[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59616]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-477-000]

Northwest Pipeline GP; Notice of Application

October 2, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 24, 2008, Northwest Pipeline GP
(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, filed with
the Commission an application pursuant to section 157 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) seeking
authorizing construction and operation of its Colorado Hub Connection
Project. The facilities to be constructed are approximately 27.4 miles
of 24-inch pipeline; and interconnecting facilities the Enterprise
Meeker Gas Processing Plant and with White River Hub, all in Rio Blanco
County, Colorado, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Copies of this filing are available for review at the Commission's
Washington, DC offices, or may be viewed on the web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lynn
Dahlberg, Manager Certificates, Northwest Pipeline GP, 295 Chipeta Way,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this application. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to this proceeding should file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10) by the
comment date, below. A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to the project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: October 24, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23938 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32820-32821]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12288]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Bodisen Biotech, Inc., China Global Media,
Inc., China Heli Resource Renewable, Inc., and GFR Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

May 20, 2016.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Bodisen Biotech, Inc. (CIK No. 1178552), a forfeited Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business listed as Shaanxi,
China with stock quoted on OTC Link (previously, ``Pink Sheets'')
operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. (``OTC Link'') under the ticker
symbol BBCZ, because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended June 30, 2013. On August 18, 2015, a delinquency letter
was sent by the Division of Corporation Finance to Bodisen Biotech,
Inc. requesting compliance with its periodic filing obligations, but
Bodisen Biotech, Inc. refused to accept delivery of the delinquency
letter.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China Global Media, Inc. (CIK No. 1450015), a revoked Nevada
corporation with its principal place of business listed as Hunan
Province, China with stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol
CGLO, because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period
ended June 30, 2013. On August 18, 2015, a delinquency letter was sent
by the Division of Corporation Finance to China Global Media, Inc.
requesting compliance with its periodic filing obligations, and China
Global Media, Inc. did not receive the delinquency letter due to its
failure to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as
required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR
232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual).
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China Heli Resource Renewable, Inc. (CIK No. 1081823), a British Virgin
Islands corporation with its principal place of business listed as Xin
Jiang Province, China with stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker
symbol CRRWF, because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended

December 31, 2012. On August 18, 2015, a delinquency letter was sent by
the Division of Corporation Finance to China Heli Resource Renewable,
Inc. requesting compliance with its periodic filing obligations, but
China Heli Resource Renewable, Inc. did not receive the delinquency
letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address on file with the
Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301 of Regulation S-T,
17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer Manual).
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (CIK No. 1096294), a Nevada corporation with
its principal place of business listed as Shaanxi Province, China with
stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol GFRP, because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2013.
On November 3, 2015, a delinquency letter was sent by the Division of
Corporation Finance to GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. requesting compliance
with its periodic filing obligations, and GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
received the delinquency letter on November 9, 2015, but failed to cure
its delinquencies.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on May 20, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 3, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12288 Filed 5-20-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation,
California).
    The EPA has concluded that the proposed rule may have tribal
implications for these tribes for the purposes of Executive Order 13175
but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor
would it preempt tribal law. As noted previously, a tribe that is part
of an area that is reclassified from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment
is not required to submit a TIP revision to address new Moderate area
requirements. However, if the EPA finalizes the determinations of
failure to attain proposed in this action, the NNSR major source
threshold and offset requirements would change for stationary sources
seeking preconstruction permits in any nonattainment areas newly
reclassified as Severe (Section II.D.1 of this notice), including on
tribal lands within these nonattainment areas. Areas that are already
classified Moderate for a previous ozone NAAQS are already subject to
these higher offset ratios and lower thresholds, so a reclassification
to Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS would have no effect on NNSR
permitting requirements for tribal lands in those areas.
    The EPA has communicated or intends to communicate with the
potentially affected tribes located within the boundaries of the
nonattainment areas addressed in this proposal, including offering
government-to-government consultation, as appropriate.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income poulations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this determination is presented in Section II.B of
this action, ``Extension of Marginal Area Attainment Date,'' and
summarized in Section III of this action, ``Environmental Justice
Considerations,'' and the relevant documents have been placed in the
public docket for this action.
    With respect to the determinations of whether areas have attained
the NAAQS by the attainment date, the EPA has no discretionary
authority to address EJ in these determinations. The CAA directs that
within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the
Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value as of
the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that
date. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). Except for any Severe or Extreme area,
any area that the Administrator finds has not attained the standard by
that date shall be reclassified by operation of law to either the next
higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's
design value. Id.

K. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' For
locally or regionally applicable final actions, the CAA reserves to the
EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the exception in (ii).\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that this action, if finalized, is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator
intends to take into account a number of policy considerations,
including his judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C.
Circuit's authoritative centralized review versus allowing
development of the issue in other contexts and the best use of
agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing findings regarding attainment of the NAAQS in
nonattainment areas within 18 states located in nine of the ten EPA
regions pursuant to a uniform process and standard. The EPA is also
proposing to establish SIP submission and implementation deadlines for
all newly reclassified areas in the identified states using a common,
nationwide method. The jurisdictions that would be affected by this
action, if finalized, represent a wide geographic area, and fall within
several different judicial circuits.
    If the Administrator takes final action on this proposal, then, in
consideration of the effects of the action across the country, the EPA
views this action to be ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of
CAA section 307(b)(1). In the alternative, to the extent a court finds
this proposal, if finalized, to be locally or regionally applicable,
the Administrator intends to exercise the complete discretion afforded
to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is
based on a determination of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the
meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised CAA
section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323-24, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-07513 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4292-4295]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0699; FRL- 8807-4]

2-Propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene
and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester,
polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate;
when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation.
BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-propenoic acid,
2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 27, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 29, 2010, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0699. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0699 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before March 29, 2010.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0699, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of October 7, 2009 (74 FR 51597) (FRL-8792-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 9E7609) filed
by BASF Corporation, 100 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-
propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-
methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate; CAS Reg. No. 68240-06-2. That
notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner
and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any substantive comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA

determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of
FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This
includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential
settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to
``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .'' and specifies factors EPA is to consider in
establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester,
polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate
conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and
meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk
polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of is greater than or equal to
10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material
below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with
ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate meets the
criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250.
Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian
toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to
2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and
2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester,
polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate
could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and
drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was
possible. The number average MW of 2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl
ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate is 18,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would
be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through
intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer
with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate conform to
the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns
for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are
reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is
not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance
exemption, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' For the purposes
of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that 2-propenoic acid, 2-
ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances, based on the anticipated absence of mammalian toxicity. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, 2-
ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to
assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety
factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester,
polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for 2-
propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-
methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue
Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid,
2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methylpropyl 2-
methyl-2-propenoate from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population. If you received specific
comments-consider addressing them here.

XI. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 19, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec. 180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Polymer                                                  CAS No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2-Propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer with ethenylbenzene                                     68240-06-2
 and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, minimum number average
 molecular weight (in amu), 18,000...............................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-1578 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 30354-30355]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program 14 CFR Part 150; Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program (NCP) submitted by Wayne
County Airport Authority under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as
``the Act'') and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are made in
recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal
responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). The Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County Airport noise exposure maps were determined
by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on March 7,
2006. Notice of this determination was published in the Federal
Register on March 21, 2006, Federal Register volume 71, number 54, page
14282.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150 is a local program,
not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR part
150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards
expressed in part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following
determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of FAR part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    The submitted program contained twenty proposed actions for noise
mitigation on and off the airport, as applicable. The FAA completed its
review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements
of the Act and FAR part 150 have been satisfied.
    On June 1, 2009, the FAA approved the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne
County Airport noise compatibility program. Fourteen of the twenty
recommendations of the program were approved. Three recommendations are

related to revised flight procedures for noise abatement and require no
action at this time. Three recommendations were disapproved at this
time.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR part 150, section
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, State, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures
covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Detroit Airports District Office.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by Deb Roth on June 1, 2009. The Record of Approval, as
well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the
submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and
at the administrative offices of the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
Airport. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/
airport_noise/part_150/states/.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport noise compatibility program
is June 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Gubry, Detroit Airports
District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan
48174,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be
reviewed at this same location.

    Dated: June 2, 2009.

    Issued in Romulus, Michigan.
Matthew J. Thys,
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. E9-14986 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12601-12602]
[DOCID:fr16mr07-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-94-000, CP07-96-000]

Enstor Gulf Coast Storage, LLC; Notice of Application

March 12, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 2, 2007, as supplemented on March 7,
2007, Enstor Gulf Coast Storage, LLC (Enstor) 20333 State Highway 249,
Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77070, filed (1) an application in Docket No.
CP07-94-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA and the Commission's
regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing the operation of a Gulf Coast storage pool that will
aggregate storage capacity obtained from discrete affiliated and non-
affiliated service providers, and in combination with off-system
interstate transportation capacity acquired on five interstate
pipelines, will provide storage and in Docket No. CP07-94-000 storage
related services to the interstate market; and (2) an application in
Docket No. CP07-96-000 for a blanket transportation certificate under
Part 284 Subpart G of the Commission's regulations, to provide open
access storage and storage related services at market based rates with
pregranted abandonment.
    These filings are available for review at the Commission's
Washington, DC offices or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov/ using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Toll-free: 1-
866-208-3676; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding these applications should be directed to
Joseph H. Fagan of Heller Ehrman LLP, 1717 Rhode Island Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20036-3001, or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FAX (202) 912-
2020, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR
157.10) by the comment date, below. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will

receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project and/
or associated pipeline. The Commission will consider these comments in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a
comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments
in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 285.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    Comment Date: April 2, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4807 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 1 NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Ornamentals Grown in Open Fields or in Protected Environments DOCUMENT NUMBER CUN 2003/, Us56N8 DATE August 12, 2004 CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND SPECIFIC REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE IN ORNAMENTALS REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED KEY DISEASE( S) AND WEED( S) TO GENUS AND, IF KNOWN, TO SPECIES LEVEL SPECIFIC REASONS WHY METHYL BROMIDE NEEDED California and Florida All soil borne diseases, weeds, and nematodes. Includes Fusarium spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Phytoplithora, Stromatinia, Pythium spp., and most soil nematodes i. e. Meliodogyne spp., and previous crop propagules. Specific pest problems vary by individual crop and variety. See Appendix C for more detailed information. Due to the diversity and complexity of the cut flower and foliage industry, alternatives have not been found for all species. Some of the alternatives that have been found for other crops have not yet been demonstrated to be feasible for floriculture because of high cost, difficulties with quickly treating and replanting fields for multi cropping, township caps, and buffer zone requirements ( Elmore et al., 2003a).

AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED TABLE 2. AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED* BY THE U. S. IN 2005 AND 2006. 2005 ( KG) 2006 ( KG) DESCRIPTION 210,849 162,817 The U. S. imposed a reduction in the requested use rate on one applicant. There was one new CUE ( CA Cut Flower Commission) application. One applicant from 2005, Yoder Brothers, has not to date submitted a 2006 application. One applicant, California Rose Growers was moved to the Fruit, Nut and Flower Nursery CUE. * 2005 Nomination includes 2005 Supplemental Requested nomination amount. USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 2 FIGURE 1. U. S. TOTAL, REQUESTED, AND NOMINATED HECTARES OF ORNAMENTALS 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Ornamentals Total Requested by applicants Nominated by U. S.

Footnote: Total hectares, based on United States Department of Agriculture Statistics, are national acreage in production for this sector. The requested hectares are sum total of all areas in the CUE applications. The nominated hectares reflect reductions of the requested hectares to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used. Total pounds of methyl bromide nominated by the United States government for this sector are based on these nominated hectares. See the accompanying spreadsheet 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index or " BUNI" ( Filename: USA 2006 BUNI   Refined Nomination Package. xls) for more detailed information on how the nominated amount was determined.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The U. S. conducted an economic assessment to evaluate converting to metam sodium, 1,3 dichloropropene, or dazomet. When evaluating the loss per hectare, loss per kilogram of methyl bromide, loss as a percent of gross revenue, and loss as a percent of net revenue it was determined that the alternatives were not economically feasible.

The economic factors that most influence the feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for fresh cut flower production are: ( 1) yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, ( 2) increased production costs, which may be due to the higher cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/ or resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices, and ( 3) missed market windows due to plant back time restrictions, which also affect the quantity and price received for the goods. In this sector, no alternatives were found to be both technically and economically feasible for the particular circumstances nominated for the CUE.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS Background In the United States cut flowers, cut foliage and bulb crops are grown in open fields and under cover ( including glass, poly, and saran). There are three basic systems in place for ornamentals. USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 3 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 dripapplied from drip tapes placed on tops of beds under plastic mulch. Bulb crops represent about 30 percent of the industry. Fumigants are applied on the flat 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.

The diversity of the cut flower, foliage, and bulb industry makes finding methyl bromide alternatives for each crop species complex, time consuming and costly. A single grower in California may grow as many as 100 species and/ or varieties in a single year. Growers must find methyl bromide alternatives that will control previous crops grown on the site, as well as a diversity of key pests, which vary for each crop variety. One of the key pests is plant material from the previous crop, such as residual tubers, bulbs, and seeds. This plant material acts as reservoirs for nematodes and soil pathogens and are weeds themselves, as they are off variety. Both yield and quality losses may occur from these pests.

The fumigation situation and need for methyl bromide varies by species. Additional research is needed before the transition to methyl bromide alternatives is complete. One major difficulty is that market desires require a high degree of flexibility in scheduling certain species and new cultivars. Therefore, the information on the sensitivity of each crop to fumigant alternatives as well as the pests is not known until crops have been in production for several cycles. Along with these issues, there are concerns about phytotoxicity and registration with alternative chemicals ( Schneider, 2003; Elmore et al., 2003b).

The recent U. S. registration experience with iodomethane indicate that new chemistries can take several years to be registered by the U. S. EPA and the state regulatory agencies, such as California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In addition, township caps in California restrict the amount of 1,3 Dichloropropene, and thus 1,3 D + chloropicrin, that can be used in a given area ( Trout, 2001). Buffer zones may also limit the adoption of alternatives.

Some of the alternatives that have been found for other crops are not be feasible for some floriculture crops because of high cost, difficulties with quickly treating and replanting fields for multi cropping, and buffer zone requirements ( Elmore, 2003a). Although some alternatives have shown potential to replace methyl bromide use in some situations, the in field feasibility of the alternatives for each of the major species of ornamentals grown in the U. S. remains to be demonstrated. The industry has made progress in reducing the use of methyl bromide and additional research is ongoing. Because the ornamentals industry is complex ( numerous species, each with its own pests and implementation issues), time is needed to determine methyl bromide alternatives for all species and varieties grown, including determining whether there are any phytotoxicity issues from using methyl bromide alternatives ( Schneider, 2003). Ornamentals have a high value; as a result many manufacturers now avoid registering materials for ornamental crops because of liability due to potential phytotoxicity issues. USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 4 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS MBTOC Question A  The CUN states that time is required to transition to non MB technologies in some subsectors of this nomination, but there is no decrease in nomination between 2005 and 2006.

US Response  The nomination request has remained similar ame between 2005 and 2006 because the applicants are still conducting tests to determine if the registered alternatives are technically and economically feasible. Because there can be over 100 species grown in an ornamental operation, the U. S. government recognizes that a great deal of work will be required to find a suitable alternative, despite the ongoing research. Significant research has been conducted with methyl iodide ( currently undergoing registration review in the U. S.), which diverted resources from other alternatives. It is not currently known which, if any, of the alternatives will be able to replace the remaining uses of methyl bromide. It is anticipated that methyl bromide use will decrease, but due to the uncertainty involved, the U. S. has maintained the amount requested until suitable alternatives have been found.

MBTOC Question B   In order for MBTOC to be able to assess the need for MB under this CUN appropriately, Party is requested to disaggregate this CUN by region ( California, Florida, Michigan) as conditions, principal crops, amounts and application rates arte different and to give at least the principal crops for which MB is nominated.

US Response  The U. S. is actively involved in locating the requested information through discussions with: the applicants, USDA/ NASS ( National Agricultural Statistics Service), state governments, and marketing organizations. The U. S. is continuing to seek this information to provide it to MBTOC. This CUN included ornamental crops in California and Florida but did not include crops from Michigan. Table 3 provides a partial list of common ornamental crops and some of their key pests.

MBTOC Question 1  Production of caladiums in Florida uses flat fumigation with high rates of MB. There would appear to be substantial potential for reduction of the quantity used through adoption of barrier films and strip fumigation in this industry. Clarification is requested on the barriers if any to adopting this approach while continuing research and deployment of alternatives?

US Response  Production of caladiums in Florida does use flat fumigation. HDPE barrier film is used and a solid tarp is needed to do this. The limitations to adopting VIF are described below in the response to Question 2.

There are also additional barriers to adopting strip fumigations. Caladiums are not cultivated in discrete rows that might allow strip fumigation. Caladiums are field grown in flat beds varying in width from 54" to 72". There are from 65 to 150 beds in a block of caladiums depending on the grower. The length of the fields ranges from 800 feet to 2500 feet ( 244   762 meters). Caladiums are planted in rows, with 4, 5, or 6 rows per bed, utilizing seed hoppers with pick up chains and chutes for the chips to fall through as the planter moves down the field. They are grown in the field for up to 11 months. Further, they are irrigated by flooding from underground USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 5 sources, utilizing mole drains. These drains both drain excess water and provide underground water to wick up for irrigation purposes. This technique is widely used by essentially all caladium growers. The water is ground water supplied by a series of ditches flowing generally from a large surface of water ( lake). Nematode spread from a non fumigated strip to a fumigated strip with irrigation water would be a serious problem. The movement of nematodes would likely negate many of the benefits of fumigating ( Chase, 2004).

Finally, recent air monitoring work in California suggests that strip treatments have higher rates of methyl bromide emission than flat fumigation. When the air monitoring work is complete, the emission implications of strip treatments will be evaluated.

MBTOC Question 2  The Party states that HDPE is used by some growers as a cover film in the fumigations and that some change from 98: 2 to 67: 33 MB/ Pic formulations has taken place. What is limiting further adoption of barrier film technology and further reduction in MB use through adoption of MB/ Pic 50: 50 fumigation mixtures?

US Response  There are limitations to using VIF. There has been quite a bit of data developed regarding use of VIF that shows that in some situations it does work well to lower overall poundage of MB applied. However, the quality, availability and methods of application of VIF films have not been standardized or developed. New glues have been developed to fix one sheet to another but testing has not been completed to verify their effectiveness. These problems have generally hampered acceptance and use by growers in both California and Florida.

Work is being conducted to determine if VIF is feasible in the U. S. from a technical standpoint ( e. g., does it hold up physically in field conditions, can it be glued to acceptable specifications, can the used film be disposed of properly, etc.) and economically feasible ( e. g., cost of material, cost of application). However, the efficacy of VIF for U. S. agriculture may be different than that for Europe ( Federal Register, 1998).

The limitation to using 50: 50 MB/ Pic fumigation mixtures is that it would not effectively destroy caladium tubers or pieces left in the field from the previous crops, and in addition would not eliminate several of the weeds that can be suppressed by the 67: 33 MB/ Pic mixture ( Chase, 2004 and Elmore, 2003b). While chloropicrin has excellent disease controlling properties it is not ideally suited as an herbicidal agent. Similar issues are expected for other ornamental crops, especially those with underground crop material left in the field, such as tubers or bulbs.

MBTOC Question 3  A listing is requested of the major ornamental crops still requiring MB in some form, tonnage nominated and reasons why MB is critical. This listing is for both 2005 and 2006 nominations. USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 6 US Response  A listing of all of the specific crops and pounds of MB needed by each crop is not available. For example, California requires records of pesticide application, but even these mandatory records do not segregate one use from another in the broad spectrum of field grown cut flowers and cut greens. However, key crops include gladiolus, calla lily, Ranunculus, Rhamnus, myrtle, snapdragons, stock, Asiatic and oriental lilies, and many more. Several crops were also included in the CUN with information on the key pests ( see Table 3 below).

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 weed 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 3. DISEASES & NEMATODES OF CUT FLOWER CROPS CURRENTLY CONTROLLED WITH METHYL BROMIDE. CROP KEY PESTS SCIENTIFIC NAME Nematodes Belanolaimus longidorus, Criconomella spp., Dolichodorus heterocephalus Antirrhinum Pythium root rot Pythium irregulare ( documented resistance to mefenoxam is 25 50%) Erwinia soft rot Erwinia carotovora Calla lily 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. Fusarium wilt Fusarium oxysporum fsp. Gladioli Gladiolus Stromatinia neck rot Stromatinia gladioli Helianthus Downy mildew Plasmopara halstedii ( this is a soil borne pathogen) Root knot nematode Meloidogyne spp. Hypericum 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. Sclerotinia stem rot Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Matthiola Xanthomonas leaf spot Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris Pythium root rot Pythium spp. Ranunculus Xanthomonas leaf spot Xanthomonas campestris Competition has caused the ornamentals industry to become more diversified than in the recent past. The US submitted the nomination for multiple species but used two species as examples: caladiums and ranunculus. The use of these two species is intended to demonstrate the complexity of issues in the cut flower industry. The cut flower industry is complex and, as noted above, there is no record of the specific crop species using MB. Therefore, the United States is not able to provide the tonnage required by each species, especially since the species planted varies depending on market demands. USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 7 The United States collected pesticide usage data for nursery and floriculture operations in a small number of states in 2000. The survey may not have included all of the species in the CUN; therefore the amounts discussed should be used as an indicator of the amount of MB used, and not an absolute amount. For example, it is not clear if data on caladiums or ranunculus were collected. However, methyl bromide is only used on a small percentage of the nursery and floriculture operations. For all nursery and floriculture, in California, MB was used in 6 percent of the operations, and in Florida MB was used on 1 percent of the operations. Out of the states surveyed, a total of 2 percent of the operations used MB. For only floriculture operations, the numbers were similar, with 6 percent of the operations using MB in California, less than 1% in Florida, a total of 2% for all states surveyed. For cut flowers, 12 percent of operation in CA and 9 percent over all surveyed states used MB. An insufficient number of reports were submitted for Florida, so this information is not available. Total amount applied in the surveyed states for cut flowers was 352,700 lb ( 159,982 kg) ( USDA, 2002). This amount does not include cut foliage and may not include certain cut flower species. This data is not all inclusive but is an indication of the way MB is being used in the industry.

The industry is working to reduce the amount of methyl bromide it uses. Usage data from California demonstrates the decrease in methyl bromide use. In 1998, approximately 514,000 pounds of methyl bromide were applied, whereas in 2001, approximately 208,000 pounds of methyl bromide were applied. Over the same period of time, the acreage has remained stable. Therefore, between the use of alternatives and reducing the rate of methyl bromide in MB/ Pic mixtures, the industry has been able to greatly reduce methyl bromide consumption.

MB is critical because without it, some growers will suffer both yield and quality losses. In addition, growers who rotate several species of ornamentals on a particular field need to kill crop residue, such as tubers, from previous crops to eliminate contamination, as well as control other weeds and pathogens. The crop residue may act as a reservoir for nematodes and pathogens. Due to the diversity and complexity of the cut flower and foliage industry, alternatives have not yet been found for all species. Some of the alternatives that have been found for other crops may not be feasible for floriculture in general because of high cost, difficulties with quickly treating and replanting fields for multi cropping, and buffer zone requirements. In addition, township caps limit the use of 1,3 Dichloropropene, and thus 1,3 D/ Pic, in California. Other alternatives provide inconsistent control or have restrictions that limit their use at this time. Growers also need time to transition to the alternatives that become available through new registrations.

In this industry, the fumigation situation and need for methyl bromide varies by species. Despite research conducted so far, there is not enough grower experience and research to on the technical and economic feasibility of the alternatives to enable users to switch to alternatives by the 2006 growing season.

MBTOC Question 4  The Party reports that dazomet is effective for chrysanthemums and carnations. How much of the CUN could be replaced using this alternative on these crops either alone or in combination with other practices?

US Response  In the CUN, the discussion on dazomet was intended to show that research is being conducted with dazomet and that there has been some success. Dazomet is being used USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 8 with one or more of the other alternatives, which has allowed the industry to reduce overall MB consumption over the past ten years.

The effectiveness of dazomet in the question refers to the following from the CUN ( included for reference):

In some cut flowers ( carnation and chrysanthemum) dazomet was effective against Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Erwinia, and Pseudomonas. Appropriate aeration times, which are dependent on soil temperature, are needed to avoid phytotoxicity ( Semer, 1987). In addition, plant back restrictions may cause some growers to be able to grow fewer crops in a year.

However, there are limitations to dazomet being used on other ornamental crops in addition to those mentioned above. The formulation available, a fine powder, is difficult to apply and marginally effective under the varied growing conditions. Finally, the manufacturer of the product recently sold rights to another company and that company has yet to determine the target markets within the U. S. Therefore, while Dazomet is used by some growers it is uncertain when a newer, more reliable, application friendly product will be available so that its use may become more widespread.

It is not expected that the MB requested in this CUN will be used for chrysanthemums and carnations. In Florida, where cutting of mums are propagated for use around the world, the applicant is in the process of converting to steam. Also, many of the cut flowers of chrysanthemums and carnations are being imported from South America. Therefore, dazomet use on these crops is not expected to reduce the amount of MB nominated.

Dazomet cannot be used on caladiums since the fields do not have any overhead irrigation and water sealing the product is not possible under these conditions. This crop is irrigated by flooding from underground sources of water in most instances ( described above in the response to Question 1). USA, Ornamentals, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 9 REFERENCES 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI)   Refined Nomination Package. Attached to U. S. Response to Questions as an Excel Spreadsheet.

Chase, Ann. Chase Research Gardens. June and July 2004. Personal communication.

Elmore, C., J. MacDonald, H. Ferris, I. Zasada, S. Tsjvold, K. Robb, C. Wilen, L. Bolkin, L. Yahaba, J. Roncoroni, 2003a, Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Control of Weeds, Nematodes, and Soil Borne Fungi, Bacteria in Coastal Ornamental Crops   Draft.

Elmore, C., J. Roncoroni, K. Robb, C. Wilen, and H. Ajwa, 2003b, Preplant Pest Production in Ranunculus Production, Proceeding from the 2003 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Web address: www. mbao. org Federal Register, February 5, 1998, 40 CFR, part 82. Control of methyl bromide emissions through use of tarps. Web address: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPAAIR 1998/ February/ Day 05/ a2875. htm Schneider, S., E. Rosskopf, J. Leesch, D. Chellemi, C. Bull, and M. Mazzola, 2003, United States Department of Agriculture   Agricultural Research Service Research on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Pre plant and Post harvest, Pest Manag Sci 59: 814 826.

Semer, C. R. IV, 1987, Basamid and Methyl Bromide Compounds as Fumigants in Carnation and Chrysanthemum Production in Selected Propagation Media, Proc Fla State Hort Soc 100: 330 334.

Trout, T., 2001, Impact of Township Caps on Telone Use in California.

USDA, April 2002. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2000 Nursery and Floriculture Summary.