for phosmet in the major US blueberry production regions. BEAD also evaluated the impact of extending REIS beyond this maximum, which it believed would effectively result in loss of phosmet use for most growers due to hand harvesting that needed to occur at the same time as phosmet applications. The reader is referred to BEAD's 2001 analysis ( Anderson et al. 2001) for details of the analysis. A summary of BEAD's 2001 evaluation of the pest management and economic impacts of the loss of phosmet use follows.

BEAD evaluated the loss of phosmet use alone or concomitantly with unavailability of AZM, since AZM registration was also under review at the time. While AZM and phosmet are not one to one replacements for one another, AZM is used to target early emerging fruitworm caterpillars ( among other pests). These are internal fruit feeders and harvest contaminants ( and thus cause losses similar in nature to the blueberry maggot and the Japanese beetle). Based on available literature and input from crop experts, BEAD concluded that extending phosmet REIs beyond 3 days effectively precluded its use. BEAD also concluded that if this happened, a combination of available alternatives could be used to replace phosmet, but with some quality losses. No large direct yield reductions ( due to reduction in fruit produced) were expected from the pests discussed. The levels of losses estimated by BEAD varied depending on whether or not AZM use was also made unavailable or not, and whether the eastern US or the north central US were considered. A summary of the losses estimated in each region and ` scenario' is presented in the table below. 4 Table 2. Summary of BEAD's 2001 loss estimates for scenarios for phosmet and AZM loss ( adapted from Anderson et al. 2001). Region Scenario Eastern US ( mainly New Jersey) North central US ( mainly Michigan)

1. Phosmet use unavailable; AZM use retained   3~ 5 % transfer of harvest from fresh market to processed fruit market AND   5~ 15 % transfer of harvest from processed market to " nosale   5~ 10 % transfer of harvest from fresh market to processed fruit market AND   10 15 % transfer of harvest from processed market to " nosale

2. Both phosmet and AZM use not available   5~ 7 % transfer of harvest from fresh market to processed fruit market AND   10~ 15 % transfer of harvest from processed market to " nosale   5~ 10 % transfer of harvest from fresh market to processed fruit market AND   10~ 15 % transfer of harvest from processed market to " nosale

Quality losses were viewed as the transfer of the aforementioned proportion of fruit from the fresh fruit ( premium price) market to the processed fruit ( lower price) market, or as the transfer of fruit from the processed market to " no sale" as a result of buyer rejection.

For western US highbush blueberry production, an extension of the phosmet REI beyond 3 days was thought likely to result in a loss of feasible phosmet use, for the same reason as described for eastern blueberries. However, no yield/ quality losses were expected since use of phosmet was so low in this region, and effective alternatives for the key pests appeared to exist.

Phosmet Alternatives In the eastern and north central regions, a critical use of phosmet is later in the season to control blueberry maggot and Japanese beetle. Alternatives for these uses include imidacloprid, methomyl, spinosad, and carbaryl ( depending on which pest is considered). Of these, spinosad is a relatively new material, having been registered since 2001. BEAD notes here that AZM is not a practical replacement for late season phosmet use against Japanese beetle and blueberry maggot. However, AZM is sometimes used ( in part) to target early emerging populations of these insects, particularly on early maturing blueberry varieties. Furthermore, spinosad is easily washed off by rain and thus can quickly lose efficacy ( Isaacs, personal communication, 2005). Also, and perhaps more importantly as regards phosmet's critical later season use, spinosad is not effective against the Japanese beetle, a key harvest contaminant pest of highbush blueberries in the east and north central US. Nevertheless, some control could be expected from spinosad ( for the maggot) and imidacloprid or carbaryl ( for both the maggot and the beetle), but quality losses could occur, at least to the extent estimated in BEAD's 2001 assessment.

Regarding alternatives in general, BEAD notes that in recent years, broadspectrum insecticides, such as organophosphates, are being replaced by insecticides with a narrower activity spectrum. The older chemicals not only controlled the target pest( s), 5 but also, most other exposed insects. A consequence of the shift to newer chemistries is that crop damage from insects that until recently were considered minor pests appears to be increasing. However concomitantly, the shift to narrower spectrum chemicals may result in less mortality for beneficial species, including natural enemies, which should in turn increase natural mortality for some insect pests, ultimately leading to less pesticide use. To the extent that these pest dynamics continue to evolve and remain rather difficult to predict, this analysis examines only potential short term ( two to three years) impacts.

In Oregon and Washington, the major western US production regions, phosmet is listed as an option ( under a 24( c) label) for aphids, leafrollers, and winter moth. However, more effective alternatives are available, including diazinon, esfenvalerate, imidacloprid, and malathion ( USDA 2004).

Maximum Feasible REIs Descriptions of highbush blueberry production ( USDA 2004, USDA 2005, Garcia Salazar 2001) indicate that worker activities remain identical to those described in BEAD's 2001 assessment. Hand harvest continues to be widely practiced for fruit destined for the fresh market ( Isaacs, personal communication, 2005); many growers target most of their harvest for the fresh market as it brings premium prices. Growers must often schedule harvests at 3 day intervals to keep up with ripening fruit and pick marketable fruit ( Garcia Salazar 2001). Therefore, BEAD believes that the maximum feasible REI for most growers outside the western US regions continues to be 3 days ( which is also the current pre harvest interval).

Impacts of Extending the REI Beyond the Maximum Feasible Length For growers in the western US, BEAD believes that, as in 2001, the impact of extending phosmet REI will have minimal impact. Growers in this region use a combination of hand harvest and mechanical harvest ( Anderson et al. 2001), and overall usage of phosmet remains low. Thus, growers will probably either replace phosmet with one of the alternatives on the small proportion of acreage treated, with little to no impact, or adapt their phosmet use around harvesting or other worker activities.

A 23 day REI for phosmet would interfere with hand harvesting in the eastern and north central regions. BEAD assumes, as it did in 2001, that scouting for pests and irrigation equipment maintenance is exempted from such an REI ( as per Worker Protection Standard guidelines). If these activities are not exempted, a 23 day REI would probably be considered infeasible even by growers who do not hand harvest their fruit.

Therefore, BEAD believes that, as in 2001, growers in these regions would likely stop using phosmet altogether and turn to one or more of several available alternatives if the REI were extended to 23 days. Given the narrow pest spectrum of spinosad, the only alternative newly available since 2001, BEAD believes that growers would probably turn to the combination of other alternatives that was discussed in the 2001 assessment. These alternatives included imidacloprid, malathion, and methomyl, if phosmet use alone were to be unavailable. If phosmet removal coincides with AZM removal, growers would have 6 to use additional alternatives to replace that insecticide as well ( see Anderson et al. 2001 for details). BEAD tentatively concludes that the impacts of not using phosmet continue to be at the level estimated in 2001 ( see Table 2 for details of quality losses estimated). An investigation of the economic ramifications of these impacts is described below.

Economic analysis The following analysis includes two highbush blueberry growing regions: North Central region ( Michigan and Indiana) and Eastern region ( New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, New York, Arkansas, and Alabama). It does not include the Western region ( Washington and Oregon) because there does not appear to be significant phosmet use. This economic analysis only estimates the gross revenue loss due to quality loss. The change in production costs is not quantified in this analysis. BEAD expects an increase in production costs because some alternatives may not be as effective as phosmet, and others may be newer materials that are priced higher than phosmet. Production cost changes may include but are not limited to change in cultural practices, price, quantity, use rate, and number of applications of the alternatives.

North Central U. S.

The economic analysis attempts to assess the impacts of the loss of phosmet in the North Central region highbush blueberry market. With 74% of the crop treated in the Michigan, phosmet is an important chemical in controlling target pests. BEAD assumes the same percentage of the crop is treated over the whole north central region growing area. Without phosmet, growers would have effective alternative regimes to substitute for phosmet but may face increased costs and quality losses.

In the North Central region, average fresh market yield is 40% of the total production and average processed market yield is 60% of total production. Gross revenue is calculated as the sum of the yield multiplied by the price in each market category.

The quality loss assumptions used in this analysis are described in Table 2 ( above). The loss estimates used in this analysis for both Scenarios 1 and 2 to capture the lower bound losses in the fresh market, include the lower 5% estimate of quality loss from the fresh market to not being marketable (" no sale"), or a loss of 81 pounds per acre where average fresh market yield of 1,627 pounds per acre decreased to 1,545 pounds per acre. To capture the lower bound losses in the processed market this analysis also assumes the lower 10% estimated quality loss from the processed market to no sale or a loss of 247 pounds per acre where average processed market yield of 2,468 pounds per acre decreased to 2,221 pounds per acre ( see Table 3).

The assumptions used in this analysis for both Scenarios 1 and 2 to capture the upper bound losses in the fresh market, include the higher 10% estimate of quality loss from the fresh market to no sale, or a loss of 163 pounds per acre where average fresh market yield of 1,627 pounds per acre decreased to 1,464 pounds per acre. To capture 7 the upper bound losses in the processed market this analysis also assumes the higher 15% estimated quality loss from the processed market to no sale, or a loss of 370 pounds per acre where average processed market yield of 2,468 pounds per acre decreased to 2,098 pounds per acre ( see Table 3).

Table 3. Summary of Grower Level Blueberry Gross Revenue Impacts   North Central Region Grower Level Impacts per Acre Current Situation Scenarios 1 & 2: Lower Bound Scenarios 1 & 2: Higher Bound Price ($/ lb) 1** $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 Yield ( lbs/ A) 1** 1,627 1,545 1,464 5~ 10% Quality Loss to No Sale ( lbs/ A)  81 163 Fresh  Average 2002~ 2004 Total ($/ A)* $ 2,229 $ 2,117 $ 2,006 Price ($/ lb) 1** $ 0.78 $ 0.78 $ 0.78 Yield ( lbs/ A) 1** 2,468 2,221 2,098 10~ 15% Quality Loss to No Sale ( lbs/ A)  247 370 Processed  Average 2002~ 2004 Total ($/ A)* $ 1,933 $ 1,740 $ 1,643 Total Gross Revenue per Acre* $ 4,162 $ 3,857 $ 3,649 ($/ A) $ 0 $ 305 $ 513 Per Acre Impact Decrease in Gross Revenue per Acre (%/ A) 0% 7% 12% ($) $ 0 $ 3, 916,000 $ 6,586,000 Regional Impact*** Regional Decrease in Value of Production (%) 0% 5% 9% 1Source: USDA/ NASS Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2004 Summary, July, 2005. * Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding. ** Note: Data is average yield and price for the years 2002~ 2004. *** Note: Regional value of production = $ 74 million.

BEAD assumes the same percent crop treated in all the acreage in this region ( 17,350 acres * 74% = 12,839 acres). According to BEAD calculations, at the regional level, the lower bound impact of 74% of the acres currently using phosmet in the North Central region in Scenarios 1 & 2 are estimated to be an decrease in gross revenue per acre of about 7% or $ 305/ acre, which amounts to $ 3.9 million ($ 305/ acre * 12,839 acres = $ 3,916,000). The upper bound impact in Scenarios 1 & 2 are estimated to be an decrease in gross revenue per acre of about 12% or $ 513/ acre, which amounts to $ 6.6 million ($ 513/ acre * 12,839 acres = $ 6,586,000). The regional value of production is approximately $ 74 million; therefore the lower bound regional loss on value of production is about 5% and the upper bound regional loss is about 9%.

Overall, it appears that in the North Central region, highbush blueberry growers without phosmet would typically face some loss in cash returns using less effective alternatives that would produce lower quality levels.

Eastern U. S.

The economic analysis attempts to assess the impacts of the loss of phosmet in the Eastern region highbush blueberry market. With 47% of the crop treated in the New Jersey alone, phosmet is an important chemical in controlling target pests. BEAD assumes the same percentage of the crop is treated over the whole eastern region growing 8 area. Without phosmet, growers would have effective alternative regimes to substitute for phosmet but may face increased costs and quality losses.

In the Eastern region, average fresh market yield is 75% of the total production and average processed market yield is 25% of total production. Gross revenue is calculated as the sum of the yield multiplied by the price in each market category.

Scenario 1  Phosmet use unavailable; AZM use retained The quality loss assumptions used in this analysis are described in Table 2 ( above).

The loss estimates used in this analysis for Scenario 1 to capture the lower bound losses in the fresh market, include the lower 3% estimate of quality loss from the fresh market to not being marketable (" no sale"), or a loss of 138 pounds per acre where average fresh market yield of 4,600 pounds per acre decreased to 4,462 pounds per acre. To capture the lower bound losses in the processed market this analysis also assumes the lower 5% estimated quality loss from the processed market to ` no sale' or a loss of 40 pounds per acre where average processed market yield of 803 pounds per acre decreased to 763 pounds per acre ( see Table 4). The loss estimates used in this analysis for Scenario 1 to capture the upper bound losses in the fresh market, include the higher 5% estimate of quality loss from the fresh market to not being marketable (" no sale"), or a loss of 230 pounds per acre where average fresh market yield of 4,600 pounds per acre decreased to 4,370 pounds per acre. To capture the higher bound losses in the processed market this analysis also assumes the higher 15% estimated quality loss from the processed market to no sale, or a loss of 120 pounds per acre where average processed market yield of 803 pounds per acre decreased to 683 pounds per acre ( see Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of Grower Level Blueberry Gross Revenue Impacts   Eastern Region Scenario 1 Grower Level Impacts per Acre Current Situation Scenario 1: Lower Bound Scenario 1: Higher Bound Price ($/ lb) 1** $ 1.19 $ 1.19 $ 1.19 Yield ( lbs/ A) 1** 4,600 4,462 4,370 3~ 5% Quality Loss to No Sale ( lbs/ A)  138 230 Fresh  Average 2002~ 2004 Total ($/ A)* $ 5,489 $ 5,325 $ 5,215 Price ($/ lb) 1** $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 Yield ( lbs/ A) 1** 803 763 683 5~ 15% Quality Loss to No Sale ( lbs/ A)  40 120 Processed  Average 2002~ 2004 Total ($/ A)* $ 675 $ 641 $ 573 Total Gross Revenue per Acre* $ 6,164 $ 5,965 $ 5,788 ($/ A) $ 0 $ 199 $ 376 Per Acre Impact Decrease in Gross Revenue per Acre (%/ A) 0% 3% 6% ($) $ 0 $ 1,840,000 $ 3,476,000 Regional Impact Regional Decrease in Value of Production (%) 0% 2% 3% 1Source: USDA/ NASS Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2004 Summary, July, 2005. * Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding. ** Note: Data is average yield and price for the years 2002~ 2004. 9 BEAD assumes the same percent crop treated in all the acreage in this region. According to BEAD calculations, at the regional level, the lower bound impact of 47% of the acres currently using phosmet in the Eastern region in Scenario 1 is estimated to be an decrease in gross revenue per acre of about 3% or $ 199/ acre, which amounts to $ 1.8 million ($ 199/ acre * 9,244 acres = $ 1,840,000). The upper bound impact in Scenario 1 is estimated to be an decrease in gross revenue per acre of about 6% or $ 376/ acre, which amounts to $ 3.5 million ($ 376/ acre * 9,244 acres = $ 3,476,000). The regional value of production is approximately $ 122 million; therefore the lower bound regional loss on value of production is about 2% and the upper bound regional loss is about 3%. Overall, it appears that highbush blueberry growers without phosmet would typically face some loss in cash returns in the presence of effective alternatives that would produce lower yield and quality levels with an increase in production costs.

Scenario 2   Phosmet and AZM use unavailable The quality loss assumptions used in this analysis are described in Table 2 ( above).

The loss estimates used in this analysis for Scenario 2 to capture the lower bound losses in the fresh market, include the lower 5% estimate of quality loss from the fresh market to not being marketable (" no sale"), or a loss of 230 pounds per acre where average fresh market yield of 4,600 pounds per acre decreased to 4,370 pounds per acre. To capture the lower bound losses in the processed market this analysis also assumes the lower 10% estimated quality loss from the processed market to no sale, or a loss of 80 pounds per acre where average processed market yield of 803 pounds per acre decreased to 723 pounds per acre ( see Table 5). The loss estimates used in this analysis for Scenario 2 to capture the upper bound losses in the fresh market, include the higher 7% estimate of quality loss from the fresh market to not being marketable (" no sale"), or a loss of 322 pounds per acre where average fresh market yield of 4,600 pounds per acre decreased to 4,278 pounds per acre. To capture the higher bound losses in the processed market this analysis also assumes the higher 15% estimated quality loss from the processed market to no sale, or a loss of 120 pounds per acre where average processed market yield of 803 pounds per acre decreased to 683 pounds per acre ( see Table 5).

BEAD assumes the same percent crop treated in all the acreage in this region ( 19,667 acres * 47% = 9,244 acres). According to BEAD calculations, at the regional level, the lower bound impact of 47% of the acres currently using phosmet in the Eastern region in Scenario 2 is estimated to be an decrease in gross revenue per acre of about 6% or $ 342/ acre, which amounts to $ 3.2 million ($ 342/ acre * 9,244 acres = $ 3,161,000). The upper bound impact in Scenario 1 is estimated to be an decrease in gross revenue per acre of about 8% or $ 486/ acre, which amounts to $ 4.5 million ($ 486/ acre * 9,244 acres = $ 4,493,000). The regional value of production is approximately $ 122 million; therefore the lower bound regional loss on value of production is about 3% and the upper bound regional loss is about 4%. 10 Table 5. Summary of Grower Level Blueberry Gross Revenue Impacts   Eastern Region Scenario 2 Grower Level Impacts per Acre Current Situation Scenario 2: Lower Bound Scenario 2: Higher Bound Price ($/ lb) 1** $ 1.19 $ 1.19 $ 1.19 Yield ( lbs/ A) 1** 4,600 4,370 4,278 5~ 7% Quality Loss to No Sale ( lbs/ A)  230 322 Fresh  Average 2002~ 2004 Total ($/ A)* $ 5,489 $ 5,215 $ 5,105 Price ($/ lb) 1** $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 Yield ( lbs/ A) 1** 803 723 683 10~ 15% Quality Loss to No Sale ( lbs/ A)  80 120 Processed  Average 2002~ 2004 Total ($/ A)* $ 675 $ 607 $ 573 Total Gross Revenue per Acre* $ 6,164 $ 5,822 $ 5,678 ($/ A) $ 0 $ 342 $ 486 Per Acre Impact Decrease in Gross Revenue per Acre (%/ A) 0% 6% 8% ($) $ 0 $ 3,161,000 $ 4,493,000 Regional Impact*** Regional Decrease in Value of Production (%) 0% 3% 4% 1Source: USDA/ NASS Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2004 Summary, July, 2005. * Note: Totals may differ from sum of components due to rounding. ** Note: Data is average yield and price for the years 2002~ 2004. *** Note: Regional value of production = $ 122 million.

Overall, it appears that, as in the North Central region, Eastern US highbush blueberry growers without phosmet would typically face some loss in cash returns using less effective alternatives that would produce lower quality levels.

Request for Additional Information in Stakeholder Comments As part of the request for comments, BEAD would welcome data that could be used to refine this assessment if necessary. Useful information would include:

  particular regional or pest problems leading to phosmet use;   comparative product performance data, including yield and quality impacts;   costs of phosmet products and alternative insecticides;   non chemical control measures, particularly their efficacy, commercial feasibility, and cost;   restrictions or other constraints on the use of alternatives; and   timing of important phosmet application across the season for different growing regions.

References Anderson, N. Mallampalli N., and Kiely T. 2001 Initial Lowbush and Highbush Blueberries Benefits Assessment for Azinphos methyl and Phosmet. Available on the web at http:// www. epa. gov/ oppsrrd1/ op/ azm. htm. 11 Garcia Salazar. C. 2001. Crop Timeline for Blueberries in Michigan and Indiana. Available on the web at www. ipmcenters. org.

Isaacs. R. 2005. Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Personal communication to N. Mallampalli, USEPA/ OPP/ BEAD.

USDA. 2004. A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Oregon and Washington Blueberries. Available on the web at www. ipmcenters. org.

USDA. 2005. Crop Profile for Blueberries in North Carolina. Available on the web at www. ipmcenters. org.

USDA/ NASS Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2004 Summary, July, 2005. Accessible online at: http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/

USDA/ NASS, Agricultural Chemical Usage 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003 Fruit Summary. Accessible online at: http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68351]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-1887-000]

Thousand Springs Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

October 28, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Thousand Springs Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27956 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P