OSHA Quick Card

Stay Focused On Safety While Working On or Around Cargo Handling Equipment

Longshore workers are exposed to many different hazards while working on marine terminals and must recognize these dangers. While operating a fork lift, semi tractor, pick-up or any other piece of equipment, or performing work on foot around equipment as a signal person, clerk, mechanic, or foremen, etc., workers should always remain aware and keep their SAFETY FOCUS to protect themselves and their co-workers.

Equipment Operators Should Always Be Aware Of:
   * Pedestrian crossings, foot traffic; signal persons, people working under the hook, clerks, etc.
   * Vehicle traffic in the yard
   * Rail crossings
   * Blind corners
   * Chassis extending beyond designated parking areas
   * Transtainer Lanes
   * Loads passing overhead (Containers, Hatch Covers, etc.)
   * Crane movement
   * Speed and traffic regulations

Signal persons, Clerks, and Other personnel working on the ground should be aware of:
   * All equipment operating in their area
   * Outside trucker traffic
   * Containers going overhead
   * Co-workers (Make eye or radio contact with cargo handling operators)
Reduce chances of injuries or death by remaining Aware and maintaining your Safety Focus

                                       S
                                       P
                                       A
                                       N
                                       I
                                       S
                                       H

                                       L
                                       A
                                       N
                                       G
                                       U
                                       A
                                       G
                                       E


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57313-57316]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25987]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82164; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-074]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Clarifying
How the Options Regulatory Fee is Assessed and Collected

November 28, 2017.
    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 November 17, 2017, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 Schedule relating to the
Options Regulator Fee (``ORF'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to clarify how the
ORF is assessed and collected.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed rule changes on
November 16, 2017 (SR-CBOE-2017-073). On November 17, 2017 the
Exchange withdrew SR-CBOE-2017-073 and then subsequently submitted
this filing (SR-CBOE-2017-074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The ORF was established in October 2008 as a replacement of
Registered Representative fees.\4\ The ORF is assessed by the Exchange
to each Trading Permit Holder for options transactions executed or
cleared by the Trading Permit Holder that are cleared by The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range (i.e.,
transactions that clear in a customer account at OCC) regardless of the
exchange on which the transaction occurs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58817 (October 20,
2008), 73 FR 63744 (October 27, 2008) (the ``Original ORF Filing'').
    \5\ The ORF also applies to customer-range transactions executed
during Extended Trading Hours as defined in Cboe Options Rule
1.1(rrr).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') customer options business, including performing routine
surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, as
well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities.\6\
The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines,
will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's
regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to TPH compliance with options sales practice rules have
largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is
not designed to cover the cost of that options sales practice
regulation. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76309 (October
29, 2015), 80 FR 68361 (November 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF
to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and
fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The
Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a
semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues
exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its
regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee
change filing to the Commission. The Exchange notifies TPHs of
adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular. The Exchange endeavors
to provide TPHs with such notice at least 30 calendar days prior to the
effective date of the change.
    Under the Exchange's current process, the ORF is assessed to TPHs
and collected indirectly from TPHs through their clearing firms by OCC
on behalf of the Exchange. The following scenarios reflect how the ORF
is currently assessed and collected (these apply regardless if the
transaction is executed on the Exchange or on an away exchange):
    1. If a TPH is the executing clearing firm on a transaction
(``Executing Clearing Firm''), the ORF is assessed to and collected
from that TPH by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
    2. If a TPH is the Executing Clearing Firm and the transaction is
``given up'' to a different TPH that clears the transaction (``Clearing
Give-up''), the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm (the ORF
is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm). The ORF is collected
from the Clearing Give-up.
    3. If the Executing Clearing Firm is a non-TPH and the Clearing
Give-up is a TPH, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the
Clearing Give-up.

    4. If a TPH is the Executing Clearing Firm and a non-TPH is the
Clearing Give-up, the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm.
The ORF is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm but is
collected from the non-TPH Clearing Give-up (for the reasons described
below).
    5. No ORF is assessed if a TPH is neither the Executing Clearing
Firm nor the Clearing Give-up.
    The Exchange uses an OCC cleared trades file to determine the
Executing Clearing Firm and the Clearing Give-up.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that in the case where a non-self-
clearing TPH executes a transaction on the Exchange, the TPH's
guaranteeing Clearing Trading Permit Holder is reflected as the
Executing Clearing Firm in the OCC cleared trades file and the ORF
is assessed to and collected from the Executing Clearing Firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In each of scenarios 1 through 4 above, if the transaction is
transferred pursuant to a Clearing Member Trade Assignment (``CMTA'')
arrangement to another clearing firm who ultimately clears the
transaction, the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that
ultimately clears the transaction (which firm may be a non-TPH) by OCC
on behalf of the Exchange. Using CMTA transfer information provided by
the OCC, the Exchange subtracts the ORF charge from the monthly ORF
bill of the clearing firm that transfers the position and adds the
charge to the monthly ORF bill of the clearing firm that receives the
CMTA transfer (i.e., the ultimate clearing firm).\8\ This process is
performed at the end of each month on each transfer in the OCC CMTA
transfer file for that month.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Cboe Options Regulatory Circular RG09-030 (``ORF FAQ''),
Question 15.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that OCC provides the Exchange and other
exchanges with information to assist in excluding CMTA transfers
done to correct bona fide errors from the ORF calculation.
Specifically, if a clearing firm gives up or CMTA transfers a
position to the wrong clearing firm, the firm that caused the error
will send an offsetting CMTA transfer to that firm and send a new
CMTA transfer to the correct firm. The offsetting CMTA transfer is
marked with a CMTA Transfer ORF Indicator which results in the
original erroneous transfer being excluded from the ORF calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to the Fees Schedule
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in the following
four respects to clarify how the ORF is assessed and collected.
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to clarify
that the ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the
Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``CTPH'') or non-CTPH that ultimately
clears the transaction. While the ORF is an obligation of TPHs, due to
industry request the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that
ultimately clears the eligible trade, even if such firm is a not a TPH.
The Exchange, OCC and the industry agreed to this collection method in
response to comments that by collecting the ORF in this manner TPHs and
non-TPHs could more easily pass-through the ORF to their customers.\10\
In the Original ORF Filing, the Exchange stated that it expects TPHs
will pass-through the ORF to their customers in the same manner that
firms pass-through to their customers the fees charged by self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs'') to help the SROs meet their
obligations under Section 31 of the Exchange Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ORF FAQ, Question 9.
    \11\ See ORF FAQ, Question 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, in scenario 4 above the ORF is collected from the non-
CTPH that clears the transaction in order to facilitate the pass-
through of the ORF to the end-customer. Likewise, collection of the ORF
from the ultimate (CMTA) clearing firm facilitates the passing of the
fee to the end-customer. In those cases where the ORF is collected from
a non-CTPH, the Exchange (through OCC) collects the ORF as a
convenience for the TPH whose obligation it is to pay the fee to the
Exchange.
    As described above, under the Exchange's current process the
Exchange subtracts the ORF from a CMTA transferor's ORF bill and adds
it to the CMTA transferee's ORF bill for every transfer in the monthly
OCC CMTA transfer file. Going forward, in order to avoid potentially
collecting the ORF on any transactions that are not subject to the ORF,
the Exchange will perform a check to determine whether the CMTA
transferor or transferee is a TPH. If either the CMTA transferor or
transferee is a TPH, the Exchange will collect the ORF from the
transferee through the process described above. If neither the
transferor nor transferee is a TPH, the Exchange will not include that
transfer as part of such process (i.e., the Exchange will not debit the
ORF from the transferor or collect the ORF from the transferee). The
consequence of this change is that there may be a very small number of
instances each month in which a position that was assessed the ORF
would not be passed to the ultimate clearing firm and the charge would
remain with (and be collected from) the original clearing firm. The
Exchange expects to implement this change for December 2017 ORF billing
after a necessary system enhancement has been completed.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to clarify
that the ORF is assessed by the Exchange to each TPH for options
transactions cleared by the TPH (as opposed to ``executed or cleared''
by the TPH) that are cleared by OCC in the customer range regardless of
the exchange on which the transaction occurs. As described above,
whether a transaction is subject to the ORF is determined by whether a
TPH is the Executing Clearing Firm or the Clearing Give-up as reflected
in the OCC cleared trades file. Only the Executing Clearing Firm and
the Clearing Give-up on the transaction are identified on the OCC file.
Accordingly, because the ORF is always assessed to a CTPH, the Exchange
proposes to remove the words ``executed or'' from the Fee Schedule
description of the ORF to clarify that the ORF is assessed for options
transactions cleared by a TPH.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to clarify its process for assessing
the ORF on linkage transactions. An options order entered on the
Exchange may be routed to and executed on another exchange pursuant to
the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The
Exchange may engage a routing broker to provide routing services to the
Exchange as described in Cboe Options Rule 6.14B (``Routing Services'')
to facilitate linkage transactions. A customer order routed by a
routing broker for execution at another exchange results in a
transaction on that exchange and an obligation of the routing broker to
pay the options regulatory fee, if any, of that exchange. After
receiving a fill on the away exchange, the routing broker trades
against the original order entered on the Exchange and incurs the Cboe
Options ORF. Pursuant to its agreement with the routing broker, the
Exchange reimburses the routing broker for any options regulatory fee
assessed by the Exchange and by the away market on which the customer
order was executed. As a result, only the original customer order
executed on the Exchange is assessed the ORF. The Exchange proposes to
amend its Fees Schedule to clarify that, with respect to linkage
transactions, the Exchange reimburses its routing broker providing
Routing Services pursuant to Cboe Options Rule 6.14B for options
regulatory fees it incurs in connection with the Routing Services it
provides.
    Fourth, the Exchange proposes to change the method it uses to
assess the ORF to better align with the Exchange's Fees Schedule.
Currently, the Exchange assesses the ORF to a TPH based on the OCC
clearing number(s) that the TPH registers with the Exchange. A TPH may
have additional OCC clearing numbers

that are not registered with the Exchange because they are used by the
TPH to clear activity on other exchanges. If a TPH uses a non-CBOE
Options registered OCC clearing number on a transaction and that
clearing number is denoted as the Executing Clearing Firm or the
Clearing Give-up, the ORF is not assessed to that transaction because
the clearing number is not known to the Exchange. Such transactions are
subject to the ORF under the Exchange's Fees Schedule because the
Executing Clearing Firm or the Clearing Give-up was a TPH. The ORF is
assessed at the TPH entity level, not at the OCC clearing number level.
    In order to conform its ORF billing practice to its Fees Schedule,
the Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to require TPHs,
pursuant to Cboe Options Rule 15.1,\12\ to provide the Exchange with a
complete list of its OCC clearing numbers. The Exchange would use the
list provided solely for ORF billing purposes. TPHs would be required
to keep such information up to date with the Exchange. The Exchange
will issue a Regulatory Circular to provide TPHs with notice of this
change and a deadline for initial submission of its OCC clearing
numbers list. The Exchange expects to implement this change for
December 2017 ORF billing in order for the Exchange to provide TPHs
with notice of this new requirement and time to comply.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Cboe Options Rule 15.1 provides that no Trading Permit
Holder shall refuse to make available to the Exchange such books,
records or other information as may be called for under the Rules or
as may be requested in connection with an investigation by the
Exchange.
    \13\ The Exchange notes that its Fees Schedule includes other
requirements for TPHs to provide certain information to the Exchange
related to Exchange fees. For example, footnote 13 of the Fees
Schedule requires TPHs to submit a rebate request form with
supporting documentation in order to receive a rebate of transaction
fees for certain options transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a couple of minor clean up changes to
the Fees Schedule. The ORF is listed as being $0.0064 per contract
through January 31, 2016 and $0.0081 per contract effective February 1,
2016. As these dates have passed and the ORF is now simply $0.0081 per
contract, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to the ORF
being $0.0064 per contract through January 31, 2016 and the February 1,
2016 effective date of the $0.0081 per contract ORF.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to collect the ORF from non-TPHs
that ultimately clear the transaction is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that
there is a material distinction between ``assessing'' the ORF and
``collecting'' the ORF. The Exchange does not assess the ORF to non-
TPHs. The ORF is an obligation of TPHs. Once, however, the ORF is
assessed to a TPH for a particular transaction, the ORF may be
collected from a TPH or a non-TPH, depending on how the transaction is
cleared at OCC. If there was no change to the clearing number of the
original transaction, the ORF would be collected from the TPH. If there
was a change to the clearing number of the original transaction and a
non-TPH becomes the ultimate clearing firm for that transaction, then
the ORF will be collected from that non-TPH. The Exchange believes that
this collection practice is reasonable and appropriate, and was
originally instituted at the request of the industry for the ORF be
collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction
in order to facilitate the passing of the fee to the end-customer.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and
nondiscriminatory not to pass the ORF to a CMTA transferee when neither
the CMTA transferor nor the transferee is a TPH because this would help
ensure the ORF is not collected on any transactions that may not be
subject to the ORF.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to clarify that the ORF is
assessed to TPHs for options transactions cleared by the TPH (as
opposed to executed or cleared) is reasonable because it adds clarity
to the Fees Schedule by better and more accurately describing the
application of the ORF. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to its TPH's activities supports applying the ORF to
transactions cleared by a TPH. The Exchange's regulatory
responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a TPH executes a
transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The
Exchange regularly reviews all such activity, including performing
surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, insider
trading, front-running and contrary exercise advice violations. The
Exchange believes the proposal is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply in the same manner to TPHs
subject to the ORF. The ORF is only assessed to a TPH with respect to a
particular transaction in which it is either the Executing Clearing
Firm or the Clearing Give-up.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and
nondiscriminatory to reimburse its routing broker for any options
regulatory fees the broker incurs in connection with Routing Services
because this helps ensure the Exchange does not charge the ORF more
than once to a single customer order.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to require TPHs to provide the
Exchange with a complete list of its OCC clearing numbers is reasonable
because it would enable the Exchange to conform its ORF billing
practice to its Fees Schedule by capturing transactions executed or
cleared by TPHs. The Exchange believes the proposal is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply in the same manner
to TPHs subject to the ORF.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address any competitive issues but rather to provide
more clarity and transparency regarding how the Exchange assesses and
collects the ORF. The Exchange believes any burden on competition
imposed by the proposed rule change is outweighed by the need to help
the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities to ensure
compliance with the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \18\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2017-074 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2017-074. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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, 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying
    information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2017-074, and should be submitted on
or before December 26, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25987 Filed 12-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44127]
[FR Doc No: C1-2017-19250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0668; Product Identifier 2017-NE-17-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

Correction

    In Proposed Rule document 2017-19250 appearing on pages 42752-42754
in the issue of Wednesday, September 12, 2017, make the following
correction:
    On page 42752, in the second column, the document heading should
appear as set forth above.

[FR Doc. C1-2017-19250 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7617-7619]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2004-N-0451]

Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997:
Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List
Number: 039

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a
publication containing modifications the Agency is making to the list
of standards FDA recognizes for use in premarket reviews (``FDA
Recognized Consensus Standards''). Specifically, this publication
announces the addition of a list of recognized standards that are
relevant to safety considerations to mitigate the risks of
misconnections with small-bore connectors intended for enteral
applications. This publication, entitled ``Modifications to the List of
Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 039'' (``Recognition
List Number: 039''), will assist manufacturers who elect to declare
conformity with consensus standards to meet certain requirements for
medical devices.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments concerning this
document at any time. See section VI for the effective date of the
recognition of standards announced in this document.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of Recognition List Number: 039 is
available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards/ucm123792.htm. See section V for
electronic access to the searchable database for the current list of
FDA recognized consensus standards, including Recognition List Number:
039 modifications and other standards related information.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the document entitled
``Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List
Number: 039'' to the Division of Industry and Consumer Education,
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to
assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to
301-847-8149.
    Submit electronic comments on this document to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott A. Colburn, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3632, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
6287<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 204 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act
of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) amended section 514 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360d). Amended section
514 allows FDA to recognize consensus standards developed by
international and national organizations for use in satisfying portions
of device premarket review submissions or other requirements.
    In a notice published in the Federal Register of February 25, 1998
(63 FR 9561), FDA announced the availability of a guidance entitled
``Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards.'' The notice described
how we would implement our standard recognition program and provided
the initial list of recognized standards.
    Modifications to the initial list of recognized standards, as
published in the Federal Register, can be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards/ucm123792.htm.
    These notices describe the addition, withdrawal, and revision of
certain standards recognized by FDA. The Agency maintains HTML and PDF
versions of the list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards. Both
versions are publicly accessible at the Agency's Internet site. See
section V of this document for electronic access information.
Interested persons should review the supplementary information sheet
for the standard to understand fully the extent to which FDA recognizes
the standard.

II. Listing of New Entries

    In table 1 of this document, FDA provides the listing of new
entries and consensus standards added as modifications to the list of
recognized standards under Recognition List Number: 039. Specifically,
this publication announces the addition of a list of recognized
standards that are relevant to safety considerations to mitigate the
risks of misconnections with small-bore connectors intended for enteral
applications. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we are
publishing a notice of availability of the guidance document entitled
``Safety Considerations to Mitigate the Risks of Misconnections With
Small-Bore Connectors Intended for Enteral Applications.'' This
guidance provides recommendations to manufacturers regarding the
expectations for design and testing of small-bore connectors intended
for enteral applications (``enteral devices''). FDA is making these
recommendations to reduce the risk of unintended connections between
enteral and non-enteral devices.

        Table 1--New Entries to the List of Recognized Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Reference No.
        Recognition No.          Title of standard \1\      and date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             A. General I (Quality Systems/Risk Management)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-93..........................  Small-bore connectors   AAMI/CN3:2014
                                 for liquids and gases   (PS).
                                 in healthcare
                                 applications--Part 3:
                                 Connectors for
                                 enteral applications.
5-94..........................  Small-bore connectors   AAMI/CN20:2014
                                 for liquids and gases   (PS).
                                 in healthcare
                                 applications--Part
                                 20: Common test
                                 methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All standard titles in this table conform to the style requirements
  of the respective organizations.

III. List of Recognized Standards

    FDA maintains the Agency's current list of FDA recognized consensus
standards in a searchable database that may be accessed directly at
FDA's Internet site at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm. FDA will incorporate the modifications
and revisions described in this notice into the database and, upon
publication in the Federal Register, this recognition of consensus
standards will be effective. FDA will announce additional modifications
and revisions to the list of recognized consensus standards, as needed,
in the Federal Register once a year, or more often, if necessary.
Beginning with Recognition List 033, FDA no longer announces minor
revisions to the list of recognized consensus standards such as
technical contact person, devices affected, processes affected, Code of
Federal Regulations citations, and product codes.

IV. Recommendation of Standards for Recognition by FDA

    Any person may recommend consensus standards as candidates for
recognition under section 514 of the FD&C Act by submitting such
recommendations, with reasons for the recommendation, to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To be properly considered, such recommendations
should contain, at a minimum, the following information: (1) Title of
the standard, (2) any reference number and date, (3) name and address
of the national or international standards development organization,
(4) a proposed list of devices for which a declaration of conformity to
this standard should routinely apply, and (5) a brief identification of
the testing or performance or other characteristics of the device(s)
that would be addressed by a declaration of conformity.

V. Electronic Access

    You may obtain a copy of ``Guidance on the Recognition and Use of
Consensus Standards'' by using the Internet. The Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH) maintains a site on the Internet for easy
access to information including text, graphics, and files that you may
download to a personal computer with access to the Internet. Updated on
a regular basis, the CDRH home page, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices,
includes a link to standards-related documents including the guidance
and the current list of recognized standards. After publication in the
Federal Register, this notice announcing ``Modification to the List of

Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 039'' will be available
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards/ucm123792.htm.
    You may access ``Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Consensus
Standards,'' and the searchable database for ``FDA Recognized Consensus
Standards'' at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards.

VI. Submission of Comments and Effective Date

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA will consider any comments received in
determining whether to amend the current listing of modifications to
the list of recognized standards, Recognition List Number: 039. These
modifications to the list of recognized standards are effective upon
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 5, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02801 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 25402]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09895]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0702; FRL-9945-55-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Area Sources: Primary Copper
Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals-
Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Area Sources:
Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary
Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
2240.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0596), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR
32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0702, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed either online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as the
specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEEE, FFFFFF, and
GGGGGG. This includes submitting initial notification reports,
performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period
during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are
used by EPA to determine compliance with these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Primary copper smelters, secondary
copper smelters, and primary zinc or beryllium production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subparts EEEEEE, FFFFFF and GGGGGG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Total estimated burden: 74 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $7,400 (per year), which includes $0 for both
annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a small adjustment increase in
respondent burden hours and cost as currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved Burdens. The increase is due to a change in
assumption. In this ICR, we assume all existing sources will take some
time each year to re-familiarize themselves with the regulatory
requirements.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-09895 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13010]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64028; File No. SR-BX-2010-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Disapprove Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Create a Listing Market on the Exchange

March 3, 2011.
    On August 20, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
to create a listing market on the Exchange. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 8,
2010.\3\ The Commission received three comment letters on the
proposal.\4\ The Commission subsequently extended the time period in
which to either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change, to December 7, 2010.\5\ On
December 6, 2010, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\6\ On December 7, 2010, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\7\ The Commission thereafter
received seven comments on the proposal.\8\ The Exchange responded to
these comments on February 17, 2011.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62818 (September 1,
2010), 75 FR 54665 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from William F. Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, dated September 28, 2010; Michael R. Trocchio,
Bingham McCutchen LLP, on behalf of Pink OTC Markets Inc., dated
October 3, 2010; and Tom A. Alberg, Managing Director and Founder,
Madrona Venture Group, dated December 1, 2010.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63105 (October 14,
2010), 75 FR 64772 (October 20, 2010) (``Extension'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63597 (December 22,
2010), 75 FR 82098 (December 29, 2010) (``Amendment No. 1'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63448 (December 7,
2010), 75 FR 77036 (December 10, 2010) (``Order Instituting
Proceedings'').
    \8\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from James J. Angel, Ph.D., CFA, dated January 14, 2011; K. Richard
B. Niehoff, Chairman and CEO, United States OTC Markets, Inc., dated
January 20, 2011; Mark G. Heesen, President, National Venture
Capital Association, dated January 21, 2011; Alan F. Eisenberg,
Executive Vice President, Emerging Companies and Business
Development, Biotechnology Industry Organization, dated January 24,
2011; Michael R. Trocchio, Bingham McCutchen LLP, on behalf of OTC
Markets Group Inc., dated January 24, 2011; Rey Ramsey, President
and CEO, TechNet, dated January 24, 2011; and William F. Galvin,
Secretary of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated
January 26, 2011.
    \9\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary,
The NASDAQ OMX Group, dated February 17, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \10\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register on September 8, 2010. March 7, 2011 is 180 days from
that date, and May 6, 2011 is an additional 60 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change, the issues raised in the comment letters that have been
submitted in connection with this proposed rule change, and the
Exchange's response to such issues in its response letter.
Specifically, while the Exchange noted a number of benefits to the
proposal,\11\ as the Commission noted in the Order Instituting
Proceedings, the proposal raises issues such as whether BX-listed
securities could be more prone to manipulation, and whether investors
will understand that BX-listed securities could pose substantially more
risk than those listed on other markets.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange believes that a BX listing could help
companies that are being delisted from another national securities
exchange for failure to meet its quantitative listing standards and
companies with smaller market capitalization contemplating an
initial exchange listing to raise capital, and in turn promote job
creation within the United States. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6
at 82100. The Exchange further believes that the proposed listing
venue will provide a transparent, well-regulated marketplace for
these companies and their investors. See id. at 82099.
    \12\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, supra note 7 at 77040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ designates May 6, 2011, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5379 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9682]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02594]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

40 CFR Part 1700

[EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0469; FRL-9959-30-OW]

Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed
Forces--Phase II Batch One: Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Defense
(DOD).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Presidential directive as expressed in
the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President
and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,'' this
action temporarily delays until March 21, 2017, the effective date of
the rule entitled Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of
the Armed Forces--Phase II Batch One, published in the Federal Register
on January 11, 2017.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 8, 2017. The effective
date of the regulation titled Uniform National Discharge Standards for
Vessels of the Armed Forces--Phase II Batch One, published in the
Federal Register on January 11, 2017, at 82 FR 3173, is delayed from
February 10, 2017 to a new effective date of March 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine B. Weiler, Marine Pollution
Control Branch (4504T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mike
Pletke, Chief of Naval Operations (N45), 2000 Navy Pentagon (Rm.
2D253), Washington, DC 20350-2000;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Department of Defense (DOD) base this action on the Presidential
directive as expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory
Freeze Pending Review.'' That memorandum directed the heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies to temporarily postpone for sixty
days from the date of the memorandum the effective dates of all
regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but had not
yet taken effect. The rule entitled Uniform National Discharge
Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces--Phase II Batch One is
subject to the effective date delay. The new effective date for the
regulation is March 21, 2017.
    The EPA's and DOD's implementation of this action without
opportunity for public comment is based on the good cause exceptions in
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking public comment is
impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The
temporary delay in effective date until March 21, 2017, is necessary to
give the EPA and DOD officials the opportunity for further review and
consideration of new regulation, consistent with the memorandum of the
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, dated January 20, 2017.
Given the imminence of the effective date, seeking prior public comment
on this temporary delay would have been impractical, as well as
contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and
implementation of regulations.
    By focusing the two agencies' attention on the substance of the
regulation rather than soliciting comment on a decision to delay their
effective date until March 21, 2017, the EPA and DOD can minimize or
obviate the need for further temporary delays beyond March 21, 2017.
    For the foregoing reasons, the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) also apply to the EPA's and DOD's decisions to
make this action effectively immediately.
    If deemed appropriate, the EPA and DOD may consider delaying the
effective date of this regulation beyond March 21, 2017. If the EPA and
DOD were to do so, consistent with the memorandum of the Assistant to
the President and Chief of Staff, the two agencies would propose any
later effective date for public comment.

    Dated: January 27, 2017.
Catherine McCabe,
Acting Administrator.
    Dated: January 27, 2017.
Steven R. Iselin,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations, and
Environment).
[FR Doc. 2017-02594 Filed 2-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 Forwarded by Hodayah Finman/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 09/ 09/ 02 01: 18 PM   MTAUKUM@ aol. com 09/ 06/ 02 12: 22 PM To: Bromide Methyl@ EPA, murphylee@ inforum. net cc: wausk@ glcc. com, jivancovich@ trical. com, clelmore@ vegmail. ucdavis. edu, jgerik@ fresno. ars. usda. gov, mamellano@ mellano. com, tnell@ mail. ifas. ufl. edu, norton. jack@ worldnet. att. net, Ssiri10@ aol. com, ccfc@ ccfc. org Subject: CUE  California Cut Flower Commission I have attached an electronic file containing a report from the California Cut Flower Commission regarding a critical use exemption for the continued use of methyl bromide on cut flowers in California after January 2005. A hard copy containing the references has been sent via FedEx to the address given on the application form. Please address all questions to the person listed below: A. R. Chase Chase Research Gardens, Inc. 8031 Mt. Aukum Rd., Suite F Mt. Aukum, CA 95656 0529 ( 530) 620 1624 ( phone/ FAX) MTAUKUM@ aol. com METHYL BROMIDE USE IN CALIFORNIA CUT FLOWERS  A PROGRESS REPORT FOR CRITICAL USE EXEMPTION A. R. Chase President and Plant Pathologist Chase Research Gardens, Inc. 8031 Mt. Aukum Rd., Suite F Mt. Aukum, CA 95656 0529 ( 530) 620 1624 ( phone/ FAX) MTAUKUM@ aol. com For the California Cut Flower Commission P. O. Box 4003 Aromas, CA 95004 4003 ( 831) 728 7333 The California Cut Flower Commission ( CCFC) has been very concerned with the impending loss of methyl bromide for more than 10 years. CCFC has rigorously pursued alternatives for methyl bromide to the extent of the funding available. They have successfully obtained additional funding via USDA and IR 4 contacts such as Jack Norton. For the past year I have been working with them on research as starting the process of filing a CUE on their behalf. Although much progress has been made we do not feel that we are currently in a position to submit a complete document to assist EPA scientist's review of our unique and very challenging industry.

We have therefore chosen, at this time, to file this document in place of a complete CUE to assure EPA, USDA and other parties of the seriousness with which we have approached the loss of methyl bromide in the California cut flower industry. We anticipate filing a formal CUE in 2003 encompassing all cut flower production in the US with complete biological and economic profiles.

Our failure to submit the complete CUE at this time is due to several factors. First the, relatively, short time frame allowed for development of the package limited out ability to comply. This is partially due to limited funding available to address economic data required. We chose to expend the bulk of the available funding on new research trials as we feel that is the best avenue for solving the loss of this integral product in the California cut flower industry.

Second, our industry is diverse, complex and small in the big picture of agriculture. This is easily seen in the following listing of crops produced ( Table 1) as well as a recent article ( Miller, 2002). It is not economically feasible for our producers to specialize since the market calls for a wide and ever changing product mix. This creates problems when trying to decide what are the specific targets of methyl bromide since it has been used for many years in so many ways that few are even documented. We refer you to the attachments by University of California scientists ( Farnham and McCain, 1982, McCain and Paulus, 1981, and McCain, 1982). These grower guides clearly show the complexity of the disease spectrum for a few of the most widely grown crops ( gladiolus, larkspur and stock   Matthiola). This picture is minimal compared to the number of crops produced and their accompanying pests.

Table 1. Partial listing of cut flower crops produced in California.

Crop % Producers 1998 % Producers 2000 Achillea ( yarrow) 10 10 Alstroemeria 12 13 Anemone 6 5 Antirrhinum ( snapdragon) 20 17 Aster 11 12 Banksia 8 10 Calla lily 13 12 Campanula 3 5 Carnation ( standard and mini carns) 16 16 Chrysanthemum ( Cushion) 10 9 Chrysanthemum ( Football) 6 8 Delphinium 16 14 Daffodil ( Narcissus) 6 5 Freesia 9 10 Gerbera 9 9 Gladiolus 7 9 Godetia ( Clarkia) 7 8 Gypsophila 13 13 Helianthus 28 26 Hypericum 5 5 Iris ( Dutch) 15 16 Larkspur 21 18 Liatris spicata 7 3 Lilium ( Oriental, Asiatic) 10 12 Limonium spp. 21 15 Lisianthus 16 12 Peony 1 3 Protea 12 12 Ranunculus 9 10 Rose 18 15 Solidaster 8 8 Stock ( Matthiola) 15 16 Strelitzia ( Bird of Paradise) 18 10 Tulip 9 12 ( from  Prince & Prince, Inc., Columbus Ohio   in " California Cut Flower Production and Industry Trends  2000. There were 191 ( 1998) and 172 ( 2000) respondents.) Third, most of our production lies in Coastal California ( see Table 2 for distribution and farm size) where we are in direct competition for methyl bromide alternative products with very large industries such as strawberry production ( Table 3). The availability of methyl bromide has already been impacted by this key competitor as they can financially withstand higher input costs. In addition, use of a key alternative   1, 3 D ( Telone) is severely affected by township caps that will be met by the strawberry industry leaving little if any product available for cut flowers ( Carpenter, Lynch and Trout, 2001). The political atmosphere in California is such that serious delays will probably be experienced in registrations of all new materials ( Trout, 2001 appendix 1). Continued use of standards such as chloropicrin is also in doubt.

Table 2. Primary Counties in California where cut flowers are produced and farm sizes. Counties % Respondents 2000 % Respondents 1998 Monterey 17 14 San Diego 27 28 Santa Barbara 15 10 Santa Clara 9 7 Santa Cruz 5 9 Ventura 8 6 Remainder 19 26 Reported farm size Under 10 acres 54 58 10 49 acres 30 27 50 acres or more 16 15 These data were obtained from Prince & Prince, Inc., Columbus Ohio   in " California Cut Flower Production and Industry Trends   2000". The total acreage in 1998 was reported as 5205 and for 2000 as 5084. Only 44% of surveys were returned.

Table 3. Methyl bromide use in California in 1996 99 ( Dr. Tom Trout  adapted from CA Division of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reports)

Crop MeBr use ( lbs) Portion of crop treated (%) Strawberry 4,800,000 94% Sweet potato 600,000 42% Peppers 400,000 9% Melons 500,000 7% Other annual vegetables and fruits 1,200,000  Vineyards 1,700,000 20% Peach orchards ( all stone fruit) 1,000,000 35% Walnut 500,000 32% Almond 800,000 14% Nurseries 1,600,000  Cut flowers 500,000  Structural fumigation 400,000  Fourth, the diversity of crops is accompanied by a diversity of pest species. Although many herbicides ( and fungicides) have been evaluated for use on cut flowers or their pests a safe and effective alternative is not always available. Table 4 is a summary of the research trials I have run over the past 22 years on fungicides for Fusarium. There are no acceptable alternatives since even in a pot these products provide only moderate control of Fusarium wilt. Some of our most critical crops are hosts of various Fusarium wilt fungi including mini carnations, Lisianthus, gladiolus and Dutch iris. Killing the contaminated crop residues is especially critical for these crops and methyl bromide has been the key product used for this over the past 45 years ( Carpenter and Gammon, 1955, and Wolcan et. Al, 2001).

Table 4. Fungicide trials for control of Fusarium diseases on ornamentals.

Fungicide Active ingredient Degree of control Chipco 26GT Iprodione Very good for stem rot or leaf spot None for wilt Cleary 3336 Thiophanate methyl Some to very good of stem rot Poor to some for wilt Compass Trifloxystrobin Very good to excellent for leaf spot None for wilt Daconil Chlorothalonil Excellent for leaf spot Cannot be used as a drench for wilt or stem rot Heritage Azoxystrobin Good to very good for leaf spot Good for wilt ( effective rates are above those labeled) Medallion Fludioxinil Very good for stem rot Good for wilt Phyton 27 Copper pentahydrate None to very good for wilt PlantShield Trichoderma harzinianum None Terraguard Triflumizole Very good for leaf spot Good for wilt University of Florida, Central Florida Research and Education Center ( 1979 1993) and Chase Research Gardens, California ( 1994 2002)

Another serious and common set of problems on certain cut flower crops ( i. e. Ranunculus, stock and zinnia) are seed borne bacterial diseases ( Azad et. al, 1996 and McCain, 1982). Xanthomonas diseases are commonly seed borne and although they are easily eliminated with a heated bleach treatment, the seed producers do not address the problem and continue to supply badly infested seed lots each year. These diseases are poorly if at all controlled with the copper bactericides currently available even when the entire plant can be protected ( greenhouse production). These disease are often carried from one production cycle to the next via crop debris ( McCain, 1982). The number of weed species and crops produced makes weed control in the fieldgrown cut flower industry critical and difficult. Table 4 and 5 summarize years of research at the University of California. They illustrate the complexity of the problem faced with the loss of methyl bromide. Note that the first weeds listed in Table 4 are the remnants of previous crops. They are a serious problem since our industry routinely practices crop rotation and infected debris from an earlier crop can reduce profit margins significantly. It is not possible to spray many of these crops with a selective herbicide once the new crop is planted.

Table 5. Weed species as major problems in field grown ornamental propagation ( Dr. Clyde Elmore, Weed Extension Specialist, University of California Davis).

Class One  Species that are necessary to control before or at planting to reduce further invasion into growing areas. Common Name Scientific Name Gladioli cormlets, cormels and corms Calla lily tubers and rhizomes Iris bulbs and Ranunculus tubers Little mallow Malva parviflora Clovers Melilotus sp., Medicago sp., Trifolium sp. Common sow thistle Sonchus oleracea Yellow creeping field cress Rorippa sylvestris Dwarf nettle Urtica urens Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus Red sorrel Rumex acetosella Class Two  Species that are commonly found and are major problems in some fields requiring additional hand hoeing and cultivation to manage the weed. Common Name Scientific Name Cudweed Gnaphalium sp. Common purslane Portulaca oleracea Prostrate spurge Chamacycae maculata Creeping spurge Chamacycae serpens Common groundsel Senecio vulgaris Shepherds purse Capsella bursa pastoris Common chickweed Stellaria media Wild mustard Brassica sp. Dead nettle Lamium amplexicaule Toad rush Juncus bufonius Class Three  Species that are commonly found and are generally controlled in normal cultural management practices can become difficult competitors with the flower crop and reduce flower production or quality. Common Name Scientific Name Annual bluegrass Poa annua Corn spurry Spurgula arvensis Red maids Calandrinia ciliate Rough pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus blitoides Table 6. Weed Susceptibility to Herbicides Preemergence Herbicides DCPA Isoxaben Metol . Naprop. Oryzalin Oxadiazon Oxyf. Pendi. Prodi. Trif.

Annual weeds Annual bluegrass C N C C c c P C c c Barnyardgrass C N C C c c P C c c Bittercress, lesserseeded P C P P p c C P p p Burclover, California N C N N n n C N n n Cheeseweed P C N P p p C P p p Corn spurry P C C C c n P C c c Chickweed, common C C C C c n P C c c Crabgrass C N C C c c N C c c Cudweed N C N P n c C N n n Fleabane N P N N n p P N n n Filaree P C N C p c C N n n Goosefoot, nettleleaf C C P C c c C C c c Grounsel, common N C N C p p C N n n Henbit P C N N c c C C c c Horseweed N P N P n p P N n n Junglerice C N C C c c P C c c Lambsquarter C C P C c c C C c c London rocket P C N C n c C N n n Mustard P C N P n c C N n n Nightshade, black P C C N n c C N n n Nightshade, hairy P C C N n c C N n n Pearlwort P C P C c n P C c c Prickly lettuce N C N C p p C N n n Pigweed c C C C c c C C c c Purslane c C C C c c C C c c Radish, wild n C N N n c C N n n Shepherds purse n C P P n c C N n n Sowthistle, common p C P C n c C N n n Sprangletop c N C C c p N C c c Spurge, prostrate p C N N c c C C c c Stinging nettle p C C P p c C P p p Willowherb n P N N p p C N n n Biennial weeds Bristly ox tongue n N N N n n N N n n Perennial weeds Bermudagrass ( per) n N N N n n N N n n Bermudagrass ( seed) c N C C c p N C c c Bindweed, field ( per) n N N N n p N N n n Bindweed, field ( seed) n N N N p c C P p c Buttercup, yellow n N N N n n N N n n Johnsongrass ( per) n N N N n n N N n n Johnsongrass ( seed) p N C C c n N P c c Nutsedge, yellow n N P P n n N N n n Nutsedge, purple n N P N n n N N n n Woodsorrel, creeping ( per) n N N N n n N N n n Woodsorrel, creeping ( seed) c C N N c c C C c c N = not susceptible, C = controlled at the recommended rate Per = perennial form, Seed = germination stage DCPA, isoxaben ( Gallery), metolachlor ( Pennent), napropamide ( Devrinol), oryzalin ( surflan), oxadiazon ( Treflan), clethodim ( Envoy), diquat ( Reward), fluazifop ( Fusilade), glufosinate ( Finale), glyphosate ( Roundup, sulfosate = Touchdown), pelargonic acid ( Sycthe), sthoxydim ( Poast)

Post Emergence Herbicides Cleth. Diquat Fluaz. Glufos. Glyphos Pelargonic Sethox Annual weeds Annual bluegrass C C N c C C n Barnyardgrass C C C c C C c Bittercress, lesserseeded N P N c C P n Burclover, California N P N c C P n Cheeseweed N N N p P N n Corn spurry N P N c C P n Chickweed, common N C N c C C n Crabgrass C P C c C P c Cudweed N P N c C P n Fleabane N N N c C N n Filaree N N N c P N n Goosefoot, nettleleaf N N N c C N n Grounsel, common N N N c C N n Henbit N N N c C N n Horseweed N N N c C N n Junglerice C P C c C P c Lambsquarter N P N c C P n London rocket N N N c C N n Mustard N P N c C P n Nightshade, black N P N c C P n Nightshade, hairy N P N c C P n Pearlwort N N N c C N n Prickly lettuce N N N c C N n Pigweed N P N c C P n Purslane N C N c C C n Radish, wild N C N c C C n Shepherds purse N P N c C P n Sowthistle, common N P N c C P n Sprangletop N N N c C N n Spurge, prostrate N C N c C C n Stinging nettle N P N c C P n Willowherb N P N c C P n Biennial weeds Bristly ox tongue N N N p C N n Perennial weeds Bermudagrass ( per) C N P p C N p Bermudagrass ( seed) C C C c C C c Bindweed, field ( per) N N N p P N n Bindweed, field ( seed) N C N c C P n Buttercup, yellow N N N p C N n Johnsongrass ( per) C N P p C N p Johnsongrass ( seed) C C C c C C c Nutsedge, yellow N N N n P N n Nutsedge, purple N N N n P N n Woodsorrel, creeping ( per) N N N p C N n Woodsorrel, creeping ( seed) N C N c C C n N = not susceptible, C = controlled at the recommended rate Per = perennial form, Seed = germination stage DCPA, isoxaben ( Gallery), metolachlor ( Pennent), napropamide ( Devrinol), oryzalin ( surflan), oxadiazon ( Treflan), clethodim ( Envoy), diquat ( Reward), fluazifop ( Fusilade), glufosinate ( Finale), glyphosate ( Roundup, sulfosate = Touchdown), pelargonic acid ( Sycthe), sthoxydim ( Poast)

These tables are summaries provided by Dr. Clyde Elmore, Weed Extension Specialist at the University of California at Davis, CA.

What have we been doing?

The University of California, USDA ARS and CCFC have focused on as many different alternatives as funding allowed over the past 10 years ( Appendix 2). The section below is an example of an effort to improve efficacy of solarization. Due to the location of our industry ( coastal), it is rare that the number of degree days required for effective solar treatment occurs. This work was performed by Elmore and Roncoroni in 1999.

" Soil solarization has been conducted in the Middle East and California for several years. It is effective when applied during a period of high radiation ( during the mid and late summer in the central valley of California). One of the major disadvantages has been than the area has to be out of production for 6 weeks during a major cropping time. A method that would increase the interest in this practice would be to shorten the duration of solarization from 4 to 6 weeks to 2 weeks. This could be done if 1) temperature could be increased significantly over the normal temperatures of solarization 2) add a reduced rate of a fumigant such as metam or 3) to use a process of bio fumigation with a product from the Brassicaceae ( mustard) family. This later method would be using natural products within the plant that will affect pest populations in the soil. In 1999, two experiments were established using field cut and chopped broccoli incorporated into the top of beds by shovel ( 2 3 inches). At one location the primary weeds were annuals. At the other location the weeds were rhizomes of Calla lily. Table 7. Weed control with soil applied materials and soil solarization Watsonville, CA. The site was 100 yards from the ocean.

Treatment Total Weeds % reduction No. calla shoots Composted chicken manure ( 8T/ A) 43.5 38 38.5 a Chicken manure + 4 weeks solar 9.1 97 34.5 a Solarization 4 weeks 18.4 74 41.5 a Corn Gluten meal + 4 weeks solar 2.9 96 14.5 b Chopped broccoli ( 5T/ A) + solar 0.5 99 32.8 a Metam 50 GPA + solar 5.5 92 0.5 c Untreated 70.0 0 36.0 a These results show that additives such as corn gluten meal, metam sodium and chopped broccoli can improve control of certain weeds and crop debris."

Table 8 lists the MBTOC approved alternatives. The other columns relate the efforts made by University of California, ARS/ USDA, IR 4 and independent scientists to evaluate these and many other alternatives under our unique political, environmental and biological conditions. We have include a review of the specific trials planned or in place ( complete with treatment lists) in Appendix 3.

Table 8. Alternatives to Pre Plant Uses of Methyl Bromide   Ornamentals.

MBTOC selected CCFC 2001 CCFC 2002 1, 3 Dichloropropene ( 1,3 D, Telone) X X 1, 3 D, brush burning 1, 3 D, Chloropicrin X X X 1, 3 D, Chloropicrin, Metam sodium ( Vapam) X X 1, 3 D, Chloropicrin, Pebulate 1, 3 D, Metam sodium ( Vapam) X X X Basamid ( Dazomet) Chloropicrin X X X Sodium tetrathiocarbonate ( Enzone) Metam sodium ( Vapam) X X X Metam sodium, Chloropicrin X X Metam sodium, Crop rotation X Metam sodium, Solarization Nematicides Solarization, fungicides Acetic acid X X Furfural ( Multiguard) X X Iodomethane ( Midas) X X Sodium azide ( Agri zide and CX 100) X X CONCLUSIONS We hope this has helped in some small way to illustrate our plight and assure the EPA, USDA and other interested parties of our continued need for methyl bromide or suitable replacement in the cut flower industry. We are well on our way to becoming organized nationally in order to prepare a complete CUE at our next opportunity. Please feel free to contact the author with any questions regarding this position statement.

References attached in hard copy 1. Azad, H. R., M. Vilchez, A. O. Paulus, and D. A. Cooksey. 1996. A new Ranunculus disease caused by Xanthomonas campestris. Plant Disease 80: 126 130.

2. Carpenter, T. R. and E. R. Gammon. 1955. Methyl bromide gas treatment of dormant gladiolus corms and sclerotia of Sclerotium rolfsii. Phytopathology 45: 520 521.

3. Carpenter, J, L. Lynch and T. Trout. 2001. Township caps on 1,3 D will impact adjustment to methyl bromide phase out. California Agriculture 55( 3): 12 18.

4. Chase, A. R. 2002. Methyl bromide on use in field and greenhouse= grown cut flowers. Power Point chart.

5. Elmore, Clyde L. and J. Roncoroni. 2001. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in fieldgrown cut flowers  2001. University of California, Davis, CA.

6. Elmore, Clyde. 2002. Trial results for Methyl Bromide Alternatives 2001 2002 studies on field grown cut flowers. University of California, Davis, CA.

7. Farnham, D. S. and A. H. McCain. 1982. Growing Larkspur as a cut flower crop. Florist's Review January 21, 1982.

8. McCain, A. H. 1982. Stock disease control guide. University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Leaflet 2858.

9. McCain, A. H. and A. O. Paulus. 1980. Gladiolus disease control guide. University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Leaflet 2604.

10. Miller, M. N. 2002. Floriculture's Changing Face. GrowerTalks 66( 3): 86, 88, 93 96, 99 108, 113 114, 118 120.

11. Wolcan, S, G. Lori and L. Ronco. 2001. First report of Fusarium solani causing stunt on Lisianthus. Plant Disease Note 85: 443. APPENDIX 1 California Regulatory Impacts on Adoption of MeBr Alternative Fumigants Tom Trout, USDA ARS Water Management Research Laboratory, Fresno, CA This article was published in the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter ( July, 2001)

From 1991 to 1999, methyl bromide use in California decreased from 18.5 to 15 million pounds, while use of alternative registered fumigants increased from 7.5 to over 24 million pounds. Telone ( 1,3 dichloropropene) was reintroduced for use in 1994 and about 3 million pounds was used in 1999, mainly on orchards and vineyards and at reduced rates on annual vegetables ( carrot, tomato, and sweet potato). Chloropicrin use has gradually increased in the last 2 years to about 4 million pounds because it is being used at higher ratios in methyl bromide mixtures as a means of extending the limited methyl bromide supplies. Very little chloropicrin is used as a stand alone fumigant, although current research shows it has potential as a stand alone fumigant for some crops. Over 70% of the chloropicrin use is on strawberries. Use of metam sodium, which generates the fumigant methyl isothiocyanate ( MITC), has increased dramatically to over 17 million pounds and has now surpassed methyl bromide in use. It is primarily used on annual vegetable crops ( carrot, tomato, potato, melons) as a less costly alternative to other fumigants.

These increasing use patterns appear to indicate that current regulations are not precluding use of these currently available alternatives. However, growers and applicators are quick to provide examples of how current or anticipated regulations will limit their use. This is especially true in California where use conditions in addition to those on the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) label are often imposed. I will summarize the regulatory procedures in California and the impacts of these current and anticipated regulations on use of alternative fumigants.

California Fumigant Regulatory Process California fumigant use regulations may vary from those in other states in three ways   the California label, State issued permit conditions, and specific conditions imposed at the county level for individual applications. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( DPR) may require data in addition to that required by EPA before it will register and allow use of a pesticide. For fumigants, this often includes efficacy data for the material under the proposed use and information on air emissions, transport, and fate. Fumigant registrants may work simultaneously with EPA and DPR so that their registration packages meet both needs. DPR's current intent is to adopt the national label without changes and to impose any further restrictions they feel are necessary in the form of Suggested Permit Conditions. These permit conditions may include restrictions on application rates, buffer zones around fumigated fields, worker conditions, environmental conditions, and total fumigant use in an area.

Suggested Permit Conditions are actually recommendations to county agricultural commissioners who are responsible for authorizing, regulating, and accounting for all fumigant applications. All pesticide applications in California are required to meet the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act ( similar to the federal NEPA) through a notice and permit process with public scrutiny. Thus, all fumigant applications begin with a " Notice Of Intent" filed with the county agriculture commissioner's office. These notices include the field, crop, fumigant, and rate, and the issued Permit will note use conditions and restrictions specific to the fumigant and application. County agriculture commissioners ( appointed by the county board of supervisors) must answer to both farmers and concerned citizens ( neighbors and other residents concerned about the potential dangers of pesticides). They usually follow DPR issued Suggested Permit Conditions, but may also ( and sometimes do) further restrict use. Although county restrictions are on individual applications, they may be printed up as county guidelines. County restrictions may be based as much on nuisance aspects ( smell, irritation) and perception as on actual risk. County inspectors ensure that the permit conditions are met.

Regulatory Impacts on Use of Telone Telone is the only one of the three currently registered fumigants to have completed the EPA re registration process. It has also completed most of the State's risk characterization process. Telone is also the most restricted of the three currently. Current label restrictions include 300 foot buffers around occupied residences ( 100 feet for drip application and no buffer if not re fumigated for 3 years), 35 gal/ acre maximum application rates ( except for nurseries), 5 day field reentry periods, use of full face respirators and chemical resistant hats, gloves, boots, and aprons for workers in the field, and moist soil requirements during application and a soil " seal" following application to reduce emissions.

Each of these restrictions can limit use in some situations. Three hundred foot buffers eliminate fumigation on about 7 acres of surrounding land; 100 foot buffers affect only about an acre. The worker personal protective equipment ( PPE) requirements limit the ability to install plastic tarps in warm climates. Thirty five gallons per acre may not be adequate for deep rooted tree and vine crops. The soil moisture requirements in most years are difficult and/ or expensive for California tree and vine growers to achieve.

California Suggested Permit Conditions imposed 300 foot buffers until this summer when they were reduced to 100 feet to match the new EPA drip applied Telone ( InLine and Telone EC) label. Applications are also restricted in the San Joaquin Valley in December and January when air inversions are common.

The primary restriction in current California Permit Conditions are township caps on Telone applications. Chronic exposure is a concern with Telone, and township caps are designed to limit air concentrations over extended time periods in an area. California township caps limit Telone applications to no more than 9,600 " adjusted" gallons of Telone ( 90,050 lb 1,3 D) in any 36 square mile ( 23,040 acre) township. Adjusted pounds are the actual pounds multiplied by an application factor of 1.0 for deep (> 18 inch) shank applications and 1.9 for shallow (> 12 inch) shank applications. Township caps limit applications to about 1 percent of the land for a typical strawberry or orchard/ vineyard fumigation and 2 percent of the land for a typical vegetable fumigation. As Telone use has increased, township caps have begun to limit applications. In 2000, cap limits were hit in four townships and were nearly hit in nine additional townships. As methyl bromide is phased out and Telone use increases, the caps will be more constraining. An analysis of the impacts of the township caps on potential use ( Carpenter et al. 2001, Trout 2001) showed that only about two thirds of the land presently fumigated with either Telone or methyl bromide would be able to use Telone.

The township cap impacts varied greatly by crop and region, because fumigated crops are concentrated in particular townships. By far the greatest impact is on strawberries. Eighty five percent of California strawberries are grown in 23 townships and only about one third of the strawberry land could be fumigated with Telone. Other crops affected by the township cap are crops grown in the same coastal townships as strawberries ( flowers, nurseries, vegetables) and other crops grown in concentrated areas such as carrots and sweet potatoes. Impact on trees and vines would be about 10 percent statewide because these fields are only replanted, and thus fumigated, every 7 to 40 years. Tomato has not traditionally used methyl bromide but is beginning to use Telone over wide areas. Because of the large number of acres involved, the caps will limit this use.

Dow Agro Sciences is currently working with DPR to determine if township caps can be raised in some areas. However, because strawberry cropping is so concentrated, doubling the township caps will only raise the portion of the land currently fumigated with Telone or methyl bromide that can use the product from 67 percent to 80 percent, and will raise the portion of strawberries that can be fumigated from one third to one half.

Because the Telone label and permit conditions are restrictive, county agriculture commissioners seldom impose further use restrictions.

Dow Agro Sciences was issued an EPA and DPR label for their drip applied emulsified formulations of Telone ( Inline and Telone EC) this summer. The current label restricts the crops ( strawberries, vegetables, melons) and application methods ( drip under plastic ( HDPE) mulch). Applicators are not required to wear respirators during application if the delivery system is " closed". Drip application in California has an application factor for township cap calculations of 1.16. The formulation is not labeled for perennials or ornamentals.

Regulatory Impacts on Use of Chloropicrin Current chloropicrin labels are not restrictive to use. There are no buffer or crop limitations, allowable rates are high, respirators are not required unless air concentrations exceed 0.1 ppm, and the reentry period is 2 days. Soil surfaces can be sealed with sprinkler irrigation, cultivation, or plastic tarp. One label ( TriClor) includes field mixing with an emulsifier for drip application at up to 300 lb/ acre. The TriClor label limits drip application irrigation amounts to 1.5 inches of water, which is inadequate for some applications.

Because chloropicrin use in the past has typically been in combination with methyl bromide, DPR has not issued Suggested Permit Conditions specifically for chloropicrin. However, in anticipation of increased use, some county agriculture commissioners have created local guidelines for chloropicrin permits. For example, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties limit application rates to 200 lb/ acre ( inadequate for most stand alone uses), and requires 100 foot buffers for " sensitive sites" ( occupied residences nearby). When DPR completes its risk assessment for chloropicrin, there will likely be additional use restrictions.

Regulatory Impacts on Use of Metam Sodium Current metam sodium labels allow application by spray/ incorporation, shank injection, drip, sprinkler, and flood irrigation at rates up to 75 gal/ acre. The soil must be moist ( between 50 percent and 80 percent of field capacity), and the surface can be sealed by tarps, sprinkler irrigation, or cultivation. Respirators are not required unless odors are strong. Reentry is 2 days.

The Suggested Permit Conditions for metam sodium restrict use near " sensitive sites" when rates exceed 15 gal/ acre ( most uses). Conditions include 500 foot buffers, hourly field monitoring for odors, and sprinkler systems in place if odors become strong. With sprinkler application, a " water cap must be applied immediately following application. The DPR issued guidelines point out that county agriculture commissioners may institute more restrictive conditions, which many do. For example, in Fresno County, the Notice of Intent to fumigate must be filed 96 hours in advance and must map all occupied structures within one half mile of the site. If the site is in a sensitive or residential area, the buffer is one half mile for all except shank applications. The Metam Sodium Task Force is currently working with the DPR to develop acceptable Permit Conditions, including buffers, that can be used uniformly by counties. Applications will likely include improved soil sealing and site monitoring.

Future Regulatory Impacts Fumigants are going through re registration at the Federal level and reevaluation in California. The state process involves a risk assessment of the compound and then steps to mitigate the risks. Mitigation can take the form of permit conditions or State regulations. California DPR issues a monthly Status Report for Fumigant Pesticides where information on the fumigant risk assessment/ management process is summarized and updated.

Of the three registered alternatives, only Telone products have completed this reregistration process. Dow Agro Sciences is now working with DPR to reassess the analysis that was used to establish the Telone township caps with the goal to increase the caps in some areas. A draft of the risk assessment document for metam sodium is under public review. Metam sodium has been placed on the restricted materials list. The risk assessment for chloropicrin has just begun. As was noted, some county agriculture commissioners are applying permit condition restrictions on these materials.

The State is carrying out ambient air monitoring of fumigants in areas of heavy use. Monitoring in the Watsonville area in 2000 indicated methyl bromide levels exceeded target seasonal ( sub chronic) exposure levels ( 1 ppb) in some areas. This nearly triggered emergency regulations on the use of methyl bromide and has resulted in a court ordered temporary restraining order on methyl bromide applications in specific areas. This summer and fall, ambient air concentrations of methyl bromide, 1,3 D, chloropicrin, and MITC ( generated from metam sodium) are being monitored in two regions.

California fumigant users point to methyl bromide regulation as an example of what could happen to other soil fumigants. Restrictions in California on methyl bromide use have increased dramatically in the last 5 years. A recent court decision requires DPR to issue use regulations instead of Suggested Permit Conditions. These regulations include a complex formula to calculate buffers depending on application method and rates. For example, for a 10 acre orchard fumigation, the buffer would be 840 feet if it were fumigated at one time. Multiple applications of portions of the field are often required to reduce buffers to acceptable levels. The new regulation also requires extensive prenotification of occupants of residences within 300 feet of the buffer, and limits in field workers ( drivers, copilots, tarp layers) to no more than 4 hours per day in the field. These restrictions have resulted in both legal and practical limitations where methyl bromide can be used and increased application costs.

Conclusions Fumigant use regulations are more complex and restrictive in California than in other states. Telone township caps will severely restrict use in some areas. County applied buffers also limit uses. Although current restrictions on alternative fumigants are of concern to growers, of more concern is not knowing what future regulations will be. As long as the rules may change, it is precarious to invest time and money into adopting and adapting to alternative fumigants.

References Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch, and Tom Trout. 2001. Township limits on 1,3 D will impact adjustment to methyl bromide phase out. California Agriculture 55( 3): 12 18.

Trout, Tom. 2001. Impact of township caps on Telone use in California. The Pink Sheet, published by the California Strawberry Commission, 01( 9), 4 pp. APPENDIX 2 California Cut Flower Commission ( Kee Kitiyama Foundation) funding for Methyl Bromide Alternative Research ( 1992 to present)

Title Researcher/ University Funding Period Amount Impacts of Crop Protection Chemicals Regulations on the Cut Flower Industry in California Zilberman/ UC Berkeley Nov. 1992   Mar. 1995 $ 20,000 Electronic Heating of Soil and Growing Media to Eliminate Plant Pathogens MacDonald/ UC Davis Aug. 1993   Dec. 1994 Feb. 1995  Feb. 1995 $ 20,000 $ 11,500 Testing of Methyl Iodide as a Substitute for Methyl Bromide as a Soil Fumigant for Cut Flower Production Ohr & Sims/ UC Riverside Feb. 1995 Feb. 1996 $ 2,500 Soil Heating Technologies as Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Soil borne Plant Pathogens MacDonald/ UC Davis Feb. 1996  Feb. 1997 $ 10,000 Controlled Atmospheres as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide for Disinfestation of Perishable Commodities Shelton/ Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Feb. 1996  Feb. 1997 $ 4,000 Control of Problem Weeds in Field and Greenhouse grown Ornamentals Elmore/ UC Davis Feb. 1997 Feb. 1998 Feb. 1998  Feb. 1999 Feb. 1999  Feb. 2000 Feb. 2000  Feb. 2001 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 4,500 $ 12,500 Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Control of Soil borne Pathogens MacDonald/ UC Davis Feb. 1997  Feb. 1998 $ 8,000 Steaming as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide for the Control of Fusarium Wilt of Carnations MacDonald/ UC Davis Feb. 1998  Feb. 1999 $ 8,000 Yellow Nut sedge Management Systems for Field Grown Cut Flowers Wilen/ Coop. Ext., San Diego Feb. 2000  Feb. 2001 $ 10,036 Development of an Integrated Treatment Approach as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide Pre plant Fumigation for Field Grown Cut Flower Production Locke/ USDA, ARS, USNA, FNPRU Feb. 2001  Feb. 2002 $ 6,500 Organization and evaluation of methyl bromide alternative trials and CUE preparation ( limited trial work funded by Arvesta) Chase, Chase Research Gardens, CA Jan. 2002   Dec. 2002 $ 15,000 $ 4,000 Methyl bromide alternative research for the California Cut Flower Industry Gerik, USDA, ARS, Parlier, CA Sep. 2002  Sep. 2003 $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 178,536 Appendix 3 California trials in progress for 2002 2003 Dr. Jim Gerik  USDA ARS, Parlier, CA Pyramid Flowers  Oxnard, CA Started in August 2002 Treatment Rate Midas ( 30% Iodomethane/ 70% chloropicrin) 400 lb/ acre Chloropicrin 300 lb/ acre InLine 50 GPA Sodium azide 100 lb/ acre Multiguard Protect and metam sodium 56 and 50 GPA Multiguard FAA 600 lb/ acre Metam sodium 100 GPA Untreated control

Dr.' s S. Schneider, J. Gerik, T. Trout Jackson Perkins Rose Trial Started  Fall 2001 Treatment Rate Untreated control  Methyl bromide: chloropicrin ( 98: 2) 350 lb/ acre Shanked MIDAS ( 30% Iodomethane/ 70% chloropicrin) 400 lb/ acre Telone C35, with tarp 48 GPA Telone C35, no tarp 48 GPA Drip( water cap, no tarp) InLine 50 GPA Telone II EC 35 GPA Chloropicrin 400 lb/ acre Chloropicrin 200 lb/ acre MIDAS ( 30/ 70) 400 lb/ acre MIDAS ( 50/ 50) 300 lb/ acre Chloropicrin, split application 200 lbs + 200 lbs 7 days later Metam sodium 75 GPA Iota ( a biological distributed by Central Cal Ag) Dr. Clyde Elmore and John Roncoroni   University of California at Davis Davis, CA ( campus trial) Scheduled for Fall 2002 Treatments Rate Plastic  water control  Sodium azide ( CX 100) 100 GPA Sodium azide ( CX 100) 150 GPA Sodium azide ( Agrizide) 100 GPA Sodium azide ( Agrizide) 150 GPA Multiguard FF 56 GPA Multiguard FF + metam sodium 56 + 50 GPA Metam sodium 50 GPA Chloropicrin 400 lbs/ acre InLine ( 50: 50) 300 lbs/ acre Dr. Clyde Elmore, John Roncoroni and Ann King Ano Nuevo Flower Gardens  Santa Cruz, CA Started June 2002 Treatments (" Dry Side") Rate Film Iodomethane + chloropicrin ( 50 50%) 100 lb/ acre HD tarp Iodomethane + chloropicrin ( 50 50%) 200 lb/ acre HD tarp Iodomethane + chloropicrin ( 50 50%) 300 lb/ acre HD tarp Iodomethane + chloropicrin ( 50 50%) 100 lb/ acre VIF tarp Iodomethane + chloropicrin ( 50 50%) 200 lb/ acre VIF tarp Iodomethane + chloropicrin ( 50 50%) 300 lb/ acre VIF tarp Untreated  VIF tarp All treatments were covered with HD or VIF polyethylene for 7 days.

Treatments (" Wet Side") Rate Metam sodium + 1, 3 D/ chloropicrin ( C35) 75 + 35 GPA Metam sodium 75 GPA Dazomet ( Basamid) + C 35 200 lb/ acre + 35 GPA HD tarp Dazomet 200 lb/ acre 1,3 D + chloropicrin ( C 35) 35 GPA Untreated + tarp  Dr. Clyde Elmore and John Roncoroni   University of California at Davis Glad A Way   Santa Maria, CA Started July 2002 Treatments (" dry side") Rate Methyl bromide/ chloropicrin ( 50: 50 mixture) 350 lb/ Iodomethane/ chloropicrin ( 67: 33%) 300 lb/ acre Iodomethane/ chloropicrin ( 50: 50%) 300 lb/ acre Iodomethane/ chloropicrin ( 33: 67%) 300 lb/ acre Untreated/ tarped control  Applied through shanks and covered with standard HD tarp.

Treatments (" wet side") Rate Metam sodium + C 35 75 gal ( blade, rototilled, packed) + 35 gal ( shanked and tarped) Dazomet + C 35 200 lb ( rototilled, packed) + 35 gal ( shanked and tarped) Metam sodium + C 35 50 gal ( blade, rototilled, packed) + 35 gal ( shanked and tarped Sodium azide ( Agrizide) 100 lb ( bladed, rototilled, packed and tarped) Untreated  ( tarped) Tarps remained for 7 days when they will be cut and opened to air for 24 48 hours then removed.

Dr. Clyde Elmore and John Roncoroni   University of California at Davis Mellano Flower Fields   Carlsbad, CA Planned to start October 2002 Treatments Rate Metam sodium + C 35 75 GPA ( incorporated and rolled) + 35 GPA ( shanked and tarped) Metam sodium + Telone II 75 GPA ( incorporated and rolled) + + chloropicrin 200 GPA + 15 GPA ( shanked and tarped) Metam sodium 75 GPA ( incorporated and rolled) Dazomet + C 35 200 lb/ acre ( incorporated and rolled) + 35 GPA ( shanked and tarped) Dazomet + Telone II + chloropicrin 200 lb/ acre ( incorporated and rolled) + 200 GPA + 15 GPA ( shanked and tarped) Check  ( tarped) Dr. Clyde Elmore and John Roncoroni   University of California at Davis Mellano Flower Fields   Carlsbad, CA Planned to start October 2002 Fumigation plot  Ranunculus on North side Treatments Rate Methyl bromide/ chloropicrin ( 50 50) 350 lb/ acre Iodomethane/ chloropicrin ( 50 50) 300 lbs Iodomethane/ chloropicrin ( 50 50) 350 lbs Check  ( tarped)