[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50812]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventeenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 205/EUROCAE WG-71:
Software Considerations in Aeronautical Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 205/EUROCAE WG-71 meeting:
Software Considerations in Aeronautical Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 205/EUROCAE WG-71: Software
Considerations in Aeronautical Systems Agenda for the 17th meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 29-September 1, 2011, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at ENSEEIHT, 2, rue Charles
Carmichel, Poite Postale 7122, 31071 TOULOUSE Cedex 7, France. Contact,
Aerospace Valley and ENSEEIHT, Gerard Ladier<EMAIL_ADDRESS>+<IP_ADDRESS>.71.37.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (202)
833-9434, Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., and Appendix 2),
notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 205/EUROCAE WG-71,
Software Considerations in Aeronautical Systems Agenda for the 17th
meeting:

Agenda

Day 1, Monday, August 29, 2011

     Open Plenary Session
     Chairmen's Introductory Remarks
     Facilities Review
     Recognition of the FAA and EASA Representatives
     Review of Meeting Agenda
     Review and Approval of Sixteenth Meeting Summary
     Road Map to Completion
     Referenced Documents
     ED-12B/DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne
Systems and Equipment Certification
     ED-94B/DO-248B, Final Annual Report for Clarification of
ED-94B/DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and
Equipment Certification
     ED-109/DO-278 DO-xxx, Guidelines for CNS/ATM Systems
Software Integrity Assurance
     Plenary Text Presentation
     IP50/IP51 (Core): Post FRAC Changes
     IP54/IP55 (CNS/ATM): Post FRAC Changes
     Final Approval of IP50/IP51 and IP54/IP55
     CAST Meeting
     Break Out Sessions
     IP58--Model Based Design
     IP60--Object Oriented
     IP52/IP53--FAQs et al
     Others as required

Day 2, August 30, 2011

     Break Out Sessions
     IP58--Model Based Design
     IP60--Object Oriented
     IP52/IP53--FAQs et al
     Others as required
     Plenary Text Presentation
     IP56(Tools): Post FRAC Changes
     IP62 (Formal Methods): Post FRAC Changes
     Plenary Text Approval (Final Approval)
     IP58/IP and IP62
     Plenary Text Presentation
     IP58--Model based Design
     IP60--Object Oriented
     IP52/IP53--FAQs et al
     Birds of a Feather Session
     Presentation and Moderated Session

Day 3, August 31, 2011

     Break Out Sessions (as required to work comments)
     IP58--Model based Design
     IP60--Object Oriented
     IP52/IP53--FAQs et al
     CAST Meeting
     Explanation of Voting Process
     Break Out Sessions
     IP58--Model based Design
     IP60--Object Oriented
     IP52/IP53--FAQs et al
     Mandatory Reading
     Plenary Text Approval (for FRAC)
     IP58--Model based Design
     IP60--Object Oriented
     IP52/IP53--FAQs et al
     Social Event

Day 4, September 1, 2011

     Plenary Text Approval
     Summary of Results from Voting Session
     Revised Road Map to Completion
     Another Other Business and next meeting information (the
final meeting shall be hosted by ERAU in Dayton Beach, FL, the week of
November 15-18, 2011)
     Closing Remarks
     Meeting Evaluation (Round Robin)
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 9, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-20748 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13039-13040]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC19-10-000.
    Applicants: Clean Energy Future--Lordstown, LLC, Perennial
Lordstown, LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Notice of Consummation and Informational
Filing Regarding Additional Investor, et al. of Clean Energy Future--
Lordstown, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/26/19.
    Accession Number: 20190326-5289.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-829-003.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Supply Service Settlement
Compliance Filing to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190327-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-745-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing pursuant to March
1, 2019 Order re: ODEC and NAEA Rock Springs to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190327-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1454-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Wildcat I
Energy Storage, LLC to be effective 3/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190327-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1455-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TCJA Implementation Filing
to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 3/27/19.
    Accession Number: 20190327-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1456-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-03-28_SA 3293 Big Stone
Sub Transformer Upgrade MPFCA (J488 J493 J526) to be effective 3/29/
2019.
    Filed Date: 3/28/19.
    Accession Number: 20190328-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1457-000.
    Applicants: Buckeye Power, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised SA No. 4753--NITSA
among PJM and Buckeye Power, Inc. to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/28/19.
    Accession Number: 20190328-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1458-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MRA 28 Filing to be
effective 1/1/2019.

    Filed Date: 3/28/19.
    Accession Number: 20190328-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1459-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Annual Formula
Rate for PEB and PBOP Changes to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/28/19.
    Accession Number: 20190328-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1460-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1313R11 Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Company NITSA and NOA to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/28/19.
    Accession Number: 20190328-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1461-000.
    Applicants: Greenlight Energy Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Application to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/28/19.
    Accession Number: 20190328-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1463-000.
    Applicants: Upper Michigan Energy Resources Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Amendment to
Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/28/19.
    Accession Number: 20190328-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/19.

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

    Dated: March 28, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06462 Filed 4-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U. S. A. CUN2003/ 060  STRAWBERRY NURSERIES STRAWBERRY TRANSPLANTS GROWN OUTDOORS WITH BROADCAST FUMIGATION WITH POLYETHYLENE TARPS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Critical Need for Methyl Bromide....................................................................................................... 2 Economic Impacts............................................................................................................................... 2 Response to Questions from MBTOC/ TEAP ...................................................................................... 3 Historical Emission Reductions & Methyl Bromide Dosage Rates ...................................................... 7 Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) Tarps ............................................................................................ 7 Definitions .......................................................................................................................................... 8 References .......................................................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Region, Key Pests, and Critical Need for Methyl Bromide ................................................... 2 Table 2. Effects of Soil Fumigation with Methyl Bromide: Chloropicrin ( MB: CP) vs. Dichloropropene: Chloropicrin ( DP: CP) on Yields ( grams/ plant) of Strawberry in 10 Studies ................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 3. Historical Use of Methyl Bromide in the Strawberry Nursery Sector .................................... 5 Table 4. Calculation of the Nominated Amount of Methyl Bromide in the Strawberry Nursery Sector.................................................................................................................................. 5 Page 2 INTRODUCTION Methyl bromide is needed for strawberry nursery production ( CUN 2003/ 060) to produce disease and pest free plants to meet certification standards. The diseases and pests found in these areas are listed in Table 1. The registered alternatives do not provide acceptable control to meet the certification standards and require additional pest sampling for verification against those standards. In addition, there are no markets for plants that do not meet the certification standards, which can lead to extreme economic loss. Further, incomplete disinfestations can lead to severe loss in strawberry fruit production fields due to uncontrolled pests.

CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE U. S. Region / States Key Pests Critical Need for Methyl Bromide California Strawberry Nursery Association ( CUE02 0034) Diseases: Black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.); Crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum)

Nematodes: Root Knot ( Meloidogyne spp.) Only methyl bromide can effectively control the target pests found in California to meet the state certification requirements Southeastern Strawberry Consortium ( CUE 02 0038)

North Carolina and Tennessee Diseases: Black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.); Crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum)

Nematodes: Root Knot ( Meloidogyne spp.)

Weeds: Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus); Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) Only methyl bromide can effectively control the target pests found in the southeast U. S to meet the North Carolina and Tennessee certification requirements ECONOMIC IMPACTS None of the alternatives were considered technically feasible; therefore no economic analysis was conducted. Page 3 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC/ TEAP 1. MBTOC notes that the applicant has not technically verified that any alternatives are feasible. The CUN states that MB is required to meet certification standards, but does not provide data that other alternatives do not provide the same disease tolerance threshold to satisfy these standards.

Nursery stock regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) require that nursery stock for commercial farm planting be nematicide free ( CDFA Code of Regulations Sections 3055 to 3055.6 and 3640) and in Tennessee ( Chapter 0080 6 2 Regulations Governing Strawberry Plant Growers and Dealers). Additionally, there are specific soil treatment and handling procedures to facilitate compliance with the regulations for the Nursery Stock Nematode Control Program. Under California regulatory laws, nursery crops must be " free of especially injurious pests and disease symptoms" and " commercially clean with respect to established pests of general distribution" in order to qualify for a nursery stock certificate for interstate and intrastate shipments. Strawberry nurserymen must document compliance on a monthly basis and if they are found to have nursery stock with nematodes, 100% of their strawberry rootstock is at risk for a loss. If an alternative to methyl bromide is used, sampling may be required with the potential for destruction of 100 percent of the strawberry stock if detectable levels of pests are found. In addition work by Shaw et al., 1999 evaluating 10 different studies, demonstrated a 14.35% fruit yield difference between methyl bromide with chloropicrin versus 1,3 D with chloropicrin. This fruit yield loss difference demonstrates a severe impact on plant growth and hardiness due to pest infestation and the failure to control those pests for certification.

TABLE 2. EFFECTS OF SOIL FUMIGATION WITH METHYL BROMIDE: CHLOROPICRIN ( MB: CP) VS. DICHLOROPROPENE: CHLOROPICRIN ( DP: CP) ON YIELDS ( GRAMS/ PLANT) OF STRAWBERRY IN 10 STUDIES MB: CP treated DP: CP treated Study No Reps. Mean Yield SD Mean Yield SD Percent Increasez ty py dy 2 6 992 177 856 109 15.9 1.60 0.070 0.93 5 6 1331 40 1046 55 27.2 10.27 < 0.001 5.93 7 5 1096 110 687 62 59.5 6.76 < 0.001 4.28 21 6 886 71 914 48  2.9  0.78 0.727  0.45 31 4 655 65 647 54 1.0 0.15 0.443 0.11 58 6 871 56 836 11 4.3 1.52 0.077 0.88 64 36 1381 146 1180 185 17.0 5.12 < 0.001 1.21 65 10 1742 131 1489 141 17.0 4.16 < 0.001 1.86 66 6 994 88 981 97 1.3 0.37 0.355 0.15 67 4 610 46 591 46 3.2 0.58 0.291 0.41 z Unweighted percent increase in yield for the MB: CP treatment over the DP: CP treatment group. y t is Student's t test value, p is a one tailed probability ( requires P< 0.025 for conventional significance), and d is the standardized effect size. Average Percent Increase across all studies is 14.35%. Page 4 2. The CUN also does not consider plug plants grown in hydroponics as a possible alternative, but MBTOC considers this technology a technically feasible alternative, but understands that further development is required before complete adoption is possible. The Party may wish to reduce the CUN to account for plug plant development as an alternative.

Substrates/ plug plants are currently being produced and sold in the southeast and to a very limited extent in California but this method alone does not provide pest control and would fail to produce a pest free product. Furthermore, this method would require extensive retooling by the nursery industry. The use of plug plants is expanding in the Southeast and in contrast to runner plants, plug plants are produced from plantlets ( tips) propagated on raised, mulched beds that require fumigation. Roughly the same land area is required to produce these tips ( about 620,000 plants per hectare) as is required to produce the bare root plants. The cost of plug plants is about 16 cents per plant compared to 8 cents per plant for the traditional bare root plants. Additionally, strawberry plants are moved by lowland farms to highland farms and back again. The additional plant movement and the infrastructure required would make large scale adoption of a plug plant system more difficult.

3. The industry already uses low dosage rates of MB and is encouraged to try to further reduce amounts by adopting further emission control technology and MB formulations with lower rates of MB ( e. g., MB/ Pic 50: 50)

The U. S. nomination considered the historical efforts by strawberry runner growers to reduce emissions and to reduce MB dosages described in the section below titled, " Historical Emission Reductions and Methyl Bromide Dosage Rates." The section below notes success in the United States at efficiently using MB at low dosages with emission control technologies to control key pests. As the 2002 MBTOC report states, " in some countries ( e. g., the USA) the potential for reducing MB dosages for soil fumigation compared to many other countries will be less because dosages are already low."

Growers requesting this exemption have routinely used plastic tarpaulins since the 1980s to reduce methyl bromide emissions and maximize MB effectiveness. Recent efforts have continued to try to maximize each quantity of methyl bromide, using formulations of methyl bromide + chloropicrin with lower methyl proportions and continued testing of virtually impermeable film ( VIF) tarps. The difficulties and impediments in adopting VIF tarps are being investigated in the U. S. and are described in the section below titled, " Virtually Impermeable Film Tarps." The U. S. nomination is calculated based on most growers continuing to use a 67: 33 mixture of MB with chloropicrin. Page 5 TABLE 3. HISTORICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE STRAWBERRY NURSERY SECTOR Historical Use Average Use Rates ( kg/ ha) Total Amount ( kg) Area Treated ( ha)

1997 357 326,996 1,170 1998 356 331,336 1,194 1999 285 353,630 1,308 2000 282 353,042 1,334 2001 282 359,986 1,358 * Strawberry nurseries acres planted in U. S. and percent of U. S. acres requested are not available.\

TABLE 4. CALCULATION OF THE NOMINATED AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE STRAWBERRY NURSERY SECTOR Calculation of Nominated Amount 0034   California Strawberry Nursery Association 0038   Southeastern Strawberry Consortium Hectares ( ha) 1,360 83 % of Regional hectares ( ha)( A) Not Available Not Available Applicant Request for 2005 Kilograms ( kg) of MB 358,338 22,611 Double Counted hectares ( ha)( B)     Growth / Increasing Production ( ha)( C) 65   Quarantine and Pre Shipment hectares ( ha)( D) 1101 74 Adjustments to Request Adjusted Hectares Requested ( ha)( E) 194 9 Key Pest Impacts (%)( F) 100 100 Regulatory Impacts (%)( G) 100 0 Soil Impacts (%)( H) 0 0 Impacts to Adjusted Hectares Total Combined Impacts (%)( I) 100 100 Qualifying Area ( ha)( J) 194 9 Use Rate ( kg/ ha)( K) 264 271 CUE Amount Nominated ( kg)( L) 51,191 2487 % Reduction from Initial Request ( M) 86 89 Sum of all CUE Nominations in Sector ( kg)( N) 53,678 Multiplier for Margin of Error ( O) 1.0244 Total U. S. Sector Nomination ( kg)( P) 54,988 Page 6 Footnotes for Table 4:

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

A. Percent of regional hectares is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. B. Double counted hectares is the area counted in more than one application or rotated within one year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl bromide. C. Growth / increasing production hectares is the amount of area requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated or treated at a higher use rate. Values in parentheses indicate negative values and are shown to demonstrate a trend, but are not used in further calculations. D. Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the area in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. E. Adjusted hectares requested is the hectares in the applicant's request minus the acreage affected by double counting, growth / increasing production, and quarantine and pre shipment. F. Key pest impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by methyl bromide alternatives. G. Regulatory impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps). H. Soil impacts 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). I. Total combined impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, or soil impacts. In each case the total area impacted is the area which is impacted by one or more of the individual impacts. For each application the assessment was made by biologists familiar with the specific situation and able to make judgments about the extent of overlap of the impacts. For example, in some situations the impacts are mutually exclusive   in heavy clay soils 1,3 D will not be effective because it does not penetrate these soils evenly, but none of the heavy soil areas will be impacted by township ( regulatory) caps because no one will use 1,3 D in this situation, so this soil impact must be added to the township cap regulatory impact in a California application. In other words there is no overlap in this particular situation. In other situations one area of impact might be a subset of another impact. In these cases, the combined impact is equal to the largest individual impact. J. Qualifying area is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares requested by the total combined impacts. K. Use rate is the requested use rate for 2005. This rate is typically based on historical averages. In some cases, the use rate has been adjusted downward to reflect current conditions. L. CUE amount nominated is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. M. Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. N. Sum of all CUE nominations in sector. Self explanatory. O. Multiplier for margin of error. This factor is intended to compensate for the compounding influence of using the low end of the range for all input parameters in the calculation of the US nomination ( i. e., using the lowest percent impact on the lowest number of acres at the lowest dosage is likely to result in values that are unrealistically too small). The U. S. Nomination included two sectors ( sweet potatoes and cucurbits) for 100% of the amount requested, therefore the portion of the multiplier from these sectors were added equally across all other sectors resulting in a final multiplier of 1.0244, or a 2.44% increase from the calculated amount, to these sectors. P. Total U. S. sector nomination is calculated by multiplying the summed sector nominations by the margin of error multiplier. Page 7 HISTORICAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS & METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE RATES The U. S. strawberry nursery has reduced emissions by reducing use rates by 21% between 1997 and 2001 and introducing the use of tarping ( see Table 3). Information from California ( on all crops) indicates that use of tarps with methyl bromide has gone from 68% in 1997 to 95% in 2001 with the remaining 5% attributable to deep shank injection for orchard replant. The U. S. is working to obtain additional historical information from growers of strawberry runners in California and in the Southeast regarding efforts to reduce MB emissions through tarping, deep soil injection, reductions in application rates and switches in MB/ Pic formulations. As soon as we receive information about these types of historical changes to reduce emission and dosage rates for strawberry runners, we will forward it to the MBTOC.

VIRTUALLY IMPERMEABLE FILM ( VIF) TARPS Although many sectors are continuing to test VIF tarps in trials throughout the country, at this time VIF tarps are generally not technically and economically feasible for the following reasons ( U. S. EPA, January 26, 1998):

Disposal Issues

Landfill disposal of VIF and VIF burning have come under increasing restrictions in some jurisdictions ( e. g., California, Department of Pesticide Regulation, 00 001; Florida   62 256.300 F. A. C.).

Both landfilling and disposal are labor intensive and costly.

Ingredients in VIF limit recycling into end use products.

Cost

Average cost of VIF tarps is $ 580/ acre, whereas average cost of low density polyethylene ( LDPE) tarps is $ 275/ acre, and high density polyethylene ( HDPE) tarps is $ 393/ acre.

Farmers in some regions report VIF tarp removal and disposal costs of more than $ 240 per acre compared to removal and disposal costs of approximately $ 60 per acre for tarps used in flat fumigation.

Environmental Consequences

Inorganic bromide residues in soil are higher when VIF tarps are used; further, the hydrolysis of methyl bromide in water may result in the accumulation of bromide ions, thus increasing the chances for groundwater contamination.

Evidence suggests that VIF tarping could actually lead to increased levels of emissions when the tarps are removed, thus increasing exposure to workers and nearby structures.

VIF Supply & Demand Logistics

VIF tarps are currently manufactured only in Europe, and current VIF tarp production capacity in Europe is not high enough to meet U. S. demands.

VIF tarps manufactured in Europe do not meet U. S. application size and criteria.

European firms are unlikely to make the investment necessary to ensure a viable supply Page 8 of adequate VIF tarps to U. S. farmers before the 2005 phaseout date.

VIF Challenges to Agricultural Practices

An effective glue to join sheets of VIF is still not available.

Increasing cover times with VIF to between 10 20 days can disrupt double cropping schedules and cause growers to miss optimum marketing windows.

Photo degradation of VIF makes it brittle and ineffective at controlling weeds over months of double cropping systems ( current non VIF tarps remain on beds for 12 15 months after one MB fumigation).

DEFINITIONS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS CUN Source of yield loss estimates Where published studies of yield losses under conditions of moderate to severe key pest pressure were not available ( the situation for which the U. S. is requesting continued use of methyl bromide), the U. S. developed such estimates by contacting university professors conducting experiments using methyl bromide alternatives in the appropriate land grant institutions. The experts were asked to develop such an estimate based on their experience with methyl bromide and with alternatives. The results of this process were used when better data were not available.

Source of buffer restriction implications for methyl bromide use Estimates of the impact of buffers required when using some methyl bromide alternatives on the proportion of acreage where such alternatives could be used were developed from confidential information submitted to EPA in support of a registration application for a methyl bromide alternative. Because at the time of the analysis, a request to reduce the size of the required buffer for some alternatives was under consideration, a smaller buffer was selected for the analysis. Since that time the size of the regulatory buffer has been reduced so that it now conforms to the buffer selected for this analysis.

Source of area impacted by key pest estimates One of the important determinants of the amount of methyl bromide requested has been the extent of area infested with ` key pests', that is, pests that cannot be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide when such pests are present at moderate to severe levels. Because there are few surveys that cover substantial portions of the areas for which methyl bromide is requested, we have relied on a variety of sources in addition to the surveys. These sources include websites of land grant universities; discussions with researchers, both those employed by USDA in the Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) and those at land grant universities; discussions with growers whose operations cover widely different locations encompassing different incidences of key pests; information from pesticide applicators; and, information taken from the applications.

Source of area impacted by regulations estimates There are two main sources used to develop the estimate of area impacted by regulations. First, for the impact of Township caps in California we have used a series of papers by Carpenter, Lynch, and Trout, cited below, supplemented by discussions with Dr. Trout to ensure that any Page 9 recent regulatory changes have been properly accounted for. Second, the estimate of the area impacted by buffers, is described above.

Source of area impacted by soil type estimates First, for the area impacted by karst topography, estimates were developed and mapped by he Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The area of California used for agriculture and which is made of clay soils unsuitable for pest control with a methyl bromide alternative has been determined by discussions with agricultural researchers and agricultural extension agents in California, and discussion with other knowledgeable individuals such as pesticide applicators. The estimates for California understate the areas in which alternatives to methyl bromide are not suitable because no effort was made to estimate the extent of hilly terrain where currently available substitutes cannot be applied at uniform dosages.

Source of area impacted by combined impacts estimate Combined impacts were determined on a case by case basis for each specific crop/ location combination after consultation with individuals knowledgeable with the specific circumstances. The nature of the individual impacts is such that in some situations they are independent of each other, in some they are mutually exclusive, and in some cover identical areas. It was not, therefore, possible to have a formula that would arrive at an appropriate estimate of combined impacts. A more complete description is found in the footnotes to the ` calculation' table.

REFERENCES California. 2003. Nursery Inspection Procedures Manual. Available at: http:// www. cdfa. ca. gov/ phpps/ pe/ nipm. htm Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 D will Impact Adjustment to Methyl Bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3.

Shaw, D. V., and K. D. Larson. 1999. A Meta analysis of Strawberry Yield Response to Preplant Soil Fumigation with Combinations of Methyl Bromide chloropicrin and Four Alternative Systems. HortScience 34( 5): 839 845.

Tennessee. March 1999. CHAPTER 0080 6 2 Regulations Governing Strawberry Plant Growers and Dealers. Available at: http:// www. tennessee. gov/ sos/ rules/ 0080/ 0080 06/ 0080 06 02. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 26, 1998, Feasibility of Using Gas permeable Tarps to Reduce Methyl Bromide Emissions Associated with Soil Fumigation in the United States.


[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 32639]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1792-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Louisiana (FEMA-1792-DR), dated September 13, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 111-32, FEMA is
amending the cost-sharing arrangement concerning Federal funds provided
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, and 5173 for the major
disaster declared on September 13, 2008, for the State of Louisiana due
to the damage resulting from Hurricane Ike. The Louisiana major
disaster declaration is amended as follows:

    Federal funds for (Categories C-G) under the Public Assistance
program (Section 406) are authorized at 90 percent of total eligible
costs and Federal funds for debris removal and emergency protective
measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program (Sections 403 and 407) are
authorized at 100 percent of total eligible costs.
    This cost share shall apply to disaster assistance provided
before, on, or after June 24, 2009.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-16076 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68660-68661]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28181]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63226; File No. SR-EDGX-2010-16]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

November 2, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 29, 2010, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's Mega Tier provides a rebate of $0.0032 per share for
adding liquidity for securities priced at or above $1.00 and is
incorporated in footnote 1 of the fee schedule. As provided in footnote
1, a Member can qualify for the Mega Tier rebate in one of two ways.
The first way by which Members can qualify for the Mega Tier rebate is
if they add or route at least 5,000,000 shares of average daily volume
prior to 9:30 a.m. or after 4 p.m. (includes all flags except 6) AND
add a minimum of 25,000,000 shares of average daily volume on EDGX in
total. With respect to Members qualifying for the Mega Tier rebate
pursuant to this first method, the Exchange proposes to add language to
footnote 1 to state that such Members will pay a reduced rate for
removing liquidity of $0.0029 per share for Flags N, W, and 6.
    The Exchange believes that the above pricing is appropriate since
higher rebates are directly correlated with more stringent criteria.
The Mega Tier rebate

($ 0.0032 per share) has the most stringent criteria, and is $0.0001
greater than the Ultra Tier rebate ($0.0031 per share) and $0.0002
greater than the Super Tier rebate. ($0.0030 per share) For example,
based on average TCV for September 2010 (7.2 billion), in order for a
Member to qualify for the Mega Tier, the Member would have to post 54
million shares on EDGX. In order to qualify for the Ultra Tier, which
has less stringent criteria than the Mega Tier, the Member would have
to post 36 million shares on EDGX. Finally, the Super Tier has the
least stringent criteria. In order for a Member to qualify for this
rebate, the Member would have to post 10 million shares on EDGX. In
addition, these rebates also result, in part, from lower administrative
costs associated with higher volume.
    In addition, conforming amendments have been made to place
references to footnote ``1'' on Flags N, W, and 6 since this amendment
qualifies these flags by proposing an exception to the $0.0030 per
share charge for each flag. A reference to footnote 1 has also been
placed on the $0.0030 per share default rate for removing liquidity at
the table on the top of the fee schedule to signify this exception.
    EDGX Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to the
Exchange fee schedule on November 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\5\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rates are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those
charged by other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and
equitably allocated to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2010-16 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2010-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\8\ all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2010-16 and should be
submitted on or before November 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGX, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28181 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P