[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25133-25134]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft
Registration Renewal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on February 15, 2013, vol. 78, no. 32, page 11265. The
information collected on an Aircraft Re-Registration Application, AC
Form 8050-1A and an Aircraft Registration Renewal Application, AC Form
8050-1B, will be used by the FAA to verify and update aircraft
registration information collected for an aircraft when it was first
registered.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 2120-0729.
    Title: Aircraft Re-Registration and Registration Renewal.
    Form Numbers: AC Forms 8050-1A and 8050-1B.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information collected on an Aircraft Re-
Registration Application (AC Form 8050-1A) and Aircraft Registration
Renewal Application (AC Form 8050-1B) will be used by the FAA to verify
and update the aircraft registration information collected for an
aircraft when it was first registered. The updated registration
database will then be used by the FAA to monitor and control U.S.
airspace and to distribute safety notices and airworthiness directives
to aircraft owners.
    Respondents: Approximately 121,660 aircraft owners.
    Frequency: Information is collected triennially.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 60,830 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's

performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA
to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information
collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will
summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-10036 Filed 4-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66978-66980]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23455]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1650]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1650, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are

provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

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

    Dated: September 12, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    I. Watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Upper Rogue Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Jackson County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Eagle Point....................  City Hall, 17 Buchanan Avenue
                                          South, Eagle Point, OR 97524.
City of Shady Cove.....................  City Hall, 22451 Highway 62,
                                          Shady Cove, OR 97539.
Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County.  Jackson County Development
                                          Services, 10 South Oakdale
                                          Avenue, Room 100, Medford, OR
                                          97501.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Los Angeles County, California and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 13-09-0682S Preliminary Date: March 25, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Agoura Hills...................  Civic Center, 30001 Ladyface
                                          Court, Agoura Hills, CA 91301.
City of Westlake Village...............  City Hall, 31200 Oak Crest
                                          Drive, Westlake Village, CA
                                          91361.
Unincorporated Areas of Los Angeles      Public Works Headquarters,
 County.                                  Watershed Management Division,
                                          900 South Fremont Avenue,
                                          Alhambra, CA 91803.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Ventura County, California and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Projects: 13-09-0682S & 15-09-0445S Preliminary Date: March 25, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Thousand Oaks..................  City Hall, 2100 East Thousand
                                          Oaks Boulevard, Thousand Oaks,
                                          CA 91362.
Unincorporated Areas of Ventura County.  Ventura County Public Works
                                          Agency, 800 South Victoria
                                          Drive, Ventura, CA 93009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Burlington County, New Jersey (All Jurisdictions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 15-02-0255S Preliminary Date: April 8, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borough of Fieldsboro..................  Municipal Building, 204
                                          Washington Street, Fieldsboro,
                                          NJ 08505.
Borough of Medford Lakes...............  Municipal Building, Clerk's
                                          Office, 3rd Floor, 1 Cabin
                                          Circle, Medford Lakes, NJ
                                          08055.
Borough of Palmyra.....................  Borough Hall, 2nd Floor, 20
                                          West Broad Street, Palmyra, NJ
                                          08065.
Borough of Pemberton...................  Municipal Building, 50 Egbert
                                          Street, Pemberton, NJ 08068.
Borough of Riverton....................  Borough Hall, 505A Howard
                                          Street, Riverton, NJ 08077.
Borough of Wrightstown.................  Municipal Building, 21 Saylors
                                          Pond Road, Wrightstown, NJ
                                          08562.
City of Beverly........................  City Hall, 2nd Floor, 446 Broad
                                          Street, Beverly, NJ 08010.

City of Bordentown.....................  City Hall, Tax Office, 324
                                          Farnsworth Avenue, Bordentown,
                                          NJ 08505.
City of Burlington.....................  City Hall, Municipal Office,
                                          525 High Street, Burlington,
                                          NJ 08016.
Township of Bass River.................  Bass River Township Municipal
                                          Building, 3 North Maple
                                          Avenue, New Gretna, NJ 08087.
Township of Bordentown.................  Municipal Building, Community
                                          Development Office, 1
                                          Municipal Drive, Bordentown,
                                          NJ 08505.
Township of Burlington.................  Township Municipal Building,
                                          Engineering Department, 851
                                          Old York Road, Burlington, NJ
                                          08016.
Township of Chesterfield...............  Municipal Building, 300
                                          Bordentown-Chesterfield Road,
                                          Chesterfield, NJ 08515.
Township of Cinnaminson................  Township Building, 1621
                                          Riverton Road, Cinnaminson, NJ
                                          08077.
Township of Delanco....................  Township Hall, Clerk's Office,
                                          770 Coopertown Road, Delanco,
                                          NJ 08075.
Township of Delran.....................  Municipal Building, 900 Chester
                                          Avenue, Delran, NJ 08075.
Township of Eastampton.................  Municipal Building, 12 Manor
                                          House Court, Eastampton, NJ
                                          08060.
Township of Edgewater Park.............  Township Building, 400 Delanco
                                          Road, Edgewater Park, NJ
                                          08010.
Township of Evesham....................  Municipal Building, Department
                                          of Community Development, 984
                                          Tuckerton Road, Evesham, NJ
                                          08053.
Township of Florence...................  Municipal Complex, Clerk's
                                          Office, 711 Broad Street,
                                          Florence, NJ 08518.
Township of Hainesport.................  Township Municipal Building,
                                          1401 Marne Highway,
                                          Hainesport, NJ 08036.
Township of Lumberton..................  Municipal Building, 35
                                          Municipal Drive, Lumberton, NJ
                                          08048.
Township of Mansfield..................  Mansfield Township Municipal
                                          Complex, 3135 Route 206 South,
                                          Suite 1, Columbus, NJ 08022.
Township of Maple Shade................  Municipal Building, Community
                                          Development, 200 Stiles
                                          Avenue, Maple Shade, NJ 08052.
Township of Medford....................  Municipal Hall, 17 North Main
                                          Street, Medford, NJ 08055.
Township of Moorestown.................  Town Hall, Department of
                                          Community Development, 2nd
                                          Floor, 111 West 2nd Street,
                                          Moorestown, NJ 08057.
Township of Mount Holly................  Municipal Building, Clerk's
                                          Office, 3rd Floor, 23
                                          Washington Street, Mount
                                          Holly, NJ 08060.
Township of Mount Laurel...............  Municipal Building, 100 Mount
                                          Laurel Road, Mount Laurel, NJ
                                          08054.
Township of New Hanover................  New Hanover Township Municipal
                                          Building, 2 Hockamick Road,
                                          Cookstown, NJ 08511.
Township of North Hanover..............  North Hanover Township
                                          Municipal Building, 41
                                          Schoolhouse Road, Jacobstown,
                                          NJ 08562.
Township of Pemberton..................  Municipal Building, 500
                                          Pemberton-Browns Mills Road,
                                          Pemberton, NJ 08068.
Township of Riverside..................  Administrative Building,
                                          Construction Office, 237 South
                                          Pavilion Avenue, Riverside, NJ
                                          08075.
Township of Shamong....................  Municipal Building, 105 Willow
                                          Grove Road, Shamong, NJ 08088.
Township of Southampton................  Municipal Building, 5 Retreat
                                          Road, Southampton, NJ 08088.
Township of Springfield................  Springfield Township Municipal
                                          Building, 2159 Jacksonville-
                                          Jobstown Road, Jobstown, NJ
                                          08041.
Township of Tabernacle.................  Town Hall, 163 Carranza Road,
                                          Tabernacle, NJ 08088.
Township of Washington.................  Washington Township Municipal
                                          Building, Emergency Management
                                          Office, 2436 County Route 563,
                                          Egg Harbor City, NJ 08215.
Township of Westampton.................  Municipal Complex, Construction
                                          Office, 710 Rancocas Road,
                                          Westampton, NJ 08060.
Township of Willingboro................  Township Municipal Building, 1
                                          Reverend Dr. Martin Luther
                                          King Jr. Drive, Willingboro,
                                          NJ 08046.
Township of Woodland...................  Woodland Township Municipal
                                          Building, 3943 Main Street,
                                          Chatsworth, NJ 08019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-23455 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2286]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53070; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-63

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Prohibition of Trade Shredding

January 6, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On October 25, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ the proposed rule change relating to the prohibition of
trade shredding. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 5, 2005.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52834 (November 25,
2005), 70 FR 72492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 707, Conduct Inconsistent with
Just and Equitable Principles of Trade, to prohibit members, member
organizations and persons associated with or employed by a member or
member organization from unbundling orders for execution for the
primary purpose of maximizing a monetary or like payment to the member,
member organization, or person associated with or employed by a member
or member organization.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange,\4\ particularly Section 6(b)(5) of the Act which, among other
things, requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
securities transactions, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.\5\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change should help eliminate the
distortive practice of trade shredding, and, therefore, promote just
and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2005-63), be
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-256 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61962-61963]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0690]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight
Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) Program.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on September 4, 2019. The collection involves the voluntary
submission of information gained through the Flight Operations Quality
Assurance (FOQA) Program. FOQA is a voluntary safety program designed
to improve aviation safety through the proactive use of flight-recorded
data. The information collected will allow operators to use this data
to identify and correct deficiencies in all areas of flight operations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ray by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0660.
    Title: Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) Program.
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an Information Collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period

soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on September 4, 2019 (84 FR 46604). Comments were received
from the 60 day comment period, and the estimated time burden has been
adjusted to reflect those comments. The number of respondents was also
updated to reflect the most current number. Flight Operations Quality
Assurance (FOQA) is a voluntary safety program designed to improved
aviation safety through the proactive use of flight-recorded data.
Operators will use this data to identify and correct deficiencies in
all areas of flight operations. Properly used, FOQA data can reduce or
eliminate safety risks, as well as minimize deviations from
regulations. Through access to de-identified aggregate FOQA data, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA can identify and analyze national
trends and target resources to reduce operational risks in the National
Airspace System (NAS), air traffic control (ATC), flight operations and
airport operations.
    The FAA and the air transportation industry have sought additional
means for addressing safety problems and identifying potential safety
hazards. Based on the experiences of foreign air carriers, the results
of several FAA-sponsored studies, and input received from government/
industry safety forums, the FAA concluded that wide implementation of
FOQA programs could have significant potential to reduce air carrier
accident rates below current levels. The value of FOQA programs is the
early identification of adverse safety trends, which, if uncorrected,
could lead to accidents. A key element in FOQA is the application of
corrective action and follow-up to ensure that unsafe conditions are
effectively remediated.
    Respondents: 64 Air Carriers (55 with existing programs and 9
carriers with new programs).
    Frequency: Once for a certificate holders seeking approval of a
program, monthly (or less depending on agreement with FAA office) for
certificate holders with an approved program.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 Hours for certificate
holders seeking approval of a new program, 30.0 hour per year for
certificate holders with an approved program.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 100 hours per new respondent, 30
hours annually per existing respondents.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 8, 2019.
Sandra L. Ray
Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA, Policy Integration Branch, AFS-270.
[FR Doc. 2019-24713 Filed 11-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8635-8636]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03199]

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

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: PR15-10-001.
    Applicants: Southcross Nueces Pipelines LLC.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e), (g):
Amendment to be effective 2/6/2015; TOFC: 1270.
    Filed Date: 2/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150206-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/15.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: PR15-19-000.
    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Midstates Natural Gas) Corp.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1),: Update to Currently
Effective Rates to be effective 1/4/2015; TOFC: 1000.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5151.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: CP15-31-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Notice cancelling rate for natural gas transportation
service of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20141216-5318.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: CP07-403-003.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, et al.
    Description: Abbreviated Joint Application Requesting Amendment of
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity of Gulf Crossing
Pipeline Company LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150123-5300.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: CP07-398-007.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, et al.
    Description: Abbreviated Joint Application Requesting Amendment of
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity of Gulf Crossing
Pipeline Company LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20150123-5300.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-431-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate
ConocoPhillips 2014-02-04 to be effective 2/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-432-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/04/15
Negotiated Rates--Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (HUB) 7540-89 to be
effective 2/3/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-433-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate
PAL Agreement--Koch Energy Services, LLC to be effective 2/11/2015.

    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-434-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 2015
Miscellaneous and Housekeeping Filing to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-435-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Vol 2--
Expiration--Non-Conforming Agreement-Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc.
to be effective 2/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20150205-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-436-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2015-
02-05 Tenaska IT to be effective 2/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20150205-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-437-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/06/15
Negotiated Rates--Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (HUB) 7540-89 to be
effective 2/5/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150206-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-438-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/06/15
Negotiated Rates--ConEdison Energy Inc. (HUB) 2275-89 to be effective
2/5/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150206-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-439-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 02/06/15
Negotiated Rates--Sequent Energy Management (HUB) 3075-89 to be
effective 2/5/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150206-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-440-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: New Firm and
Interruptible Lateral Service (FLS and ILS) to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150206-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.
    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 date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1272-002.
    Applicants: National Grid LNG, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Section 36 to be
effective 3/1/2015 under RP14-1272 Filing Type: 580.
    Filed Date: 2/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150206-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/15.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 9, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03199 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


############### WOTUS Wetland 50-Mile Buffer Analysis  #######################

# Author: Sam Ennett
# Date Created: 05/17/22
# Date updated: 10/05/22

options(stringsAsFactors=FALSE)

pacman::p_load(dplyr, sf, tidycensus, readxl, openxlsx, tidyverse)

rm(list=ls())
gc()
memory.limit(size=100000)

# Variables to change before running the code ---------------------------------
Input_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/100 Mile Buffer/Inputs/"
Output_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/100 Mile Buffer/Outputs/"
TAMU_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/EPA-Economic and Water Quality Modeling and Assessment Support - From_TAMU/"
GIS_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/Le, Alyssa - GIS_Data/TIGER/"
ORM_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/ORM Data Processing/Outputs/"
wood_poole_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/National Analysis/Population Projections/Outputs/"

# load(paste0(Output_path, "50mileWetlandAnalysis_10-5-22.RData"))

# Conversion factor
dist_conv_metertomiles <- 0.000621371

# Buffer distances
Buffer_Dist <- c(50, 30)

# ACS Call Variables
years <- c(2019)
geography <- "county"

# Activate census API key
census_api_key("a37705549debf5d0b8e43a4fa62c7eb552f928bc")

Census_var <- c("S2501_C01_001E", # occupied housing units
                "B19013_001",     # median household income
                "DP02_0016E")     # persons per household

# Read in data ----------------------------------------------------------------
## Read in state crosswalk for FIPS code, regions -----------------------------
State_xwalk <- read.csv(paste0(Input_path,"us-state-ansi-fips-region.csv"), header=T) %>%
  filter(stusps!="AK" & stusps!="DC") # remove Alaska to deal with separately

State_xwalk$st <- str_pad(State_xwalk$st, width = 2, side = "left", pad = "0")

## TIGER Boundary Dataset ------------------------------------------------------
### Import TIGER boundaries
TIGER_boundary_raw <- st_read(paste0(GIS_path, "2019/County/tl_2019_us_county.shp"))

## Import shapefile with predetermined oversize counties
big_count <- st_read(paste0(Input_path, "tl_2020_us_county_CEC_oversized_sub.shp"))

## Get unique GEOIDs for oversized counties
big_geoid <- unique(big_count$GEOID)
big_st <- unique(big_count$STATEFP)

TIGER_boundary <-  subset(TIGER_boundary_raw, !(GEOID %in% big_geoid))

## HAWQS HUC Boundaries --------------------------------------------------------
# create list of directories
hawqs_dirs <- list.dirs(path = paste0(TAMU_path,"HAWQS_HUC_Dataset_2022-01"), recursive = FALSE)

# Read in all HAWQS boundaries
if (exists("hawqs_huc12")) {
  rm(hawqs_huc12)
}

for (i in 1:length(hawqs_dirs)) {
  if (exists("hawqs_huc12")){
    temp_hawqs_huc12 <- st_read(paste0(hawqs_dirs[[i]],"/SWAT/Fields_CDL/HUC12/Merged",
                                       substr(hawqs_dirs[[i]],nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])-1,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])),
                                       "/Watershed/Shapes/demwshed.shp")) %>%
      mutate(region = i)
    hawqs_huc12 <- rbind(hawqs_huc12, temp_hawqs_huc12)
    rm(temp_hawqs_huc12)
  }
  else {
    hawqs_huc12 <- st_read(paste0(hawqs_dirs[[i]],"/SWAT/Fields_CDL/HUC12/Merged",
                                  substr(hawqs_dirs[[i]],nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])-1,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])),
                                  "/Watershed/Shapes/demwshed.shp")) %>%
      mutate(region = i)
  }
}
unique(hawqs_huc12$region)
# st_write(hawqs_huc12, paste0(Output_path, "hawqs_huc12.shp"))

## Import Census Data ---------------------------------------------------------
# use S2501_C01_001E "occupied housing units"
# figure out how to make it flexible for CBGs or Counties

# Census Occupied Housing Data Call -------------------------------------------
states <- State_xwalk$stusps

cen_data <- data.frame()

if (exists("cen_temp_data")) {
  rm(cen_temp_data)
}

## Census API Call ------------------------------------------------------------
for (i in 1:length(years)) {
  cen_temp_data <- map_df(states, function(x) {
    get_acs(geography = geography,
            year = years[i],
            survey = "acs5",
            state = x,
            variables = Census_var,
            overwrite = T)
  }) %>% mutate(year = years[i])
  cen_data <- rbind(cen_data, cen_temp_data)
}

## Pivot Census Data Wider
cen_data_wide <- cen_data %>%
  select(GEOID, variable, estimate) %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate")

## Save Global Environment ----------------------------------------------------
save.image(file = paste0(Output_path, "200mileWetlandAnalysis_All_7-14-22.RData"))

# GIS Analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------
## Regular Counties -----------------------------------------------------------

### Convert polygons to North American Albers projection ----------------------
TIGER_boundary_albers <- st_transform(TIGER_boundary,
                                crs="+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs ")

### Create centroids for boundary polygons ------------------------------------
TIGER_boundary_points <- st_centroid(TIGER_boundary_albers)

## Reproject HUC 12 Boundaries ------------------------------------------------
hawqs_huc12 <- st_transform(hawqs_huc12,
             crs="+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs ")

hawqs_huc12$Area_m2 <- st_area(hawqs_huc12)

## Buffer and Intersect Loop ---------------------------------------------------
ptm <- proc.time()
dist_conv_metertomiles <- 0.000621371
state_fips <- unique(TIGER_boundary$STATEFP)
buff_50 <- list()
buff_30 <- list()

for (j in 1:length(state_fips)) { # length(state_fips)

  fac_buffer <- list()
  buff_int <- list()
  buff_int_nogeom <- list()

  boundary_points_filt <- TIGER_boundary_points %>%
    filter(STATEFP == state_fips[j]) # state_fips[j]

  for (i in 1:length(Buffer_Dist)) {
    # Draw specified buffers around facility locations
    fac_buffer[[i]] <-
      st_buffer(boundary_points_filt, dist = Buffer_Dist[i] / dist_conv_metertomiles)

    # Intersect the facility buffers with CBG boundaries
    buff_int[[i]] <- st_intersection(fac_buffer[[i]], hawqs_huc12)

    # Calculate area of intersection
    buff_int[[i]]$Int_Area_m2 <- st_area(buff_int[[i]])

    # drop geometry for space
    buff_int_nogeom[[i]] <- buff_int[[i]] %>%
      st_drop_geometry()

  }

  rm(buff_int, fac_buffer)
  gc()

  buff_50[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom[[1]] %>%
    select(GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)

  buff_30[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom[[2]] %>%
    select(GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)

}
proc.time() - ptm

## Combine Buffer Datasets ----------------------------------------------------
for (i in 1:length(buff_50)) {
  if (exists("buff_50_total")) {
    buff_50_temp <- buff_50[[i]]

    buff_50_total <- rbind(buff_50_total, buff_50_temp)
  } else {
    buff_50_total <- buff_50[[i]]
  }
}

for (i in 1:length(buff_30)) {
  if (exists("buff_30_total")) {
    buff_30_temp <- buff_30[[i]]

    buff_30_total <- rbind(buff_30_total, buff_30_temp)
  } else {
    buff_30_total <- buff_30[[i]]
  }
}

# Calculate the proportion of the HUC within each buffer
buff_50_total$HUC_RATIO_50 <- with(buff_50_total, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))
buff_30_total$HUC_RATIO_30 <- with(buff_30_total, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))

## Oversized Counties ----------------------------------------------------------
big_count_albers <- st_transform(big_count,
                                 crs="+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs ")

big_count_points <- st_centroid(big_count_albers)

big_count_points$Split_GEOID <- ifelse(duplicated(big_count_points$GEOID)==FALSE, paste0(big_count_points$GEOID, "_1"), paste0(big_count_points$GEOID, "_2"))

### Buffer and Intersect Loop ---------------------------------------------------

dist_conv_metertomiles <- 0.000621371
buff_50_BC <- list()
buff_30_BC <- list()

for (j in 1:length(big_st)) { # length(state_fips)

  fac_buffer_BC <- list()
  buff_int_BC <- list()
  buff_int_nogeom_BC <- list()

  boundary_points_filt_BC <- big_count_points %>%
    filter(STATEFP == big_st[j])

  for (i in 1:length(Buffer_Dist)) {
    # Draw specified buffers around facility locations
    fac_buffer_BC[[i]] <-
      st_buffer(boundary_points_filt_BC, dist = Buffer_Dist[i] / dist_conv_metertomiles)

    # Intersect the facility buffers with CBG boundaries
    buff_int_BC[[i]] <- st_intersection(fac_buffer_BC[[i]], hawqs_huc12)

    # Calculate area of intersection
    buff_int_BC[[i]]$Int_Area_m2 <- st_area(buff_int_BC[[i]])

    # drop geometry for space
    buff_int_nogeom_BC[[i]] <- buff_int_BC[[i]] %>%
      st_drop_geometry()

  }

  rm(buff_int_BC, fac_buffer_BC)
  gc()

  buff_50_BC[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom_BC[[1]] %>%
    select(GEOID, Split_GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)

  buff_30_BC[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom_BC[[2]] %>%
    select(GEOID, Split_GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)
}

### Combine Buffer Datasets ----------------------------------------------------
rm(buff_50_total_BC)
rm(buff_30_total_BC)

for (i in 1:length(buff_50_BC)) {
  if (exists("buff_50_total_BC")) {
    buff_50_temp <- buff_50_BC[[i]]

    buff_50_total_BC <- rbind(buff_50_total_BC, buff_50_temp)
  } else {
    buff_50_total_BC <- buff_50_BC[[i]]
  }
}

for (i in 1:length(buff_30_BC)) {
  if (exists("buff_30_total_BC")) {
    buff_30_temp <- buff_30_BC[[i]]

    buff_30_total_BC <- rbind(buff_30_total_BC, buff_30_temp)
  } else {
    buff_30_total_BC <- buff_30_BC[[i]]
  }
}

# Calculate the proportion of the HUC within each buffer
buff_50_total_BC$HUC_RATIO_50 <- with(buff_50_total_BC, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))
buff_30_total_BC$HUC_RATIO_30 <- with(buff_30_total_BC, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))

# Bind Regular and Oversize Areas together ------------------------------------
buff_50_total$Split_GEOID <- buff_50_total$GEOID
buff_30_total$Split_GEOID <- buff_30_total$GEOID

buff_50_bind <- rbind(buff_50_total, buff_50_total_BC)
buff_30_bind <- rbind(buff_30_total, buff_30_total_BC)

end.time <- sys.time()
# Format Data for Analysis ----------------------------------------------------
## HAWQS wetlands -------------------------------------------------------------
### Region numerals
numerals <- substr(hawqs_dirs,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])-1,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]]))

### Read in HAWQS SWAT Inputs
# hawqs_hru <- read.csv(paste0(Input_path, "hawqs_hru.csv"))

# The below code takes ~10 minutes to run.
if (exists("hawqs_hru")) {
  rm(hawqs_hru)
}

for (i in 1:length(numerals)) {
  if (exists("hawqs_hru")){
    temp_hawqs_hru <- read.csv(paste0(TAMU_path, "SWAT_Input_Files_2022-01/hawqs-v2-",numerals[[i]],"-huc12-hru.csv"))
    hawqs_hru <- rbind(hawqs_hru, temp_hawqs_hru)
    rm(temp_hawqs_hru)
  }
  else {
    hawqs_hru <- read.csv(paste0(TAMU_path, "SWAT_Input_Files_2022-01/hawqs-v2-",numerals[[i]],"-huc12-hru.csv"))
  }
  hawqs_hru$Subbasin <- str_pad(hawqs_hru$Subbasin, width = 12, side = "left", pad = "0")
}

### HAWQS HRU QA ---------------------------------------------------------------
hawqs_hru_QA <- hawqs_hru %>%
  mutate(huc8 = substr(Subbasin, 1, 4)) %>%
  filter(huc8 == "0808" | huc8 == "0804")

## 404 Modeled Impacts to Wetlands -------------------------------------
orm_old <- read_excel(path = paste0(ORM_path, "FINAL_404_ImpactChanges_2021.09.23.v2.xlsx"), sheet = "Impacts_By_HUC12")
orm <- read.csv(paste0(ORM_path, "Impacts_By_HUC12_2022.07.28.csv"))

## Summarize HAWQS Wetland Areas by HUC12 -------------------------------------
hru_wetland <- hawqs_hru %>%
  rename(HUC12 = Subbasin) %>%
  group_by(HUC12) %>%
  summarise(TotalWetlandArea = sum(HruArea[Land_Use=="AGWT" | Land_Use=="AGWF" | Land_Use=="RIWF" | Land_Use=="RIWN" | Land_Use=="UPWF" | Land_Use=="UPWN"]),
            ForestWetlandArea = sum(HruArea[Land_Use=="AGWF" | Land_Use=="RIWF" | Land_Use=="UPWF"]))

# Merge buffer data frames
buff_merge <- merge(buff_50_bind, buff_30_bind, by = c("Split_GEOID", "HUC12"), all.x = T)

## Merge Datasets -------------------------------------------------------------
### Join summarized wetland areas to HUC12 boundaries by HUC12
hawqs_wetland_changes_merge <- Reduce(function(x, y) merge(x=x, y=y, by="HUC12", all.x=T),
       list(buff_merge, hru_wetland, orm))

hawqs_wetland_changes_summary <- hawqs_wetland_changes_merge %>%
  group_by(Split_GEOID) %>%
  summarise(Prop.Forested = (sum((ForestWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_50))/sum((TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_50))),
            Baseline.Wetlands_50 = sum(TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_50, na.rm = T),
            Baseline.Wetlands_30 = sum(TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_30, na.rm = T),
            Prop.local = sum((TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_30), na.rm = T)/sum((TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_50), na.rm = T),
            impacts.NWPR.perm = sum((PERM_TOTAL_NWPR*HUC_RATIO_50), na.rm = T),
            impacts.Rapanos.perm = sum((PERM_TOTAL_Rapanos*HUC_RATIO_50), na.rm = T),
            impacts.NWPR.temp = sum((TEMP_TOTAL_NWPR*HUC_RATIO_50), na.rm = T),
            impacts.Rapanos.temp = sum((TEMP_TOTAL_Rapanos*HUC_RATIO_50), na.rm = T)) %>%
  mutate(GEOID = substr(Split_GEOID, 1, 5))

### QA - how many HUC12s have missing wetland change data? Over half.
length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12[is.na(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$PERM_ACRES_CHANGE)]))/
  length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12))

### QA - how many HUC12s have missing wetland data? Less than 3% but mostly in region 08; 0804 and 0808
length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12[is.na(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$TotalWetlandArea)]))/
  length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12))
#*# AL: Created a data frame so you could investigate further.
wetland_area_issues <- hawqs_wetland_changes_merge[which(is.na(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$TotalWetlandArea)), ]

### Join boundary polygons with census data by GEOID
census_wetland_merge <- merge(hawqs_wetland_changes_summary, cen_data_wide, by = "GEOID") %>%
  mutate(STATEFP = substr(GEOID,1,2))

## Read in Woods and Poole Data -----------------------------------------------
wp_data_raw <- read.csv(paste0(wood_poole_path, "Woods_and_Poole_2021_CountyData_v2.csv"))

wp_data <- wp_data_raw %>%
  mutate(GEOID = trimws(str_sub(CountyName, (nchar(CountyName)-6), (nchar(CountyName)-1))),
         State = trimws(str_sub(CountyName, (nchar(CountyName)-19), (nchar(CountyName)-17))))

we <- census_wetland_merge$GEOID
wp <- wp_data$GEOID
ans <- setdiff(we, wp) # 51 missing FIPS codes from VA

### Join Region Crosswalk and Format Final Output -----------------------------
census_wetland_region <- merge(census_wetland_merge, State_xwalk, by.x = "STATEFP", by.y = "st", all.x = T) %>%
  mutate(`ln(Median Income)` = log(B19013_001)) %>%
  select(GEOID, Split_GEOID, stusps, `ln(Median Income)`, sagulf, nema, nmw, Prop.Forested, Prop.local, Baseline.Wetlands_50, Baseline.Wetlands_30, impacts.NWPR.perm,
         impacts.Rapanos.perm, impacts.NWPR.temp, impacts.Rapanos.temp) %>%
  filter(!GEOID %in% ans | stusps == "HI")

# Merge to get county names
output_named <- merge(census_wetland_region,
                      st_drop_geometry(TIGER_boundary) %>% select(GEOID, NAME),
                      by = "GEOID",
                      all.x = T) %>%
  merge(., st_drop_geometry(big_count) %>% select(GEOID, NAME),
        by = "GEOID",
        all.x = T) %>%
  distinct(Split_GEOID, .keep_all = T) %>%
  mutate(NAME = ifelse(is.na(NAME.x), NAME.y, NAME.x)) %>%
  select(GEOID, Split_GEOID, stusps, NAME, `ln(Median Income)`, sagulf, nema, nmw, Prop.Forested,
         Prop.local, Baseline.Wetlands, impacts.NWPR.perm, impacts.Rapanos.perm,
         impacts.NWPR.temp, impacts.Rapanos.temp)

beepr::beep()

# QA 50 mile buffer -----------------------------------------------------------
old_buff <- read.xlsx(paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_Buffer_WetlandAnalysis_7-29-22.xlsx"))

QA_50mibuff <- merge(census_wetland_region, old_buff, by = "GEOID")

length(unique(old_buff$GEOID)) # 3056
length(unique(census_wetland_region$GEOID)) # 3056
length(unique(QA_50mibuff$GEOID)) # 3056

QA_50mibuff$QA_30mile <- ifelse(units::drop_units(QA_50mibuff$Baseline.Wetlands_30.x)==QA_50mibuff$Baseline.Wetlands_30.y, "Same", "Different")

QA_50mibuff$QA_30mile_diff <- units::drop_units(QA_50mibuff$Baseline.Wetlands_30.x)-as.numeric(QA_50mibuff$Baseline.Wetlands_30.y)

QA_50mibuff_filt <- QA_50mibuff %>%
  filter(QA_30mile=="Different") %>%
  group_by(GEOID) %>%
  summarise(diff_sum = sum(QA_30mile_diff))

# Findings:
# Only the oversized counties have differences in the 30 mile baseline wetlands
# Differences in oversized counties are from split being switched. The differences are equal between GEOIDs
# Dataset is equal to previous
# Non-oversized counties are confirmed matching

# Write output files ----------------------------------------------------------
write.csv(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_50milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_10-05-22.csv"), row.names=FALSE)

write.xlsx(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_50milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_10-05-22.xlsx"))

write.csv(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_50milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_CountyNames_10-10-22.csv"), row.names=FALSE)

write.xlsx(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_50milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_CountyNames_10-10-22.xlsx"))

save.image(file = paste0(Output_path, "50mileWetlandAnalysis_10-5-22.RData"))

# prop local -----------------------------------------------------------------
prop.local.avg <- census_wetland_region %>%
  group_by(stusps) %>%
  summarise(avg.prop.local = mean(Prop.local))

# write.csv(prop.local.avg, paste0(Output_path, "prop_local_avg.csv"), row.names = F)

states <- data.frame(state.name, state.abb)


[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16106-16108]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-70]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9132-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0224]

Draft Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period and Listening Session.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 60-day public comment period and a public
listening session for the external review draft human health assessment
titled, ``Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)''
(EPA/635/R-10/003). The draft assessment was prepared by the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD). The public comment period and external
peer review meeting, which will be scheduled at a later date and
announced in the Federal Register, are separate processes that provide
opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the assessment.
EPA intends to forward the public comments that are submitted in
accordance with this notice to the peer review panel prior to the
meeting for their consideration. When finalizing the draft assessment,
EPA intends to consider any public comments that EPA receives in
accordance with this notice.
    EPA is also announcing a listening session to be held on May 11,
2010, during the public comment period for this draft assessment. This
listening session is a step in EPA's revised IRIS process, announced on
May 21, 2009, for developing human health assessments for inclusion in
the IRIS database. The purpose of the listening session is to allow all
interested parties to present scientific and technical comments on
draft IRIS health assessments to EPA and other interested parties
during the public comment period and before the peer review meeting.
EPA welcomes the comments that will be provided to the Agency by the
listening session participants. The comments will be considered by the
Agency as it revises the draft assessment in response to the
independent SAB peer review and the public comments. All presentations
submitted to EPA according to the instructions below will become part
of the official public record.
    EPA is releasing this draft assessment solely for the purpose of
pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This assessment has not been formally disseminated by EPA.
It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any
Agency policy or determination.

DATES: The public comment period begins March 31, 2010, and ends June
1, 2010. Comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by
June 1, 2010.
    The listening session on the draft assessment for dichloromethane
will be held on May 11, 2010, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m.,
Eastern Daylight Time. If you would like to attend the listening
session, you should register by May 4, 2010. If you would like to make
a presentation at the listening session, you should register by May 4,
2010, indicate that you wish to make oral comments at the session, and
indicate the length of your presentation. When you register, please
indicate if you will need audio-visual aid (e.g., laptop computer and
slide projector). In general, each presentation should be no more than
30 minutes. If, however, there are more requests for presentations than
the allotted time allows, then the time limit for each presentation
will be adjusted. A copy of the agenda for the listening session will
be available at the meeting. If no speakers have registered by May 4,
2010, the listening session will be cancelled, and EPA will notify
those registered of the cancellation.
    Listening session participants who want EPA to share their comments
with the external peer reviewers should also submit written comments
during the public comment period using the detailed and established
procedures described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
notice. Comments submitted to the docket prior to the end of the public
comment period will be submitted to the external peer reviewers and
considered by EPA in the disposition of public comments. All comments
received will be submitted to the docket, but comments received after
the public comment period closes will not be submitted to the external
peer reviewers and will only be considered by EPA if time permits.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``Toxicological Review of Dichloromethane: In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA
home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
the Information Management Team (Address: Information Management Team,
National Center for Environmental Assessment (Mail Code: 8601P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 703-347-
8691). If you request a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing
address, and the assessment title.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://
www.regulations.gov, by e-mail, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand
delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
    The listening session on the draft Dichloromethane assessment will
be held at the EPA offices at Potomac Yard

North Building, Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington,
Virginia 22202. To attend or give verbal comments at the listening
session, register by May 4, 2010, via the Internet at https://
www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/peerreview/register-dichl.htm. You
may also register via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line:
Dichloromethane Listening Session), please indicate whether you would
like to make oral comments, and include your name, title, affiliation,
full address and contact information). You may also register by phone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by faxing a
registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (please reference the
``Dichloromethane Listening Session'' and include your name, title,
affiliation, full address and contact information). Please note that to
gain entrance to this EPA building to attend the meeting, attendees
must have photo identification with them and must register at the
guard's desk in the lobby. The guard will retain your photo
identification and will provide you with a visitor's badge. At the
guard's desk, attendees should give the name Christine Ross and the
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> to the guard on duty. The guard will
contact Ms. Ross who will meet you in the reception area to escort you
to the meeting room. When you leave the building, please return your
visitor's badge to the guard and you will receive your photo
identification.
    A teleconference line will also be available for registered
attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the
access code is<PHONE_NUMBER>, followed by the pound sign ().
The teleconference line will be activated at 8:45 a.m., and you will be
asked to identify yourself and your affiliation at the beginning of the
call.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: EPA
welcomes public attendance at the ``Dichloromethane Listening Session''
and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities.
For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Christine Ross by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please make the proper notification, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, please contact the Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on the public listening session, please contact
Christine Ross, IRIS Staff, National Center for Environmental
Assessment (Mail Code: 8601P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-
347-8592; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions about the assessment, please contact Glinda
S. Cooper, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 8601P,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About IRIS

    EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates
quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may
result from exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality
science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's
regulatory activities. The IRIS database contains information for more
than 540 chemical substances that can be used to support the first two
steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides
oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects and cancer assessments.
Combined with specific exposure information, government and private
entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. How To Submit Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-
0224, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is
202-566-1752. If you provide comments by mail, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered
consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments,
provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and
submit an unbound original and three copies.
    EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2010-0224. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters and any form of encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: March 25, 2010.
Lynn Flowers,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2010-7210 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$0	$17	$24

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	33%	46%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%)	0%	142%	199%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	23%	-14%	-41%

All Southeastern U.S. (except Georgia) Cucurbits - Table E.9: Economic
Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives  TC "Southeastern U.S. (except
Georgia) Cucurbits - Table E.9: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives" \f F \l "1"

All Southeast U.S. (except Georgia) Cucurbits	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D +
Chloropicrin	Metam-sodium

Yield Loss (%) 	0%	29%	44%

   Yield per Hectare 	749	532	420

* Price per Unit (us$)	$16	$16	$16

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$12,315	$8,744	$6,896

- Operating Costs per Hectare (us$)	$8,184	$7,495	$6,874

= Net Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$4,131	$1,249	$23

Five Loss Measures *

1. Loss per Hectare (us$)	$0	$2,883	$4,108

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$0	$19	$27

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	23%	33%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%)	0%	70%	99%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	34%	14%	0%

Georgia Cucumber - Table E.10: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives  TC “Georgia Cucumber – Table E.10: Economic Impacts of
Methyl Bromide Alternatives” \f F \l “1”

Georgia Cucumber	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Chloropicrin	Metam-sodium

Yield Loss (%) 	0%	29%	44%

   Yield per Hectare 	4,122	2,926	2,308

* Price per Unit (us$)	$8	$8	$8

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$34,491	$24,488	$19,315

- Operating Costs per Hectare (us$)	$27,926	$24,592	$22,307

= Net Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$6,565	$(103)	$(2,992)

Five Loss Measures *

1. Loss per Hectare (us$)	$0	$6,668	$9,557

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$0	$44	$64

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	19%	28%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%)	0%	102%	146%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	19%	0%	-15%

Georgia Melon  - Table E.11: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives  TC "Georgia Melon - Table E.11: Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives" \f F \l "1"

Georgia Melon	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Chloropicrin	Metam-sodium

Yield Loss (%) 	0%	29%	44%

   Yield per Hectare 	2,975	2,112	1,666

* Price per Unit (us$)	$9	$9	$9

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$27,915	$19,820	$15,633

- Operating Costs per Hectare (us$)	$18,714	$16,260	$14,965

= Net Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$9,201	$3,560	$668

Five Loss Measures *

1. Loss per Hectare (us$)	$0	$5,641	$8,533

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$0	$38	$57

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	20%	31%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%)	0%	61%	93%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	33%	18%	4%

Georgia Squash - Table E.12: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives  TC "Georgia Squash - Table E.12: Economic Impacts of
Methyl Bromide Alternatives" \f F \l "1"

Georgia Squash	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Chloropicrin	Metam-sodium

Yield Loss (%) 	0%	29%	44%

   Yield per Hectare 	4,448	3,158	2,491

* Price per Unit (us$)	$7	$7	$7

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$32,603	$23,148	$18,258

- Operating Costs per Hectare (us$)	$21,081	$17,708	$16,007

= Net Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$11,522	$5,440	$2,251

Five Loss Measures *

1. Loss per Hectare (us$)	$0	$6,082	$9,271

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$0	$41	$62

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	19%	28%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%)	0%	53%	80%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	35%	24%	12%

All Georgia Cucurbits - Table E.13: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives  TC "Georgia Cucurbits - Table E.13: Economic Impacts of
Methyl Bromide Alternatives" \f F \l "1"

All Georgia Cucurbits	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Chloropicrin	Metam-sodium

Yield Loss (%) 	0%	29%	44%

   Yield per Hectare 	3,502	2,486	1,961

* Price per Unit (us$)	$10	$10	$10

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$34,621	$24,581	$19,388

- Operating Costs per Hectare (us$)	$20,781	$17,971	$16,419

= Net Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$13,840	$6,610	$2,968

Five Loss Measures *

1. Loss per Hectare (us$)	$0	$7,230	$10,871

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$0	$48	$72

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	21%	31%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%)	0%	52%	79%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	40%	27%	15%

Summary of Economic Feasibility  TC "Summary of Economic Feasibility" \f
C \l "2"

There are currently few alternatives to methyl bromide for use in
cucurbits.  Furthermore, there are several factors that limit possible
alternatives’ usability and efficacy from place to place.  These
include pest complex, climate, and regulatory restrictions.  The two
most promising alternatives to methyl bromide in Georgia and the
Southeastern USA for control of nut-sedge in cucurbits (1,3-D +
chloropicrin and metam-sodium) are considered not technically feasible.
This derives from regulatory restrictions and the magnitude of resulting
expected yield losses.  Economic data representing Georgia and
Southeastern USA cucurbit growing conditions are thus included in the
economic assessment as a supplement to the biological review to
illustrate the impacts of using MeBr alternatives, not to gauge them
with respect to economic feasibility.  In Michigan 1,3-D + chloropicrin
is considered technically feasible.

Michigan

The US concludes that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives
to MeBr exist for use in Michigan cucurbit production.  The US has
arrived at this conclusion by examining the individual crops within the
Michigan cucurbit sector and then examining the sector as a whole. Yield
loss and missed market windows, which are discussed individually below,
have proven most important in reaching this conclusion.

1. Yield Loss

Expected yield losses of 6% are anticipated throughout Michigan cucurbit
production.

2. Missed Market Windows

The US agrees with Michigan’s assertion that growers will likely
receive significantly lower prices for their produce if they switch to
1,3-D + chloropicrin.  This is due to changes in the harvest schedule
caused by the above described soil temperature complications and
extended plant back intervals when using 1,3-D + chloropicrin.

The analysis of this effect is based on the fact that prices farmers
receive for their cucurbits vary widely over the course of the growing
season.  Driving these fluctuations are the forces of supply and demand.
 Early in the growing season, when relatively few cucurbits are
harvested, the supply is at its lowest and the market price is at its
highest.  As harvested quantities increase, the price declines.  In
order to maximize their revenues, cucurbit growers manage their
production systems with the goal of harvesting the largest possible
quantity of cucurbits when the prices are at their highs.  The ability
to sell produce at these higher prices makes a significant contribution
toward the profitability of cucurbit operations.

To describe economic conditions in Michigan, EPA used weekly and monthly
cucurbit sales and production data from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture for the previous three years to gauge the impact of early
season price fluctuations on gross revenues.  Though data availability
was limiting, analysts assumed that if cucurbit growers adjust the
timing of their production system, as required when using 1,3-D +
Chloropicrin, gross revenues will decline by approximately 5% over the
course of the growing season, due solely to price effects.  The season
average price was reduced by 5% in the analysis of the alternatives to
reflect this effect.  Based on currently available information, the U.S.
believes this reduction in price serves as a reasonable indicator of the
typical effect of planting delays resulting when MB alternatives are
used in Michigan.

Southeastern U.S. (Except Georgia)

No technically (and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MB are
presently available to the effected cucurbit growers.  As such, the US
concludes that use of MB is critical in Southeastern U.S. cucurbit
production.

The applicant provided no data on the operating costs of alternatives.
Analysts assumed, however, that these costs were similar to those of
methyl bromide with slight upward adjustments for the costs of applying
the alternatives and a slight downward adjustment for the cost of the
alternative product.  In addition, the applicant did not provide data
for second crops (including revenues and operating costs).  Analysts
assumed that Southeastern cucurbits are grown in a single crop
production system.  However, if double cropping is practiced in the
actual production system, this assumption could make the critical need
for MB appear smaller than it actually is, because the value the second
crop derives from methyl bromide is not included in the analysis

Other potentially significant economic factors, such as price reductions
due to missed market windows, were not analyzed for this region, as the
case for critical use of MB is sufficiently strong based solely on yield
loss.

Georgia

No technically (and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MB are
presently available to the effected cucurbit growers.  As such, the US
conclude that use of MB is critical in Georgia cucurbit production.

Other potentially significant economic factors, such as price reductions
due to missed market windows, were not analyzed for this region, as the
case for critical use of MB is sufficiently strong based solely on yield
loss.

Economic analysis of Georgia growing conditions included cost and
production data representing a second cucurbits or peppers crop.

Part F. Future Plans  TC "Part F. Future Plans" \f F \l "1"    TC "Part
F. Future Plans" \f C \l "1"

23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop?  TC "23. What Actions Will Be Taken to
Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for This Crop?" \f C \l "2"

Consortia will develop timelines describing the transition from MB.  In
addition, ongoing research is examining alternative technologies to
develop protocols for maximizing the efficacy of alternatives.

24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future?  TC "24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use
of Methyl Bromide for the Critical Use in the Future?" \f C \l "2"

Consortia will develop timelines describing the transition from MB.  In
addition, ongoing research is examining alternative technologies to
develop protocols for maximizing the efficacy of alternatives.

25. Additional Comments on the Nomination?  TC "25. Additional Comments
on the Nomination" \f C \l "2"

The MB critical use exemption nomination for cucurbits has been reviewed
by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U. S. Department of
Agriculture and meets the guidelines of The Montreal Protocol on
Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.  This nomination includes
requests for MB only for those fields where sufficient pest control can
not be achieved otherwise.  The loss of MB would result in a significant
market disruption.  The effort to avoid market disruption provides the
basis for nomination of this sector for critical use exemption of MB.

26. Citations  TC "26. Citations" \f C \l "2"

Allen, L.H., S.J. Locascio, D.W. Dickson, D.J. Mitchell, and S.D.
Nelson. 1999. Flooding (soil anoxia) for control of pests of vegetables.
Research Summary, USDA Specific Cooperative Agreement 58-6617-6-013.

Ashley, M.G., B.L. Leigh, and L.S. Lloyd. 1963. The action of
metham-sodium in soil II. Factors affecting removal of methyl
isothiocyanate residues. J. Sci. Food Agric. 14: 153-161.

Burgos, N. R. and R. E. Talbert. 1996. Weed control and sweet corn (Zea
mays var. rugosa) response in a no-till system with cover crops. Weed
Sci. 44 (2): 355 – 361.

Chase, C.A., T.R. Sinclair, D.G. Shilling, J.P. Gilreath, and S.J.
Locascio. 1998. Light effects on rhizome morphogenesis in nutsedges
(Cyperus spp): Implications for control by soil solarization. Weed Sci.
46:575-580.

Culpepper, S. and D. Langston 2001. Fumigant/herbicide combinations in
tomato. Unpublished study conducted by researchers at the University of
Georgia, Athens, GA. Included in CUE package 03-0042.

Culpepper, S. and D. Langston. 2004. Fumigant/herbicide combinations.
Unpublished study conducted by researchers at the University of Georgia,
Athens, GA. Included in CUE package 2004.

Csinos, A.S., D.R. Sumner, R.M. McPherson, C. Dowler, C.W. Johnson, and
A.W. Johnson. 1999. Alternatives for methyl bromide fumigation of
tobacco seed beds, pepper, and tomato seedlings. Proc. Georgia Veg.
Conf. Available on the Web at
http://www.tifton.uga.edu/veg/Publications/Gfvga99.pdf

Dowler, C. C. 1999. Herbicide activity of metham, methyl iodide, and
methyl bromide applied through irrigation systems. Proc. Southern Weed
Sci. Soc. 52: 77 – 78.

Dungan, R.S. and S.R. Yates. 2003. Degradation of fumigant Pesticides.
1,3-Dichloropropene, methyl isothiocyanate, and methyl bromide. Vodose
Zone Jour. 2: 279-286.

Eger, J. E. 2000. Efficacy of Telone products in Florida crops: a seven
year summary. Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on the web at
HYPERLINK "http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro00.html"
http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro00.html .

Galloway, B. A. and L. A. Weston. 1996. Influence of cover crop and
herbicide treatment on weed control and yield in no-till sweet corn (Zea
mays L.) and pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duch.). Weed Technol. 10 (2): 341
– 346.

Gamliel, A., S. Triki, M. Austerweil, P. DiPrimo, I. Peretz-Alon, O.
Heiman, M. Beniches, B. Steiner, and J. Katan. 2003. Aceelerated
degradation of metam sodium in the field and its management. Proc.
Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. Available on the web at http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro03.html.

Gevens, A., and M. K. Hausbeck. 2003. Phytophthora capsici in irrigation
water and isolation of P. capsici from snap beans in Michigan. Michigan
State Univ. Vegetable Crop Advisory Team Alert Vol. 18 (19). Available
on the Web at www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_veg/V09-24-03.htm.

Gilreath, J., J. P. Jones, and A. J. Overman. 1994. Soil-borne pest
control in mulched tomato with alternatives to methyl bromide. Proc.
Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. Available on the web at http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro94.html.

Hausbeck, M. K. and B. D. Cortwright. 2003. Evaluation of fumigants for
managing Phytophthora crown and fruit rot of solanaceous and cucurbit
crops, plot two, 2003. Unpublished study supplied with CUE package
03-0005.

Horowitz, M. 1972. Effects of desiccation and submergence on the
viability of rhizome fragments of bermudagrass, johnsongrass, and tubers
of nutsedge.  Israel J. Agric. Res. 22(4):215-220.

Kadir, J. B., R. Charudattan, W. M. Stall, and B. J. Brecke. 2000. Field
efficacy of Dactylaria higginsii as a bioherbicide for the control of
purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 14 (1): 1 – 6.

Lamour, K.H., and M. K. Hausbeck. 2003. Effect of crop rotation on the
survival of Phytophthora capsici in Michigan. Plant Disease 87: 841-845.

Larkin, R. P., and Fravel, D. R. 1998.   Efficacy of various fungal and
bacterial biocontrol organisms for control of Fusarium wilt of tomato.
Plant Dis. 82:1022 -1028.

Locascio. S. J., and D. W. Dickson. 1998. Metam sodium combined with
chloropicrin as an alternative to methyl bromide. Proc. Annual Int. Res.
Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available
on the web at   HYPERLINK "http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro98.html"
http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro98.html .

Locascio, S.J., J.P. Gilreath, D.W. Dickson, T.A. Kucharek, J.P. Jones,
and J.W. Noling. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for
polyethylene mulched tomato. HortSci. 32: 1208-1211.

Martin, F. N. 2003. Development of alternative strategies for management
of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Ann.
Rev. Phytopathol. 41: 325 - 350.

MBTOC (1994): 1994 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee for the 1995 Assessment of the UNEP Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Nairobi

Munn. D.A. 1992. “Comparison of shredded newspaper and wheat straw as
crop mulches.” Hort technol. 2: 361 - 366.

Noling, J.W., E. Rosskopf, and D.L. Chellemi. 2000. Impacts of
alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Proc.
Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. Available on the web at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro98.html"  http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro00.html .

Ou, L.-T., K.Y.Chung, J.E. Thomas, T.A. Obreza, and D.W. Dickson.1995.
Degradation of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) in soils with different
histories of field applications of 1,3-D. J. Nematol. 25: 249–257.

Phatak, S. C., D. R. Sumner, H. D. Wells, D. K. Bell, and N. C. Glaze.
1983. Biological control of yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus, with
the indigenous rust fungus Puccinia canaliculata. Science. 219: 1446 –
1448.

Patterson, D.T. 1998.  Suppression of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus)
with polyethylene film mulch. Weed Technology, 12:275-280.

Schneider S. M., E.N. Rosskopf, J.G. Leesch, D.O. Chellemi, C. T. Bull,
and M. Mazzola. 2003. United States Department of Agriculture –
Agricultural Research Service research on alternatives to methyl
bromide: pre-plant and post-harvest. Pest Manag Sci. 59: 814-826.

Thullen, R.J. and P.E. Keeley. 1975. Yellow nutsedge sprouting and
resprouting potential. Weed Sci. 23:333-337.

Smelt, J.H., S.J.H. Crum, and W. Teinissen. 1989. Accelerated
transformation of the fumigant methyl isocyanate in soil after repeated
application of metam sodium. J. Environ. Sci. Health B24: 437-455.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 1998. Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 1998 assessment of alternatives to
methyl bromide. p.49.

Verhagen, C., G. Lebbink, and J. Bloem. 1996. Enhanced biodegradation of
the nematicides 1,3-dichloropropene and methyl isothiocyanate in a
variety of soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28:1753–1756.

Webster, T.M. 2002. Nutsedge eradication: impossible dream?  National
Nursery Proc. RMRS-P-000. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Res. Station,
Ogden, Utah.

Webster, T. M., A. S. Csinos, A. W. Johnson, C. C. Dowler, D. R. Sumner,
and R. L. Fery. 2001. Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper –
squash rotation. Crop Prot. 20 (7): 605 – 614.

Wilen, C. A., M. E. McGiffen, and C. L. Elmore. 2003. Nutsedge:
Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape
Professionals. University of California IPM Publication # 4732.
Available on the Web at   HYPERLINK "http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu"
www.ipm.ucdavis.edu

APPENDIX A.  2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index (BUNNI).
TC "APPENDIX A.  2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index
(BUNNI)." \f F \l "1"

Footnotes for Appendix A:

		Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Dichotomous Variables – dichotomous variables are those which take one
of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no.  These variables were
used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination.

Strip Bed Treatment – Strip bed treatment is ‘yes’ if the
applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise.

Currently Use Alternatives – Currently use alternatives is ‘yes’
if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on
the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made.

Tarps/ Deep Injection Used – Because all pre-plant methyl bromide use
in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes
on the value ‘tarp’ when tarps are used and ‘deep’ when deep
injection is used.

Pest-free cert. Required - This variable is a ‘yes’ when the product
must be certified as ‘pest-free’ in order to be sold

Other Issues.- Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an
application that were checked

Frequency of Treatment – This indicates how often methyl bromide is
applied in the sector.  Frequency varies from multiple times per year to
once in several decades.

Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Removed? – This indicates whether the
Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares subject to QPS treatments
were removed from the nomination.

Most Likely Combined Impacts (%) – Adjustments to requested amounts
were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by
factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use
alternatives to methyl bromide.  These are calculated as proportions of
the total request.  We have tried to make the adjustment to the
requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment
could fall into more than one category.

(%) Karst geology – Percent karst geology is the proportion of the
land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations.  In
these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by
pesticides or their residues.  Regulations are often in place to control
the use of pesticide of concern.  Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the
use of 1,3D due to its karst geology.

(%) 100 ft Buffer Zones – Percentage of the acreage of a field where
certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the
requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application
site and any inhabited structure.

(%) Key Pest Impacts - Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate
to severe pest problems.  Key pests are those that are not adequately
controlled by MB alternatives.  For example, the key pest in Michigan
peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable
growing area.  In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge.

Regulatory Issues (%) - Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the
requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used (e.g., township
caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use.

Unsuitable Terrain (%) – Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of
the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type
(e.g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain
configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives
poses application and coverage problems.

Cold Soil Temperatures – Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of
the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable
the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to
produce the normal (one or two) number of crops per season or to allow
harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the
local market at the beginning of the season.

Total Combined Impacts (%) - Total combined impacts are the percent (%)
of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest,
regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc.  In each case the total area
impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual
impact.  The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless
contrary evidence was available (e.g., affects are known to be mutually
exclusive).   For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to
severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst
geology, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide
rather than the alternative.  This was calculated as follows: 50%
affected by key pests and an additional 25% (50% of 50%) affected by
karst geology.

Most Likely Baseline Transition – Most Likely Baseline Transition
amount was determined by the DELPHI process and was calculated by
determining the maximum share of industry that can transition to
existing alternatives.

(%) Able to Transition – Maximum share of industry that can transition

Minimum # of Years Required – The minimum number of years required to
achieve maximum transition.

(%) Able to Transition per Year – The Percent Able to Transition per
Year is the percent able to transition divided by the number of years to
achieve maximum transition.

EPA Adjusted Use Rate - Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for
2008 or the historic average use rate or is determined by MBTOC
recommended use rate reductions.

EPA Adjusted Strip Dosage Rate – The dosage rate is the use rate
within the strips for strip / bed fumigation.

2008 Amount of Request – The 2008 amount of request is the actual
amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient
of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application
rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre.  U.S. units
of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were
converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination.

EPA Preliminary Value – The EPA Preliminary Value is the lowest of the
requested amount from 2005 through 2008 with MBTOC accepted adjustments
(where necessary) included in the preliminary value.

EPA Baseline Adjusted Value – The EPA Baseline Adjusted Value has been
adjusted for MBTOC adjustments, QPS, Double Counting, Growth, Use Rate/
Strip Treatment, Miscellaneous adjustments, MBTOC recommended Low
Permeability Film Transition adjustment, and Combined Impacts.

EPA Transition Amount – The EPA Transition Amount is calculated by
removing previous transition amounts since transition was introduced in
2007 and removing the amount of the percent (%) Able to Transition per
Year multiplied by the EPA Baseline Adjusted Value.

Most Likely Impact Value – The qualified amount of the initial request
after all adjustments have been made given in total kilograms of
nomination, total hectares of nomination, and final use rate of
nomination.

Sector Research Amount – The total U.S. amount of methyl bromide
needed for research purposes in each sector.

Total US Sector Nomination - Total U.S. sector nomination is the most
likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector.

 PAGE

 PAGE   ii

U.S. Cucurbits

Page  PAGE   8

U.S. Cucurbits