ro

  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
Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, Metam Sodium and Dazomet in Ornamental
Production

FROM:	Nicole Zinn, Biologist

Biological Analysis Branch

		Stephen Smearman, Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Timothy Kiely, Chief

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		John Leahy

Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL DATE:  April 11, 2007

SUMMARY

This assessment attempts to measure the benefits of soil fumigation
through the characterization of 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 very little data available
to conduct a thorough analysis of the benefits of fumigation to
producers of ornamentals, and the Agency is requesting information that
will assist with the determination of the benefits of fumigant use.

The ornamentals industry is extremely diverse and is characterized by
numerous crop species and varieties, with multiple cropping systems in
different environments.  According to USDA NASS, in 2005, the
floriculture industry was valued at $5.36 billion, with bedding and
garden plants accounting for more than 50 percent of the total value of
production, or $2.68 billion.

Methyl bromide and chloropicrin are the dominant fumigants used in the
production of ornamentals, but 1,3-dichloropropene, metam sodium and
dazomet are also used.  Fumigants are used in ornamental production to
control diseases, nematodes and weeds.  Based on the available data, an
estimated 1 to 4 percent of ornamental production operations use
fumigants, however the benefits derived from fumigation can be quite
substantial in terms of higher yields, higher quality plant production,
and lower costs of production.  In addition, the benefit to the
propagative sector of the industry assures the availability of viable
stock that is not contaminated with disease or nematode pests, which
affects the future revenues of other sectors in the industry.

Background

As part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants:
dazomet, chloropicrin, metam potassium, metam sodium, and methyl
bromide.  This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided
by the soil fumigants in the production of ornamentals.  As such, for
the sectors of the floriculture industry where information is available,
it compares the current situation in which fumigants are available for
use, subject to existing label restrictions, to the situation that is
estimated to occur where the fumigants are not available.  This is
somewhat different from an assessment of the impacts of regulation, as
no specific regulatory scheme is considered and a partial budget
analysis is not utilized.

BEAD has limited information for ornamental crops but has attempted to
characterize the industry and the benefits of fumigation with the
information available.  Most of the information available is for
California and Florida, with some additional information for Michigan,
Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest.  The Agency is requesting information
that will assist with the determination of the benefits of fumigant use.

U.S. FLORICULTURE INDUSTRY

The United States ornamentals industry is extremely diverse and is
characterized by numerous crop species and varieties, with multiple
cropping systems in different environments.  This assessment will focus
on cut flowers, cut foliage, herbaceous perennials, bulbs and plant
propagative material, in both open fields and protected environments
(tunnels, open-ended and closed hoop-houses, shade houses, and permanent
greenhouses).

The floriculture industry was valued at $5.36 billion according to the
USDA NASS Floriculture Crops 2005 Summary.  The floriculture industry
includes bedding and garden plants, herbaceous perennials, flowering
hanging baskets, potted flowering plants, foliage plants, cut flowers,
cut cultivated greens, and propagative material.   The sectors of the
ornamental industry for which data and information were available and
that are presented in this document include foliage plants, cuts
flowers, cut cultivated greens, and propagative material.  These crops
account for approximately 31 percent of that value or $1.66 billion.  As
stated earlier, bedding and garden plants account for $2.68 billion or
approximately 51 percent of the industry value.

Nationally, the five leading states in terms of production are
California, Florida, Michigan, Texas and New York out of 36 program
States surveyed.  There were approximately 62,378 total acres in
floriculture production in 2005 with about one-third under protective
cover.  Of this proportion, about 60 percent is under green house cover
and about 40 percent in shade and temporary cover.  In 2005, the USDA
NASS Floriculture Summary estimates that open ground usage totalled
41,350 acres.

.

USDA NASS estimates that the number of growers in 2005 was approximately
10,563 which is down from 11,385 growers in 2004, a 7 percent decline.
The industry appears to be consolidating as the number of growers and
the total area in terms of the number of square feet in production have
been declining in all size categories when comparing data from the 2002
Census and the NASS 2005 Floriculture Crops Summary estimates (See Table
1).

Florida is the leading producer of foliage plants with approximately 69
percent of the value. California is the leading producer of cut flowers
with 73 percent.  For cut cultivated greens, Florida is the leading
producer with 75 percent of the total value of program States surveyed
and for propagative material Florida, Michigan, and California account
for 56 percent of the program states surveyed.  Propagative material had
a value of $439 million in 2005 with approximately 49 percent of the
total value or $215 million accounted for by annual bedding and garden
plants according to NASS. (USDA NASS, 2006)

This document does not include other aspects of the ornamental industry,
such as Christmas tree nurseries or nursery stock.  It is not within the
scope of this document to explain every cropping system in the industry.
 The objective is to provide a basic understanding of the industry and
its complexities, and to describe the major issues that growers in this
industry face.  In addition, this industry changes rapidly and
therefore, the species and varieties grown also changes.  For example,
several years ago sunflowers were not a major ornamental crop in Florida
but now they are.  See Appendix A for a list of some of the crop species
grown.

Crop Characteristics:  Plant Varieties, Crop Systems and Crop Rotations

California

There are three basic systems in place for cut flower and bulb crops in
California.  Annuals are shallow rooted crops that represent 50 to 60
percent of the industry.  They are often planted to a depth of 6 to 8
inches.  Fumigants can be shanked into the preformed beds or
drip-applied from drip tapes placed on top of beds under plastic mulch.
Bulb crops represent about 30 percent of the industry.  Fumigants are
applied by deep shanking.  Bedding up generally occurs after planting
the bulbs.  Perennials are deep-rooted multi-year crops and represent 10
to 20 percent of the industry in California.  Fumigation needs to
penetrate to a depth of 2 to 3 feet and may require multi-level
shanking.

Species grown in California include ranunculus and calla lilies (see
Appendix A for additional species grown). Many crops, such as
ranunculus, are grown outdoors in open fields.  Ranunculus is grown as
an annual in the field.  In fall, seeds are planted on beds.  Flowers
are harvested in the spring and the tubers are harvested in July and
August.  These tubers are used in landscaping and are planted in the
fall (Elmore et al, 2003).  The tubers, which are distributed worldwide,
are also used in commercial production.  However, fumigants are also
used when cut flowers are produced in greenhouses.

A California cut flower producer may grow many ornamental species and
hundreds of individual varieties.  Crops are grown in rotation on an 8
to 16 week interval per year on the same parcel of land.  Although
species are rotated, the complex nature of this crop makes a typical
crop rotation impossible to identify.  Instead, an example of how a
rotation is outlined is described here. A crop rotation system for a
grower may involve several annuals.  The first annual crop is planted
and then harvested 90 to 180 days later.  A different species is planted
immediately after the first harvest.  The second harvest follows
approximately 90 to 180 days later.  A third crop is then planted.
Fumigation would occur when the production starts to decline, which may
be an interval of one to two years.  On the same farm, most growers
produce numerous species, including annuals, perennials, and bulbs.  The
rotation involving various species would be more complex than this
example.

In California, where an ideal climate for ornamental crop production is
often desirable coastal areas, the field grown ornamental industry
produces many crops.  However, this climate also makes it highly
desirable for residential development, resulting in high land prices and
proximity of fields to residential areas. As mentioned above, the
industry is characterized by numerous crop species and varieties, with
variation in pest and chemical susceptibility.  To stay competitive,
growers often introduce new varieties.  When new varieties are
introduced, the susceptibility of the plant to pests or to residual
pesticide applications is often unknown. (SAF, 2005)

Florida

In Florida, some of the typical cut flowers grown are snapdragons,
lilies, gladiolus, lisianthus, delphinium, and sunflowers.  A production
system for a grower may involve several species.  Growers rotate to
other cut flower species, but not to other crops.  Planting occurs
between August and March, with harvesting occurring October through May.
 Two to three plantings occur each year, with only a single annual
application of fumigants, such as methyl bromide + chloropicrin.  As
with California, most growers produce numerous species, including
annuals, perennials, and bulbs, throughout the farm.  The rotation
involving all of these species would be more complex than described
above.

As in California, in Florida, where an ideal climate for ornamental crop
production is often desirable coastal areas, the field grown ornamental
industry produces many crops.  However, this climate also makes it
highly desirable for residential development, resulting in high land
prices and proximity of fields to residential areas. As mentioned above,
the industry is characterized by numerous crop species and varieties,
with variation in pest and chemical susceptibility.  To stay
competitive, growers often introduce new varieties.  When new varieties
are introduced, the susceptibility of the plant to pests or to residual
pesticide applications is often unknown. (SAF, 2005)

Caladiums are also grown in Florida on either sandy or muck soils.  They
are planted from the middle of March until mid April.  Caladiums are dug
annually from November until the middle of March.  The tubers are
cleaned, graded, repacked, and stored until shipment to customers
throughout the world.  Methyl bromide is applied in the short time
period between the end of harvest of one crop and the planting of the
next.

Chrysanthemum propagative material is also produced in Florida.
Chrysanthemum propagative material is shipped to other nurseries to
raise and sell commercially.  Chrysanthemums are planted about 2 to 3
weeks after methyl bromide fumigation.  The plants are grown for 20 to
25 weeks, with cuttings taken weekly for this time period.  These
cuttings are shipped to nurseries to produce finished chrysanthemums.
The planting beds are then fumigated with methyl bromide again for
replanting in 2 to 3 weeks.  This cycle continues throughout the year,
with about two crop cycles completed per year.

Michigan

In Michigan, perennial herbaceous nurseries use fumigants, such as
methyl bromide, to control nematodes and weeds.  Some of the species
grown are delphinium, hosta, and phlox.  Herbaceous perennials are grown
in open fields.

Pacific Northwest

The production of ornamental bulbs, including iris, daffodils, and
tulips, are among the species grown in Washington (Roozen, no date).  In
Northern California and Southern Oregon, Easter lilies are produced on
500 to 700 acres (Schmale, 2005).

Hawaii

Major ornamental crops in Hawaii include cut flowers (Anthurium,
tropicals, Protea), orchids, lei products, potted plants and other
nursery products (Tanouye, 2005).

Ornamental crops are grown in other states but BEAD did not have
information on these cropping systems.  The Agency is requesting
information that will assist with the determination of the benefits of
fumigant use.

ACREAGE GROWN

Floriculture crops (bedding/garden plants, cut flowers and cut florist
greens, foliage plants, and potted flowering plants) are grown in all 50
states (USDA Ag Census, 2002).   The major floriculture production areas
as listed in the USDA Census of Agriculture are described in Table 1.
In 2002, there were approximately 90,566 acres of floriculture crops
grown in the U.S.  The total combined estimated acreage in 2005
according to the USDA NASS Floriculture Crops 2005 Summary is 62,378
acres, a 31 percent reduction in area in 3 years.  Part of this may be
due to the limitations of the Summary to only include data from
operations with over $10,000 in sales which excludes an untold number of
smaller operations.

Table 1.  Floriculture1, Acres Grown in the Open and Square Feet Grown
under Glass or Other Protection, by Selected State and U.S. Total ,
2002.

State	Area Under Glass (Sq Feet)	Area in Open Fields (acres)	Total
Acreage

California	146,729,367

(3,368 acres)	18,608	21,976

Florida	320,884,771

(7,367 acres)	12,771	20,138

Michigan	48,186,105

(1,106 acres)	3,880	4,986

New Jersey	17,280,688

(397 acres)	3,441	3,838

Hawaii	28,837,733

(662 acres)	2,913	3,575

Washington	17,831,790

(409 acres)	2,929	3,338

United States	973,658,415

(22,352 acres)	68,214	90,566

Source:  USDA Census of Agriculture, 2002

1. Floriculture crops include bedding/garden plants, cut flowers and
florist greens, foliage plants, and potted flowering plants, not all of
which will be discussed in this document.

Use of Fumigants

Use and Usage of Soil Fumigants

Use and usage estimates of soil fumigants are provided by USDA NASS and
can be found in the Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and
Floriculture Summary (USDA, 2004).  The states that are surveyed in this
report include most of the states in the Floriculture Crops 2005 Summary
(except New York) and includes two states not included in the Nursery
and Floriculture Summary (Oregon and Pennsylvania).  In 2003, a combined
total of 771,500 pounds of the following five fumigants (chloropicrin,
1,3-D, dazomet, metam sodium, and methyl bromide) were applied in 6
states (California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas).
 Table 2 provides the average rates and total amount applied for the
five fumigants.

Table 2.  Fumigant Usage for Program States1 in All Nursery and
Floriculture, 2003

	Chloropicrin	1,3-D	Dazomet	Metam Sodium	Metam Potassium	Methyl Bromide

Rate (lb/acre)	120.59	Not published2	411.79	130.39	Not incl3	195.42

Total applied (1,000 lbs)	255.0	31.5	12.5	22.9	Not incl3	449.6

Source:  USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and
Floriculture Summary, 2004

1 Program states include California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Texas.

2 Not published – Some information was collected during the survey but
was not published.

3 Not incl – metam potassium was not included in the survey

Tables 3 through 7 show the percent of operations using the five
fumigants (chloropicrin, 1-3-D, dazoment, metam sodium, and methyl
bromide) for all nursery and floriculture, all nursery, all
floriculture, and various subsets of the floriculture industry for the
six program states (California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
and Texas).

	Table 3.  Percent of Operations Using Chloropicrin, by State, 2003*

Site	CA	FL	MI	OR	PA	TX	Total

	%	%	%	%	%	%	%

All Floriculture	2	<1	<1

<1

Cut Flowers	2	19

	2

Flowering Plants	4

1

Bedding Plants	1

<1

Foliage Plants

	Floriculture Propagation Material

	Cut Cultivated Greens

	Herbaceous Perennials

	1

<1

All Nursery	4	<1	1	1

2	1

All Nursery and Floriculture	3	<1	<1	1

1	1

Source: USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and
Floriculture Summary, 2004

Program states include California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Texas

* Blank spaces indicate no data available.

	Table 4.  Percent of Operations Using 1,3-D, by State, 2003*

Site	CA	FL	MI	OR	PA	TX	Total

	%	%	%	%	%	%	%

All Floriculture	<1

<1

Cut Flowers

	Flowering Plants

	Bedding Plants	1

<1

Foliage Plants

	Floriculture Propagation Material

	Cut Cultivated Greens

	Herbaceous Perennials

	All Nursery	2

	<1	<1

All Nursery and Floriculture	1

	<1	<1

Source: USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and
Floriculture Summary, 2004

Program states include California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Texas

* Blank spaces indicate no data available.

	Table 5.  Percent of Operations Using Dazomet, by State, 2003*

Site	CA	FL	MI	OR	PA	TX	Total

	%	%	%	%	%	%	%

All Floriculture	2

	1

	<1

Cut Flowers	3

2

Flowering Plants

	Bedding Plants

	Foliage Plants

	Floriculture Propagation Material

7

	1

Cut Cultivated Greens

	Herbaceous Perennials

	All Nursery

<1	<1

<1

All Nursery and Floriculture	1

	<1	<1

<1

Source: USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and
Floriculture Summary, 2004

Program states include California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Texas

* Blank spaces indicate no data available.

	Table 6.  Percent of Operations Using Metam Sodium, by State, 2003*

Site	CA	FL	MI	OR	PA	TX	Total

	%	%	%	%	%	%	%

All Floriculture	<1	<1

	<1

Cut Flowers	<1

<1

Flowering Plants

1

	<1

Bedding Plants

	Foliage Plants

	Floriculture Propagation Material

	Cut Cultivated Greens

	Herbaceous Perennials

	All Nursery	2

	<1

	<1

All Nursery and Floriculture	1	<1

<1

	<1

Source: USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and
Floriculture Summary, 2004

Program states include California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Texas

* Blank spaces indicate no data available.

	Table 7.  Percent of Operations Using Methyl Bromide, by State, 2003*

Site	CA	FL	MI	OR	PA	TX	Total

	%	%	%	%	%	%	%

All Floriculture	3	<1	<1	1

<1	1

Cut Flowers	3	19

	2

Flowering Plants	5

1

Bedding Plants	3

	1	<1

Foliage Plants

	Floriculture Propagation Material

	Cut Cultivated Greens

	Herbaceous Perennials

	1	4

	1

All Nursery	4	<1	1	1

2	1

All Nursery and Floriculture	3	<1	1	1

1	1

Source: USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003 Nursery and
Floriculture Summary, 2004

Program states include California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Texas

* Blank spaces indicate no data available.

FUMIGATION CHARACTERISTICS

Target Pests

Fumigants are used to control a variety of nematodes, weeds, and
diseases in ornamental production (Table 8).  BEAD has pest information
for California, Florida, Michigan, and Hawaii.  See Appendix A for key
pests in select ornamental species.

Table 8. Key diseases, Pests, and weeds

Region 	Key diseases, Pests and weeds

California	Diseases - Verticillium spp., Fusarium spp., Pythium spp.

Nematodes - Meloidogyne spp.

Weeds - Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.), Malva spp., Poa spp., and previous crop
propagules

Specific pest problems vary by individual crop and variety.

Florida	All soil borne diseases, weeds, and nematodes, including

Diseases - Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Phytoplithora, Stromatinia,
Pythium spp., Erwinia

Nematodes - Meliodogyne spp.

Weeds - previous crop propagules

Specific pest problems vary by individual crop and variety.

Michigan	Nematodes - Meloidogyne hapla, Pratylenchus spp., Ditylenchus
spp.;

Fungi - Pythium (damping-off, root rot), Fusarium (damping-off, root
rot), Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia;

Weeds - Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge), Inula brittanica, Oxalis
stricta, Cirsium arvense, Rorippa sylvestri

Hawaii	For the crop Anthurium:

Nematodes - root knot nematodes, burrowing nematodes

Other - soil-borne insects, fungi, weeds

(Kawate and Tarutani, 2005; Tanouye, 2005)

Use Characteristics

A survey conducted by the Society of American Florists in 2005 (Schmale,
2005) provided some information on the use and usage of fumigants in
different crops in several states.  The results are summarized in Table
9.  Application rates were given in the survey but due to multiple
active ingredients and multiple products, it was difficult to determine
the rate of active ingredient being used.   Table 2 provides average
rate information for several fumigants used in the floriculture
industry.  For individual species or cropping situations, the rates used
can vary considerably.

Table 9.  Fumigant Use and Usage as Reported in a Society of American
Florists Survey

State	Crop	Fumigants Used	Row/

Broadcast	App Method 	Application Timing

California	Easter lily	1,3-D, metam sodium or both sequentially
Broadcast	Mechanical soil injection (soil cap)	July and August

	Cut flowers	Methyl bromide/chloropicrin (various formulations:  75/25,
67/33, 57/43); metam sodium 	Row or broadcast	Drip, mechanical soil
injection (water cap, tarps)	Throughout year

	Aster	Methyl bromide	n/a	Mechanical soil injection (tarp)	March, June -
August

	Delphinium	Methyl bromide; Methyl bromide/chloropicrin (80:20)
Broadcast	Mechanical soil injection (tarp)	May, July - October

	Stock	Methyl bromide;  methyl bromide/chloropicrin; 1,3-D	Broadcast
Mechanical soil Injection (tarp)	June, September

	Iris	Methyl bromide/chloropicrin (80:20; 75:25); 1,3-D	Broadcast or row
Mechanical soil injection (tarp)	February, May – August, October

	Calla lily	Methyl bromide; 1,3-D/chloropicin; metam sodium	Row	Drip
(tarps)	April - May

Florida	Chrysanthemum propagative material	Methyl bromide/chloropicrin
(98:2)	Broadcast	Shank/chisel injection (tarp)	Every week

	Cut Flowers (snapdragon, lily, gladiolus)	Methyl bromide/chloropicrin
(98:2)	Broadcast or row	Mechanical soil injection (tarp)	June through
December

Michigan	Herbaceous

Perennials	1,3-D/chloropicrin, methyl bromide/chloropicrin, or 1,3-D and
herbicides	Broadcast or row	Mechanical soil Injection (tarp)	May to June
and in August and September

Oregon	Easter lily	1,3-D, metam sodium or both sequentially	Broadcast
Mechanical soil injection (soil cap)	July and August

	Bulbs	Methyl bromide/chloropicrin	Broadcast	Mechanical soil injection
(soil cap)	September

Washington	Iris, lily	Methyl bromide/chloropicrin	Broadcast	Mechanical
Soil Injection (tarp)	March – May; September

	Daffodil, tulip, iris	Metam sodium	Broadcast	Mechanical Soil Injection
(tarp)	May - October

In Washington bulb production, metam sodium needs to be applied to a
depth of 18 inches, which is accomplished with a fumigator developed
specifically for this purpose (Roozen, no date).  Trials with the
fumigator were successful at metam sodium application rates of 55
gallons product/acre (42% metam) and 66 gallons product/acre (Roozen, no
date).  The product was not identified but assuming it was Sectagon 42
or Vapam HL, the rates used were 232-234 lb ai/acre and 279-281 lb
ai/acre.

In Hawaii, metam sodium is used for anthurium (Anthurium andraeanum)
production on about 10 to 15 percent of the acreage.  Since this crop
has a five year crop cycle, metam sodium is only used once every five
years.  The typical application rate is 213 lb ai/acre.  (Kawate and
Tarutani, 2005).  Table 10 provides information describing typical metam
sodium use in Hawaii.

Table 10.  Fumigant Application Information For Metam Sodium in Hawaii.

	Hawaii (Anthurium)

Application Rate (lb ai/acre)	213

Acres Treated per Day per tractor	0.5

Time of Fumigation	Throughout year

Application Method	Drench

Strip Application	No data

Tarps or Water Caps	Tarp

Acreage Fumigated

For ornamental production, fumigant treatments are often applied to
small acreages.  To demonstrate the small acreage treated with
fumigants, BEAD reviewed California Department of Pesticide Regulation
data for applications of methyl bromide to outdoor grown cut flowers or
greens and greenhouse grown cut flowers or greens in 2005.  This range
includes both greenhouse and open field production. The area treated
averaged 1 acre.  The smallest acreage treated was 0.05 acres and the
largest acreage treated was approximately 30 acres.  (One report of 85
acres treated had such a low number of pounds applied that BEAD did not
believe this number was valid.  In addition, two reports did not have a
unit treated so BEAD could not determine the acreage).  Approximately 80
percent of the reported acreage treated values were less than 1 acre.
Methyl bromide fumigations were made during every month of the year.
(CDPR, 2005)

In Hawaii, anthurium is grown on 250 acres on 61 farms.  This averages
to about 4 acres per farm.  Metam sodium fumigation occurs on 0.5
acres/day/farm (Kawate and Tarutani, 2005)

Chemical Control Alternatives

Chemical Control Practices

For ornamental species, growers often use a combination of fumigants,
such as methyl bromide+chloropicrin, 1,3-D+chloropicin, or 1,3-D
followed by metam sodium.

Methyl bromide

Methyl bromide is scheduled for phase out under the Montreal Protocol.
However, there is a Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption for California
and Florida ornamentals, including cut flowers, cut foliage, bulbs and
plant propagative material, in both open fields and protected
environments (tunnels, open-ended and closed hoop-houses, shade houses,
and permanent greenhouses) and Michigan herbaceous perennials.

1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D)

1,3-D controls nematodes but will not provide adequate control of
diseases and weeds at label rates.  Current buffer zones make using this
alternative difficult because often flowers are produced on small
parcels of land, often near homes.  (SAF, 2005)

Township caps are in place for 1,3-D that limit its use in California
and use restrictions are in place in some Florida counties (SAF, 2005).
Many crops are grown in coastal areas, where cut flowers are also grown.
 Affecting some rotations are plant back times, which can be 1 to 2
weeks longer with 1,3-D compared to methyl bromide.

Some growers have found adequate control when 1,3-D is combined with
other fumigants or herbicides.

Chloropicrin

Controls diseases but does not provide adequate control of weeds and
nematodes.  Adequate efficacy for the pest complex cannot be achieved
with lower use rates (SAF, 2005).  There are also concerns about
phytotoxicity to nearby plantings if greater than 2 percent chloropicrin
is used in a combination (SAF, 2005).  Chloropicrin phytotoxicity to
adjacent beds is a concern for chrysanthemum propagative material
production.

Metam sodium

Efficacy of metam sodium can be erratic and inconsistent, depending on
soil type, moisture content, and temperature. Many years of research
have indicated difficulty achieving consistent efficacy with metam
sodium on high value ornamental crops.  Also, pest populations tend to
build up over time with metam sodium.  Problematic for bulb growers is
the fact that it suppresses active nematodes, and not the eggs.  Similar
limitations occur with other methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) generators,
such as metam potassium and dazomet.

Dazomet

Dazomet is effective against Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Erwinia, and
Pseudomonas in some cut flowers (carnation and chrysanthemum).  Plant
back restrictions may cause some growers to be able to grow fewer crops
in a year.  See metam sodium above for additional information on
limitations with MITC generators.

Furfural

This chemical was registered for greenhouse ornamentals in October 2006
to control nematodes and fungal pathogens.  The label describes a
greenhouse as “any enclosed structure type with a nonporous covering
and is large enough to allow a person to enter.”  Some growers
producing in protected structures may not be able to use this material
if the structure is not completely enclosed or if the protected covering
is made up of a porous material.  This chemical cannot be used on field
grown ornamentals.  According to the label, about 23 species are listed
and described as showing tolerance of post-plant drench applications.
The label also mentions that furfural may injure celosia, coleus, New
Guinea impatiens, lisianthus, petunia, and leather leaf fern and that
not all species and cultivars have been tested.

Fenamiphos

For anthurium production in Hawaii, fenamiphos could be used but is
being phased out (Kawate and Tarutani, 2005; Tanouye, 2005).

Other chemicals, such as herbicides, may also be available to control
certain pests in specific crops.  The Agency welcomes additional
information on chemical alternatives, as well as cultural control
practices.

Cultural Control Practices

Solarization

Solarization is used to kill pests by using solar energy to heat the
soil, which is accomplished by placing clear plastic on the soil
(McSorley and Wang, 2004; Strausbaugh, 1996).  Solarization seems
promising in Florida cut flower production but would take a while to
adopt.  It must be adapted to work in a broadcast system. It may also
not control pests to an adequate depth (SAF, 2005).  Pest pressures may
build during the first crop preventing a second crop from being planted
(SAF, 2005).

Solarization takes several weeks to control many pests to a depth of 30
cm.  This length of time for a treatment may not be feasible for many
growers due to the intensive, year-round production situation of the cut
flower industry (Pizano, 2001).

Solarization is not feasible under Michigan field conditions.
Production areas in California are mainly coastal where solarization is
not feasible due to cool temperatures and cloud cover most of the year.

Steam pasteurization

Steam pasteurization can be an effective alternative but it is very
expensive to heat soil uniformly to an adequate depth (0.3 to 0.9
meters) for the length of time required to be effective.  There are also
costs associated with setting up steam systems, especially in
older/established greenhouses.

Field steam pasteurization is cost prohibitive, in part because of the
high cost of fuels.  Installation of pipes is labor intensive and in
some cases must be removed after steaming to accommodate cultural
practices.  In Florida, some soils prevent burial of pipes to an
adequate depth. (SAF, 2005)

Crop rotation

Rotation with other cut flower species is used extensively in cut flower
production.  However, in annual cropping they are generally too short
for the full effects of rotating schemes to be effective. The previous
crop (bulbs, corms) often contaminate the following crop or may harbor
pathogens.  In addition, crop rotation is not really a solution to pest
problems in floriculture because either the crop cycle is too long
(perennials) or the pests persist in the soil for a long period of time
(Pizano, 2001).  Most cut flower species are sensitive to the same
pathogens.  Flower rotations are generally not a true rotation in the
pest control sense.

Some growers have had success with crop rotation.  In California, some
gladiolus growers are leasing land to strawberry growers.  The
strawberry growers fumigate the land with methyl bromide, and a crop of
gladiolus can follow without additional methyl bromide fumigation.  This
practice is most feasible for large growers and requires flexibility.
This arrangement is not feasible for calla lily growers because calla
lilies are very susceptible to the root disease complex supported by
strawberries and raspberries.  This type of arrangement is not
guaranteed to be available to growers in the future and relies on
continued availability of methyl bromide. (SAF, 2005)

Soilless media production

Some crops have had success with soilless media, or substrates, in
greenhouses.  These crops include roses, gerbera, lilies and tulips.
For some crops using substrates, lilies and tulips, the soil used in
production needs to be fumigated.  After a year or two the soil in the
greenhouse under the crate becomes contaminated with diseases like
Pythium and Phytophthora.  Growers using this system need to reuse the
soil in order for the system to be cost effective.  Methyl bromide is
used in this system to eliminate diseases, old bulbs and weeds.

In the case of roses and gerberas, substrate production is more feasible
than for other crops because these crops are perennials.  Production in
substrates for these crops results in increased yield and quality.  In
perennial systems, infrastructure costs can be amortized over several
years.  However, due to the high production costs, cut rose production
is decreasing.

Lilies and tulips are also often grown in substrates.  These crops are
"forced", which means that that the bulbs are planted in crates and
actually grown in very large cooler/growth chambers.  They are stacked
floor to ceiling in these growing rooms for the first 4 to 8 weeks after
planting and then taken into the greenhouse where they are spread out 2
dimensionally for finishing the last 4 to 6 weeks.  This results in a
lower cost of production and a faster turn on space in the greenhouse,
which is very costly.

There are challenges associated with substrate production. Generally,
for most crops, there isn't an offsetting yield or quality increase to
defer the costs associated with substrate production.   Costs include a
large increase in inputs, capital expenditures for the systems coupled
with high costs of potting mix or substrates, plus the labor to move
crates or install the system.  In addition, growers must be very careful
in substrate systems when it comes to water quality management,
fertility management and disease containment.  Yield losses can be very
high if mistakes are made.  Soil has a buffering capacity that limits
some of the problems that are associated with substrate production.  In
addition, substrates may cause significant increases in the cost of
production.  Some growers that have tried substrates ended up going back
to ground production for the reasons described above.  For example,
Gerbera flowers are sensitive to fertility and water issues in the
substrate system.  Some growers have even moved back to ground
production due the risks that are involved.

Planting Clean Stock

In Hawaiian anthurium production, planting clean stock would help but
because cinder (volcanic) media are reused and ground media are used,
losses are still expected with this practice (Kawate and Tarutani, 2005;
Tanouye, 2005).

BENEFITS of FUMIGATION

As described above, fumigant(s) used varies by crop.  Some of the next
best alternatives are described below. Cut flowers are often marketed
for a certain time of year or holiday.  Missing specific dates can be
detrimental to the grower and cause severe economic impacts.  Quality is
also a major concern for the industry.

Yield and Quality Benefits

California

For many cut flower species, 1,3-D + chloropicrin is considered one of
the best currently available alternatives to methyl bromide.  However,
as currently registered, this alternative to methyl bromide does not
provide sufficient control of weeds and regulatory restrictions, such as
township caps and label application rates, limit use.

For California (and Oregon) Easter lily production, growers use 1,3-D,
metam sodium or 1,3-D and metam sodium.  Fumigation is necessary to
produce the crop.  Plants will not survive without fumigation (Schmale,
2005).

Two trials were conducted on calla lily rhizomes.  Fumigants were drip
applied.  Based on these trials, yield losses of 39 to 66 percent of
salable rhizomes harvested would be expected if the fumigants were not
available (Gerik et al, 2006).

One trial with ranunculus compared methyl bromide/chloropicrin (50:50),
the preferred treatment, to an untreated control.  Other treatments
(except iodomethane/chloropicrin) were compared to an untreated control
but not to methyl bromide/chloropicrin.  This study suggests that if
methyl bromide/chloropicrin were not available (and in the absence of
other fumigants), yield losses of 34 percent would occur (Elmore et al.,
2003).

Michigan

For herbaceous perennials, if methyl bromide were no longer available
the next best registered alternative is 1,3-D with or without
chloropicrin plus herbicides.  This combination is expensive due to the
material cost and the need for multiple applications.  Use of the
fumigants without herbicides may not adequately control weeds.  However,
contact herbicides may damage the crop in the field, resulting in yield
or quality losses.  Damage to the following crop planted may occur if
soil residual herbicides are used.

Florida

In Florida, the best available alternative to methyl bromide is 1,3-D +
chloropicrin if use restrictions were removed and labeled use rates
increased.  It is not clear to what extent this alternative would be
used with the current use restrictions and label rates.

Solarization also seems promising in Florida production but would take
awhile to adopt.

Solarization takes several weeks to control many pests to a depth of 30
cm.  This length of time for a treatment is not economically feasible
for many growers due to the intensive, year-round production situation
of the cut flower industry.

Two snapdragon trials were conducted on sandy soils in Florida. The
first study indicated that in the absence of fumigation yield losses
were 6 to 7 percent (McSorley and Wang, 2003).

In the second study, solarization was one of the treatments used.  All
treatments were affected by a rain event that caused weed seeds and
Fusarium spp. to enter the plots. This study suggests, in the absence of
fumigation or solarization, yield losses of at least 37 percent.
Compared to the most effective fumigation treatments, yield losses would
be 58 percent.  If solarization is feasible and used, yield losses would
be less. (McSorley and Wang, 2004)

Chrysanthemum propagative material must be certified to be free of
certain pests in order to ship to certain states and countries.  In
particular the material must not be contaminated with burrowing,
reniform, and cyst nematodes.  The propagative material must also be
free from other pathogens and pests. Contamination with these pests
could cause losses.

Hawaii

In anthurium production, it is estimated that without metam sodium,
yield losses would exceed 50 percent.  Eventual loss of farms and/or the
industry is possible due to the lack of alternatives (Kawate and
Tarutani, 2005).

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

According to the USDA NASS Floriculture Crops 2005 Summary, in 2005 the
floriculture industry was valued at $5.36 billion.  Two sectors of the
floriculture industry, bedding and garden plants, accounted for
approximately 51 percent of that value or $2.68 billion.  In terms of
the benefits of fumigant use, there is ample evidence of 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 especially significant for the propagative sector because for
example, an estimated yield loss of 50 percent to seedling stock could
result in exponential losses to grower future revenues if the current
control alternatives were not available.  This would result in a
combination of direct revenue losses due to adverse impacts on yield and
quality resulting in unviable or unmarketable stock because of pest
infestation.  Many of the yield losses cited in this document estimate
losses in yield alone ranging from 40-60 percent if alternative fumigant
controls are not effective.  Some alternatives such as solarisation are
promising but the transition costs are high and effectiveness is greatly
influenced by weather conditions.

According to a document submitted by the California Cut Flowers
Association, the Society of American Florists and the Caladium growers
of Florida for the 2003 methyl bromide critical use exemption request
that was produced by the International Labour Organization (ILO) –
Sectoral Activities Committee, US producers are currently suffering from
competition from Central and South American producers who are not
subject to the methyl bromide phaseout because of their developing
country status and from lower production and labor costs.  The US is one
of the largest import markets for cut flowers and foliage worldwide
according to the ILO report, second only to Germany.  To supply US
demand, many US producers have resorted to producing their product
overseas where there are fewer restrictions and production costs are
lower.  The fumigants not only increase yields, quality and production
but also result in lower production costs such as reducing hand labor or
increasing technological inputs.  In addition, fumigants allow producers
to maintain US floriculture industry jobs.  This is important because US
producers are facing increased competition from producers with lower
production and labor costs and less stringent environmental standards.

The agency is requesting information that will assist with the
determination of benefits of fumigant use including the cost of the
different fumigant controls.  Data are needed that can be used to
measure changes in yield, cost of alternative controls and changes in
the cost of production for the various types of floriculture 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, estimated yield losses if the fumigant of
choice were not available, variable production costs including labor and
material inputs as well as gross and net revenues and other economic
information that would be useful to measure the impact to net revenue
for different sectors of the floriculture industry that may have to
apply buffer zones in open fields or capture fumigant off-gassing to
mitigate risk impacts.

Limitations to assessment

This document attempts to characterize the use of fumigants in the
floriculture industry.  Due to a lack of information to adequately
estimate the impacts to the industry, a quantified assessment of the
benefits provided by the soil fumigants in the production of ornamentals
is not presented.  The following are limitations of this analysis:

Social benefits of pesticide use accrue to several groups, e.g.,
ornamental producers and consumers of ornamentals.  This document
attempts to describe qualitatively the benefits of fumigant use from the
perspective of ornamental producers, and does not quantify economic
impacts for the floriculture industry on other related entities 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

Ajwa, H., C. Elmore, and S. Klose, Life After Methyl Bromide.CDPR
Pesticide Use Report Data, 2005

Chase, A., Scientific Adviser CCFC, Personal communication with Nicole
Zinn, December 17, 2004.

Elmore, C., J. Roncoroni, K. Robb, C. Wilen, and H. Ajwa, 2003, Preplant
Pest Production in Ranunculus Production, Proceeding from the 2003
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions, Web address:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org"  www.mbao.org

Foliage, Floriculture, and Cut Greens.  May 2003.  Florida Agricultural
Statistics Service.  Web address:  http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl

Foliage, Floriculture, and Cut Greens.  July 2004.  Florida Agricultural
Statistics Service.  Web address:  http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl

Gerik, J. S., I. D. Greene, P. Beckman, and C. L. Elmore, 2006, Preplant
Drip-applied Fumigation for Calla Lily Rhizome Nursery, HortTechnology
16(2), p. 297-300

International Labour Organization (ILO) – Sectoral Activities
Committee, Web address:     HYPERLINK
"http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/ctflower/"
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/ctflower/

Kawate, M. and C. Tarutani, Department of Plant and Environmental
Protection Sciences, University of Hawaii, Information submitted to
Metam Sodium Docket OPP-2005-0125, September 12, 2005.

McSorley, R. and K.-H. Wang., 2003, Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide for Managing Nematodes and Weeds in Snapdragon, Proc Fla State
Hort Soc.

McSorley, R. and K.-H. Wang, 2004, Impact of Soilborne Pest Problems on
Field-Grown Snapdragons, Proc Fla State Hort Soc.

Pennisi, B. and P.A. Thomas, 2005, Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences:
Foliage Products – An Opportunity for the Georgia Ornamental Industry.

Pizano, M., 2001, Floriculture and the Environment: Growing Flowers
without Methyl Bromide, United Nations Environment Programme.

Romo, M.J., L.K. Hood and R.C. Sloan, SNA Research Conference –Vol.48
– 2003; Production Costs Budgets for Selected Varieties of Cut Flowers
in Mississippi.

Roozen, J., Washington Bulb Company, Application of Metam Sodium is the
Key to Effective Pest Control.

Schmale, L., 2005, Fumigant Survery, Society of American Florists.

Society of American Florists (SAF), California Cut Flower Commission,
and Florida Floriculture Growers, September 2005, Methyl Bromide
National Management Strategy, Field Grown Ornamentals in Florida and
California, Bulbs, Cut Flowers, Cut Foliage and Propagative Plant
Material.

Strausbaugh, C., 1996, Soil Solarization for Control of Soilborne Pest
Problems, University of Idaho, Web address:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.uidaho.edu/ag/plantdisease/soilsol.htm"
http://www.uidaho.edu/ag/plantdisease/soilsol.htm

Tanouye, E.S., President, Hawaii Florists and Shippers Association,
Information submitted to Metam Sodium Docket OPP-2005-0125, September
12, 2005

USDA Census of Agriculture, 2002

USDA ERS, 1999, Table 30—Cut gladioli: Growers, production, and value
of sales, major States, 1991-98,   Web address:    HYPERLINK
"http://usda2.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/99003/"
http://usda2.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/99003/

USDA ERS, Amber Waves 2004 article – “Volume Production Keeps
Floriculture Prices Low”,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/February04/Findings/VolumeProduction
.htm"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/February04/Findings/VolumeProduction.
htm

USDA NASS Floriculture Crops 2005 Summary, April 2006,   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/agriculturalchemical"
www.nass.usda.gov/publications/agriculturalchemical usage/

APPENDIX A  ORNAMENTAL SPECIES GROWN AND TARGET PESTS  TC "APPENDIX B
ORNAMENTAL SPECIES GROWN AND TARGET PESTS" \f C \l "1"

California Species Grown

It is difficult to determine acreage information for cut flowers.
However, production data for the major cut flower and bulb species grown
is available and estimates of the acreage have been made (See Tables
below).

Table 1.  California Ornamentals - Partial Listing and Estimate of Cut
Flower and Foliage Area Produced in California in 2002  TC "Appendix B
Table 2.  California Ornamentals Partial Listing and Estimate of Cut
Flower and Foliage Area Produced in California in 2002" \f F \l "1"

Crop	Area (estimate of outdoor field production) - ha	Area1 (estimate of
greenhouse production) – m2

Alstroemeria	8	47,100 (5 ha)

Antirrhinum (snapdragon)	126	164,898 (17 ha)

Aster

57,598 (6 ha)

Calla lily	16

	Carnation	30	21,739 (2 ha)

Chrysanthemum	88	281,023 (28 ha)

Delphinium	22

	Eucalyptus	54

	Gerbera

214,413 (21 ha)

Gypsophila	55

	Iris (Dutch)	18

	Larkspur	6

	Lilium	32	205,959 (21 ha)

Limonium spp.	13

	Lisianthus	13

	Protea	190

	Rose	41	123,557 (12 ha)

Stock (Matthiola)	26

	Wax flower	317

	Other	791	59,177 (6 ha)

Greenhouse misc.	70	278,700 (28 ha)

Field misc.	303

	Cut greens misc.	389

	Total	2609	1,454,164 (145 ha)

Source:  Chase, 2004

1  Area has been provided in m2 but an estimate of the area in ha has
also been included.  Total does not add due to rounding.

Florida Species Grown

According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, cut flowers and florist
greens were grown on 3,402 ha (outdoors) and foliage plants were grown
on 1,198 ha (outdoors).  Approximately 2,511 additional ha of cut
flowers, florist greens, and foliage plants were grown indoors (under
glass) (USDA, 2002).

Although it would be useful to have more accurate acreage information
for each species this has been difficult to obtain for several reasons.
1) There are hundreds of species of cut flowers, foliage, and bulb crops
grown, and often several species are grown in the same field in the same
year.  2) The species grown are constantly changing and fluctuations may
occur at any time.  For example, several years ago sunflowers were not a
major commercial crop in Florida but currently it is a major crop.  3)
There are no records available that show which crops are grown at any
one time.  Due to the sheer number of species, and the constant
fluctuation in the industry, the acreage of each species is unable to be
determined.  The Table below shows a few of the major crops grown and
the numberof spikes or stems produced, although acreage information was
not available.  This information indicates that gladioli are another
major crop grown in Florida, and would be expected to be grown on more
acreage than some of the other crops.

The only three cut flower species identified by the Florida Agricultural
Statistics Service are gladioli, lilies and snapdragon.  These are
assumed to have the highest acreage (See Table below for production
information).  These crops have also been identified by the applicant as
using methyl bromide.

Table 2. Florida Ornamentals - Crop Production for Certain Cut Flower
Species2  TC " Appendix B Table  . Florida Ornamentals - Crop Production
for Certain Cut Flower Species" \f F \l "1"

	2001	2002	2003

Crop	# of producers	Quantity sold (1000 spikes)1	# of producers	Quantity
sold (1000 spikes)1	# of producers	Quantity sold (1000 spikes)

Gladioli	4	40,331	4	49,581	4	39,444

Snapdragons	5	6,806	4	4,415	4	4,757

Lilies	4	3,031	3	2,257	-	-

Other cut flowers	-	-	9	-	10	-

1 Quantity of lilies sold 1000 stems.

2 This table only includes data for growers with sales over $100,000.

Source: Foliage, Floriculture, and Cut Greens, May 2003, Florida
Agricultural Statistics Service; Foliage, Floriculture, and Cut Greens,
July 2004, Florida Agricultural Statistics Service.

Using several data sources, a rough estimate of the number of acres of
gladioli grown can be obtained.  The quantity sold, shown in the Table
above, was averaged and divided by an average yield, which was
calculated using data from 1991 to 1998.  This method resulted in
approximately 638 ha of gladioli.  This number does not take into
account the variability in yield in an individual year or if yields have
changed since 1998 (USDA, 1999).

Table 3. Florida Ornamentals - Other Cut Flower Species Grown in Florida
 TC " Appendix B Table. Florida Ornamentals - Table 11.5 Other Cut
Flower Species Grown in Florida" \f F \l "1"

Crop	Crop Rotation Limitation

Delphinium	These species are often sensitive to the same insects and
pests as the other cut flower, foliage and bulb species.

Larkspur

	Gerbera

	Lisianthus

	Sunflower

	Aster

	Chrysanthemum

Key Pests of Select Cut Flower Species

The following list is not comprehensive, but is intended to demonstrate
the complexity of the industry. In addition to the diseases and
nematodes listed below, there are numerous weed species that are major
problems in cut flower production.  These species include the bulbs,
tubers, or cormlets from a previous crop, yellow nutsedge (Cyperus
esculentus), little mallow (Malva parviflora), and common sow thistle
(Sonchus oleracea).

Table 4.  Diseases and Nematodes of cut flower crops currently
controlled with Methyl Bromide.  TC "Appendix B Table 5.  Diseases and
Nematodes of cut flower crops currently controlled with Methyl Bromide."
\f F \l "1"

Crop	Key Pests	Scientific name

Antirrhinum	Nematodes

	 Belanolaimus longidorus, Criconomella spp., Dolichodorus
heterocephalus

	Pythium root rot	Pythium irregulare (documented resistance to mefenoxam
is 25-50 percent)

Calla lily	Erwinia soft rot	Erwinia carotovora

	Pythium root rot	Pythium spp. (resistance to mefenoxam suspected to be
widespread

Delphinium	Sclerotinia stem rot	Sclerotinia spp.

Dianthus	Fusarium wilt	Fusarium oxysporum fsp. dianthii

Eustoma	Fusarium wilt, root rot, and stem rot	Fusarium oxysporum, F.
solani, and F. avenaceaum

Freesia	Fusarium wilt	Fusarium spp.

Gladiolus	Fusarium wilt	Fusarium oxysporum fsp. gladioli

	Stromatinia neck rot	Stromatinia gladioli

Helianthus	Downy mildew	Plasmopara halstedii (this is a soil-borne
pathogen)

Hypericum 	Root knot nematode	Meloidogyne spp.

	Pythium root rot	Pythium spp.

Iris	Fusarium wilt	Fusarium oxysporum fsp. iridis

Larkspur	Sclerotinia stem rot	Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

Liatris spicata	Sclerotinia stem rot	Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

Lilium	Pythium root rot	Pythium spp.

Matthiola	Sclerotinia stem rot	Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

	Xanthomonas leaf spot	Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris

Ranunculus	Pythium root rot	Pythium spp.

	Xanthomonas leaf spot	Xanthomonas campestris

Similar information was provided in a recent grower education document
(Ajwa, Elmore and Klose).  In addition to the crops described in the
table above, Gerbera was described as susceptible to Sclerotinia stem
rot.

 PAGE

Page  PAGE   25


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

01/09/2008 09:30 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

discussion @ 11 about Energy EO

Heidi/ Nathalie

I have arranged a conference line for our conversation @ 11.  Please call into<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Heidi, pls let me know during the call if you get the scheduler notice, it will help in the future if I know that it works.

Ron


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

		WASHINGTON, D.C.

		Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 1, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-24085

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  ANTONOV DESIGN BUREAU (Antonov)		 		Date Filed:  March 1,
2006

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC § 40109(g) to permit the
applicant to operate one, round-trip, all-cargo charter flight, using
its AN-124-100 aircraft, carrying outsized cargo on behalf of The Boeing
Company, between Everett, Washington, and Wichita, Kansas, during the
period March 1 through  March 8, 2006.  The flight would carry an
outsized Boeing 777 engine cowl and ancillary equipment.  The applicant
asserts that Boeing needs the subject lift to repair the damaged cowling
unit so that it can be reinstalled on a Boeing 777 aircraft in time for
delivery to the customer; that the cargo is too large for transportation
on U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that surface transportation is not
feasible because of the inordinate amount of travel time it would
require.

Applicant representative:  Sheryl R. Israel,<PHONE_NUMBER>			DOT analyst:
 Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Antonov served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operation and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 USC § 40109(g), we may authorize a
foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 USC § 41102; that all possible
efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers; and that
the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship to the
traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning emergency
transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

DISPOSITION

Action: Approved.
                                              		     Action date: March
1, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  March 1, 2006, through March 8,
2006.

Basis for approval:  We are granting Antonov’s request to operate the
proposed round-trip flight (described above), on behalf of The Boeing
Company.  We found that its request met all the relevant criteria of 49
USC § 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of this type, and that the
grant was required in the public interest.  Specifically, we were
persuaded that the need to move the cargo to repair the damaged cowling
unit so that it can be reinstalled on a Boeing 777 aircraft in time for
delivery to the customer; the fact that the cargo could not be
transported by surface transportation within a reasonable time period;
and the unique, outsized nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency
not arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available that could be used to conduct the operation at
issue here.  We also found that grant of this authority would prevent
unreasonable hardship to The Boeing Company.   Finally, we found that
the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions (attached).

Action taken by:        				Michael W. Reynolds

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                       		       ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 68 (Monday, April 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 19082]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2011-0048]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on April 1, 2021, Tri-County
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 219, Control of Alcohol and Drug
Use, and 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2011-0048.
    Specifically, TriMet seeks to extend its current relief from 49 CFR
part 219. TriMet explains it alternatively complies with the Federal
Transit Administration's 49 CFR part 655, Prevention of Alcohol Misuse
and Prohibited Drug Use in Transit Operations, which provides an
equivalent level of safety.
    TriMet also seeks to extend its relief from 49 CFR 229.125,
Headlights and auxiliary lights, explaining that its rail fixed
guideway transit vehicles are designed to operate on city streets in
close proximity to automobile traffic. TriMet states that these
vehicles also comply with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for
lamps and reflective devices. TriMet further states that its rolling
stocks' headlights meet requirements for conspicuity and are the same
as those found in the rest of the fleet that currently operate on rail
fixed guideway urban transit systems not under FRA's jurisdiction.
TriMet explains that while the auxiliary lights do not meet the
brightness requirements of 49 CFR 229.125(d)(2), the auxiliary lights
provide an equivalent level of conspicuity to the light rail vehicles,
thereby meeting FRA's regulatory objective.
    This extension of relief would only apply to TriMet's 7.3-mile long
MAX Orange Line rail fixed guideway urban rapid transit passenger
service's limited connections to the general railroad system where it
operates in the cities of Portland and Milwaukie, Oregon, serving 10
stations. Two segments of the Orange Line share a common corridor with
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) and Portland & Western Railroad
(PWRR). That corridor includes a total of seven railroad-transit shared
road crossings (highway-rail) with UPRR and PWRR, and one railroad-
transit at-grade crossing (rail-rail) with Oregon Pacific Railroad.
    FRA first granted this relief in 2011 prior to revenue service, and
extended the relief in 2016 when revenue service commenced. In its
petition, TriMet states that there have been no significant changes to
the configuration of the Orange Line, no accidents on the Orange Line
arising from its limited connections to the general railroad system,
and no accidents related to the waiver of the two regulations under
consideration.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 27, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-07472 Filed 4-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61998-61999]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24420]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-91-002.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: OATT Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing--Regional to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 9/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130930-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: COTP CIRS Compliance Filing to be effective 4/28/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/1/13.
    Accession Number: 20131001-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Long Island Grandfathered TCCs to be effective 11/30/
2013.
    Filed Date: 10/1/13.
    Accession Number: 20131001-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-3-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits
October 2013 Membership Filing to be effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/1/13.
    Accession Number: 20131001-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-4-000.
    Applicants: Camden County Energy Recovery Associates, L.P.

    Description: Camden County Energy Recovery Associates, L.P. submits
Category Seller Change to be effective 10/2/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/1/13.
    Accession Number: 20131001-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-5-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notices of Termination of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company for Petaluma Solar Millennium Fund, Service Agreement Nos. 180
and 181 under PG&E FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 4.
    Filed Date: 10/1/13.
    Accession Number: 20131001-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-6-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.15:
Termination of WAPA Installation of Equipment for POI at Worland Tap
Agmt to be effective 11/30/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/1/13.
    Accession Number: 20131001-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-7-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: Petition of American Electric Power Service
Corporation for waiver of Commission fuel clause regulations, Section
35.14.
    Filed Date: 10/1/13.
    Accession Number: 20131001-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/13.

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

    Dated: October 1, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24420 Filed 10-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59345-59346]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0216]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 7 individuals for
an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. The
regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code
of Federal Regulations as the ``Instructions for Performing and
Recording Physical Examinations'' have resulted in numerous drivers
being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on
the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their
circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs for 2
years in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2014-0216 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316; January 17, 2008).
This information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Papp, Chief, Medical Programs
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
letter FMCSA, Room W64-113, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 7
individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to
drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate
commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any
other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.
    FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical
examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical
conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce.
The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden
episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown
cause which did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision
whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an
individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the
treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested
that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode.
Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have
a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination
are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the
driver may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has fully recovered from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication. Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/
seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years,
may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate
drivers with a

history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV
in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication
for a 5-year period or more.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To
submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2014-0216'' and click the
search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment
Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page,
enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2014-0216'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

Summary of Applications

Ronald J. Bland

    Mr. Bland is a 51 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a
history of three possible seizures due to head trauma and has remained
seizure free since 2008. He has taken anti-seizure medication since
2004 with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2009. If
granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician
states he is supportive of Mr. Bland receiving an exemption.

Joseph M. Celedonia

    Mr. Celedonia is a 44 year-old driver in Maryland. He has a history
of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since 2007. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states he is supportive of Mr. Celedonia receiving an
exemption.

Mathew J. Chizek

    Mr. Chizek is a 35 year-old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history
of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since 2008. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states he is supportive of Mr. Chizek receiving an exemption.

Gregory B. Hardy

    Mr. Hardy is a 54 year-old class B CDL holder in Massachusetts. He
has a history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1985. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2011. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hardy receiving
an exemption.

David A. Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell is a 48 year-old driver in Massachusetts. He has a
history of a seizure disorder due to a frontal craniotomy for aneurysm
repair and his last seizure was in 2010. He takes anti-seizure
medication with a recent change in medication in February 2014. If
granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. He physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Mitchell receiving an exemption.

Thomas K. Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell is a 54 year-old class A CDL holder in Mississippi. He
has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1999. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Mitchell
receiving an exemption.

Himat S. Sandhu

    Mr. Sandhu is a 52 year-old driver in California. He has a history
of a possible seizure after a surgical resection of an arteriovenous
malformation. He does not require anti-seizure medication. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Sandhu receiving an
exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption
applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
earlier in the notice.

    Issued on: September 25, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-23439 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48495-48496]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0370]

Hours of Service of Drivers: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE);
FAST Act Extension of Expiration Date

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; extension of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the extension of the hours-of-service (HOS)
exemption granted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on June 30,
2015, for certain commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The Agency
extends the expiration date of the exemption to June 29, 2020 in
response to section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the ``Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act'' (FAST Act). That section extends the expiration
date of all HOS exemptions in effect on the date of enactment to 5
years from the date of issuance of the exemptions. The DOE exemption
from the Agency's 30-minute rest break requirement is limited to DOE's
contract motor carriers and their employee-drivers engaged in the
transportation of security-sensitive radioactive materials. The Agency
previously determined that CMV operations under this exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the
level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.

DATES: This limited exemption is effective from June 30, 2015, through
June 29, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register [49 CFR 381.315(a)].
    Section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to extend all
exemptions from the HOS regulations (49 CFR part 395) that were in
effect on the date of enactment of the Act to a period of 5 years from
the date the exemption was granted. The exemption may be renewed.
Because this action merely implements a statutory mandate that took
effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act, notice and comment are
not required.

DOE Exemption

    From 2013 to 2015, DOE held a limited exemption from the mandatory
30-minute rest break requirement of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) that allowed
DOE contract carriers and their drivers transporting security-sensitive
radioactive materials to be treated the same as drivers transporting
explosives pursuant to Sec.  395.1(q). As that exemption neared
expiration, DOE applied for its renewal.
    FMCSA reviewed DOE's request and the public comments and reaffirmed
its previous conclusion that allowing these drivers to count on-duty
time ``attending'' their CMVs toward the required 30-minute break,
would promote safety at least as effectively as the break itself. The
notice renewing the DOE exemption was published on June 22, 2015 [80 FR
35703].
    The substance of the 2015 exemption is not affected by this
extension. The DOE exemption covers only the 30-minute break
requirement [49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)] and is restricted to contract
motor carriers and their drivers employed by DOE transporting security-
sensitive radioactive materials. On each trip, the drivers are allowed
to use 30 minutes or more of ``attendance time'' to meet the
requirements for a rest break in the manner provided in 49 CFR
395.1(q), provided they perform no other on-duty activities during the
rest break.
    The FMCSA does not believe the safety record of any driver
operating under this exemption will deteriorate. However, should
deterioration in safety occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to
protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The
FMCSA has the authority to terminate the exemption at any time the
Agency has the data/information to

conclude that safety is being compromised.

    Issued on: July 14, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17459 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US

02/23/2007 04:55 PM	To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Flynn, Amy E."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 	cc

	Jeff Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Monica Shimamura/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan

Tierney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	bcc

	Subject

	revised final nPB rule for solvent cleaning

Amy and Nancy,

Here is the revised rule with OGC's comments incorporated.  OGC expects to

have detailed comments to us on the proposed rule for aerosols & adhesives

early next week.

Margaret Sheppard

USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

SNAP Program

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20087]
[DOCID:fr19ap06-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD06-7-000; Docket No. ER06-826-000] \1\

Presentations on the Role of RTO/ISO Market Monitors; PJM Market
Monitoring Plan; Notice of Presentations on the Role of RTO/ISO Market
Monitors

April 12, 2006.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will meet with the
market monitors of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and
independent system operators (ISOs) to receive and discuss
presentations on their role in their regional markets. The meeting is
scheduled for May 18, 2006, in Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 at or around 1 p.m. (EDT) and will conclude in
late afternoon. (The starting time may be delayed by the Open
Commission Meeting taking place that morning.) All interested persons
are invited to attend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission will not make any decisions in this docket at
this meeting; however, as the proceeding may be discussed, the
Commission is noticing the docket to ensure no violation of the
Government in Sunshine Act requirements occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has invited RTO/ISO market monitors to make
presentations about their role as market monitors, their resources and
how they are used, and their current market monitoring priorities.
    A free Webcast of this event is available through http://www.ferc.gov.
 Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this

event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of

Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the Webcasts and offers access to the meeting via phone
bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://www.CaptiolConnection.org
 or contact Danelle Perkowski or David

Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Transcripts of the meeting will be available immediately for a fee
from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646). They will
be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the
events calendar approximately one week after the meeting.
    All are invited. There is no pre-registration and there is no fee
to attend this meeting. Questions about the meeting should be directed
to William Booth at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5830 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 22536]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09797]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI17-6-000]

City of Hailey; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI17-6-000.
    c. Date Filed: April 10, 2017.
    d. Applicant: City of Hailey.
    e. Name of Project: Indian Creek Spring Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Indian Creek Spring Hydroelectric Project
would be located on Indian Creek, near the Town of Hailey, in Blaine
County, Idaho.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b) (2012).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mariel Miller, Public Works Director, City of
Hailey, 115 Main Street South, Hailey, ID 83333, telephone: (208) 788-
9815, ext. 24; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Jennifer Polardino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene
is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any
filing should include docket number DI17-4-000.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Indian Creek Spring
Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An existing spring
collection system with an additional six new laterals of perforated
pipe and a collection box; (2) two small pumps to bring water to the
spring house; (3) an overflow drain and a cut off wall bringing water
into the City's existing collection system; (4) a Cipoletti weir; (5) a
2.5-mile-long, 12-inch-diameter penstock; (6) a powerhouse containing
one generator with a rated capacity of 69 kilowatts; (7) an 800-foot-
longtransmission line connecting the power from the powerhouse to a
point of interconnection with the existing utility system; and (8)
appurtenant facilities.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether
or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2)
would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3)
would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has
Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after
1935.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above and in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888
First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202)
502-8371.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTESTS, and MOTIONS
TO INTERVENE, as applicable, and the Docket Number of the particular
application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion to
Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: May 9, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09797 Filed 5-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P