[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60255-60261]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0234; FRL-8152-4]

Fluazinam; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluazinam in or on aronia berry; buffalo currant; bushberry subgroup
13B; Chilean guava; European barberry; ginseng; highbush cranberry;
honeysuckle, edible; jostaberry; juneberry; lingonberry; native
currant; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C,
except pea; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, except pea;
salal; sea buckthorn; turnip, greens; vegetable, Brassica leafy, group
5; and vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A, except pea.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 24, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 24, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0234. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow

the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket
index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are
listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0234 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before December 24, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0234, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21261-21263) (FRL-
8124-5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
6E7137 and 6E7139) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4),
500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 08540. PP
6E7137 requested that 40 CFR 180.574 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the fungicide fluazinam in or on Vegetable,
legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A, except pea at 0.15 parts per
million (ppm); Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 0.02 ppm;
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.01 ppm; and turnip, tops at
0.02 ppm; and residues of fluazinam and its metabolite AMGT in or on
Bushberry subgroup 13B; berry, aronia; blueberry, lowbush; currant,
buffalo; guava, chilean; barberry, European; cranberry, highbush;
honeysuckle; jostaberry; Juneberry; lingonberry; currant, native;
salal; and buckthorn, sea at 4.5 ppm. PP 6E7139 requested that 40 CFR
180.574 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of fluazinam
in or on ginseng at 3.0 ppm; bean, dry at 0.01 ppm; and pea and bean,
succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, except pea at 0.02 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences
Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified commodity terms and/or tolerance levels for most commodities.
EPA has also determined that the tolerances for berries should include
parent fluazinam only. The reasons for these changes are explained in
Unit V.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
. '' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of fluazinam on Aronia berry at 7.0 ppm;
buffalo currant at 7.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13B at 7.0 ppm; Chilean
guava at 7.0 ppm; European barberry at 7.0 ppm; ginseng at 4.5 ppm;
highbush cranberry at 7.0 ppm; honeysuckle, edible at 7.0 ppm;
jostaberry at 7.0 ppm; juneberry at 7.0 ppm; lingonberry at 7.0 ppm;
native currant at 7.0 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C, except pea at 0.02 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled,
subgroup 6B, except pea at 0.04 ppm; salal at 7.0 ppm; sea buckthorn at
7.0 ppm; turnip, greens at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5
at 0.01 ppm; and vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A, except
pea at 0.10 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated
with establishing these tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by fluazinam as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov
 in the document ``Fluazinam: Human Health Risk

Assessment for Proposed Use on Edible-Podded Beans, Shelled Succulent
and Dried Beans, Brassica Leafy Vegetables, Bushberries, and Ginseng''.
The referenced document is available in the docket established by this
action, which is described under ADDRESSES, and is identified as EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0234-0003 in that docket.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluazinam used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in

document ``Fluazinam: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on
Edible-Podded Beans, Shelled Succulent and Dried Beans, Brassica Leafy
Vegetables, Bushberries, and Ginseng'' at pages 25-26 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0234.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluazinam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing fluazinam tolerances in 40 CFR
180.574. EPA also considered exposure to residues of the metabolite
AMGT, which has been identified as a metabolite of toxicological
concern in all crops except peanuts, root and tuber vegetables and bulb
vegetables. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluazinam and AMGT in
food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which
there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues
of fluazinam. AMGT residues were calculated based on the mean ratio of
metabolite to parent seen in field trials. For crops where this
information was not available (Brassica and legume vegetables), a
conservative, upper-bound ratio derived from metabolism studies was
used to estimate AMGT residues.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods
for which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level
residues of fluazinam. AMGT residues were calculated as described for
the acute dietary exposure assessment.
    iii. Cancer. In accordance with the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment, for fluazinam there is ``Suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' This determination is based on weight of
evidence considerations where a concern for potential carcinogenic
effects in humans is raised, but the animal data are judged not
sufficient for a stronger conclusion.
    Carcinogenicity studies were conducted in rats and mice. In rats,
increased incidences of thyroid gland follicular cell tumors were seen
in males

but not in females. In mice, there were conflicting results with regard
to hepatocarcinogenicity. In one study benign and malignant liver
tumors were seen in males; no liver tumors were seen in females. In the
second study, carcinogenic response was equivocal and tumors did not
occur in a dose-related manner. In males, the dose that induced liver
tumors in the first study failed to induce liver tumors in the same
strain of mice in the second study. In the second study, in females,
liver tumors were seen only at an excessive toxic dose. There was no
evidence of mutagenicity either in in vivo or in vitro assays. No
chemicals structurally related to fluazinam were identified as
carcinogens.
    Since the evidence for carcinogenicity is not sufficient to
indicate anything greater than a suggestion of a carcinogenic
potential, EPA concludes that quantification of cancer risk would not
be scientifically appropriate, as it attaches greater significance to
the positive cancer findings than the entire dataset warrants. Further,
due to the equivocal and inconsistent nature of the cancer response in
the rat and mouse studies (in rats, effects seen only in males; in
mice, one study showed effects only in males but even these effects
were not reproducible), EPA finds that when judged qualitatively the
data indicate no greater than a negligible risk of cancer.
Additionally, it is noted that the point of departure (1.1 milligrams/
kilograms/day) (mg/kg/day)) selected for deriving the chronic reference
dose will adequately account for all chronic effects determined to
result from exposure to fluazinam in chronic animal studies, including
the equivocal cancer effects.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for fluazinum. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for fluazinam in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling
taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of
fluazinam. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used
in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
.

    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) of fluazinam for acute exposures
are estimated to be 71.0 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
0.187 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 17.7 ppb for surface water and 0.187 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 71.0 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 17.7 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fluazinam is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to fluazinam and any other
substances and fluazinam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that fluazinam has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1.In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional (``10X'') tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when
reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if
reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology database for fluazinam includes rat and rabbit developmental
toxicity studies, a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats and a 2-
generation reproduction toxicity study in rats.
    There was no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility of fetuses following in utero exposure to fluazinam in
the rabbit developmental study and no evidence of increased
susceptibility of offspring in the 2-generation reproduction study in
rats. However, there was evidence of increased qualitative
susceptibility of fetuses to fluazinam in the developmental toxicity
study in rats. In this study, increased incidences of facial/palate
clefts and other rare deformities in the fetuses were observed in the
presence of minimal maternal toxicity. In a developmental neurotoxicity
study, decreases in body weight and body weight gain and a delay in
completion of balano-preputial separation were observed in pups. These
effects were seen in the absence of maternal effects, suggesting
increased quantitative susceptibility of the offspring.
    Although there is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility
in young in the developmental toxicity study in rats, there are no
residual uncertainties with regard to prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity following in utero exposure of rats or rabbits. Considering
the overall toxicity profile and the doses and endpoints selected for
risk assessment for fluazinam, the degree of concern for the effects
observed in the study is low. There is a clear NOAEL for the fetal
effects seen, the effects occurred in the presence of maternal
toxicity, and they were only seen at the highest dose tested.
Additionally, the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day identified in this
developmental toxicity study in rats is significantly higher than the
NOAEL used (7 mg/kg/day) to establish the acute Reference Dose (aRfD)
of 0.07 mg/kg/day (females 13-49); thus, the aRfD is

protective of any potential developmental effects.
    Quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility was also observed
in a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats. In pups, there were
decreases in body weight and body weight gain during lactation, and
delayed preputial separation observed at 10 mg/kg/day (NOAEL=2 mg/kg/
day). Although the NOAEL of 2 mg/kg/day is lower than that used for the
acute RfD for females 13-49 (7 mg/kg/day), the effects noted in the
developmental neurotoxicity study are attributable to multiple doses
and are considered postnatal effects. Therefore, the study endpoint is
not appropriate either for acute dietary exposures or for use with the
population subgroup females 13-49 (with this subgroup the concern is
for prenatal exposures). The chronic RfD of 0.011 mg/kg/day is based on
a lower NOAEL of 1.1 mg/kg/day and is considered protective of
potential developmental effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fluazinam is complete in regard to
pre-and postnatal toxicity and neurotoxicity.
    ii. A developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) in rats was submitted
to address the presence of neurotoxic lesions observed after fluazinam
exposure in sub-chronic and chronic toxicity studies and to address the
qualitative susceptibility seen in the rat developmental toxicity
study. In the DNT study, there were no neurotoxic effects observed in
either dams or pups. However, there was evidence of quantitative
susceptibility for other effects in the DNT study, based on decreases
in body weight and body weight gain, and delayed preputial separation
in pups in the absence of maternal toxicity. There are no residual
uncertainties for these effects, and toxicity endpoints and traditional
UFs to be used in the risk assessment will be protective of these
potential developmental effects.
    iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental study in rats, the risk
assessment team did not identify any residual uncertainties after
establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the
risk assessment of fluazinam. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or
postnatal toxicity is low.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground and
surface water modeling estimates were used. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fluazinam.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, EPA performed two different acute risk
assessments - one focusing on females 13 to 49 years old and designed
to protect against prenatal effects and the other focusing on acute
effects relevant to all other population groups. The more sensitive
acute endpoint was seen as to prenatal effects rather than other acute
effects. For females 13 to 49 years old, the acute dietary exposure
from food and water will occupy 8% of the aPAD addressing prenatal
effects. As to acute effects other than prenatal effects, the acute
dietary exposure from food and water to fluazinam will occupy 3% of the
aPAD for infants less than 1-year old, the population group receiving
the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to fluazinam
from food and water will utilize 16% of the cPAD for infants less than
1-year old, the population group with the greatest estimated exposure.
There are no residential uses for fluazinam that result in chronic
residential exposure to fluazinam.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Fluazinam is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Fluazinam is
not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
determined that quantification of human cancer risk is not necessary
for fluazinam and that the chronic risk assessment based on the
established cPAD is protective of potential cancer effects. Based on
the results of the chronic risk assessment discussed above in Unit
III.E.2, EPA concludes that fluazinam is not expected to pose a cancer
risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fluazinam residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with electron-
capture detection) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    There are no established or proposed Codex MRLs for residues of
fluazinam in plant or animal commodities.

V. Conclusion

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the proposed tolerances as follows:
     The tolerances for Bushberry subgroup 13B and related
berries were increased from 4.5 ppm to 7.0 ppm based on analyses of the
residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in
accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances
Based on Field Trial Data. Although IR-4 proposed tolerances for
combined residues of fluazinam and AMGT on these commodities, EPA
determined, based on the low levels of AMGT seen in the field trials,
that only parent fluazinam should be included in the tolerance
expression.
     The commodity terms for dry beans and succulent shelled
legumes were

revised to read ``Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
6C, except pea'' and ``Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B,
except pea'' to agree with recommended commodity terms in the Office of
Pesticide Program's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary. Tolerances for
these commodities were increased from 0.01 ppm to 0.02 ppm (dried) and
from 0.02 ppm to 0.04 ppm (succulent) to account for the 50%
dissipation of residues observed in the storage stability study.
     The commodity term for edible-podded legume vegetables was
revised to read ``Vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A, except
pea'' to agree with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary. The
tolerance level was decreased from 0.15 ppm to 0.10 ppm based on
maximum residues seen in the field trials, since 80% of the residues
were non-detectable and, therefore, not appropriate for analysis using
the Tolerance Spreadsheet.
     IR-4 proposed separate tolerances of 0.02 ppm and 0.01 ppm
for ``Leafy Brassica greens subgroup'' and ``Head and stem Brassica
subgroup'', respectively. EPA determined that a single tolerance of
0.01 ppm covering the entire crop group ``Vegetable, Brassica leafy,
group 5'' would be appropriate, based on the results of field trials
showing no residues above the method limit of quantitation (LOQ) in any
of the representative commodities (broccoli, cabbage and mustard
greens). The tolerance for turnip greens was revised from 0.02 to 0.01
ppm on the same basis.
     The tolerance for ginseng was increased from 3.00 ppm to
4.5 ppm to account for dissipation of residues observed in the storage
stability study.
    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluazinam, 3-
chloro-N-[3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-5-
(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine, in or on Aronia berry at 7.0 ppm;
buffalo currant at 7.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13B at 7.0 ppm; Chilean
guava at 7.0 ppm; European barberry at 7.0 ppm; ginseng at 4.5 ppm;
highbush cranberry at 7.0 ppm; honeysuckle, edible at 7.0 ppm;
jostaberry at 7.0 ppm; juneberry at 7.0 ppm; lingonberry at 7.0 ppm;
native currant at 7.0 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C, except pea at 0.02 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled,
subgroup 6B, except pea at 0.04 ppm; salal at 7.0 ppm; sea buckthorn at
7.0 ppm; turnip, greens at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5
at 0.01 ppm; and vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A, except
pea at 0.10 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 11, 2007.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--AMENDED

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.574 is amended by removing the heading General from
paragraph (a)(1) and adding General to paragraph (a) and by
alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.574  Fluazinam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aronia berry...............................................          7.0
Buffalo currant............................................          7.0
Bushberry subgroup 13B.....................................          7.0
Chilean guava..............................................          7.0
European barberry..........................................          7.0
Ginseng....................................................          4.5
Highbush cranberry.........................................          7.0

Honeysuckle, edible........................................          7.0
Jostaberry.................................................          7.0
Juneberry..................................................          7.0
Lingonberry................................................          7.0
Native currant.............................................          7.0
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C,           0.02
 except pea................................................
Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, except pea...         0.04

                                * * * * *
Salal......................................................          7.0
Sea buckthorn..............................................          7.0
Turnip, greens.............................................         0.01
Vegetable, Brassica leafy, group 5.........................         0.01
Vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A, except pea..         0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-20581 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 44244-44246]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-207-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hester Storage
Field Retirement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

July 23, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation's (Transco) Hester Storage Field Retirement Project
(Project) involving abandonment, construction, and temporary operation
of facilities by Transco in St. James Parish, Louisiana.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on August 22, 2008.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Transco provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including how to
participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The proposed project would involve temporary compression and minor
modification and installation of yard pipeline at Compressor Station 64
to support the final withdrawal of base gas from the Hester Storage
field; eventual removal and capping of 5 wells of the Hester Storage
Field; closure of Compressor Station 64, and the abandonment in place
of 4.75 miles of pipeline lateral.
    Specifically, Transco proposes to:
     Temporarily install one 630 horsepower engine/compressor
unit associated yard pipes at Compressor Station 64;
     Remove gathering lines between Compressor Station 64 and 5
injection/withdrawal wells, 1 monitoring well, and 3 water wells;
     Abandon the 12-inch pipeline lateral from Compressor
station 64 (milepost 8.66) to the interconnect with Occidental Chemical
Corporation (milepost 3.91);
     Abandon and cap 5 injection/withdrawal wells, 1 monitoring
well, and 3 water wells; and

     Remove all aboveground buildings and equipment at
Compressor Station 64, including, but not limited to the compressor
building, office/shop, air compressor building, utility shed, meter
building, condensate and wastewater tanks, gas coolers, glycol units,
gas scrubbers, 2 existing engine/compressor units, and associated
piping.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonjurisdictional Facilities

    There are no non-jurisdictional facilities associated with this
project.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed temporary facilities would be
contained within the existing Compressor Station 64 fence line,
existing well pads and existing pipeline right-of-way. Approximately
14.06 acres of land would be disturbed during the temporary
installation of compression and the abandonment of wells and pipeline.
Following construction, the use of the pipeline lateral right-of-way
would revert to the landowner while the compressor station property
would either be donated to the community or sold.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \2\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils.
     Land use.
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands.
     Cultural resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Air quality and noise.
     Endangered and threatened species.
     Hazardous waste.
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the
environmental information provided by Transco. This preliminary list of
issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     The project may have air emissions and noise impacts.
     Safety of the storage field after abandonment.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Hester Storage Field Abandonment
Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please send in your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before August 22, 2008.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP08-207-000 with your submission.
The docket number can be found on the front of this notice. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ11.3.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, who have
existing easements from the pipeline, or who own homes within distances
defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground
facilities. By this notice we are also asking governmental agencies,

especially those in Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming
cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding.
    If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to
intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    The Notice of Application for this proposed project issued on May
6, 2008 identified the date for the filing of interventions as May 28,
2008. However, affected landowners and parties with environmental
concerns may be granted late intervenor status upon showing good cause
by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this
proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other
parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental
comments considered.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17404 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

									OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with Methyl
Bromide, Chloropicrin, Dazomet, and Metam Sodium for Use in Raspberry
Nurseries, Fruit and Nut Deciduous Tree Nurseries, and Rose Bush
Nurseries in California

FROM: 	Leonard Yourman, Plant Pathologist

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Stephen Smearman, Economist

		Economic Analysis Branch

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

Timothy Kiely, Chief

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		John Leahy,  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Special Review and Reregistration Division

Summary

This assessment attempts to measure the benefits of soil fumigation to
nurseries producing plant stock in open fields.  The assessment
characterizes the industry in terms of total value, area and type of
production, and the various types of pest control alternatives available
to growers.  There is little data available to conduct a quantitative
analysis of the benefits of fumigation to the nursery industry, in
general, and in particular, the nurseries growing fruit and tree nut
stock and rose bush stock.  This assessment primarily relies on nursery
practices in the western U.S., especially nurseries in California.  The
Agency is requesting information that will assist in determining the
benefits of fumigant use for this industry.

The nursery industry is extremely diverse and is characterized by
numerous crop species and varieties, produced in multiple cropping
systems in different environments.  According to the USDA NASS Nursery
Crop 2003 Summary of a survey of 17 program states, the nursery industry
had an estimated value $3.97 billion dollars based on the gross sales
for operations exceeding $100,000 in sales.  The combined value of
nurseries producing fruit and nut trees and deciduous shrubs, which
includes rose bushes, accounted for more than 20% of the total value of
all nursery production, or $799 million according to the USDA summary.

Methyl bromide and chloropicrin are the dominant fumigants used in
nursery stock production in the western U.S.  Methyl bromide is used in
California nurseries and some nurseries in the Pacific Northwest under a
critical use exemption.  Alternatives to methyl bromide such as
1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), metam sodium and dazomet are also used to
some extent, either individually or in combination, although these
alternatives have various restrictions or limitations.  Fumigants are
used in nursery production to control diseases, nematodes and weeds.
Based on the available data, approximately 65% of nurseries in
California rely on methyl bromide (used with chloropicrin).
Alternatives to methyl bromide are used for the balance of nursery
soils.  Nurseries must meet certification requirements for pest-free
plant material and, therefore, the benefits from fumigation are
substantial.  These benefits result in higher yields, higher quality
plant production, and lower costs of production.

Background

As part of the Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants:
dazomet, chloropicrin, metam potassium, metam sodium, and methyl
bromide.  This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided
by soil fumigants in the production of nursery stock fruit trees, nut
trees, raspberry stock plants, and rose stock plants.  Some of the
benefits of soil fumigants are the improvements in production and/or
reductions in costs resulting from the use of the fumigant.  The social
benefits of a pesticide are divided between the users of the pesticide,
such as nursery managers, and consumers of the commodity.  Consumers
benefit because higher production and/or lower costs translate into a
cheaper and more abundant supply of goods.

This assessment of the benefits of soil fumigants to nurseries compares
the current situation in which fumigants are available for use, subject
to existing label restrictions, to the situation that could occur were
the fumigants not available.  However, due to the lack of data necessary
for a quantitative assessment, this analysis qualitatively assesses and
characterizes the likely benefits of fumigant uses on fruit and tree nut
and rose bush nursery stock.  This is somewhat different from an
assessment of the impacts of regulation, as no specific regulatory
scheme is considered.

This assessment focuses on fruit and nut tree, raspberry, and rose bush
nurseries in the western U.S., primarily California, where large open
field nurseries provide planting stock to commercial fruit, nut, berry,
and rose growers.  This assessment assumes that other regions in the
U.S. that provide nursery stock to local growers do not rely on chemical
fumigation for production, but generally grow stock by container
production.

Introduction

Nursery producers provide stock plants that are pest-free to allow the
establishment of plantings that are of the highest initial quality.
Nurseries provide trees used by commercial growers of such diverse fruit
crops as apricots, peaches, prunes, nectarines, cherries, plums, apples,
pears, Asian pears, ornamental pears, as well as nut crops such as
almonds, walnuts, pistachios, pecans, and chestnuts.  In addition, other
crops such as raspberries and rose bushes rely on fumigation to produce
pest-free planting stock.  In California, approximately 95% of fruit
trees are fruiting varieties sold to commercial producers; the other 5%
are ornamental types used for landscaping (CUN, 2006).  Nurseries are
concentrated in areas conducive to early plant growth.  Deciduous trees
are primarily produced in California in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
valleys.  Many of the large raspberry nurseries are located in the
eastern San Joaquin valley and western Washington (CUN, 2006).

Nurseries must provide stock that is pest-free in order to meet state
mandated certification requirements for plant material (CDFA, 2001).
Use of products with 1,3-D can provide an effective alternative to
methyl bromide for nematode control where allowed by township cap
regulation and where soil type (sandy type soils) and soil moisture
provide effective treatment (McKenry, 2000; Schneider et al., 2004).
For management of pathogens, choropicrin is an important amendment to
1,3-D treatments.  Moisture restrictions for 1,3-D may be more limiting
than township caps.  Nurseries with heavy soils (those with high clay
content) or moisture greater than 12% (especially common in clay soils
at depths of 1 to 1.5 meters) may not be able to achieve effective pest
management (McKenry, 2000).  In these situations methyl bromide +
chloropicrin are necessary.

The goal in the orchard nursery industry is 99.9% control when sampled
within 30-60 days after treatment, so certification can be met when
stock is harvested 18 months later (McKenry, 2000).  Generally, less
than 98% control in the 30-60 day sampling period will yield
unacceptable stock plants.  Field moisture is carefully monitored.  A
site (e.g., walnut nursery in Davis, California) with silty clay loam
over sandy loam or clay loam has a moisture differential with the clay
textured soils holding more moisture (>12%), which can impede
distribution of an alternative such as 1,3-D and make it ineffective
(McKenry, 2000).

Certification Requirements

Nurseries providing plant stock of raspberry, tree fruits and nuts, and
roses are covered by certification requirements as exemplified by
California (e.g., CDFA, 2001; CDFA, 2003) and federal regulations
(USDA-APHIS, 2004).  For example, “Section 3640, CCR, makes it
mandatory that nursery stock for farm planting be commercially clean
with respect to economically important nematodes” (CDFA, 2001, 2003).
The regulations list methyl bromide and 1,3-D as acceptable fumigants
for control of nematodes.

A recent example of complications from contaminated nursery stock is a
report by extension specialists in Florida (Noling, 2006).  Florida
growers purchase some strawberry transplants from Canada.  Nematodes
were found on potatoes in Quebec province resulting in a quarantine by
USDA of all plant material from Quebec province into the U.S.  The
quarantine by USDA initially affected 30 million bare-root strawberry
transplants and 3 million plug plants destined for Florida farms, which
could have reduced plantings in Florida by 20%.  Ultimately the problem
was resolved by strict certification requirements.  The situation
highlights the importance of fumigants to nurseries and the implications
of potentially contaminated nursery stock to farms within the U.S.

If nematodes are found and the nursery stock is not “free of
especially injurious pests and disease symptoms”, then a total loss is
likely because the nursery stock:  1) Would not qualify for a CDFA
Nursery Stock Certificate for Interstate and Intrastate Shipments, 2)
Would probably not be marketable, since resale for planting is severely
restricted by the CDFA, 3) should be destroyed to prevent further
infestation.  Table 1 identifies major pests that are targeted by soil
fumigants for nursery soils.

Table 1.  Target pests for fumigants for nursery production of nut and
fruit trees and rose and raspberry bushes.

State	Key Pests

California Nut Trees	Nematodes: Pratylenchus vulnus (root lesion),
Meloidogyne spp. (root knot), Helicotylenchus dihystera (spiral),
Xiphinema americanum (dagger).

California Fruit Trees	Nematodes: Helicotylenchus dihystera (spiral),
Tylenchus mexicanus (Tylenchus), Tylenchorhynchus spp. (stunt),
Trichodorus spp. (stubby root)

Raspberry Nurseries	Pathogens: Phytophthora fragariae var. Rubi (root
rot), Verticillium spp. (wilt), others including Pythium spp.,
Rhizoctonia spp.

Rose Bushes	Nematodes: Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne hapla); lesion
nematode (Pratylencus penetrans); pin nematode (Paratylenchus hamatus);

Pathogens: Verticillium dahlia; Pythium spp.; Agrobacterium tumefaciens

*Based on information supplied in critical use exemption requests for
methyl bromide submitted by requesting consortia.

Raspberry Nurseries

Raspberry nurseries in the western U.S. provide raspberry stock to most
of the growers in North America.  Dry climates and soils make these
areas ideal for production of high quality plant stock.  Although there
are relatively few raspberry nurseries, they provide all of the stock
used by commercial growers, and therefore, have a great impact on
raspberry production overall.  Methyl bromide is used on approximately
500 acres of field beds (CUN, 2006).  There is a large return in the
benefits of certified pest-free stock to numerous commercial growers
throughout the continent.  The raspberry nursery industry uses flat
fumigation techniques similar to that of the strawberry industry.
Raspberry nursery stock is grown using a two-year production cycle
beginning with tissue culture and moving to foundation planting the
first year.  Winter dormant plants are replanted in commercial nurseries
and harvested after one year.

USDA organic standards allow the use of nursery stock propagated using
methyl bromide for organic production in recognition of the vital role
vigorous planting stock plays in organic and integrated pest management
systems.  This exemplifies that the use of methyl bromide in propagation
nurseries reduces the need for methyl bromide, and other chemical
inputs, in fruiting fields.

Land is fallowed as part of the two-year cycle (the production system is
described in CUN, 2006 based on information from the Western Raspberry
Growers Association).  The production of one acre of raspberry nursery
is a 24-month process.  It begins with land preparation in January of
year 1.  A cover crop is then grown during the winter, spring and early
summer of year 1.  In the summer the cover crop is incorporated into the
soil and the land is prepared for fumigation.  There is a brief fallow
period in June of year 1 prior to fumigation.  The field is fumigated in
August of year 1.  The planting beds are constructed in September of
year 1.  These beds lay “fallow” through the winter, until February
of year 2.  The planted crop will grow until harvest in November and
December of year 2.  Following the harvest we begin another cycle begins
in January.

Although the nursery is a 24-month process, some land is fumigated each
year to provide an annual supply of planting stock for our farmers.
More important than yield for raspberry nurseries, as well as other
nurseries, is their dependence on certification of stock as
‘pest-free’ in order to meet state requirements to sell to
commercial outlets.

Fruit and Nut Deciduous Tree Nurseries

Deciduous tree nurseries range from 40 to over 1,500 acres in field beds
(the production system is described in CUN, 2006 based on information
from the California Association of Nursery & Garden Centers).  A typical
operation in California ranges between 200 and 300 acres.  The climate
and soil make this region an ideal area for tree nurseries (as well as a
major fruit and nut producing region).  While some nurseries concentrate
on specific tree crops, most nurseries grow and sell a variety of
different trees.  Nursery stock is grown on a cropping system that
includes crop rotation or cover cropping between tree production cycles;
therefore, not all of the nursery area is in tree production in a given
year.  The tree production cycle can be anywhere from a single year to
several years depending on the type of tree crop being produced.
Nursery production of trees takes from one to four years in the ground
depending on the type being produced.  Almonds take one year and walnuts
take at least two years.  Also, target tree size determines how long
plants are grown in the nursery.  The most common cycle is for the tree
crop to be in the ground for either one or two years.  A typical nursery
cycle starts by digging the current tree crop (to be sold) then planting
a cover crop for one or two years, followed by replanting with a tree
crop.  In order to prepare the ground for planting, the fields are
disked, deep ripped, leveled, and then fumigated to meet certification
standards set by the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA, 2001).  Methyl bromide is applied by shank and treated area is
usually covered with a tarp.  The fumigation is carried out around
August and September, and planting begins in October, and may continue
through January.  The deciduous nurseries are subject to mandates set
forth by the CDFA (2001) that trees must be pest free.  This is true for
tree nurseries in California that are in areas where alternatives are
either unsuitable for meeting certification standards or subject to
regulatory restrictions.

While some nurseries concentrate on specific tree crops, most nurseries
grow and sell a variety of different trees.  Nursery stock is grown on a
cropping system that includes crop rotation or cover cropping between
tree production cycles; therefore, not all of the nursery land is in
production in a given year.

Soil moisture content of greater than 12% reduces efficacy of 1,3-D.
Soils that are so dry are unusual at 1.5 meters (the depth required to
be nematode-free) (CDFA, 2001) especially with moderate to heavy
subsoils.  Approximately 65% of nurseries require methyl bromide to meet
certification requirements, especially in wet years (CUN, 2006).  Areas
with sandy-type soils and dry conditions generally have good results
from 1,3-D (where township caps allow its use) and combinations with
chloropicrin and/or metam-sodium.

Approximately 30% of nursery soils are clay or silt loam and require
methyl bromide, while one half of the remaining sand or sandy loam soils
do not meet the moisture requirements of less than 12% for use of 1,3-D
(CUN, 2006).  Therefore, approximately 65% of the nurseries rely on
methyl bromide.  Methyl bromide (applied with chloropicrin) and 1,3-D
(with or without chloropicrin) are the only approved fumigants for
treatment of nematodes in open field nurseries to meet California
Department of Food and Agriculture standards.  Methyl bromide is
important to the production of nematode-free stock where 1,3-D is not
feasible (estimated by industry as approximately 65% of the area)
because of incompatible soil moisture or soil type, or township cap
limitations.

Rose Bush Nurseries

Nurseries growing rose bush stock are grown in open field nurseries (the
production system is described in CUN, 2006 based on information from
the California Rose Growers).  A typical crop rotation for a two-year
rose crop includes one year fallow, followed by one or two years of
rotational crops, and then a two-year rose crop.  The two-year rose crop
cycle begins with land preparation (removing the cover crop, deep
cultivation, and fumigation with methyl bromide), followed by planting
the rootstock and T-bud grafting.  In late winter of the first year, the
rootstock tops are removed.  The rose crop matures by the second autumn
and is then harvested. This cycle varies depending on the type of rose
crop being produced (e.g., two-year roses, one-year minis and patio
trees, or 18-month mini bushes).

Although yield and quality losses may occur due to key pests,
quantifiable benefits for various fumigants are difficult to determine.
However, the crop must meet certification requirements or the stock will
not be accepted.

Although 1,3-D with chloropicrin is an effective alternative in some
situations, it is not effective in all nursery sites.  In soils with
moisture levels above 12%, 1,3-D does not provide control of nematodes
(McKenry, 2000).  In addition, 1,3-D does not control Verticillium
dahilae, Pythium spp., or weeds.  There are regulatory limitations to
the use of 1,3-D, yet growers must meet certification requirements.
Township caps may limit the availability of this alternative to growers,
especially since nursery roses are primarily produced in two townships,
where other crops that use 1,3-D are also grown.  Other alternatives,
such as metam sodium and dazomet do not provide consistent control of
target pests to a depth of 1.5 meters (CUN, 2006; McKenry, 2000).

Fumigants for Nurseries

Key fumigants for nurseries are methyl bromide + chloropicrin and 1,3-D
+ chloropicrin.  Regulations regarding certification requirements
mandate certain treatments.  Yield losses could be 100% if the nursery
stock cannot be certified as pest-free (CUN, 2006).  In California, only
methyl bromide and 1,3-D are listed as acceptable treatments for
nematode-free stock (CDFA, 2001; CDFA, 2003).  Methyl bromide is used
under a critical use exemption that is granted annually according to the
Montreal Protocols.  The amount of methyl bromide available in the
future will be dependent on an annual grant by the international body
that regulates the worldwide phase-out of methyl bromide.

Methyl Bromide

Raspberry Nurseries.  Plants are grown for one year in a foundation
nursery and one year in commercial nursery. The raspberry nursery
industry utilizes broadcast fumigation techniques similar to that of the
strawberry industry.  Raspberry nursery stock are grown using a two-year
production cycle beginning with tissue culture and moving to foundation
nurseries the first year.  Winter dormant plants are replanted in
commercial nurseries and harvested after one year.

Twenty-five acres of plants in a foundation nursery will provide for 250
acres of a commercial nursery.  A commercial nursery produces enough
plants to provide nearly 3,000 acres of raspberry plants for commercial
production.

Nursery stock grown in soils treated with methyl bromide and
chloropicrin are the standard by which other fumigant treatments are
measured, and therefore, no yield losses are associated with this
treatment.  Chloropicrin is a necessary amendment for use of methyl
bromide.

Table 2.   Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Fumigation Characteristics,
Raspberry Nurseries

Rate:	222 lb methyl bromide/treated area with 110 lb chloropicrin/acre

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

Fumigation Period: WA: 40% Sept-Oct; 60% March-April; CA: Aug-Sept

Surface Sealing:  Tarp

Typical Field Size: 87 acres

Source: CUN, 2006.

Deciduous (Fruit and Nut) Tree Nurseries.  The tree production cycle can
be anywhere from 1 year to several years depending on the type of tree
crop.  Nursery production of trees takes from 1-4 years.  Almonds take
one year, walnuts take at least two years.  Also, desired tree size
determines how long it is grown in the nursery.  A typical cycle is for
the tree crop to be in the ground for either 1 or 2 years.  A typical
nursery cycle starts by digging the current tree crop (to be sold) then
planting a cover crop for 1 or 2 years, followed by replanting with a
tree crop.  Fields are disked, deep ripped, leveled, and then fumigated
to meet certification standards set by the California Department of Food
and Agriculture (CDFA, 2001).  A shank is used to apply a fumigation of
75% methyl bromide and 25% chloropicrin, typically at a rate of 302 lb
per acre.  The treated area is covered with a high barrier tarp.  The
fumigation is carried out around August and September, and planting
begins in October, and may continue through January.  The deciduous
nurseries are subject to mandates set forth by the CDFA, that trees must
be pest-free (CDFA, 2001).

Table 3.  Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Fumigation Characteristics,
Deciduous Tree Nurseries

Rate:  290 lb methyl bromide/treated area with 6 lb chloropicrin/acre

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

Fumigation Period:  typically Fall

Surface Sealing:  Tarp

Typical Field Size:200 acres

Source: CUN, 2006.

Rose Nurseries.  Typically, crop rotation for a two-year rose crop
includes one-year fallow, followed by one or two years of rotational
crops, and then a two-year rose crop.  This rotation varies depending on
the type of rose crop being produced (i.e., two-year roses, one-year
minis and patio trees, or an 18-month mini bush).

The perennial nature of the crop requires pest control to a depth of 1.5
meters.  Certification requires commercially clean stock.  In tree
nursery production, there must be 99.9% nematode control in the first 30
to 60 days to meet this requirement (McKenry, 2000).  Once every 4 to 5
years a typical grower fumigates and plants approximately 20-25% of the
production area each year.

Table 4.  Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Fumigation Characteristics, Rose
Nurseries

Rate:  300 lb methyl bromide/treated area with 6 lb chloropicrin/acre

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

Fumigation Period:  typically Fall

Surface Sealing:  Tarp

Typical Field Size: 125 acres

Source: CUN, 2006.

Chloropicrin

Certification guidelines do not list chloropicrin as a “stand-alone”
treatment for certification.  However, chloropicrin is always used with
methyl bromide and nearly always used when 1,3-D is used as an
alternative to methyl bromide.   Chloropicrin is currently used with
methyl bromide at a ratio of methyl bromide to chloropicrin ranging from
98:2 to 50:50, depending on the situation.  Chloropicrin is an effective
fungicide, but will not adequately control nematodes or weeds.
Verticillium wilt is a major problem for strawberry growers and
disease-free plants are required so the pathogen is not further
distributed.  Chloropicrin is the more active fumigant against
Verticillium wilt when methyl bromide + chloropicrin is applied but
other pests (especially nematodes) would not be sufficiently controlled.
 Research trials (e.g., Kabir et al., 2003, 2005) in strawberry
nurseries suggest that 1,3-D + chloropicrin at 35% shank injected is
likely the primary alternative to methyl bromide—sometimes followed by
an application of dazomet to reduce weed populations.  Generally, the
use of 1,3-D is considered effective for nursery plants only with the
use of chloropicrin, if soil conditions (texture and moisture) are
amenable.

Soil moisture content of greater than 12% reduces efficacy of 1,3-D and,
therefore, it is not an acceptable treatment to comply with
certification standards.  Soils that are dry are unusual at 1.5 meters
(the depth required to be nematode-free) (CDFA, 2001) especially with
moderate to heavy subsoils.  Approximately 65% of nurseries in
California require methyl bromide to meet certification requirements
(especially in wet years).  Areas with light soils and dry conditions
generally have good results from 1,3-D (where township caps allow its
use) and combinations with chloropicrin and/or metam-sodium.

Based on information from strawberry nurseries a yield loss of 2-15% can
be expected with 1,3-D + chloropicrin and 5-16% with chloropicrin used
at 267 lb/acre.

Table 5.   1,3-D/Chloropicrin Fumigation Characteristics, Raspberry
Nurseries

Rate:200 lb 1,3-D/acre with 110 lb chloropicrin/acre

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

Fumigation Period: WA: 40% Sept-Oct; 60% March-April; CA: Aug-Sept

Surface Sealing:  Tarp

Source: CUN, 2006.

Metam-sodium, dazomet (and other methyl
isothiocyanate—MITC—producers).

These pesticides are not effective as “stand alone” treatments for
nursery soils.  Field trials in California suggest that they might be
used following treatments such as 1,3-D (e.g., Kabir et al., 2005).
Based on strawberry nursery information a yield loss of 13-57% might be
expected with metam-sodium (at 312 lb/acre) or dazomet if other
fumigants were not available.  However, because of regulatory
requirements, metam-sodium used alone is not an acceptable treatment
without the additional use of methyl bromide + chloropicrin or 1,3-D.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

According to the USDA NASS Nursery Crop 2003 Summary, a survey of the 17
program states estimates that the nursery industry was valued at $3.97
billion dollars based on the gross sales for operations that exceeded
$100,000 in sales in 2003.  Combined, fruit and tree nut nurseries and
deciduous shrub nurseries (including those nurseries growing rose bush
stock) accounted for more than 20% of the total value of production, or
$799 million according to the 2003 Summary.  Fruit and tree nut
nurseries account for approximately $216 million (or 5%) of the total
value of production, and deciduous shrubs, which includes rose
nurseries, accounted for approximately 15% of the total value of
production, or $583 million, according to the 2003 Summary.

The top three states in terms of production, according to the USDA NASS
Nursery Crop 2003 Summary, are California, Florida, and Oregon out of 17
program States surveyed.  California accounts for approximately 25
percent of the total value followed by Florida and Oregon with 16
percent respectively.  USDA NASS estimates that the number of operations
in 2003 was approximately 7,742 with sales over $10,000 per year in the
17 surveyed program states.

In terms of the benefits of fumigant use, there is ample evidence that
fumigant use increases yield, quality and production especially when a
formerly untreated area is treated for a particular pest.  However,
there is very little data available to conduct a thorough analysis of
the impacts of substituting one fumigant pest control alternative for
another on an existing site.  The data that is available suggests that
yield and quality impacts due to the unavailability of a particular
fumigant for a given industry would result in significant losses to the
industry.  This is because of the 100% certification required for pest
free stock discussed previously in the document.  Not meeting the
required certification results in a combination of direct revenue losses
due to yield loss impacts, and quality loss impacts due to stock that is
unusable or unable to be sold because the stock is not viable, has poor
marketable characteristics or is contaminated with disease or insect
pests.  Many of the references cited in this document estimate losses
could approach 100% using less effective chemical controls.

The agency is requesting information to assist with the determination of
the benefits of fumigant use in this industry.  What is needed is data
that can be used to measure changes in yield and quality of plants using
different pest control methods, and changes in the cost of production
using the different pest control methods for the various types of
nursery production.  This would include crop budgets or enterprise
budgets that present estimates of variable and fixed production costs
including: alternative fumigant control costs, cultural controls costs,
such as additional hand labor or material costs, etc.; estimated yields
using alternative pest control measures; gross and net revenues; and
other economic information for different sectors of the nursery
industry.

Limitations to assessment

This document attempts to characterize the use of fumigants in the
nursery industry.  Due to a lack of information on the industry, an
assessment of the benefits provided by the soil fumigants in the
production of nursery stock is not presented here.  The following are
limitations of this analysis:

Social benefits of pesticide use accrue to several groups, e.g., nursery
producers and consumers of nursery stock.  This document attempts to
describe qualitatively the benefits of fumigant use from the perspective
of the nursery industry in the western U.S., and does not quantify
benefits to the nursery industry due to limited information.

The assessment does not account for transition to new agronomic
practices such as a conversion to greenhouse production, introduction of
new growing areas, or the introduction of newer as yet unregistered
fumigants.

Due to limited information, this assessment does not use partial budget
analyses to estimate potential benefits to the industry but rather
attempts to characterize the industry in terms of value by market
segment, production methods and fumigant control alternatives and their
use.

REFERENCES

CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). 2003. Summary of
California Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Nursery Stock.
HYPERLINK "http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm.htm"
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm.htm ;   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm_pdfs/nipm_7.pdf"
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm_pdfs/nipm_7.pdf

CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). 2001. Approved
treatment and handling procedures to ensure against nematode pest
infestation of nursery stock. California Code of Regulations, Title 3,
Section 3060, et seq.  Nursery Inspection Procedures Manual, Item #12.
18 pp.;   HYPERLINK "http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm.htm"
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm.htm

CUN (Critical Use Nomination) for Methyl Bromide Use for Nursery
Stock—Fruit, Nut, Rose—Open Field. 2006.
http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/cun2009/cun2009_Nursery.pdf

Kabir, Z., Fennimore, S. A., Duniway, J. M., Martin, F. N., Browne, G.
T., Winterbottom, C. Q., Ajwa, H. A., Westerdahl, B. B., Goodhue, R. E.,
and Haar, M. J. 2005. Alternatives to methyl bromide for strawberry
runner plant production. HortScience 40(6):1709-1715.

McKenry, M. V. 2000. Evaluation of alternatives to methyl bromide for
soil fumigation at commercial fruit and nut tree nurseries. Contractor
for California Association of Nurseryman.  Prepared for California
Department of Pesticide Regulation. (See CUE 03-0035 request package of
California Fruit and Nut Growers Consortium.)

Schneider, S., T. Trout, J. Gerik, and H. Ajwa. 2004. Perennial crop
nurseries—performance of methyl bromide alternatives in the field.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions (2004). www.mbao.org

USDA-APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), Plant
Protection and Quarantine. 2004. Sudden Oak Death.  Amended order
restricting movement of nursery stock from California nurseries..
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ispm/pramorum/pdf_files/sodorder4-22-04sig
ned.pdf

USDA NASS Nursery Crops 2003 Summary, July 2004,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/publications/"
www.nass.usda.gov/publications/

USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and Floriculture
Summary, September 2004,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/publications/agriculturalchemicalusage/"
www.nass.usda.gov/publications/agriculturalchemicalusage/

 PAGE

 PAGE   10


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 353-354]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

December 22, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1639-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits its Penalty
Revenue Crediting Report for 2010.
    Filed Date: 12/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101220-5254.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 3, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1640-000.
    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C.
    Description: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C. submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Record Change Baseline Compliance Filing to be effective
7/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 3, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1641-000.
    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: MoGas Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per 154.203:
Compliance Filing--Missing Data Element to be effective 9/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 3, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1642-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Tariff Clean Up Filing to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 3, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1643-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Line 1278 Compliance Filing to be effective 11/1/2010.

    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 3, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1644-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP submits tariff filing per
154.204: DCP--Pier Reinforcement Project In-Service to be effective 1/
21/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 3, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1645-000.
    Applicants: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: Filed Agreements to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 3, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-33156 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 72499]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4671-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 12 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4671-DR), dated September 21, 2022,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 20, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 20, 2022, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Deanne
Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from Hurricane Fiona during
the period of September 17 to September 21, 2022, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are
warranted regarding federal funds provided under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 21, 2022, to
authorize an extension of the period of 100 percent Federal funding
for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A
and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program from 30 to 60 days from the start of the incident
period.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-25760 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P