[Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18324-18325]
[DOCID:fr11ap06-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene and Protests

April 5, 2006.
    a. Type of Application: Application for Non-Project Use of Project
Lands and Waters.
    b. Project Number: P-2686-043.
    c. Date Filed: March 3, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Duke Power.
    e. Name of Project: Westfork Hydroelectric Project No. 2686.
    f. Location: The project is located on the West Fork of the
Tuckasegee River in Jackson County, North Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and sections 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Joe Hall, Lake Management Representative,
Duke Energy Corporation, P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC 28201, telephone
(704) 382-8576.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Chris Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: May 5, 2006.
    k. Description of Request: Duke Power proposes to grant a lease of
0.26 acres of project lands for non-project use as a private marina to
provide access to Lake Glenville for residents of the Glenville Lake
Club Subdivision. The marina will consist of a cluster dock with ten
boat docking locations and will be constructed of Ipe-wood decking, a
metal frame and encapsulated styro-foam for floatation.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2686) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (P-2686-043). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5308 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15100-15101]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06209]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0236; FRL-9943-53-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment
Information Rule (PAIR)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has submitted the following information collection request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): ``TSCA
Section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR)'' and
identified by EPA ICR No. 0586.13 and OMB Control No. 2070-0054. The
ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized in this
document. EPA did not receive any comments in response to the
previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal
Register on June 19, 2015 (80 FR 35349). With this submission, EPA is
providing an additional 30 days for public review.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0236, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
     To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     To OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address
comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in
detail the information collection activities and the related burden and
cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in
the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on March 31,
2016. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB.

    Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
authorizes EPA to promulgate rules under which manufacturers, importers
and processors of chemical substances and mixtures must maintain
records and submit reports to EPA. EPA has promulgated the Preliminary
Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) under TSCA section 8(a). EPA uses
PAIR to collect information to identify, assess and manage human health
and environmental risks from chemical substances, mixtures and
categories. PAIR requires chemical manufacturers and importers to
complete a standardized reporting form to help evaluate the potential
for adverse human health and environmental effects caused by the
manufacture or importation of identified chemical substances, mixtures
or categories. Chemicals identified by EPA or any other federal agency,
for which a justifiable information need for production, use or
exposure-related data can be satisfied by the use of the PAIR are
proper subjects for TSCA section 8(a) PAIR rulemaking. In most
instances the information that EPA receives from a PAIR report is
sufficient to satisfy the information need in question. This
information collection addresses the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with TSCA section 8(a).
    Respondents/Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are companies that manufacture, process or import chemical
substances, mixtures or categories.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (see 40 CFR parts
712, 766, and 792).
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total burden: 31.5 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Estimated total costs: $ 2,388 (per year), includes no annualized
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 916 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the
ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's reduced
estimate of the assumed number of PAIR reports submitted annually, and
also reflects burden changes resulting from mandatory electronic
submissions of PAIR reports. This change is both an adjustment and the
result of a program change.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-06209 Filed 3-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71361-71362]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1434; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-27]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Union, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at West Union,
IA. Decommissioning of the West Union non-directional radio beacon
(NDB) at George L. Scott Municipal Airport has made reconfiguration
necessary for standard instrument approach procedures and for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before January 14,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-1434/Airspace Docket No. 11-
ACE-27, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-1434/
Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-27.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for new standard instrument approach
procedures at George L. Scott Municipal Airport, West Union, IA.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the
West Union NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations
at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at George L. Scott Municipal
Airport, West Union, IA.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8,
2012, and effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 West Union, IA [Amended]

West Union, George L. Scott Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]59'06'' N., long. 91[deg]47'26'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of George L. Scott Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on November 1, 2012.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-29016 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7408-7410]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0789]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix; Gulf of
Mexico, Sarasota, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the permanent special local
regulations for the Suncoast Offshore Challenge and the Suncoast
Offshore Grand Prix in the Gulf of Mexico near Sarasota, Florida. These
changes would adjust the timing and affected areas of two existing
regulated areas. The changes are necessary to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waters during the event.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 3, 2014. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before March 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Brett Sillman, Sector Saint
Petersburg Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
(813) 228-2191, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0789 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may

change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0040 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Annual Suncoast Offshore Challenge and Annual Suncoast Offshore
Grand Prix in the Gulf of Mexico near Sarasota, Florida are governed by
permanent regulations at 33 CFR 100.719 and 33 CFR 100.720,
respectively.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233, 33 CFR 1.05-1.
    The purpose of the regulation is to consolidate the Annual Suncoast
Offshore Challenge at 33 CFR 100.719 and Annual Suncoast Offshore Grand
Prix 33 CFR 100.720 into a single regulation to provide safety of life
on the navigable waters in the Captain of the Port Saint Petersburg
Zone. The marine events are normally held on the first Saturday and
Sunday of July between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Event coordinators have
decided to combine the two events to take place annually on the first
Sunday of July between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Event coordinators are also
reducing the length of the racecourse so that Big Sarasota Pass channel
may remain open during the event. In recent years, areas north of New
Pass have been subjected to shoaling. To ensure the safety of boaters,
the Coast Guard also proposes to close New Pass during the race because
the north end of the course is close to the channel.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule is necessary to accommodate the rescheduling of
the Annual Suncoast Offshore Challenge to the same date of the Annual
Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix race, to modify the regulated area to
account for changes in the length of the racecourse, and to modify the
passes for inbound and outbound traffic into Sarasota Bay. The proposed
rule would remove 33 CFR 100.719, the existing permanent regulation for
the Annual Suncoast Offshore Challenge scheduled for the first Saturday
in July. That event would be consolidated with 33 CFR 100.720, the
Annual Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix into a one-day race event to be
held on the already established Grand Prix race day, annually on the
first Sunday of July. Under the existing special local regulations, New
Pass is open to maritime traffic and Big Sarasota Pass is closed to
traffic. Due to recent shoaling north of New Pass, the proposed rule
would close New Pass and open Big Sarasota Pass to inbound and outbound
traffic. Additionally, the coordinates of the regulated area would be
modified to reflect a reduced length in the racecourse.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    This regulation is not a significant regulatory action because this
change constitutes merging and modification of existing regulations.
This rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential
impacts will be minimized for the following reason: Big Sarasota Pass
is within three miles of New Pass and would allow vessels to continue
to enter and exit Sarasota Bay.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

Sec.  100.719  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  100.719.
0
3. Revise Sec.  100.720 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.720  Annual Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix, Gulf of Mexico,
Sarasota, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established by a line
drawn from the start line position 27[deg]18.40' N, 82[deg]35.36' W,
thence to turn 1 position 27[deg]16.74' N, 82[deg]34.92' W, thence to
turn 2 position 27[deg]18.20' N, 82[deg]34.51' W, thence to turn 3
position 27[deg]18.67' N, 82[deg]35.09' W, thence to turn 4 position
27[deg]18.66' N, 82[deg]35.45' W, thence to the finish line position
27[deg]18.64' N, 82[deg]35.00' W. All coordinates referenced use datum:
NAD 1983.
    (b) Special local regulations. (1) Spectator craft will be
permitted to anchor shoreward of the shoreside boundaries, in the
spectator area 500 yards from the regulated area between position
27[deg]18.02' N, 82[deg]34.42' W and position 27[deg]16.85' N,
82[deg]34.67' W.
    (2) Spectator craft will be permitted to anchor seaward of the
seaside boundaries, in the spectator area 500 yards from the regulated
area between position 27[deg]18.54' N, 82[deg]35.56' W and position
27[deg]16.64' N, 82[deg]35.07' W.
    (3) All vessel traffic not involved with the Suncoast Offshore
Grand Prix shall enter and exit Sarasota Bay via Big Sarasota Pass and
stay well clear of the racecourse.
    (4) New Pass will be closed to all inbound and outbound vessel
traffic at the COLREGS Demarcation Line. Vessels are allowed to utilize
New Pass to access all areas inland of the Demarcation Line via
Sarasota Bay. It may be opened at the discretion of the Patrol
Commander.
    (5) Entry into the regulated area shall be in accordance with this
regulation. Spectator craft will stay clear of the race area at all
times.
    (c) Effective date. This section is effective from 10 a.m. to 4
p.m. EDT, annually during the first Sunday of July.

    Dated: January 21, 2014.
G.D. Case,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2014-02664 Filed 2-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66079]
[DOCID:fr27oc10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-24-000]

National Grid USA; Notice of Filing

October 20, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 15, 2010, pursuant to Rule 215 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), National Grid USA filed an amended petition
supplementing and clarifying its request, originally filed on May 19,
2010, for waiver of certain of the affiliate pricing rules as
established by the Commission's Order Nos. 707 and 707-A.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cross-Subsidization Restrictions on Affiliate Transactions,
Order No. 707, 73 FR 11013 (Feb. 29, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,264, at P 4-5, order on rehearing, Order No. 707-A, 73 FR 43072
(Jul. 24, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,272 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 5, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27128 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

                                                      OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
                                                       AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

                              DATE: 15 SEPT 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:     Revised Dimethenamid (129051) Label Use and Usage Reports Package in Support of Registration Review

FROM:           LaVerne Dobbins, Environmental Protection Specialist
            Science Information and Analysis Branch (7503P)

TO:                 Maria Piansay, Chemical Review Manager
                        Risk Management and Implementation Branch 5
                        Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

      This memorandum transmits the Label Use and Usage reports for Dimethenamid (129051).    This is a full report.  All EPA registered and accepted Section 3 registrations, containing this ingredient, as of the date of this report, are included in this report with the exception of technical and/or manufacturing use products.    Dimethenamid (129051) LUIS reports were delivered on 15 September 2015.   Dimethenamid-p is also part of this case, and a combined SLUA one for each a.i. are included in this package.   Dimethenamid-p (129051) LUIS reports are forthcoming.

      For questions, comments and other usage or label use information requests, please contact LaVerne Dobbins at 308-6378.  Other requests for information may be addressed to OPP Usage and Label Use Team, our group e-mail address.

      Attachments

      HED Master Label Report
      EFED Table 1 Report
      Label Data Report
      General Chemical (Issues) Report
      Label Tracking Report
      Screening-level Usage Analysis (SLUA)


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21334-21335]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP17-40-003.
    Applicants: Spire STL Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Abbreviated Application for Limited Amendment of
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
    Filed Date: 5/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190502-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-165-002.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019 Motion Filing to be effective
5/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/1/19.
    Accession Number: 20190501-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/13/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1214-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--May 7
2019

Encana 1011022 to be effective 5/7/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190507-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1215-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Interruptible Transportation Revenue
Sharing of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC under RP19-1215.
    Filed Date: 5/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190507-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/19.

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

    Dated: May 8, 2019..
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09880 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with Methyl
Bromide, Chloropicrin, and Metam Sodium in Tree Nut Production
(DP#337490)

FROM:	Leonard Yourman, Plant Pathologist

	Biological Analysis Branch

	T J Wyatt, Agricultural Economist

	Economic Analysis Branch

	Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

	Biological Analysis Branch

	Timothy Kiely, Chief

	Economic Analysis Branch

	Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		Andrea Carone, Chemical Review Manager, 1,3-Dichloropropene

		Steve Weiss, Chemical Review Manager, Methyl Bromide

		Special Review Branch

		Nathan Mottl, Chemical Review Manager, Chloropicrin

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Veronique LaCapra, Chemical Review Manager, Metam Sodium

		Registration Branch 2

		John Leahy, Senior Policy Advisor

	Special Review and Reregistration Division  (7508P)

Product Review Panel:  April 16, 2007

Summary

Soil fumigation prior to replanting nut orchards, especially almond and
walnut orchards, provides significant benefits to California producers
and to the economy.  Over the life of an orchard, nematodes and other
soil pathogens build up in the soil resulting in a poor environment for
establishing young trees.  Fumigation increases the survival of young
trees, promotes growth and maturity, and results in higher productivity
throughout the life of the orchard.  Methyl bromide and chloropicrin are
crucial for the control of soil pathogens, while 1,3-dichloropropene can
be used to control nematodes on soils or under soil conditions where it
can penetrate efficiently.

BEAD estimates that fumigating less than 15,000 acres per year with
methyl bromide each year ultimately contributes about $63.3 million
annually in increased production on over 400,000 bearing acres.  The
value of chloropicrin, applied to nearly 16,000 acres per year, is about
$92.7 million annually, a figure which includes the value of methyl
bromide, since methyl bromide must be used in combination with
chloropicrin.  These values are in comparison to fumigation with
1,3-dichloropropene followed by an application of metam sodium.  If
metam sodium were not available as an alternative, the value of methyl
bromide and chloropicrin would nearly double.  That is, fumigation for
the control of soil pathogens and, to a lesser extent, nematodes, adds a
total of about $160.2 million in increased production.

These figures do not include the value added by fumigation in making
orchard establishment possible.  Establishing an orchard and maintaining
it through several non-bearing years is very costly.  Higher future
returns resulting from fumigation may make the large investment
worthwhile at many sites, which further contributes to overall
production and a thriving export market.

These figures also do not include the possibility that
1,3-dichloropropene may not be available to some growers because of
township caps, which restrict the total amount of 1,3-dichloropropene
that may be applied to a given area.

Background

As part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants
(dazomet, chloropicrin, metam potassium, metam sodium, and methyl
bromide).  This document presents the assessment of the benefits
provided by the soil fumigants in the production of certain tree nuts
(almond, pistachio, and walnut).  Conceptually, the benefits of a
pesticide like a soil fumigant are the improvements in production and/or
reductions in cost resulting from the pesticide’s use.  The benefits
of a pesticide are shared between the users of the pesticide, e.g., nut
producers, and consumers of nuts and nut products.  Consumers benefit
because higher production and/or lower costs may translate into a
cheaper and more abundant supply of nuts.

This document is an assessment of the benefits of soil fumigants.  As
such, it compares the current situation in which fumigants are available
for use, subject to existing label restrictions, to the situation that
is estimated to occur were the fumigants not available.  This is
somewhat different from an assessment of the impacts of regulation, as
no specific regulatory scheme is considered.

Tree Nuts

California is the sole producer of almonds in the U.S. and accounts for
99% of walnuts and pistachios.  Table 1 presents a summary of acreage,
production, and value for these crops.

Table 1.  California nut acreage, production and value, 2001 – 2005
average.

Crop	Bearing Acres	Production

(1000 lb)	Yield

(lb/acre)	Value

($1000)	Price

($/lb)

Almond	555,000	976,000	1,760	1,613,400	1.65

Pistachio	89,400	242,600	2,710	336,680	1.40

Walnut	211,200	318,600	3,310	411,760	0.65

Source:  USDA NASS (2002-2006b).

California is the world’s largest producer of almonds, accounting for
nearly half of world production in 2004 (ERS, 2005a).  The next four top
producing countries, Iran, Italy, Spain and Syria, account for just over
25% of production.  California is also the leading exporter of almonds,
with about 60% of production sold overseas.  Western Europe remains the
largest market, but Asia accounts for about 25% of exports (Almond Board
of California, 2007).  There has been significant growth in almond
exports to India (ERS, 2005a).

The U.S. is also the world’s largest exporter of walnuts, averaging
about 35-40% of world trade (ERS, 2005b).  Exports account for about 45%
of U.S. production.  Mexico is the second largest exporter.  China is
the world’s largest producer, but only the fourth largest exporter.

Pistachio is a relatively recent crop, becoming a commercial industry in
the mid-1970’s (ERS, 2002).  The U.S. is the second largest producer
of pistachio, behind Iran.  Over 40% of production is exported, with the
majority going to Asia.

Fumigant Use

Orchards of nut crops, such almonds, pistachios, and walnuts, require
periodic replanting.  Orchards are replanted when the natural productive
life of orchard trees ends, or when the economic situation changes such
that customer demand for new varieties or new crop price projections
warrants replacing existing orchards.  Soils may be fumigated prior to
planting.  Because a typical orchard may be productive for 10-25 years
or longer, plantings may represent a small fraction of bearing acreage,
but small changes in plantings will have large impacts on production in
later years.

Data on both plantings and fumigant use are sparse.  A major difficulty
of both public and private data sources is the sporadic nature of use.
Because a grower may not replant a portion of his or her orchard every
year and the amount planted is small compared to bearing acreage,
surveys may overlook relatively important use of soil fumigants.  The
following tables present BEAD’s best estimates, which combine a number
of sources including USDA and state reports, reports of trade
associations and EPA proprietary data.

Table 2 presents estimated use of methyl bromide, compared to acres
planted.  Fumigation with methyl bromide is substantial as a percentage
of planted acres, especially for walnut.  Little is used on pistachio,
but that may be due to the fact that it is a relatively new crop and
there has not been much replanting of orchards.

Table 2.  Annual methyl bromide usage on California nut crops,
2001-2005.

Crop	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated 2	% Acres Treated	lb Applied	Rate 3

(lb/acre/year)

Almond	22,000	9,500	43.2	156,000	16.4

Pistachio	2,300	<10	0.2	80	23.5

Walnut	5,000	4,300	86.0	119,000	27.7

Source:	Cal DPR, 2000-2005.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation, except for
walnut where fumigation and planting occur in the same year (2001-2004).

2	Acres treated for California may be underestimated.  Substantial
acreage is reported simply as “pre-plant fumigation” or
“uncultivated agricultural land,” some of which could be for orchard
crops.

3	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.

Table 3 presents estimated use of chloropicrin.  Estimating the use of
chloropicrin presents significant challenges because it is almost always
used in combination with methyl bromide or 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D).
Methyl bromide, in fact, is only available in combination with
chloropicrin.  However, California data (Cal DPR, 2000-2005) does not
always reflect this, indicating substantial underreporting of
chloropicrin use.  It may be that some pesticide use reports do not
distinguish between products and/or only report the primary fumigant
used.  BEAD has attempted to correct for this, but the estimated acres
treated, around 16,000 acres annually, could still be biased downward.
Application rates may similarly be biased downward.

Table 3.  Annual chloropicrin usage on California nut crops, 2001-2005.

Fumigant	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated 2	% Acres Treated	lb Applied	Rate
3

(lb/acre/year)

Almond	22,000	10,800	49.0	62,000	5.8

Pistachio	2,300	30	1.4	<100	0.5

Walnut	5,000	5,000	100.0	44,000	7.7

Source:	Cal DPR, 2000-2005.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation, except for
walnut where fumigation and planting occur in the same year (2001-2004).

2	Acres treated for California may be underestimated.  Substantial
acreage is reported simply as “pre-plant fumigation” or
“uncultivated agricultural land,” some of which could be for orchard
crops.  Further, methyl bromide is always mixed with chloropicrin and
1,3-D is often mixed with chloropicrin.  Cal DPR data (2000-2005),
however, often indicate fewer acres treated with chloropicrin than with
methyl bromide.

3	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.  Due to apparent
under-reporting of chloropicrin used in combination with other
fumigants, rates may be biased downward.

Estimates of metam sodium use are shown in Table 4.  For the most part,
metam sodium is not an important fumigant for nut crops, although it may
be used as a follow-up treatment to 1,3-D.  It primarily seems to be
used as a spot treatment, perhaps for replacing individual trees in a
recently planted orchard.

Table 4.  Annual metam sodium usage on California nut crops, 2001-2005.

Fumigant	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated 2	% Acres Treated	lb Applied	Rate
3

(lb/acre/year)

Almond	22,000	120	0.5	19,700	167.9

Pistachio	2,300	spot treatment 4

Walnut	5,000	200	4.4	3,000	11.4

Source:	Cal DPR, 2000-2005.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation, except for
walnut where fumigation and planting occur in the same year (2001-2004).

 2	Acres treated for California may be underestimated.  Substantial
acreage is reported simply as “pre-plant fumigation” or
“uncultivated agricultural land,” some of which could be for orchard
crops.

3	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.

4	One field reported treated at very low rate.

Table 5 presents usage information for 1,3-D on California nut crops.
Use is relatively minor compared to methyl bromide and chloropicrin, but
is nonetheless substantial.  Taken together, about 60% of almond
orchards and essentially all walnut orchards are treated with some kind
soil fumigant prior to planting.

Table 5.  Annual 1,3-dichloropropene usage on California nut crops,
2001-2005 1.

Fumigant	Planted Acres 1	Acres Treated 2	% Acres Treated	lb Applied	Rate
3

(lb/acre/year)

Almond	22,000	2,050	9.3	532,000	259.4

Pistachio	2,300	30	1.4	2,000	55.7

Walnut	5,000	600	11.5	163,000	282.9

Source:	Cal DPR, 2000-2005.

1	Acres planted are for calendar year following fumigation, except for
walnut where fumigation and planting occur in the same year (2001-2004).

2	Acres treated for California may be underestimated.  Substantial
acreage is reported simply as “pre-plant fumigation” or
“uncultivated agricultural land,” some of which could be for orchard
crops.

3	Effective or broadcast-equivalent rate.

Given the use patterns, this analysis will focus primarily on the use of
methyl bromide and chloropicrin in California in walnut and almond.
Metam sodium and 1,3-D will be considered in the context of potential
alternatives against which to measure the benefits of methyl bromide and
chloropicrin.  Currently, fumigation is not integral to pistachio
production.  This may be due to the fact that it is a relatively recent
crop and orchards have not been replaced yet.  As orchards age, however,
the replant disorder may become more common and fumigation more
necessary.

Target Pests

The primary reason for fumigation is to insure planting into soils with
minimal pest infestation.  In many orchard sites, soil-borne nematodes
and/or pathogens, and a poorly understood disease complex called orchard
replant “problem” or “disorder” are threats to establishing
healthy, long-bearing orchards (McKenry, 1999).  Table 6 indicates the
key pests associated with nut crops in California.

Table 6.  Target pests for fumigants in California almond and walnut
production.

Crop	Key Pests

Almond	Replant problem (affects ~25% of total growing area) is a
disorder caused by an interaction of pests (pathogens and nematodes) and
environmental factors.

Nematodes (affects 35-50% of total growing area): Meloidogyne incognita
(root knot), Pratylenchus vulnus (root lesion), Mesocriconema xenoplax
(ring), Xiphinema americanum (dagger)

Walnut	Replant problem is a disorder caused by an interaction of pests
(pathogens and nematodes) and environmental factors.

Nematodes: lesion (Pratylenchus vulnus), ring (Mesocriconema xenoplax),
root knot (Meloidogyne spp.)

Source:	Browne et al. (2006); Crop Profile for Almonds in California
(1999); Crop Profile for Walnuts in California (1998); McKenry (1999).

Orchards with replant problem have several visible effects—the first
and most apparent is poor tree growth during the early years of
establishment (rejection component), and in some cases, a slow and
detrimental decline in root health and plant growth caused primarily by
pathogenic nematodes and fungi, which can lead to premature tree death.
Interactions with environmental features such as soil composition,
damage from insects, nutrient deficiency or wind blow-down are less well
documented, but anything that limits early root growth can predispose
the trees to greater damage from subsequent agents.  Recent research
(Browne et al., 2006) suggests that some replant problems may not be
primarily a result of high nematode populations, but due to abiotic and
biotic factors other than nematodes.

The replant disorder can be of varying severity depending on pest
pressure, orchard location, type of crop, soil texture, soil moisture,
pH, or other factors.  Planting nematode-tolerant rootstock is an
important management tool that is available for both almond and walnut
growers.  Despite resistant stock, however, in orchards with several
nematode species at high population concentrations, fumigation may be
necessary.  Replant disorder effects can sometimes be reduced by
planting a few years of cover crops (such as wheat), but the delayed
productivity may not be economically feasible for some growers.
Generally, it is desirable to establish orchards on land previously
planted with different crops (e.g., planting nut trees after an apple
orchard) to avoid severe replant problems, although economic
considerations and availability of land may conflict with this
recommendation.

Orchard Replant Practices

Typically, the first steps in the re-establishment of an orchard are the
removal of old trees and “ripping” or deep tillage of the soil,
followed by a fallow period or cover crop.  The length of the fallow
depends on soils, climate, and past pest problems, but is typically one
to two years.  The practice reduces “orchard rejection”, a component
of the orchard replant problem when trees fail to survive due to an
unknown cause (Caprile and McKenry, 2006; McKenry, 1999).  Fallow is
generally not sufficient to reduce nematode infestation but improves
tree growth.  The ground is then fumigated.  Fumigation should kill or
reduce pests and remnant roots of previous plantings, especially for
deep-rooted trees, that harbor pests.

Methyl bromide in combination with chloropicrin is used on over 50% of
almond and walnut orchard replant sites (Table 2).  The replant
situation and need for fumigants is similar to that of California stone
fruit.  Growers have been granted use of methyl bromide for a portion of
replant acreage under a critical use exemption (CUE) for 2005-2008
growing seasons.  The use for 2009 is pending.  These are sites where
methyl bromide (with chloropicrin) is most useful because of heavier
soils, i.e., high clay content or low porosity that impede dispersion of
other fumigants, or locations where township caps on 1,3-D restrict its
use.

Methyl bromide (with chloropicrin) is applied to almonds as a strip
treatment (with 33-50% of the area treated) or broadcast or applied by
the hole for tree replacement.  In the past, methyl bromide:chloropicrin
(98:2) was applied at a broadcast rate of 300-400 lb methyl bromide/acre
(and 6-8 lb chloropicrin/acre), with a strip treatment rate of 90-120 lb
methyl bromide/acre (and 1.8-2.4 lb chloropicrin/acre).  Individual
holes were treated with 0.98 lb methyl bromide (and .02 lb
chloropicrin).  With the CUE process a yearly nomination, the rates have
been reduced.  The request for 2007 was 300 lb methyl bromide/acre.  For
walnuts, the rate for the 2007 use season is 250 lb methyl bromide/acre
(with 5 lb chloropicrin/acre).  Text Box 1 provides typical
characteristics of a methyl bromide/chloropicrin fumigation.

Text Box 1.  Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Fumigation Characteristics,
California Tree Nuts.

Rate:	15-30 lb a.i methyl bromide/acre (broadcast equivalent) [see Table
2]; 250-300 lb methyl bromide/treated area with 5-6 lb chloropicrin/acre

Method of Application:  Shank, deep injected, i.e., more than 20 inches;
strip treatment

Fumigation Period:  Almond:  Fall, for planting the following spring;
Walnuts: late summer for fall or spring planting

Surface Sealing:  Tarp

Field Size:	8 – 15 acres

Area Treated/Day:  8 – 15 acres

In lighter soils, growers may use 1,3-D with chloropicrin at 17 or 35%.
Application rates depend on soil moisture and the product must be
applied to soils with a moist surface.  For soils with more than 12%
moisture, a strip application can be made at a rate of 350 lb 1,3-D/acre
and 191 lb chloropicrin/acre or the mixture can be applied by covered
drip line (Caprile and McKenry, 2006).  Tarps or soil seals are
generally used.  Text Box 2 summarizes this information.

Text Box 2.  1,3-Dichloropropene/Chloropicrin Fumigation
Characteristics, California Tree Nuts.

Rate:	5-10 lb chloropicrin/acre (broadcast equivalent) [see Table 2];
191 lb chloropicrin/treated area with 350 lb 1,3-D/acre

Method of Application:  Shank, deep injected, i.e., more than 20 inches
or via drip line; strip treatment

Fumigation Period:  Almond:  Fall, for planting the following spring;
Walnuts: late summer for fall or spring planting

Surface Sealing:  Tarp

Field Size:	8 – 15 acres

Area Treated/Day:  8 – 15 acres

Metam sodium or, rarely, metam potassium must be distributed into the
soil with water and is only accomplished in course-textured soils (i.e.,
this treatment will not be effective in clay soils) (Caprile and
McKenry, 2006).  Use is very low.  Metam sodium may be effective at
individual tree sites pre-plant to <0.01% of the acreage at an average
rate of 60 lb. active ingredient (a.i.) per acre as a surface treatment,
via incorporation or as a drench, following a 1,3-D application.

Alternative Control Measures

To some extent, the soil fumigants are interchangeable, although their
relative efficacy depends on soil conditions.  Where both nematodes and
soil pathogens are a problem, three treatments are possible:  methyl
bromide with chloropicrin, 1,3-D with chloropicrin, and 1,3-D with metam
sodium.  On the lightest soils, all will have similar efficacy.  On
heavier soils, however, metam sodium will not penetrate as well and
there will be less control of soil pathogens.  Similarly, on the
heaviest soils, the methyl bromide/chloropicrin combination is most
efficacious as it penetrates best.  Where nematodes are the primary
problem, 1,3-D alone is likely to be sufficient or growers can apply an
herbicide to kill roots, although sufficient fallow is needed to reduce
nematode populations.  Finally, where soil pathogens, but not nematodes,
are the problem, either chloropicrin, at 330 lb/acre, or metam sodium,
at 320 lb/acre, may be used.  Chloropicrin will be more efficacious on
heavier soils, however.

California has set township caps for 1,3-D, which impose a maximum
amount that can be used in a given area per year.  Tree nut producers
must compete with many other users for an allotment.

Besides fumigation, there are other approaches to controlling orchard
replant disease.  One method is to select land that has not recently
been planted in a nut crop or a related species, including some stone
fruit.  This is not often an option, however, due to limited land area
and agro-climatic conditions that tend to be conducive to limited tree
crops.

Research conducted to identify rootstocks that can withstand important
nematode species is ongoing (McKenry et al., 2006).  Rootstocks may be
resistant, which means they may be infested and damaged, but do not
allow nematode populations to increase, or immune, which means the
rootstocks are not attacked by nematodes.  Resistance or immunity may be
quite specific, which requires identifying the critical species and
selecting the appropriate stock based on the pest pressure at individual
orchard sites.  Generally, rootstocks show resistance or tolerance to
only one or two species, while an individual orchard site may contain
several pathogenic species.  Varieties with resistance to key soil
pathogens are not available.

It should be noted that organic production does not preclude the use of
fumigation to establish an orchard.  Organic production requires three
years without the use of synthetic chemicals, including fertilizers and
pesticides, prior to obtaining certification.  This allows organic
growers to fumigate at planting to improve establishment and then
transition to organic production during the non-bearing period of
growth.

Benefits of Fumigation

Planting orchards with nut crops requires a large investment of
resources as well as numerous choices to establish a long-bearing and
productive orchard.  Many of the pests associated with these crops and
fumigation requirements are similar from crop to crop and location to
location.  However, management of these pests differs depending on
particular crop, soil type, climatic region, availability and cost of
orchard land, availability of resistant rootstock to specific key pests,
and local regulatory restrictions of some fumigants.  In general, when
fumigation is deemed necessary, few choices are available to the orchard
manager.

BEAD assesses the benefits of fumigation with a particular chemical by
comparing production under alternative approaches for controlling
orchard replant disease.  We focus primarily on methyl bromide and
chloropicrin.  Walnut production forms the basis of a case study on
methyl bromide, used with chloropicrin, while almonds will be the case
study for chloropicrin in combination with 1,3-D.  Metam sodium is
rarely used in nut production, but it may be a viable alternative
against which to measure the benefits of the other two fumigants.

The benefits of fumigation for orchard replant can be measured by future
yields (orchard crops require several years to begin bearing) when nut
production may be adversely affected by poor tree growth and high pest
populations.  In addition, fumigant treatments result in healthier young
trees.  The effects of orchard replant problem and nematode damage to
young seedlings are experienced within the first three years of orchard
establishment, and are commonly observed within the first year.  Costs
associated with individual tree replacement include delayed production
as newly replanted trees lag behind previously planted ones.  In more
severe cases, when replant disorder or high nematode populations are not
properly managed at the time of orchard establishment, the entire
orchard of trees might be lost.  Because of the long life of an orchard,
optimal soil preparation, along with appropriate rootstocks, is a
priority for successful nut production.

BEAD typically uses a partial budget analysis to estimate the impacts of
changes in production practices.  That is, we evaluate the consequences
on a typical acre of the crop grown, rather than attempt to assess the
impacts in the context of a whole enterprise, which could include
multiple crops under cultivation.  This approach allows the Agency to
compare estimated losses to net operating revenue, which is defined as
the difference between gross revenue and variable operating costs, on a
per-acre basis.  The analysis ignores fixed costs, which are highly
dependent on land ownership and the size and diversity of the grower’s
operation, and therefore difficult to define on a per-acre basis.  As
such, this analysis may understate the impacts as a percentage of the
grower’s income.

An analysis of a single year, however, does not capture the full benefit
of fumigation.  Establishing an orchard involves considerable costs,
including the maintenance of the orchard during the non-bearing years.
This investment bears fruit (literally, nuts) in the future.  Therefore,
another approach to evaluating the benefits fumigation is to calculate
the net present value of the orchard under different streams of costs
and returns.  Net present value (NPV) is a way of comparing different
investments by summing the discounted costs and returns over time to
calculate the value of the investment.  The formula for NPV is:

where t is the time period (year), T is the last year the orchard is in
production and r is the discount rate.  This analysis uses a rate of 7%
to represent a private discount rate or an individual’s trade-off of
money between time periods.  Since revenues and costs are not adjusted
for future inflation, all measures are in real terms.

Since the choice of discount rate is somewhat arbitrary, BEAD also
presents the internal rate of return (IRR), which is the discount rate
that makes NPV = 0.  One interpretation of this value is that it
represents the maximum rate of return on an investment that an
individual must be willing to accept before the investment would be
considered.  That is, if the IRR is 5%, only individuals willing to
accept a rate of return less than 5% would find the investment
worthwhile.

California Walnut

The current practice for walnut replant is to fumigate with methyl
bromide and chloropicrin.  An alternative is to use 1,3-D with
chloropicrin, but 1,3-D does not penetrate heavier soils as well as
methyl bromide and may not provide as effective control of nematodes and
soil pathogens.  Some growers may not be able to obtain permission to
use 1,3-D under California township caps, but BEAD will not consider
this possibility at this point.  Comparing methyl bromide and 1,3-D,
both with chloropicrin, for establishing an orchard will be the basis
for evaluating the benefits of methyl bromide.  A second alternative is
to fumigate with 1,3-D for nematode control followed by an application
of metam sodium for control of soil pathogens.  Metam sodium disperses
poorly in all but very coarse soils, which will further reduce efficacy.
 Comparing this alternative to current practice will allow BEAD to
evaluate the benefits of chloropicrin.  Finally, we consider fumigation
with 1,3-D alone to evaluate the benefits of fumigation more generally.

Replacing methyl bromide with 1,3-D, while maintaining the use of
chloropicrin, is estimated to result in a 4% decrease in yields during
production (Carpenter et al., 2000).  Other information suggests that
without the use of chloropicrin, i.e., 1,3-D alone, yield losses could
range from 15-25% in areas with high pathogen populations (Carter,
2007).  BEAD assumes that replacing chloropicrin with metam sodium would
result in an intermediate yield loss of 5-10%.  Yield losses are due to
soil pathogens that infect the trees at an early age, stunting their
growth.  Table 7 presents the expected differences in production and
revenue for California walnut, where operating costs are taken from
Buchner et al. (2002).  Elements of harvest costs are assumed to be
directly proportional to yield and BEAD adjusts costs accordingly.

Table 7.  Gross revenue, operating costs, and net operating revenues,
California walnuts orchard at full production.

	methyl bromide + chloropicrin	1,3-D + chloropicrin

(% change) 1	1,3-D + metam

(% change) 1	1,3-D alone

(% change) 1

Yield (lb/acre)	3,310	3,178

(-4.0%)	3,062

(-7.5%)	2,814

(-15%)

Price  ($/lb)	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65

Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	2,152	2,065

(-4.0%)	1,990

(-7.5%)	1,829

(-15.0%)

Operating Costs  ($/acre)	568	568	568	568

Harvest Costs  ($/acre)	362	351

(-2.8%)	342

(-5.3%)	323

(-10.6%)

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	1,222	1,077

(-11.9%)	1,011

(-17.3%)	868

(-28.9%)

Source:	USDA NASS (2002-2006), Buchner et al. (2002), BEAD calculations.
 Figures may not sum due to rounding.

1	Percent change in comparison to methyl bromide with chloropicrin.

The analysis in Table 7 indicates that even relatively minor changes in
yield can have large effects on net operating revenue.  A 4% change in
yield results in a 12% change in net operating revenue.  The analysis
suggests that methyl bromide is worth about $150/acre each year in terms
of improved yield during the lifespan of the walnut orchard.
Chloropicrin is valued at over $200/acre each year of production, a
value which includes the value of methyl bromide, since methyl bromide
is only used in combination.  Finally, while metam sodium is not
currently used because alternatives provide more benefits, compared to
1,3-D alone, metam sodium adds over $140/acre of value.

The analysis in Table 7 does not consider the investment producers must
make in establishing an orchard and maintaining it through several
non-bearing years.  Table 8 presents the information on the net
operating revenues, NPV and IRR for a walnut orchard under the four
treatment options.  Field preparation costs are similar for any type of
fumigation, but fumigation costs differ according to the mix of
chemicals and the cost of application.  Chemical costs are average
per-acre cost of products, which incorporates typical application rates.
 Chloropicrin can be applied with methyl bromide and 1,3-D, but use of
metam sodium requires two applications, which makes it more expensive.
Tree planting costs are identical regardless of fumigant.  BEAD assumes
that some trees must be replanted the following year.  We assume that
4%, or two trees, are replanted following fumigation with methyl bromide
and chloropicrin (Buchner et al., 2002); 6% are replanted with 1,3-D and
chloropicrin; 8% are replanted under the 1,3-D and metam sodium regime;
and 10% are replanted if 1,3-D alone is used.  The higher replant rates
represent the lower survival rate if nematodes are controlled but
orchard replant disorder or pathogens are not.  Trees begin to produce
in the fourth year, initially at 10% of production, climbing to full
production in the eighth year (Buchner et al., 2002).  However, orchards
fumigated with 1,3-D alone do not begin production until the fifth year,
representing delayed maturity due to pathogens that weaken the young
tree.  Returns during full production are shown in Table 7.  Finally,
orchards fumigated with 1,3-D alone are assumed to last one year less
than those fumigated with chloropicrin or metam sodium.

Table 8.  Net operating revenue, net present value (NPV), and internal
rate of return (IRR) of a walnut orchard.

Year	Stage	Methyl bromide + chloropicrin	1,3-D + chloropicrin	1,3-D +
metam sodium	1,3-D alone

1	Field Preparation	-237	-237	-237	-237

	Fumigation 1	-1,266	-751	-1,285	-794

	Establishment	-1,534	-1,534	-1,534	-1,534

2	Non-bearing 2	-396	-412	-429	-446

3	Non-bearing	-363	-363	-363	-363

4	Initial production 3	-258	-266	-272	-363

5	Partial production 5	-169	-185	-199	-287

6	Partial production 6	-43	-67	-88	-229

7	Partial production 6	539	491	449	-132

8	Full production 7	1,222	1,077	1,011	359

9-25	Full production 7	1,222	1,077	1,011	868

NPV (7% discount rate)	4,373	3,844	2,849	1,344

IRR	13.8%	13.9%	11.8%	9.6%

Source:  Buchner et al. (2002), and BEAD calculations.  Net operating
revenues are not discounted; negative numbers represent costs greater
than income.  Net present value is calculated assuming 7% discount rate.

1	Fumigation costs include chemical costs and application costs.  Methyl
bromide and 1,3-D can be applied with chloropicrin as a single product,
but 1,3-D and metam sodium must be applied separately.

2	In addition to operating costs, non-bearing costs include replanting
trees.

3	Initial production is 10% of full production.  On-set of production is
delayed one year if 1,3-D is used alone.

4	Production in the fifth year is 20% of full for combination
treatments.  Production is 10% of full production with 1,3-D alone.

5	Production in the sixth year is 30% of full for combination
treatments.  Production is 20% of full production with 1,3-D alone.

6	Production in the seventh year is 60% of full production for
combination treatments.  Production is 30% of full with 1,3-D alone.

7	Production ceases one year earlier with 1,3-D alone.

Assuming a 7% discount rate, establishing a walnut orchard, fumigating
with methyl bromide and chloropicrin, yields future returns valued at
over $4,300/acre today.  This is about $530 more per acre than an acre
treated with 1,3-D and chloropicrin, although the lower initial cost of
fumigating with 1,3-D and chloropicrin means that the internal rate of
return on the two investments are approximately equal.  Together, methyl
bromide and chloropicrin enhance the value of establishing a walnut
orchard by $1,000-1,500/acre compared to metam sodium.  While metam
sodium is not currently used to a great extent in walnut production,
compared with 1,3-D alone, metam sodium would increase the value of
establishing a walnut orchard by about $1,500/acre.  The IRR for an
orchard treated with 1,3-D alone is about 9.6% while that for
chloropicrin treatments is about 14%.  This means that, if an
alternative investment were available that paid a 10% return, e.g., the
stock market or another crop, walnuts would be a reasonable investment
if chloropicrin were available, but walnuts would not be a reasonable
investment if neither chloropicrin nor metam sodium were available.
However, without knowing what alternatives are available to almond
growers, BEAD cannot evaluate whether the availability of fumigants to
control soil pathogens makes almond production a viable activity.

These results would also apply almonds grown on heavier soils.  BEAD
estimates that nearly 43% of almond acres planted and 86% of walnut
plantings are currently treated with methyl bromide (see Table 2).  The
benefits of methyl bromide would eventually accrue to almost 240,000
bearing acres of almonds and 182,000 acres of walnut.  At full
production, additional yield is valued at about $150/acre (Table 7),
therefore methyl bromide adds about $63.3 million annually to the value
of California nut production.  The value of chloropicrin is higher than
that of methyl bromide, about $84.4 million annually, in part because
without chloropicrin, methyl bromide could probably not be used either.
Currently, metam sodium provides little benefit to producers on heavy
soils.  However, if chloropicrin and methyl bromide were not available,
control of soil pathogens would depend on metam sodium.  Despite a
relative lack of efficacy, metam sodium would still provide benefits of
over $59.1 million annually on these soils, compared to fumigation with
1,3-D alone.  Without these fumigations, some orchards would probably
not be established at all; thus these figures may understate the full
value of the fumigants.

California Almond

Where almonds are replanted after an existing almond orchard, poor
vegetative growth has been observed and tree mortality has been
estimated as high as 50% (Browne et al., 2006).  This would be the case
where no fumigant is used on replant sites.  With a one year fallow, but
no fumigant treatment, a 25-40% yield loss might be experienced
(depending on rootstock) with a 24-35% reduction compared to methyl
bromide treatment (Carpenter et al., 2000).

On lighter soils, 1,3-D with chloropicrin is an acceptable treatment for
replant disorder and nematode problems (Caprile and McKenry, 2006).  If
treated with metam-sodium alone, a yield loss of 10-30% could be
incurred (Carpenter et al., 2000).  Combining 1,3-D and metam sodium
would provide better efficacy; BEAD assumes a yield loss of 5%.  Using
1,3-D alone would be effective for locations with nematodes as key pests
and where a Prunus orchard had not previously been established.
Therefore, additional losses would not be expected.  Where an almond or
other Prunus orchard had been previously established, replant disorder
could result in intermediate losses that are assumed to range from
5-20%, depending on the key pests.

Table 9 presents the expected differences in production and revenue for
California almond cultivated on lighter soils.  Yield and price are
averages for 2001-2005 (USDA NASS, 2002-2006), see Table 1.  Operating
costs are taken from Duncan et al. (2006).  According to Duncan et al.,
harvest costs consist of a per-acre labor cost and hauling and shelling
charges that are proportional to yield.

Table 9.  Gross revenue, operating costs, and net operating revenues,
California almond orchard at full production.

	1,3-D + chloropicrin

	1,3-D + metam

(% change) 1	1,3-D alone

(% change) 1

Yield (lb/acre, shelled)	1,760

	1,672

(-5.0%)	1,584

(-10.0%)

Price  ($/lb)	1.65	1.65	1.65

Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	2,904

	2,759

(-5.0%)	2,614

(-10.0%)

Operating Costs  ($/acre)	1,302	1,302	1,302

Harvest Costs  ($/acre)	440	437

(-0.7%)	434

(-1.3%)

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	1,015	873

(-14.0%)	731

(-28.0%)

Source:	USDA NASS (2002-2006), Duncan et al. (2006), BEAD calculations.
Figures may not sum due to rounding.

1	Percent change in comparison to 1,3-D with chloropicrin.

As in the case of walnut, chloropicrin provides substantial benefits to
almond producers in terms of greater yields during the productive life
of an orchard.  Yield improvements due to use of chloropicrin are worth
about $140/acre every year of production.  Compared to 1,3-D alone, the
benefits of chloropicrin are about $280/acre.  This is nearly a 40%
increase in net operating revenue.

Table 10 presents the analysis of cash flow, NPV and IRR for almond
production in California, following the same approach as with walnut
production.  Replant rates in Year 2 are 1% for 1,3-D and chloropicrin
(Duncan et al., 2006), 3% for 1,3-D followed by metam sodium, and 3-5%
for 1,3-D alone, depending on the pests.  As noted above, where an
almond or other Prunus orchard had been previously established, replant
disorder could result in a greater percent of individual trees requiring
replant.   Trees begin producing in the third year, except when 1,3-D
alone is used.  Lack of control over soil pathogens or replant disorder
is assumed to weaken the trees and delay maturity by one year.  This
carries through the next several years so that full production is not
reached until the eighth year, instead of the seventh.  The orchard is
assumed to last 25 years when treated with chloropicrin or metam sodium,
but 24 years when 1,3-D alone is used.

Table 10.  Net operating revenue, net present value (NPV), and internal
rate of return (IRR) of an almond orchard.

Year	Stage	1,3-D + chloropicrin	1,3-D + metam sodium	1,3-D alone

0	Field Preparation	-824	-824	-824

	Fumigation 1	-751	-1,285	-494

1	Establishment	-1,558	-1,558	-1,558

2	Non-bearing 2	-561	-584	-607

3	Initial production 3	-577	-599	-877

4	Partial production 4	-402	-460	-620

5	Partial production 5	697	583	-517

6	Partial production 6	943	815	469

7	Full production 7	1,015	873	686

8-25	Full production 8	1,015	873	731

NPV (7% discount rate)	3,568	1,922	19

IRR	13.5%	10.4%	7.0%

Source:  Duncan et al. (2006), and BEAD calculations.  Net operating
revenues are not discounted; negative numbers represent costs greater
than income.  Net present value is calculated assuming 7% discount rate.

1	Fumigation costs include chemical costs and application costs.  1,3-D
and chloropicrin can be applied as a single product, but 1,3-D and metam
sodium must be applied separately.

2	In addition to operating costs, non-bearing costs include replanting
trees.

3	Initial production is 15% of full production.  On-set of production is
delayed one year if 1,3-D is used alone.

4	Production in the fourth year is 40% of full for combination
treatments.  Production is 15% of full production with 1,3-D alone.

5	Production in the fifth year is 80% of full for combination
treatments.  Production is 40% of full production with 1,3-D alone.

6	Production in the sixth year is 90% of full production.  Production is
80% of full with 1,3-D alone.

7	Production is 90% of full with 1,3-D alone.

8	Production ceases one year earlier with 1,3-D alone.

When viewed over time, the value of chloropicrin is even more
substantial.  Compared to metam sodium, chloropicrin increases the value
of an investment in almonds by over $1,600/acre.  Although metam sodium
is not commonly used for replanting almond orchards, in the absence of
chloropicrin, it would provide about $1,900/acre in value compared to
1,3-D alone.  On replanted acreage, where the replant disorder can be
expected, if fumigation with 1,3-D were the only option, the orchard
would probably not present a viable investment.  At a 7% discount rate,
the present value of future production is near zero.

This result would also apply walnuts grown on lighter soils.  BEAD
estimates that at least 1,300 acres of almond and about 700 acres of
walnut are treated with chloropicrin and 1,3-D, or about 6% of almond
acres planted and 14% of walnut plantings.  The benefits of chloropicrin
would therefore accrue to almost 32,700 bearing acres of almonds and
26,600 acres of walnut, in addition to what was considered above.  At
about $140/acre, chloropicrin adds another $4.6 million annually to the
value of California almond production and $3.7 million in walnut
production.  This is in addition to the value of metam sodium, which
although rarely used, provides about $8.4 million in unobserved benefits
to producers who might otherwise have to rely on 1,3-D alone.  Benefits
might well be greater since the low rate of return without chloropicrin
or metam sodium may discourage some individuals from establishing an
orchard.

Conclusions

The California nut industry derives significant benefits from soil
fumigation with methyl bromide and chloropicrin.  Soils are fumigated to
control a poorly understood suite of pests, termed the ‘replant
disorder,’ which consists of various nematodes and soil pathogens that
build up over time in orchards and can severely weaken young trees when
the orchard is replanted.  Although 1,3-D provides good nematode control
soil pathogens would be a problem if not for methyl bromide and/or
chloropicrin.  The two chemicals are particularly valuable on some soils
because 1,3-D does not penetrate heavy and/or wet soils as well.

The benefits of soil fumigation are felt over the lifespan of an orchard
because weakened trees never reach full potential.  Methyl bromide
contributes about $63.3 million annually to almond and walnut
production, compared to fumigation with 1,3-D and chloropicrin.  The
total value of production is just over $2 billion annually.  Were it not
for chloropicrin, methyl bromide could not be used either and additional
acreage would be effected, so the value of chloropicrin is considerably
higher.  BEAD estimates that chloropicrin contributes about $92.7
million annually, compared to fumigation with 1,3-D followed by an
application of metam sodium.

These figures do not include the value of metam sodium, which is
currently not widely used because methyl bromide and chloropicrin are
more effective.  Without metam sodium, however, the value of methyl
bromide and chloropicrin, in comparison to 1,3-D, would nearly double.
These figures also do not include the benefits of soil fumigation to the
decision to invest in establishing a nut orchard.  Soil fumigation may
make the cost of establishment a worthwhile investment due to increased
future returns.

These figures also do not include the possibility that 1,3-D would not
be available to some growers because of township caps, which restrict
the total amount of 1,3-D that can be used in a given area on all crops.

References

Almond Board of California.  2007.  Almond industry position report,
2006-2007 crop year.  Almond Board of California, March, 6pp.  Available
at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.almondboard.com/Trade/PositionReportsList.cfm?snItemNumber=4
57"
http://www.almondboard.com/Trade/PositionReportsList.cfm?snItemNumber=45
7 .

Buchner, R., J. Edstrom, J. Hasey, W. Krueger, W. Olson, W. Reil, K.
Klonsky, and R. De Moura.  2002.  Sample costs to establish a walnut
orchard and produce walnuts.  University of California Cooperative
Extension publication WN-SV-02, 19pp.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/"  http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/ .

Cal DPR (California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation).  2000-2005.  Usage
of Agricultural Pesticides in California: Pesticide Usage Report.
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, at
HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pmsp_form.cfm?usdaregion=National%20Site
"  http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PUSE/puse1.html  .

Caprile, J. and McKenry, M. 2006. Orchard replant considerations.
University of California Extension, Contra Costa County Crop Currents,
Fall 2006, attached in University of California Extension Tree Topics
Oct. 30, 2006, vol 31, issue 8.   HYPERLINK
"http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/crops/CAPRILE_ORCHARD_REPLANT_CONSIDER
ATIONS_12_06.pdf"
http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/crops/CAPRILE_ORCHARD_REPLANT_CONSIDERA
TIONS_12_06.pdf

Duncan, R., P. Verdegaal, B. Holtz, K. Klonsky, and R. De Moura.  2006.
Sample costs to establish an orchard and produce almonds.  University of
California Cooperative Extension publication AM-VN-06-1, 23pp.
Available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/"
http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/ .

ERS.  2005a.  “U.S. almond industry:  The biggest in the world.”
Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook, FTS-316, May 26, pp 19-25.  Economic
Research Service, US Dept. of Agriculture.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/Almonds.p
df"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/Almonds.pd
f .

ERS.  2005b.  “Walnuts:  Second biggest nut crop produced in the
United States.”  Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook, FTS-318, September 28,
pp 20-26.  Economic Research Service, US Dept. of Agriculture.
Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/Walnuts.p
df"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/Walnuts.pd
f .

ERS.  2005b.  “The U.S. pistachio nut industry.”  Fruit and Tree
Nuts Outlook, FTS-298, May 22, pp 18-20.  Economic Research Service, US
Dept. of Agriculture.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/pistachio
_nut.pdf"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FruitAndTreeNuts/fruitnutpdf/pistachio_
nut.pdf .

McKenry, M. 1999. The replant problem and its management. Catalina
Publishing, Fresno, CA.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec1.pdf"
http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec1.pdf    HYPERLINK
"http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec2.pdf"
http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec2.pdf    HYPERLINK
"http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec3.pdf"
http://www.uckac.edu/nematode/PDF/Replant-Sec3.pdf

OMB (Office of Management and Budget).  2003.  Circular A-4, Regulatory
Analysis, September 17, available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html .

USDA NASS.  2002-2006b.  Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, Summary.  National
Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, July,
at   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ .

USDA NASS.  2003.  California Pistachio Acreage Report.  US Dept. of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, California Field
Office, July.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/in
dexac.asp"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/ind
exac.asp .

USDA NASS.  2001-2006.  California Almond Acreage Report.  US Dept. of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, California Field
Office, May.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/in
dexac.asp"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/ind
exac.asp .

USDA NASS.  2001-2004, 2006.  California Walnut Acreage Report.  US
Dept. of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,
California Field Office, May.  Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/in
dexac.asp"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/ind
exac.asp .

 The Office of Management and Budget suggests using a 3% and 7% rate
when evaluating the cost and benefits of government regulation, where 7%
is an estimate of the before-tax rate of return to private capital (OMB,
2003).

 PAGE

 PAGE   1