2003 NOMINATION FOR A CRITICAL USE EXEMPTION FOR NURSERY TRANSPLANT TRAYS FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1. Introduction In consultation with the co chair of Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC), the United States has organized this version of its Critical Use Exemption Nomination in a manner that would enable a holistic review of relevant information by each individual sector team reviewing the nomination for a specific crop or use. As a consequence, this nomination for sterilizing the trays for soil less seedling production, like the nomination for all other crops included in the U. S. request, includes general background information that the U. S. believes is critical to enabling review of our nomination in a manner that meets the requirements of the Parties' critical use decisions. With that understanding, the fully integrated U. S. nomination for tobacco seedling production follows.

2. Background In 1997, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adjusted Article 2H of the Protocol, and agreed to accelerate the reduction in the controlled production and consumption of methyl bromide. This adjustment included a provision calling for a phaseout of methyl bromide by the year 2005 " save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses." At the same time, the Parties adopted decision IX/ 6, the critical use exemption decision, which laid out the terms under which critical use exemptions under Article 2H would be granted.

3. Criteria for Critical Uses under the Montreal Protocol In crafting Decision IX/ 6 outlining the criteria for a critical use exemption, the Parties recognized the significant differences between methyl bromide uses and uses of other ozone depleting chemicals previously given scrutiny under the Protocol's distinct and separate Essential Use exemption process. The United States believes that it is vitally important for the MBTOC to take into account the significant differences between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption in the review of all methyl bromide critical use nominations.

During the debate leading up to the adoption of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6, an underlying theme voiced by many countries was that the Parties wanted to phase out methyl bromide, and not agriculture. This theme was given life in various provisions of the critical use exemption, and in the differences in approach taken between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption. Those differences are outlined below.

The Protocol's negotiated criteria for the critical use exemptions for methyl bromide are much different from the criteria negotiated for " essential uses" for other chemicals. Under the Essential Use provisions, in order to even be considered for an exemption, it was necessary for each proposed use to be " critical for health, safety or the functioning of society." This high threshold differs significantly from the criteria established for the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption. Indeed, for methyl bromide, the Parties left it solely to the nominating governments to find that the absence of methyl bromide would create a significant market disruption.

For the U. S. nomination for sterilizing tobacco seedling trays, following detailed technical and economic review, the U. S. has determined that the level of methyl bromide being requested is critical to ensuring that there is no significant market disruption. The detailed analysis of technical and economic viability of the alternatives listed by TEAP for use in growing tobacco seedlings is discussed later in this nomination, as is the basis for the U. S. estimate of the amount of methyl bromide needed within this sector.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized many agricultural fumigants were inherently toxic, and therefore there was a strong desire not to replace one environmentally problematic chemical with another even more damaging.

The critical use exemption language explicitly requires that an alternative should not only be technically and economically feasible, it must also be acceptable from the standpoint of health and environment. This is particularly important given the fact that most chemical alternatives to methyl bromide are extremely toxic, and can involve threats to human health or the environment that are even greater than the threats posed by methyl bromide.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized that evaluating, commercializing and securing national approval of alternatives and substitutes is a lengthy process.

In fact, even after an alternative is tested and found to work against some pests in a controlled setting, adequate testing in large scale commercial operations can take many cropping seasons before the viability of the alternative can be adequately assessed from the standpoint of the climate and soil for various potential users. In addition, the process of securing national and sub national approval of alternatives may require extensive analysis of environmental consequences and toxicology. The average time for the national review of scientific information in support of a new pesticide, starting from the date of submission to registration, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the company submitting the information has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the epidemiological and other environmental data necessary to support the registration request.

The Parties to the Protocol recognized that unlike other chemicals controlled under the Montreal Protocol, the use of methyl bromide and available alternatives could be site specific and must take into account the particular needs of the user.

The Essential Use exemption largely assumed that an alternative used in one place could, if approved by the government, be used everywhere. Parties clearly understood that this was not the case with methyl bromide because of the large number of variables involved, such as crop type, soil types, pest pressure and local climate. That is why the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption calls for an examination of the feasibility of the alternative from the standpoint of the user, and in the context of the specific circumstances of the nomination, including use and geographic location. In order to effectively implement this last, very important provision, we believe it is critical for MBTOC reviewers to understand the unique nature of U. S. agriculture, as well as U. S. efforts to minimize the use of methyl bromide, to research alternatives, and to register alternatives for methyl bromide.

4. U. S. Consideration/ Preparation of the Critical Use Exemption for Sterilizing Trays for Greenhouse Seedlings Work on the U. S. critical use exemption process began in early 2001. At that time, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) initiated open meetings with stakeholders both to inform them of the Protocol requirements, and to understand the issues being faced in researching alternatives to methyl bromide. During those meetings, which were attended by State and association officials representing thousands of methyl bromide users, the provisions of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6 were reviewed in detail, and questions were taken. The feedback from these initial meetings led to efforts by the U. S. to have the Protocol Parties establish international norms for the details to be in submissions and to facilitate standardization for a fair and adequate review. These efforts culminated in decision XIII/ 11 which calls for specific information to be presented in the nomination.

Upon return from the Sri Lanka meeting of the Parties, the U. S. took a three track approach to the critical use process. First, we worked to develop a national application form that would ensure that we had the information necessary to answer all of the questions posed in decision XIII/ 11. At the same time, we initiated sector specific meetings. This included meetings with representatives of tobacco seedling growers across the U. S. to discuss their specific issues, and to enable them to understand the newly detailed requirements of the critical use application. These sector meetings allowed us to fine tune the application so we could submit the required information to the MBTOC in a meaningful fashion.

Finally, and concurrent with our preparation phase, we developed a plan to ensure a robust and timely review of any and all critical use applications we might receive. This involved the assembly of more than 45 PhDs and other qualified reviewers with expertise in both biological and economic issues. These experts were divided into interdisciplinary teams to enable primary and secondary reviewers for each application/ crop. As a consequence, each nomination received by the U. S. was reviewed by two separate teams. In addition, the review of these interdisciplinary teams was put to a broader review of experts on all other sector teams to enable a third look at the information, and to ensure consistency in review between teams. The result was a thorough evaluation of the merits of each request. A substantial portion of requests did not meet the criteria of decision IX/ 6, and a strong case for those that did meet the criteria has been included.

Following our technical review, discussions were held with senior risk management personnel of the U. S. government to go over the recommendations and put together a draft package for submission to the parties. As a consequence of all of this work, it is safe to say that each of the sector specific nominations being submitted is the work of well over 150 experts both in and outside of the U. S. government. 5. Overview of Agriculture Production 5a. U. S. Agriculture The U. S. is fortunate to have a large land expanse, productive soils and a variety of favorable agricultural climates. These factors contribute to and enable the U. S. to be a uniquely large and productive agricultural producer. Indeed, the size and scope of farming in the U. S. is different than in most countries. Specifically, in 2001, U. S. farm land totaled 381 million hectares, a land area larger than many countries. There were 2.16 million farms, with average farm size across all farms of 176 hectares ( approximately 10 times larger than average farm size in the European Union). The availability of land, and the fact that so many U. S. regions are conducive to outdoor cultivation of fruits and vegetables, has had an important impact on the way agriculture has developed. Specifically, these factors have meant that greenhouse production has generally proven to be very costly ( in relative terms) and has as a consequence, been limited.

Other factors also affected the general development of agriculture in the U. S. While land for farming is widely available, labor is generally more expensive and less plentiful. As a result, the U. S. developed a unique brand of highly mechanized farming practices that are highly reliant on pesticides such as methyl bromide and other non labor inputs. The extent of mechanization and reliance on non labor inputs can be best demonstrated by noting the very low levels of labor inputs on U. S. farms: in 2001, only 2.05 million workers operated the 2.16 million U. S. farms, with help from less than 1 million hired workers.

U. S. agriculture is also unique in terms of the broad range of crops produced. For example, the fruit and vegetable sector, the agricultural sector most reliant on methyl bromide, is diverse, and includes production of 107 separate fruit and vegetable commodities or groups of commodities. With this diversity, however, has come a large number of pest problems that methyl bromide has proven uniquely able to address.

Finally, the above factors have contributed to a harvest of commodities that has enabled the U. S. to meet not only its needs, but also the needs of many other countries. The U. S. produced 88.3 million metric tonnes of fruits and vegetables in 2001, up 10 percent from 1990. At the same time, the land planted in fruits and vegetables has remained stable, and individual farm size has increased as the number of farms has fallen. The related yield increases per land area are almost exclusively related to non labor inputs, like the adoption of new varieties, and the application of new production practices, including plastic mulches, row covers, high density planting, more effective pesticide sprays, and drip irrigation, as well as increased water irrigation practices. Optimization of yields through these and other scientific and mechanized practices make U. S. agricultural output very sensitive to changes in inputs. Therefore, as evidenced by the U. S. nomination for critical uses of methyl bromide, the phaseout of methyl bromide can have a very significant impact on both the technical and economic viability of production of certain crops in certain areas.

5b. Overview of Nursery Transplant Production U. S. tobacco seedling production exemplifies the ingenuity of U. S. agriculture to produce commodities efficiently, by relying on mechanization and non labor inputs. Prior to the 1990s, tobacco transplants were all produced in outdoor soil plant beds which were fumigated with methyl bromide at a rate of 6 to 8 kgs of active ingredient ( a. i.) per 165 m2, sufficient for establishing one hectare of tobacco ( 6 7 lbs per 720 ft2 to establish one acre). If this system was still in use, it would require over 454,500 kg ( 1,000,000 lbs) of methyl bromide to fumigate sufficient plant beds for 2002 levels of tobacco production in North Carolina, the major producing state. During the 1990s however, direct seeded systems were developed to raise tobacco seedlings in a float system within greenhouses and the system was rapidly adopted throughout North Carolina.

The float system is a modified hydroponic/ subsurface watering system wherein tobacco transplants are produced in polystyrene trays ( 200 338 cells per tray). The trays are filled with soil less growing medium and floated on a waterbed formed from 5x15 cm of lumber. The waterbed is lined with plastic and filled with 10 cm of water. Soluble fertilizers are added directly to the water in the waterbed. Water moves into the trays via holes at the bottom of each cell and moves upward through the growing medium by capillary flow. Plants are kept in trays until they reach transplant size. After plants are transplanted, trays are disinfected and stored until next season. While no longer needed for plant bed fumigation, methyl bromide is currently used to sterilize the polystyrene trays prior to seeding the trays. The polystyrene trays are stacked, then tarped and then methyl bromide is applied at a rate of about 1 kg per 21 m3 ( 3 lbs per 1000 ft2). At the current application rate, it will take 4,612 kgs ( 10,167 lbs) of methyl bromide to sterilize the trays needed to produce sufficient transplants for the tobacco crop of North Carolina. This is only 1 percent of the amount that would have been be needed to raise tobacco seedlings under field bed production.

6. Results of Review  Determined Need for Methyl Bromide to Sterilize Trays for Nursery Seedlings 6a. Target Pests Controlled with Methyl Bromide The primary purpose of fumigation with methyl bromide is to disinfect the trays against pathogens such as Rhizoctonia spp., Pythium spp., and other miscellaneous soil fungi and bacteria. Rhizoctonia is especially problematic. These pathogens cause severe outbreaks of root rots and significant losses, even total losses, can result. These pests are widely and uniformly distributed and, due to the devastating nature of the pests on young seedlings, 100 percent of the trays are disinfected each year.

6b. Technical and Economic Assessment of Alternatives Table 1 lists the alternatives MBTOC identified for tobacco seedlings produced in nursery seedbeds. In fact, North Carolina producers are adopting the alternative of soil less culture in response to the phaseout of methyl bromide. We estimate that, currently, about 70 percent of growers use soil less culture and that by 2005, there will be nearly 100 percent adoption. However, the widespread presence of fungi and bacteria necessitate continued treatment between seasons with methyl bromide as a disinfectant. Table 1. MBTOC Alternatives for Tobacco Seedlings. Methyl Bromide Alternative Assessment of Technical Feasibility 1,3 Dichloropropene ( 1,3D), Brush Burning no longer applicable 1,3D, Chloropicrin no longer applicable Dazomet ( Basamid ® ) no longer applicable Chloropicrin no longer applicable Metam sodium no longer applicable Methyl isothiocyanate ( MITC) no longer applicable Biofumigation no longer applicable Solarization of soil no longer applicable Steam sterilization of soil no longer applicable Biological control no longer applicable Cover crops and mulching no longer applicable Crop rotation/ fallow no longer applicable Endophytes no longer applicable Organic amendments/ Compost no longer applicable Physical removal/ sanitation no longer applicable Resistant cultivars already used, not sufficient by itself Soil less culture already used, need methyl bromide to sterilize trays Substrates/ Plug plants already used, need methyl bromide to sterilize trays 6c. Technical Feasibility of Alternatives for Sterilizing Trays To disinfect the polystyrene trays used in the soil less culture of tobacco seedlings, the alternatives listed in Table 2 were assessed as possible replacements for methyl bromide. However, none were found to be technically feasible.

Table 2. Methyl Bromide Alternatives for Sterilizing Polystyrene Trays Used in Tobacco Seedling Production. Methyl Bromide Alternative Assessment of Technical Feasibility 1,3 Dichloropropene No Dazomet No Chloropicrin No Metam sodium No Replace trays each season No, disposal results in environmental problems Steam sterilization No Solarization No Liquid sanitizers No Etridiazole No The following describes the constraints and problems for these alternatives In kind fumigants ( 1,3 Dichloropropene, dazomet, chloropicrin and metam sodium). None of the in kind alternatives to methyl bromide provide consistent control of the complex of pathogens that infect the trays used in soil less culture and some, e. g., chloropicrin, may damage seedlings if used for in season control. More importantly, their corrosive effects damage the trays.

Replace trays each season. Although the cost of replacing used trays with new trays is minimal, disposal of used polystyrene trays creates potential environmental hazards and recycling is not economically feasible. Combustion of polystyrene in municipal solid waste incinerators would release complex mixtures of polycyclic hydrocarbons that could potentially contribute to the formation of some of the most biologically active toxins known to humans. Furthermore, disposal of polystyrene in landfills is not sustainable because polystyrene degrades very slowly even when exposed to air, water, and sunlight. In addition, most landfills will not accept polystyrene trays. Recycling of polystyrene material used for tobacco seedling production would require separate recycling facilities in order to comply with existing regulations because the trays are contaminated with potential toxins and cannot be combined with untainted materials in the recycling process. This limitation would require a large investment in new facilities that would be impractical given the relatively small amount of polystyrene waste involved and the significant costs associated with collecting all of the used trays from all North Carolina growers to one location for processing.

Steam sterilization of trays. Control of pathogens with steam requires that temperatures exceed 80 degrees Celsius for at least two hours. Temperatures greater than 82 degrees C will damage the polystyrene trays. In small scale experiments, where temperatures can be strictly controlled, have shown that steam can effectively sterilize trays. However, maintaining the two degree difference for the necessary period of time to guarantee sterilization of the trays without damage at U. S. scale commercial production would require specialized technical skill and precision equipment that are not currently available. Research is on going to apply this technology to greater volumes.

Solarization. This method has limited effectiveness in controlling the entire complex of pathogens and causes significant damage to the polystyrene trays.

Liquid sanitizers. Liquid sanitizers, as a class, are not efficacious because they do not penetrate the fungal contaminated pores in the polystyrene. A chlorine bleach solution of 10 50 percent is only marginally effective in controlling Rhizoctonia spp. compared to steam or methyl bromide fumigation. Furthermore, chlorine and other materials contained in liquid sanitizers are highly toxic to tobacco seedlings, and consequently, create an additional hazard unless the trays are cleaned and washed properly after being treated with liquid sanitizers.

Etridiazole and other fungicides. Etridiazole has recently been registered, under the trade name Terrazole, for tobacco seedlings to control pathogens in tobacco float beds. It is applied in the water upon which the plastic beds float about two to eight weeks after seeding. However, it has not been shown to be effective against Rhizoctonia spp., which is the major target pest. Other currently registered fungicides, that could be used for protection during the growing season, are also ineffective against Rhizoctonia. Products that are effective have not yet been registered, primarily because producers are unwilling to support a registration for economic and legal reasons. The market is small and apparently there are concerns over liability, especially because tobacco is a high value crop. The only available alternative is to sanitize the trays as a preventative measure. 6d. Economic Feasibility of Alternatives for Sterilizing Trays None of the alternatives listed by MBTOC and reviewed above were found to be technically feasible for tobacco seedlings therefore no economic analysis was conducted.

7. Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Transplant Trays for Nursery Seedlings The applicant requested an actual annual amount of 4,612 kilograms of methyl bromide for the years 2005 to 2007. This amount assumes that nearly 100 percent of tobacco seedling production will utilize soil less culture and represents less than one percent of that used historically to fumigate soil for tobacco seedlings grown in nursery seed beds. Currently, it is estimated that about 70 percent of growers use the soil less culture.

A summary of the methyl bromide uses for treating tobacco seedling trays in previous years and the actual amount requested by the applicant for this critical use exemption is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Methyl Bromide Usage and Request for Sterilization of Tobacco Seedling Trays. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 kilograms 3,397 2,733 2,656 2,345 3,294 4,612 4,612 4,612 1000 cubic meters 72 58 56 50 69 98 98 98 rate ( kg/ 1000 m3) 47 47 47 47 48 47 47 47 Methyl bromide use has been significantly higher in past years for soil treatments of nursery seed beds, while figures presented in Table 3 are for treatments of trays only. No methyl bromide is being requested for continued soil treatments. At rates of 6 to 8 kg per 165 m2 of seed bed, sufficient to establish one hectare of tobacco, past use of methyl bromide in tobacco seedling production could have been over 454,500 kg annually. The request is for only one percent of that amount.

The U. S. nomination has been determined based first on consideration of the requests we received and an evaluation of the supporting material. This evaluation, which resulted in a reduction in the amount being nominated, included careful examination of issues including the area afflicted with the key target ( economically significant) pests for which methyl bromide is required, historic use rates, among other factors.

Table 4. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Seedling Trays Year Total Request by Applicants ( kilograms) U. S. Sector Nomination ( kilograms) 2005 4,612 1,323 8. Minimizing Use/ Emissions of Methyl Bromide in the United States/ Stockpiles In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, each party is required to describe ways in which it strives to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. The use of methyl bromide in the production of tobacco seedlings in the U. S. is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide is regulated as a restricted use pesticide. As a consequence, it can only be used by certified applicators who are trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements to avoid drift of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as to conserve its use and keep related emissions to the lowest level possible, methyl bromide applications for tobacco seedling trays are injected under tarps in closed conditions. In addition, as methyl bromide has become more scarce and more costly, tobacco seedling production has shifted to soil less culture where methyl bromide is only used to sterilize the polystyrene trays. Use of methyl bromide is now less than one percent of what use would be without the use of this technology.

In terms of compliance, in general, the United States has used a combination of tight production and import controls, and the related market impacts to ensure compliance with the Protocol requirements on methyl bromide. Indeed, over the last   years, the price of methyl bromide has increased substantially. As Chart 1 in Appendix D demonstrates, the application of these policies has led to a more rapid U. S. phasedown in methyl bromide consumption than required under the Protocol. This accelerated phasedown on the consumption side may also have enabled methyl bromide production to be stockpiled to some extent to help mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with the Protocol's 2003 and 2004 70% reduction. We are currently uncertain as to the exact quantity of existing stocks going into the 2003 season that may be stockpiled in the U. S. We currently believe that the limited existing stocks are likely to be depleted during 2003 and 2004. This factor is reflected in our requests for 2005 and beyond.

At the same time we have made efforts to reduce emissions and use of methyl bromide, we have also made strong efforts to find alternatives to methyl bromide. The section that follows discusses those efforts.

9. U. S. Efforts to Find, Register and Commercialize Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Over the past ten years, the United States has committed significant financial and technical resources to the goal of seeking alternatives to methyl bromide that are technically and economically feasible to provide pest protection for a wide variety of crops, soils, and pests, while also being acceptable in terms of human health and environmental impacts. The U. S. pesticide registration program has established a rigorous process to ensure that pesticides registered for use in the United States do no present an unreasonable risk of health or environmental harm. Within the program, we have given the highest priority to rapidly reviewing methyl bromide alternatives, while maintaining our high domestic standard of environmental protection. A number of alternatives have already been registered for use, and several additional promising alternatives are under review at this time. Our research efforts to find new alternatives to methyl bromide and move them quickly toward registration and commercialization have allowed us to make great progress over the last decade in phasing out many uses of methyl bromide. However, these efforts have not provided effective alternatives for all crops, soil types and pest pressures, and we have accordingly submitted a critical use nomination to address these limited additional needs. Research Program When the United Nations, in 1992, identified methyl bromide as a chemical that contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and the Clean Air Act committed the U. S. to phase out the use of methyl bromide, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) initiated a research program to find viable alternatives. Finding alternatives for agricultural uses is extremely complicated compared to replacements for other, industrial uses because many factors affect the usefulness and efficacy of potential substitutes, including crop, climate, soil type, and target pests, which change from region to region and even among localities within a region.

Through 2002, the USDA Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) alone has spent US$ 135.5 million to implement an aggressive research program to find alternatives to methyl bromide ( see table below). Through the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA has provided an additional $ 11.4m since 1993 to state universities for alternatives research and outreach. This federally supported research is a supplement to extensive sector specific private sector efforts, and that all of this research is very well considered. Specifically, the phaseout challenges brought together agricultural and forestry leaders from private industry, academia, state governments, and the federal government to assess the problem, formulate priorities, and implement research directed at providing solutions under the USDA's Methyl Bromide Alternatives program. The ARS within USDA has 22 national programs, one of which is the Methyl Bromide Alternatives program ( Select Methyl Bromide Alternatives at this web site: http:// www. nps. ars. usda. gov ). The resulting research program has taken into account these inputs, as well as the extensive private sector research and trial demonstrations of alternatives to methyl bromide. While research has been undertaken in all sectors, federal government efforts have been based on the input of experts as well as the fact that nearly 80 percent of preplant methyl bromide soil fumigation is used in a limited number of crops. Accordingly, much of the federal government pre plant efforts have focused on strawberries, tomatoes, ornamentals, peppers and nursery crops, ( forest, ornamental, strawberry, pepper, tree, and vine), with special emphasis on tomatoes in Florida and strawberries in California as model crops.

Table 5. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Funding History Year Expenditures by the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( US$ Million) 1993 $ 7.255 1994 $ 8.453 1995 $ 13.139 1996 $ 13.702 1997 $ 14.580 1998 $ 14.571 1999 $ 14.380 2000 $ 14.855 2001 $ 16.681 2002 $ 17.880 The USDA/ ARS strategy for evaluating possible alternatives is to first test the approaches in controlled experiments to determine efficacy, then testing those that are effective in field plots. The impact of the variables that affect efficacy is addressed by conducting field trials at multiple locations with different crops and against various diseases and pests. Alternatives that are effective in field plots are then tested in field scale validations, frequently by growers in their own fields. University scientists are also participants in this research. Research teams that include ARS and university scientists, extension personnel, and grower representatives meet periodically to evaluate research results and plan future trials.

There are currently no government funded studies specific to tobacco seedling production. However, results from ongoing research in other sectors may be applicable. In addition to work on soil borne pathogens and fungi, research on post harvest and structural uses could provide important information for treatment of the plastic trays. These studies include the following:

1. Chemically Based Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Postharvest and Quarantine Pests ( Jul 2000  Dec 2004) Develop quarantine/ postharvest control strategies using chemicals to reduce arthropod pests in durable and perishable commodities. Develop new fumigants and/ or strategies to reduce methyl bromide use. Develop technology and equipment to reduce methyl bromide emissions to the atmosphere. Develop system approaches for control using chemicals combined with non chemical methodologies which will yield integrated pest control management programs. Develop methods to detect insect infestations.

2. Vacuum Hermetic Fumigation As An Alternative to Methyl Bromide for Control of Postharvest Pests ( Oct 2001  Dec 2002) To determine the effectiveness of vacuum hermetic fumigation for controlling postharvest pests by developing a treatment schedule that is lethal to pests and innocuous to postharvest commodities.

3. Application of Ozone under Vacuum As a Treatment Against Quarantine Pests on Exported Commodities ( May 2001  Sep 2003) 1. Determine toxicity of ozone under vacuum to stored product & quarantine insect pests present in postharvest horticultural commodities. 2. Determine phytotoxic effects of ozone under vacuum to postharvest commodities exported to foreign countries. 3. Establish schedules for effective treatment of postharvest commodities to eliminate stored product or quarantine insect pests.

4. Ozone As a Gaseous Fumigant ( Jan 2000  Dec 2004) Continue a project to evaluate ozone for use as a fumigant on fresh fruit and nuts to control pests of commodities following harvest. Acquire and fabricate test equipment, develop ozone detection methodology and establish the efficacy of various dosages of ozone to eliminate insects from several commodities. Determine if ozone has potential to replace current methodology in postharvest treatments. Establish the benefits and disadvantages of using ozone for postharvest treatments.

In addition, research plans submitted by applicants for production of tobacco seedlings include studies at North Carolina State University to test specially heated or coated polystyrene trays that would prevent fungal infection or be impermeable to damage from the high temperatures of steam treatments. As demonstrated by the table above, U. S. efforts to research alternatives for methyl bromide have been substantial, and they have been growing in size as the phaseout has approached. The United States is committed to sustaining these research efforts in the future to continue to aggressively search for technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. We are also committed to continuing to share our research, and enable a global sharing of experience. Toward that end, for the past several years, key U. S. government agencies have collaborated with industry to host an annual conference on alternatives to methyl bromide. This conference, the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach ( MBAO), has become the premier forum for researchers and others to discuss scientific findings and progress in this field.

Registration Program The United States has one of the most rigorous programs in the world for safeguarding human health and the environment from the risks posed by pesticides. While we are proud of our efforts in this regard, related safeguards do not come without a cost in terms of both money and time. Because the registration process is so rigorous, it can take a new pesticide several years ( 3 5) to get registered by EPA. It also takes a large number of years to perform, draft results and deliver the large number of health and safety studies that are required for registration.

The U. S. EPA regulates the use of pesticides under two major federal statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), both significantly amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). Under FIFRA, U. S. EPA registers pesticides provided its use does not pose unreasonable adverse effect to humans or the environment. Under FFDCA, U. S. EPA is responsible for setting tolerances ( maximum permissible residue levels) for any pesticide used on food or animal feed. With the passage of FQPA, the U. S. EPA is required to establish a single, health based standard for pesticides used on food crops and to determine that establishment of a tolerance will result in a " reasonable certainty of no harm" from aggregate exposure to the pesticide.

The process by which U. S. EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide to determine if they are safe is called the registration process. The U. S. EPA evaluates the pesticide to ensure that it will not have any unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and non target species. Applicants seeking pesticide registration are required to submit a wide range of health and ecological effects toxicity data, environmental fate, residue chemistry and worker/ bystander exposure data and product chemistry data. A pesticide cannot be legally used in the U. S. if it has not been registered by U. S. EPA, unless it has an exemption from regulation under FIFRA.

Since 1997, the U. S. EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a priority. Because there are currently more applications pending in its review process than resources to evaluate them, U. S. EPA prioritizes the applications in its registration queue. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U. S. EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the EPA to initiate its review. The average processing time for a new active ingredient, from date of submission to issuance of a registration decision, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the registrant ( the pesticide applicant) has spent 7 to 10 years developing the data necessary to support registration. As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, U. S. EPA has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that registration decisions meet the statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, U. S. EPA has refined the data requirements for proposed methyl bromide alternatives, shortening the research and development process. U. S. EPA scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done correctly the first time and delays are minimized The U. S. EPA has also co chaired the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. The work group conducted six workshops in Florida and California ( states with the highest use of methyl bromide) with growers and researchers to identify potential alternatives, critical issues, and grower needs covering the major methyl bromide dependent crops and post harvest uses.

This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and groundwater concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's $ 13.5 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals submitted to the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service methyl bromide alternatives research program of US$ 2.5 million per year has further ensured that critical registration issues are being addressed by the research community.

Since 1997, EPA has registered the following chemical/ use combinations as part of its commitment to expedite the review of methyl bromide alternatives:

1999: Pebulate to control weeds in tomatoes 2000: Phosphine to control insects in stored commodities 2001: Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus to control Indian meal moth in stored grains 2001: Terrazole to control pathogens in tobacco float beds 2001: Telone applied through drip irrigation  all crops 2002: Halosulfuron methyl to control weeds in melons and tomatoes EPA is currently reviewing several additional applications for registration as methyl bromide alternatives, with several registration eligibility decisions expected within the next year, including:

  Iodomethane as a pre plant soil fumigant for various crops   Fosthiazate as a pre plant nematocide for tomatoes   Sulfuryl fluoride as a post harvest fumigant for stored commodities   Trifloxysulfuron sodium as a pre plant herbicide for tomatoes   Dazomet as a pre plant soil fumigant for strawberries and tomatoes Again, while these activities appear promising, it must be noted that issues related to toxicity, ground water contamination, and the release of air pollutants may pose significant problems with respect to some alternatives that may lead to use restrictions since many of the growing regions are in sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to schools and homes. Ongoing research on alternate fumigants is evaluating ways to reduce emission under various application regimes and examining whether commonly used agrochemicals, such as fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors, could be used to rapidly degrade soil fumigants. For example, if registration of iodomethane or another alternative occurs in the near future, commercial availability and costs will be factors that must be taken into consideration.

It must be emphasized, however, that finding potential alternatives, and even registering those alternatives is not the end of the story. Alternatives must be tested by users and found technically and economically feasible before widespread adoption. As noted by TEAP, a specific alternative, once available may take two or three cropping seasons of use before efficacy can be determined in the specific circumstance of the user. In an effort to speed adoption, the U. S. government has also been involved in these steps by promoting technology transfer, experience transfer, and private sector training.

10. Conclusion and Policy Issues Associated with the Nomination On the basis of an exhaustive review of a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that the TEAP listed potential alternatives for the specific crops and areas covered in this nomination are not currently technically or economically viable from the standpoint of United States growers covered by this exemption request. We have also determined that the absence of methyl bromide for the nominated uses will result in a significant market disruption to the effected sectors. We have and continue to expend significant efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and that potential alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for many important uses are under investigation and may be on the horizon. Based on this analysis, we believe those requests included in this nomination meet the criteria set out by the Parties in Decision IX/ 6.

In accordance with those Decisions, we believe that the U. S. nomination contained in this document provides all of the information that has been requested by the Parties. On the basis of an exhaustive review by a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that tobacco producers are already adopting one of the MBTOC listed alternatives, soilless culture, and that nearly 100 percent of producers will use this alternative by 2005. However, a small amount of methyl bromide will still be necessary to disinfect the reusable polystyrene trays upon which seedlings are promulgated. The team identified several alternatives; currently, however, none are technically viable for the U. S. tobacco producers covered by this nomination.

The most promising alternative is the use of steam to sterilize the polystyrene trays. At present, the technology to maintain the correct temperature to destroy the important pathogens without damaging the trays is not available for large commercial production. Research is continuing into alternative materials that would be less susceptible to heat damage or material coatings that would resist colonization by the pathogens. In the future, it may also be possible to obtain registration for existing fungicides that could be used for control of the pathogens during seedling production.

This nomination has discussed the continuing efforts to find and commercialize alternatives to reduce or eliminate the use of methyl bromide for sterilizing the trays against bacterial and fungal pathogens. Given the uncertainty in the research process and the long and rigorous process to register in kind alternative, methyl bromide for the production of tobacco seedlings will be needed for the period being requested for an exemption in this nomination.

In reviewing this nomination, we believe that it is important for the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to understand some of the policy issues associated with our request. A discussion of those follows:

a. Request for Aggregate Exemption for All Covered Methyl Bromide Uses: As mandated by Decision XIII/ 11, the nomination information that is being submitted with this package includes information requested on historic use and estimated need in individual sectors. That said, we note our agreement with past MBTOC and TEAP statements which stress the dynamic nature of agricultural markets, uncertainty of specific production of any one crop in any specific year, the difficulty of projecting several years in advance what pest pressures might prevail on a certain crop, and, the difficulty of estimating what a particular market for a specific crop might look like in a future year. We also concur with the MBTOC's fear that countries that have taken significant efforts to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions through dilution with chloropicrin may be experiencing only short term efficacy in addressing pest problems. On the basis of those factors, we urge the MBTOC and the TEAP to follow the precedent established under the essential use exemption process for Metered Dose Inhalers ( MDIs) in two key areas.

First, because of uncertainties in both markets and the future need for individual active moieties of drugs, the TEAP has never provided a tonnage limit for each of the large number of active moieties found in national requests for a CFC essential use exemption for MDIs, but has instead recommended an aggregate tonnage exemption for national use. This has been done with an understanding that the related country will ensure that the tonnage approved for an exemption will be used solely for the group of active moieties/ MDIs that have been granted the exemption. We believe that the factors of agricultural uncertainty surrounding both pest pressures in future year crops, and efficacy of reduced methyl bromide application provide an even stronger impetus for using a similar approach here. The level of unpredictability in need leads to a second area of similarity with MDIs, the essential need for a review of the level of the request which takes into account the need for a margin of safety.

b. Recognition of Uncertainty in Allowing Margin for Safety: With MDIs, it was essential to address the possible change in patient needs over time, and in agriculture, this is essential to address the potential that the year being requested for could be a particularly bad year in terms of weather and pest pressure. In that regard, the TEAP's Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates the manner in which this need for a margin of safety was addressed in the MDI area. Specifically, Chart 2 in Appendix D tracks national CFC requests for MDIs compared with actual use of CFC for MDIs over a number of years.

Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates several things. First, despite the best efforts of many countries to predict future conditions, it shows that due to the acknowledged uncertainty of out year need for MDIs, Parties had the tendency to request, the TEAP recommended, and the Parties approved national requests that turned out to include an appreciable margin of safety. In fact, this margin of safety was higher at the beginning   about 40% above usage   and then went down to 30% range after 4 years. Only after 5 years of experience did the request come down to about 10% above usage. While our experience with the Essential Use process has aided the U. S. in developing its Critical Use nomination, we ask the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to recognize that the complexities of agriculture make it difficult to match our request exactly with expected usage when the nomination is made two to three years in advance of the time of actual use.

Chart 2 in Appendix D also demonstrates that, even though MDI requests included a significant margin of safety, the nominations were approved and the countries receiving the exemption for MDIs did not produce the full amount authorized when there was not a patient need. As a result, there was little or no environmental consequence of approving requests that included a margin of safety, and the practice can be seen as being normalized over time. In light of the similar significant uncertainty surrounding agriculture and the out year production of crops which use methyl bromide, we wish to urge the MBTOC and TEAP to take a similar, understanding approach for methyl bromide and uses found to otherwise meet the critical use criteria. We believe that this too would have no environmental consequence, and would be consistent with the Parties aim to phaseout methyl bromide while ensuring that agriculture itself is not phased out.

c. Duration of Nomination: It is important to note that while the request included for the use above appears to be for a single year, the entire U. S. request is actually for two years   2005 and 2006. This multi year request is consistent with the TEAP recognition that the calendar year does not, in most cases, correspond with the cropping year. This request takes into account the facts that registration and acceptance of new, efficacious alternatives can take a long time, and that alternatives must be tested in multiple cropping cycles in different geographic locations to determine efficacy and consistency before they can be considered to be widely available for use. Finally, the request for multiple years is consistent with the expectation of the Parties and the TEAP as evidenced in the Parties and MBTOC request for information on the duration of the requested exemption. As noted in the Executive Summary of the overall U. S. request, we are requesting that the exemption be granted in a lump sum of 9,920,965 kilograms for 2005 and 9,445,360 kilograms for 2006. While it is our hope that the registration and demonstration of new, cost effective alternatives will result in even speedier reductions on later years, the decrease in our request for 2006 is a demonstration of our commitment to work toward further reductions in our consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses. At this time, however, we have not believed it possible to provide a realistic assessment of exactly which uses would be reduced to account for the overall decrease.

11. Contact Information For further general information or clarifications on material contained in the U. S. nomination for critical uses, please contact:

John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Office of Environmental Policy US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Rm 4325 Washington, DC 20520 tel: 202 647 9799 fax: 202 647 5947 e mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Alternate Contact: Denise Keehner, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticides Programs US Environmental Protection Agency, 7503C Washington, DC 20460 tel: 703 308 8200 fax: 703 308 8090 e mail: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov 12. References EPA. 1994. Methyl bromide soil fumigation survey. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC.

Lychak and Brown. 1993 ( November 10). The Cost of Producing Flue Cured Tobacco Transplants in Greenhouses. Tara Lychak, R. J. Reynolds Research Apprentice and A. Blake Brown, Extension Economist and Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University. North Carolina.

Peedin. 1994 ( December). Flue Cured Tobacco. Gerald F. Peedin, et al. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. North Carolina.

Gutierrz, W. A., H. D. Shew, and T. A. Melton. 1997. Sources of inoculim and management for Rhizoctonia solani damping off on tobacco transplants under greenhouse conditions. Plant Disease 81: 604 606.

13. Appendices Appendix A. List of critical use exemption ( CUE) requests for the tobacco seedling production sector in the U. S.

CUE 02 0025, Tobacco Growers Association of North Carolina Appendix B. Spreadsheets Supporting Economic Analysis None of the alternatives listed by MBTOC and reviewed were found to be technically feasible for tobacco transplant trays therefore no economic analysis was conducted.

Appendix C: U. S. Technical and Economic Review Team Members Christine M. Augustyniak ( Technical Team Leader). Christine has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1985. She has held several senior positions, both technical and managerial, including Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Chief of the Analytical Support Branch in EPA's office of Environmental Information and Deputy Director for the Environmental Assistance Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. She earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Augustyniak is a 1975 graduate of Harvard University ( Cambridge) cum laude ( Economics). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Augustyniak was a member of the economics faculty at the College of the Holy Cross ( Worcester).

William John Chism ( Lead Biologist). Bill has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. He evaluates the efficacy of pesticides for weed and insect control. He earned his Ph. D. ( Weed Science) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ( Blacksburg), a Master of Science ( Plant Physiology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Agriculture) from California Polytechnic State University ( San Luis Obispo). Dr. Chism is a 1978 graduate of The University of California ( Davis). For ten years prior to joining the EPA Dr. Chism held research scientist positions at several speciality chemical companies, conducting and evaluating research on pesticides.

Technical Team Jonathan J. Becker ( Biologist) Jonathan has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Scientific Advisor within the Office of Pesticides Programs. In this position he leads the advancement of scientific methods and approaches related to the development of pesticides use information, the assessment of impacts of pesticides regulations, and the evaluation of the benefits from the use of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Zoology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Masters of Science ( Biology/ Zoology) from Idaho State University ( Pocatello). Dr. Becker is a graduate of Idaho State University. Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Becker worked as a senior environmental scientist with an environmental consulting firm located in Virginia. Diane Brown Rytlewski ( Biologist) Diane is the Nursery and Landscape IPM Integrator at Michigan State University, a position she has held since 2000. She acts as liaison between industry and the university, facilitating research partnerships and cooperative relationships, developing outreach programs and resource materials to further the adoption of IPM. Ms. Rytlewski holds a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) and a Bachelor of Science ( Entomology), both from the University of Wisconsin ( Madison). She has over twenty year experience working in the horticulture field, including eight years as supervisor of the IPM program at the Chicago Botanic Garden.

Greg Browne ( Biologist). Greg has been with the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1995. Located in the Department of Plant Pathology of the University of California ( Davis), Greg does research on soilborne diseases of crop systems that currently use methyl bromide for disease control, with particular emphasis on diseases caused by Phytophthora species. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of diseases in fruit and nut crops He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from the University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the same institution. Dr. Browne is a graduate of The University of California ( Davis). Prior to joining USDA was a farm advisor in Kern County. Nancy Burrelle ( Biologist). Nancy Burelle is a Research Ecologist with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, currently working on preplant alternatives to methyl bromide. She earned both her Ph. D. and Master of Science degrees ( both in Plant Pathology) from Auburn University ( Auburn).

Linda Calvin ( Economist). Linda Calvin is an agricultural economist with USDA's Economic Research Service, specializing in research on topics affecting fruit and vegetable markets. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley).

Kitty F. Cardwell ( Biologist). Kitty has been the National Program Leader in Plant Pathology for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service since 2001. In this role she administrates all federally funded research and extension related to plant pathology, of the Land Grant Universities throughout the U. S. She earned her Ph. D. ( Phytopathology) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Cardwell is a 1976 graduate of The University of Texas ( Austin) cum laude ( Botany). For twelve years prior to joining USDA Dr. Cardwell managed multinational projects on crop disease mitigation and food safety with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Cotonou, Bénin and Ibadan, Nigeria.

William Allen Carey ( Biologist). Bill is a Research Fellow in pest management for southern forest nurseries, supporting the Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternative fumigants to methyl bromide in tree nursery applications. He earned his Ph. D. ( Forest Pathology) from Duke University ( Durham) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville). Dr. Carey is a nationally recognized expert in the field of nursery pathology.

Margriet F. Caswell ( Economist). Margriet has been with the USDA Economic Research Service since 1991. She has held both technical and managerial positions, and is now a Senior Research Economist in the Resource, Technology & Productivity Branch, Resource Economics Division. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from the University of California ( Berkeley). Dr. Caswell also received a Master of Science ( Resource Economics) and Bachelor of Science ( Natural Resource Management) from the University of Rhode Island ( Kingston). Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Caswell was a member of both the Environmental Studies and Economics faculties at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Tara Chand Goyal ( Biology). Tara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as a plant pathologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on risk reduction. He earned his Ph. D. ( Mycology and Plant Pathology) from The Queen's University ( Belfast) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology and Mycology) from Punjab University ( Ludhiana). Dr. Chand Goyal is a graduate of Punjab University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chand Goyal was a member of the faculty of The Oregon State University ( Corvallis) and of The University of California ( Riverside). His areas of research and publication include: the biology of viral, bacterial and fungal diseases of plants; biological control of plant diseases; and, genetic manipulation of microorganisms.

Daniel Chellemi ( Biologist). Dan has been a research plant pathologist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1997. His research speciality is the ecology, epidemiology, and management of soilborne plant pathogens. He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Hawaii ( Manoa). Dr. Chellemi is a 1982 graduate of the University of Florida ( Gainesville) with a degree in Plant Science. He is the author of numerous articles in the field of plant pathology. In 2000 Dr. Chellemi was awarded the ARS " Early Career Research Scientist if the Year". Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Chellemi was a member of the plant pathology department of The University of Florida ( Gainesville).

Angel Chiri ( Biologist). Angel has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Biology/ Entomology) from California State University ( Long Beach). Dr. Chiri is a graduate of California State University ( Los Angeles). Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chiri was a pest and pesticide management advisor for the U. S. Agency for International Development working mostly in Latin America on IPM issues.

Colwell Cook ( Biologist). Colwell has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. She serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from Purdue University ( West Lafayette) and has a Master of Science ( Entomology) from Louisiana State University ( Baton Rouge). Dr. Cook is a 1979 graduate of Clemson University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Cook held several faculty positions at Wabash College ( Crawfordsville) and University of Evansville ( Evansville).

Julie B. Fairfax ( Biologist). Julie has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. She currently serves as a senior biologist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, and has previously served as a Team Leader in other divisions within the Office of Pesticides Programs. She has held several technical positions specializing in the registration, re registration, special review and regulation of fungicidal, antimicrobial, and wood preservative pesticides. Ms. Fairfax is a 1989 graduate of James Madison University ( Harrisonburg, VA) where she earned her degree in Biology. Prior to joining EPA, Julie worked as a laboratory technician for the Virginia Poultry Industry.

John Faulkner ( Economist) John has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs imposed by the regulation of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from the University of Colorado ( Boulder) and holds a Master's of Business Administration from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Faulkner is a 1965 graduate of the University of Colorado ( Boulder). Prior to joining EPA was a member of the economics faculty of the Rochester Institute of Technology ( Rochester), The University of Colorado ( Boulder) and of the Colorado Mountain College ( Aspen).

Clara Fuentes ( Biologist). Clara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection agency since 1999, working in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ( Region III) office. She specializes in reviewing human health risk evaluations to pesticides exposures and supporting the state pesticide programs in Region III. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and a Master of Science ( Zoology) from Iowa State University ( Ames). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Fuentes worked as a research assistant at U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) ( Beltsville), Maryland, and as a faculty member of the Natural Sciences Department at InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico. Her research interest is in the area of Integrated Pest Management in agriculture.

James Gilreath ( Biologist). Jim has been with the University of Florida Gulf Coast Research and Education Center since 1981. In this position his primary responsibilities are to plan, implement and publish the results of investigations in weed science in vegetable and ornamental crops. One main focus of the research is the evaluation and development of weed amangement programs for specific weed pests. He earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Master of Science, also in Horticulture, from Clemson University ( Clemson). Dr. Gilreath is a 1974 graduate of Clemson University ( Clemson) with a degree in Agronomy and Soils.

Arthur Grube ( Economist). Arthur has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1987. He is now a Senior Economist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh) and a Masters of Arts ( Economics) also from North Carolina State University. Dr. Grube is a 1970 graduate of Simon Fraser University ( Vancouver) where his Bachelor of Arts degree ( Economics) was earned with honors. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Grube conducted work on the costs and benefits of pesticide use at the University of Illinois ( Urbana). Dr. Grube has been a co author of a number of journal articles in various areas of pesticide economics LeRoy Hansen ( Economist). LeRoy Hansen is currently employed as an Agricultural Economist for the USDA Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division in the Resources and Environmental Policy Branch. He received his Ph. D. in resource economics from Iowa State University ( Ames) in 1986. During his 16 years at USDA, Dr. Hansen has published USDA reports, spoken at profession meetings, and appeared in television and radio interviews.

Frank Hernandez ( Economist). Frank has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1991. He is a staff economist at the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. He holds degrees in Economics and Political Science from the City University of New York.

Arnet W. Jones ( Biologist). Arnet has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1990. He has had several senior technical and management positions and currently serves as Chief of the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Prior to joining EPA he was Senior Agronomist at Development Assistance Corporation, a Washington, D. C. firm that specialized in international agricultural development. He holds a Master of Science ( Agronomy) from the University of Maryland ( College Park).

Hong Jin Kim ( Economist). Jin has been an economist at the National Center for Environmental Economics at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) since 1998. His primary areas of research interest include environmental cost accounting for private industries He earned his Ph. D. ( Environmental and Resource Economics) from The University of California ( Davis) and holds a Master of Science from the same institution. Dr. Kim is a 1987 graduate of Korea University ( Seoul) with a Bachelor of Arts ( Economics). Prior to joining the U. S. EPA, Dr. Kim was an assistant professor at the University of Alaska ( Anchorage) and an economist at the California Energy Commissions. Dr. Kim is the author of numerous articles in the fields of resource and environmental economics.

James Leesch ( Biologist). Jim has been a research entomologist with the Agricultural Resarch Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1971. His main area of interest is post harvest commodity protection at the San Joaquin Valle. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology/ Insect Toxicology) from The University of California ( Riverside) Dr. Leesch received a B. A. degree in Chemistry from Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA in 1965. He is currently a Research entomologist for the Agricultural Research Service ( USDA) researching Agricultural Sciences Center in Parlier, CA. He joined ARS in June of 1971.

Sean Lennon ( Biologist). Sean is a Biologist interning with the Office of Pesticide Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. He will receive his M. S. in Plant and Environmental Science in December 2003 from Clemson University ( Clemson). Mr. Lennon is a graduate of Georgia College & State University ( Milledgeville) where he earned a Bachelor of Science ( Biology). Sean is conducting research in Integrated Pest Management of Southeastern Peaches. He has eight years of experience in the commercial peach industry.

Nikhil Mallampalli ( Biologist). Nikhil has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2001. He is an entomologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, and analysis of the impacts of risk mitigation on pest management. Dr. Mallampalli earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and holds a Master of Science ( Entomology) from the same institution. Prior to joining the EPA, he worked as a postdoctoral research fellow at Michigan State University ( East Lansing) on IPM projects designed to reduce reliance on pesticides in small fruit production.

Tom Melton ( Biologist). Tom has been a member of the Plant Pathology faculty at North Carolina State University since 1987. Starting as an assistant professor and extension specialist, Tom has become the Philip Morris Professor at North Carolina State University. His primary responsibilities are to develop and disseminate disease management strategies for tobacco. Dr. Melton earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science ( Pest Management) degree from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh). He is a 1978 graduate of Norht Carolina State University ( Raleigh) Prior to joining the North Carolina State faculty, Dr. Melton was a member of the faculty at The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign).

Richard Michell ( Biologist). Rich has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1972. He is a nematologist/ plant pathologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, with special emphasis on fungicide and nematicide use and the development of risk reduction options for fungicides and nematicides. Dr. Michell earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science degree ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Georgia ( Athens). Lorraine Mitchell ( Economist). Lorraine has been an agricultural economist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service since 1998. She works on agricultural trade issues, particularly pertaining to consumer demand in the EU and emerging markets. Dr. Mitchell earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley). Prior to joining ERS, Dr. Mitchell was a member of the faculty of the School of International Service of The American University ( Washington) and a research assistant at the World Bank.

Thuy Nguyen ( Chemist). Thuy has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997, as a chemist in the Office of Pesticides Program. She assesses and characterizes ecological risk of pesticides in the environment as a result of agricultural uses. She earned her degrees of Master of Science ( Chemistry) from the University of Delaware and Bachelor of Science ( Chemistry and Mathematics) from Mary Washington College ( Fredericksburg, VA). Prior to joining the EPA, Ms Nguyen held a research and development scientist position at Sun Oil company in Marcus Hook, PA, then managed the daily operation of several EPA certified laboratories for the analyses of pesticides and other organic compounds in air, water, and sediments.

Jack Norton( Biologist). Jack has worked for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Interregional research Project # 4 ( IR 4) as a consultant since 1998. The primary focus of his research is the investigation of potential methyl bromide replacement for registration on minor crops. He is an active member of the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Working Group. Dr, Norton earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from Texas A& M University ( College Station) and holds a Master of Science ( Horticultural Science) from Oklahoma State University ( Stillwater). He is a graduate of Oklahoma State University ( Stillwater). Prior to joining the IR 4 program, Dr. Norton worked in the crop protection industry for 27 years where he was responsible for the development and registration of a number of important products.

Olga Odiott ( Biologist) Olga has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. She has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Biologist within the Office of Science Coordination and Policy. In this position she serves as Designated Federal Official and liaison on behalf of the Office of Pesticide Programs and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, an independent peer review body that provides advice to the Agency on issues concerning the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. She holds a Masters of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the University of Puerto Rico ( San Juan). Prior to joining EPA, Ms. Odiott worked for the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Craig Osteen( Economist). Craig has been with the U. S. Department of Agriculture for over 20 years. He currently is with the Economic Research Service in the Production Management and Technology Branch, Resource Economics Division. He primary areas of interest relate to issues of pest control, including pesticide regulation, integrated pest management, and the methyl bromide phase out. Dr. Osteen earned his Ph. D. ( Natural Resource Economics) from Michigan State University ( East Lansing).

Elisa Rim ( Economist). Elisa is an Agricultural Economist interning with the Office of Pesticide Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. She earned her Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from The Ohio State University ( Columbus) and holds a Bachelor of Arts ( Political Science) from the same institution. She has conducted research in environmental economics and developed a cost analysis optimization model for stream naturalization projects in northwest Ohio.

Erin Rosskopf ( Biologist). Erin received her PhD from the Plant Pathology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville in 1997. She is currently a Research Microbiologist with the USDA, ARS and has served in this position for 5 years.

Carmen L. Sandretto ( Agricultural Economist). Carmen has been with the Economic Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture for over 30 years in a variety of assignments at several field locations, and since 1985 in Washington, DC. He has worked on a range of natural resource economics issues and in recent years on soil conservation and management, pesticide use and water quality, and small farm research studies. Mr. Sandretto holds a Master of Arts degree ( Economics) from Harvard University ( Cambridge) and a Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of Wisconsin ( Madison). Mr Sandretto is a graduate of Michigan State University ( East Lansing). Prior to serving in Washington, D. C. he was a member of the economics faculty at Michigan State University and at the University of New Hampshire ( Durham).

Judith St. John ( Biologist). Judy has been with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service since 1967. She currently serves as Associate Deputy Administrator and as such she is responsible for the Department's intramural research programs in the plant sciences, including those dealing with pre and post harvest alternatives to methyl bromide. Dr. St. John earned her Ph. D. ( Plant Physiology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville).

James Throne ( Biologist). Jim is a Research Entomologist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Research Leader of the Biological Research Unit at the Grain Marketing and Production Research Center in Manhattan, Kansas. He conducts research in insect ecology and development of simulation models for improving integrated pest management systems for stored grain and processed cereal products. Other current areas of research include investigating seed resistance to stored grain insect pests and use of near infrared spectroscopy for detection of insect infested grain. Jim has been with ARS since 1985. Dr. Throne earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) in 1983 from Cornell University ( Ithaca) and earned a Master of Science Degree ( Entomology) in 1978 from Washington State University ( Pullman). Dr. throne is a 1976 graduate ( Biology) of Southeastern Massachusetts University ( N. Dartmouth).

Thomas J. Trout ( Agricultural Engineer). Tom has been with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service since 1982. He currently serves ar research leader in the Water Management Research Laboratory in Fresno, CA. His present work includes studying factors that affect infiltration rates and water distribution uniformity under irrigation, determining crop water requirements, and developing alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Dr. Trout earned his Ph. D. ( Agricultural Engineering) from Colorado State University ( Fort Collins) and holds a Master of Science degree from the same institution, also in agricultural engineering. Dr. Trout is a 1972 graduate of Case Western Reserve University ( Cleveland) with a degree in mechanical engineering. Prior to joining the ARS, Dr. trout was a member of the engineering faculty of Colorado State University ( Fort Collins). He is the author of numerous publications on the subject of methyl bromide alternatives. J. Bryan Unruh ( Biologist). Bryan is Associate Professor of Environmental Horticulture at The University of Florida ( Milton) and an extension specialist in turfgrass. He leads the statewide turfgrass extension design team. Dr. Unruh earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from Iowa State University ( Ames) and holds a Master of Science degree ( Horticulture) from Kansas State University ( Manhattan). He is a 1989 graduate of Kansas State University.

David Widawsky ( Chief, Economic Analysis Branch). David has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1998. He has also served as an economist and a team leader. As branch chief, David is responsible for directing a staff of economists to conduct economic analyses in support of pesticide regulatory decisions. He earned his Ph. D. ( Development and Applied Economics) from Stanford University ( Palo Alto), and a Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from Colorado State University ( Fort Collins). Dr. Widawsky is a 1987 graduate ( Plant and Soil Biology, Agricultural Economics) of the University of California ( Berkeley). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Widawsky conducted research on the economics of integrated pest management in Asian rice production, while serving as an agricultural economist at the International Rice Research Institute ( IRRI) in the Philippines.

TJ Wyatt ( Economist). TJ has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2001. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs and benefits of pesticide regulation. His other main area of research is farmer decision making, especially pertaining to issues of soil fertility and soil conservation and of pesticide choice. Dr. Wyatt earned his Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Davis). Dr. Wyatt holds a Master of Science ( International Agricultural Development) from the same institution. He is a 1985 graduate of The University of Wyoming ( Laramie). Prior to joining the EPA, he worked at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics ( ICRISAT) and was based at the Sahelian Center in Niamey, Niger.

Leonard Yourman ( Biologist). Leonard is a plant pathologist with the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. He currently conducts assessments of pesticide use as they relate to crop diseases. He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from Clemson University ( Clemson) and holds a Master of Science ( Horticulture/ Plant Breeding) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Yourman is a graduate ( English Literature) of The George Washington University ( Washington, DC). . Prior to joining EPA, he conducted research on biological control of invasive plants with USDA at the Foreign Disease Weed Science Research Unit ( Ft. Detrick, MD). He has also conducted research on biological control of post harvest diseases of apples and pears at the USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Station ( Kearneysville, WV). Research at Clemson University concerned the molecular characterization of fungicide resistance in populations of the fungal plant pathogen Botrytis cinerea.

Istanbul Yusuf ( Economist). Istanbul has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 1998. She serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs imposed by the regulation of pesticides. She earned her Master= s degree in Economics from American University ( Washington). Ms Yusuf is a 1987 graduate of Westfield State College ( Westfield) with a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration. Prior to joining EPA Istanbul worked for an International Trading Company in McLean, Virginia. Appendix D: CHARTS Charts 1 and 2 attached as separate electronic file.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59781-59782]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1247-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: EAL Refund Report (ER18-1247-001) to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2446-001.
    Applicants: Bitter Ridge Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Filing for Bitter Ridge
Reactive Rate Schedule to be effective 9/14/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2878-003.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Third Amendment to Wholesale
Distribution Tariff Rate Case 2020 (WDT3), PWRPA 30 to be effective 11/
15/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2878-004.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Fourth Amendment to Wholesale
Distribution Tariff Rate Case 2020 (WDT3), PWRPA56 to be effective 11/
15/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2878-005.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Fifth Amendment to Wholesale
Distribution Tariff Rate Case 2020 (WDT3), S Cove to be effective 11/
15/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2878-006.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Sixth Amendment to Wholesale
Distribution Tariff Rate Case 2020 (WDT3), Western to be effective 11/
15/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2878-007.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Seventh Amendment to Wholesale
Distribution Tariff Rate Case 2020 (WDT3), WPA to be effective 11/15/
2020.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2878-008.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Eighth Amendment to Wholesale
Distribution Tariff Rate Case 2020 (WDT3), Western to be effective 11/
15/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2898-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5762; Queue No. AF2-282 to be effective 8/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2899-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 5603; Queue No. AD2-065 to be effective 2/6/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2900-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5768;
Queue No. AF2-284 to be effective 8/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2901-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5769;
Queue No. AF2-285 to be effective 8/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2902-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 5283; Queue No. AD1-045 to be effective 8/14/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2903-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 16-
00054; Battle Mountain LGIA 4th Amendment to be effective 9/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2904-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
SA No. 5282; Queue No. AD1-046 re: withdrawal to be effective 10/13/
2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2905-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISAs,
SA Nos. 3933 and 3934; Queue No. R30 to be effective 10/11/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2906-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5767;
Queue No. AF2-283 to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2907-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
SA No. 5281; Queue No. AD1-044 re: withdrawal to be effective 10/13/
2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2908-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: Avista Corp OATT Order 845/845A
Compliance Filing to be effective 10/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2909-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ICSA,
SA No. 5215; Queue No. AB1-006 to be effective 8/21/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2910-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Cancellation
AEPSC-Big Sandy Peaker Plant Interconnect/Operation Agrmt to be
effective 11/21/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200917-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/8/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC20-15-000.
    Applicants: Suncor Energy Inc., Fort Hills Energy LP.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status of Fort Hills Energy LP, et. al.
    Filed Date: 9/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200916-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/7/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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: September 17, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20975 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P