Quarantine and 

Interstate Movement of 

Citrus Greening and 

Asian Citrus Psyllid 

Environmental Assessment 

July 2009 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs 

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service 
Quarantine and Interstate 

Movement of Citrus Greening 

and Asian Citrus Psyllid 

Environmental Assessment 

July 2009 

Agency Contact: 

Patrick Gomes, 

National Project Manager 

Citrus Health Response Program 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

920 Main Campus Drive - Suite 200 

Raleigh, NC 27606-5213 

 __________________________________________________________ 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S 

TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

 __________________________________________________________ 

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over 

others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of 

any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report 

factually on available data and to provide specific information. 

 __________________________________________________________ 

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides 

must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they 

can be recommended. 

 __________________________________________________________ 

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, 

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended 

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents 

I. Purpose and Need ................................................................... 1 

A. Introduction...................................................................... 1 

B. Purpose and Need ........................................................... 2 

II. Alternatives .............................................................................. 3 

A. No Action ......................................................................... 3 

B. Proposed Action .............................................................. 3 

III. Environmental Impacts ........................................................... 8 

A. No Action ......................................................................... 8 

B. Proposed Action .............................................................. 9 

IV. Other Environmental Considerations .................................. 23 

A. Endangered Species Act .............................................. 23 

B. Executive Orders ........................................................... 23 

V. Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted ........ 25 

VI. References ............................................................................. 26
1 

I. Purpose and Need 

A. Introduction 

Citrus greening disease (CG), also known as Huanglongbing disease of 

citrus, is considered to be one of the most serious citrus diseases in the 

world. CG is a bacterial disease caused by strains of the bacterial 

pathogen “Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus” that attacks the vascular 

system of host plants. The pathogen presents no threat to humans or 

animals. The pathogen is phloem-limited, inhibiting the food-conducting 

tissues of the host plant, and causes yellow shoots, blotchy mottling and 

chlorosis, reduced foliage, and tip dieback of citrus plants. CG greatly 

reduces production, destroys the economic value of the fruit, and can kill 

trees. Once infected, there is no cure for a tree with CG. In areas of the 

world where CG is endemic, citrus trees decline and die within a few years 

and may never produce usable fruit. CG was first detected in the United 

States in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in 2005. Currently, CG is only 

known to be present in Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico, two parishes in 

Louisiana, and two counties in South Carolina. 

The bacterial pathogen causing CG can be transmitted by grafting and, 

under laboratory conditions, by dodder. Additionally, there is some 

evidence that seed transmission may occur. The pathogen also can be 

transmitted by two insect vectors in the family Psyllidae: Diaphorina citri 

Kuwayama, the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), and Trioza erytreae (del 

Guercio), the African citrus psyllid. In addition to transporting 

“Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus,” ACP can cause economic damage to 

citrus in groves and nurseries by direct feeding. Both adults and nymphs 

feed on young foliage, depleting the sap and causing galling or curling of 

leaves. High populations feeding on a citrus shoot can kill the growing 

tip. ACP is currently present in portions or all of Alabama, Arizona, 

California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South 

Carolina, Texas, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The African citrus psyllid will 

not be discussed further in this document because it is not known to be 

present in the United States. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) has undertaken measures to control the 

artificial spread1

 of CG and ACP to noninfested areas of the United States 

since the introduction of the CG in 2005. On September 16, 2005, APHIS 

issued a Federal Order designating all or parts of 10 affected counties in 

Florida as quarantined areas, and imposing restrictions on the interstate 

movement of all CG and ACP host material from these areas. Since then, 

 

1

 Humans moving CG or ACP host plant material have been responsible for the long-distance spread 

of CG and ACP; this is often referred to as "artificial" spread. 
2 

it has been necessary to update the restrictions and expand the CG and/or 

ACP quarantine areas with subsequent Federal Orders2

 due to the 

continuing spread of both CG and ACP. APHIS has issued a total of 

fifteen Federal Orders3

 to impose restrictions on the interstate movement 

of CG and ACP host plant material from quarantined areas. 

APHIS is proposing a control program that would replace the December 

16, 2009, Federal Order for CG and ACP (see footnote 2). It would codify 

some of the provisions of the Order, clarify others, and add provisions that 

APHIS has determined to be necessary since the issuance of the last 

Federal Order so as to prevent the spread of CG and ACP to noninfested 

areas of the United States. 

B. Purpose and Need 

Under § 412(a) of the Plant Protection Act (7 United States Code (U.S.C.) 

7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the 

movement of interstate commerce of any plant or plant product, if the 

Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to 

prevent the dissemination of a plant disease within the United States. 

Under the Act, the Secretary may also issue regulations requiring plants 

and products moved in interstate commerce to be subject to remedial 

measures determined necessary to prevent the spread of the disease, or 

requiring the objects to be accompanied by a permit issued by the 

Secretary prior to movement. 

There is a need to control the spread of CG and ACP in order to minimize 

economic damage to citrus in groves and nurseries. The purpose of the 

proposed control program outlined below would be to protect the domestic 

citrus industry, including the individual farmers who comprise the base of 

that industry, by controlling the artificial spread of CG and ACP. 

In September 2005, APHIS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to 

analyze and evaluate potential environmental effects resulting from the 

proposed CG control program. On October 5, 2005, APHIS issued a 

notice of availability of a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the 

EA concerning the citrus greening control program in Florida nurseries. 

The EA was subsequently revised and finalized, and a FONSI was issued 

in January 2006. APHIS prepared a second EA, and a FONSI was issued 

in October 2007. The EA evaluated the possible environmental impacts 

 

2

 To view these Federal Orders, go to 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus_greening/regs.shtml. 3

 The fifteen Federal Orders are as follows: September 16, 2005, DA#2005-30; May 3, 2006, 

DA#2006-19, 5/3/06; November 2, 2007, DA#2007-54; January 11, 2008, DA#2008-02; June 24, 

2008, DA#2008-26; July 11, 2008, DA#2008-31; July 22, 2008, DA#2008-36; August 5, 2008, 

DA#2008-40; September 12, 2008, DA#2008-61; October 1, 2008, DA#2008-67; January 28 2009, 

DA#2009-06; July 29, 2009, DA-2009-36; September 21, 2009, DA#2009-47; November 20, 2009, 

DA#2009-58; and December 16, 2009, DA#2009-63. 
3 

associated with implementation of the revised Federal Order, and, in 

particular, the treatment schedules specified within it. 

This EA analyzes the environmental impacts anticipated from 

implementation of the proposed program actions stated below. This EA 

has been prepared consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and APHIS’ NEPA 

implementing procedures (7 CFR part 372). APHIS provided a 30-day 

public comment period for this EA that ended on November 9, 2009. 

APHIS acknowledges receipt of several comments; however, none of the 

comments have caused APHIS to substantively revise the EA.

II. Alternatives 

APHIS has considered two alternatives in response to the need for better 

methods to control and contain CG and ACP: (1) no action, and (2) the 

proposed action. Each alternative is described briefly in this section, and 

the potential environmental impacts of each are considered in the 

following section. 

A. No Action 

Under the no action alternative, APHIS would withdraw the current 

Federal Order and would take no further regulatory action. APHIS would 

not implement any quarantine or control measures to eradicate or even 

attempt to locally contain the spread of CG or ACP. It is likely that this 

action would result in an increase in control measures from other Federal 

or non-Federal entities to control CG and ACP. 

B. Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action alternative, APHIS would adhere to the 

measures outlined below. The requirements in the current Federal Order, 

with some modifications, would remain in effect as a result of 

implementation of this program. This alternative would provide protection 

to the domestic citrus industry by controlling the artificial spread of CG 

and ACP. 

The interstate movement of articles regulated for CG and ACP from an 

area quarantined for CG or ACP would be prohibited, except under certain 

conditions outlined below. 

A State, or a portion of a State, would be designated as a quarantined area 

for CG when the presence of CG is confirmed within the area following an 

APHIS-administered test. 

1. Quarantined 

 Areas 
4 

A State, or a portion of a State, would be designated as a quarantined area 

for ACP when an established population4

 of ACP has been detected. 

The Administrator5 may also consider it necessary to quarantine an area 

because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from 

localities in which CG and/or ACP have been found. 

APHIS would publish the description of all areas quarantined for CG or 

ACP on the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Web site (see 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus_greening/i

ndex.shtml). Lists of all quarantined areas also may be obtained by 

request from any local office of PPQ; local offices are listed in telephone 

directories. APHIS would publish a notice in the Federal Register 

informing the public of any changes that have occurred to the quarantined 

areas. 

Currently, the entire States of Florida and Georgia, the entire 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two parishes in Louisiana, and two 

counties in South Carolina are designated as quarantined areas for CG. 

The entire States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas, and the entire Territory of Guam, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are quarantined for ACP. Additionally, 

portions of the States of Arizona, California and South Carolina are 

quarantined for ACP. 

The following are regulated articles for ACP and CG— 

All plants and plant parts (including leaves), except fruit, of: Aegle 

marmelos, Aeglopsis chevalieri, Afraegle gabonensis, A. paniculata, 

Atalantia spp. (including Atalantia monophylla), Balsamocitrus dawei, 

Bergera (=Murraya) koenigii, Calodendrum capense, Citroncirus 

webberi, Citropsis articulata, Citropsis gilletiana, C. schweinfurthii, 

Citrus madurensis (=Citrofortunella microcarpa), Citrus spp., Clausena 

anisum-olens, C. excavata, C. indica, C. lansium, Eremocitrus glauca, 

Eremocitrus hybrid, Fortunella spp., Limonia acidissima, Merrillia 

caloxylon, Microcitrus australasica, Microcitrus australis, M. papuana, 

Microcitronella spp., Murraya spp., Naringi crenulata, Pamburus 

missionis, Poncirus trifoliata, Severinia buxifolia, Swinglea glutinosa, 

Tetradium ruticarpum, Toddalia asiatica, Triphasia trifolia, Vepris 

(=Toddalia) lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum fagara6

. 

 

4

 An “established population” under the CG and ACP control program is defined as the presence of 

ACP within an area that the Administrator determines is likely to persist for the foreseeable future. 5

 The Administrator refers to the Administrator of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

or any individual authorized to act for the Administrator. 6

 Any other product, article, or means of conveyance may be designated a regulated article for ACP 

or CG, if an inspector determines that it presents a risk of spreading these pests and provides written 

2. Interstate 

Movement of 

Regulated 

Articles 
5 

Propagative seed of the species listed above is considered a host of CG, 

but not a host of ACP. 

Labeling Requirements 

All regulated nursery stock7

 offered for commercial sale within an area 

quarantined for CG must be prominently labeled with language alerting 

consumers to Federal prohibitions regarding the interstate movement of 

the article. 

Nursery stock produced within a quarantined area for planting in a 

commercial citrus grove8 within that same area and moved directly to that 

grove, without movement outside of the quarantined area, may be moved 

without being labeled. 

Nursery stock that would be moved interstate for immediate export under 

a limited permit may be moved without being labeled. 

Issuance of Certificates and Limited Permits 

Certificates are issued when an inspector9

 or person operating under a 

compliance agreement10 finds that a regulated article can be moved safely 

from a quarantined area without risk of spreading the disease or pest. 

Regulated articles accompanied by a certificate may be moved interstate 

without further movement restrictions. 

 

Limited permits are issued for regulated articles when an inspector finds 

that the articles may safely be moved interstate only with additional 

restrictions, such as prohibitions on movement to certain locations. An 

inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue a 

limited permit for the interstate movement of a regulated article only if the 

regulated article is to be moved interstate to a specified destination for 

specified handling, processing, or utilization (the destination and other 

 

a notification to the person in possession of the product, article, or means of conveyance that it is 

subject to restrictions. 

7 Nursery stock are any plants or plant parts, excluding fruit or propagative seeds, intended to be 

planted, to remain planted, or to be replanted. Nursery stock includes, but is not limited to, trees, 

shrubs, cuttings, grafts, scions, and buds. 

8

 A commercial citrus grove is a solid-set planting of trees maintained for the primary purpose of 

producing citrus fruit for commercial sale.

9 An inspector is an individual authorized by the APHIS Administrator to perform the duties required 

under the program.

10 A compliance agreement is a written agreement between APHIS and a person engaged in the 

business of growing, maintaining, processing, handling, packing, or moving host articles for interstate 

movement, in which the person agrees to comply with this subpart. A compliance agreement can be 

a memorandum of understanding. 
6 

conditions to be listed in the limited permit) and this movement of the 

regulated article would not result in the spread of CG or the ACP. 

Certificates and limited permits would be issued only if the regulated 

articles are moved in compliance with additional emergency conditions 

that may be imposed to prevent the spread of CG or ACP and the articles 

are eligible for interstate movement under all other Federal domestic plant 

quarantines and regulations applicable to the article. 

Any certificate or limited permit that has been issued may be withdrawn 

by an inspector if he or she determines that the holder of the certificate has 

not complied with all relevant regulations. 

Additional Conditions 

Regulated Articles from Areas Quarantined for Only ACP But Not 

CG

In addition to the general conditions for issuance of a certificate, an 

inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue a 

certificate for the interstate movement of any regulated article to any State, 

if— 

 The article is treated with methyl bromide in accordance with 

7 CFR part 305; and 

 The article is shipped in a sealed container; and 

 The container is labeled with the certificate; and 

 A copy of the certificate is attached to the consignee’s copy of the 

accompanying waybill. 

An inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may also 

issue a limited permit for the interstate movement of regulated nursery 

stock if all of the following conditions are met— 

 The nursery stock, unless fumigated with methyl bromide, is 

treated for ACP with an APHIS-approved soil drench or in-ground 

granular application (as discussed below) no more than 30 days 

and no fewer than 20 days before shipment, followed by an 

APHIS-approved foliar spray (as discussed below) no more than10 

days before shipment. All treatments must be applied according to 

their EPA label, including directions on application, restrictions on 

place of application, and other restrictions and precautions, 

including statements pertaining to Worker Protection Standards. 

 The nursery stock is inspected by an inspector and found free of 

ACP. 

 The nursery stock has the following statement prominently and 

legibly displayed, “Limited permit: USDA-APHIS-PPQ. Not 

for distribution in American Samoa, AZ, Northern Mariana 
7 

Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands or those portions of CA and 

SC not quarantined due to the presence of Asian citrus psyllid 

or citrus greening”. 

 The nursery stock is moved in a sealed container. 

 The container also prominently and legibly displays the statement 

of the limited permit. 

 A copy of the limited permit is attached to the consignee’s copy of 

the accompanying waybill. 

 The nursery stock is moved in accordance with the conditions 

specified on the limited permit. 

An inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue 

a limited permit for the interstate movement of regulated articles intended 

for consumption, for use as apparel or a similar personal accessory, or for 

other decorative use if— 

 The articles are treated with irradiation in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305 at an irradiation facility that is not located in an area 

quarantined for CG; and 

 The container is clearly labeled with the limited permit; and 

 A copy of the limited permit is attached to the consignee’s copy of 

the accompanying waybill. 

Regulated Articles from Areas Quarantined for CG

Prior to shipping regulated nursery stock from areas quarantined for CG, 

in addition to the general conditions for issuance of a limited permit, an 

inspector or person operating under a compliance agreement may issue a 

limited permit for the interstate movement of regulated nursery stock 

grown, produced, or maintained at a nursery or other facility located in the 

CG-quarantined area if all of the following conditions are met— 

 The nursery stock is treated for ACP with an APHIS-approved soil 

drench or in-ground granular application, followed by an APHISapproved foliar spray (as discussed below), or with methyl 

bromide or irradiation, in accordance with 7 CFR part 305. 

 The nursery stock is inspected by an inspector and found free of 

ACP. 

 The nursery stock is prominently and legibly labeled with the 

following statement “Limited permit: USDA-APHIS-PPQ. For 

immediate export only.” 

 The nursery stock is accompanied by a copy of the limited permit 

attached to the consignee’s copy of the waybill. 

 The nursery stock is directly moved in a sealed container in 

accordance with the conditions specified on the limited permit to 

the port of export specified on the limited permit. 

 A copy of the limited permit is attached to or legibly printed on 

this container. 
8 

 The nursery stock remains in this sealed container as long as the 

plants are within the United States. 

APHIS-Approved Treatments 

APHIS would maintain a continually updated list of all pesticides 

approved for use in the control program on the PPQ Website 

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus_greening/i

ndex.shtml). Currently, methyl bromide and several soil drenches and 

foliar sprays are approved for use in certain circumstances. 

The treatment requirements for ACP are summarized below— 

 Any regulated article that will be moved interstate must be treated with 

methyl bromide in accordance with 7 CFR part 305, or 

 Any regulated nursery stock that will be moved interstate must be 

treated with a soil drench or in-ground granular application of 

dinotefuran or imidacloprid as the sole active ingredient in the 

pesticide product. The application must be made no more than 30 days 

and no less than 20 days before shipment, followed by a foliar spray 

containing either bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, fenpropathrin, 

or an imidacloprid and cyfluthrin mixture as the sole active 

ingredient(s) in the pesticide product. The foliar spray must be applied 

no more than 10 days prior to shipment. 

 Regulated articles intended for consumption, for use as apparel or a 

similar personal accessory, or for other decorative use may be moved 

interstate if treated with irradiation, in accordance with 7 CFR part 

305. 

Treatments for CG do not currently exist. 

III. Environmental Impacts 

There are potential environmental effects from each of the alternatives 

being considered. The environmental risks from the spread of CG and 

ACP are important considerations for evaluating the alternatives. In 

addition, potential program impacts arising from chemical and irradiation 

treatments will be considered. 

A. No Action 

Under the no action alternative, APHIS would not implement any 

quarantine or control measures to eradicate or even attempt to locally 

contain the spread of CG or ACP. Some control measures, albeit limited 

control measures without APHIS’ involvement, could be taken by other 

Federal or non-Federal entities—those actions would not be under APHIS’ 
9 

authorities, expertise, control, or funding. For example, local business 

owners and area residents could attempt to control damages from CG and 

ACP by removing the infested trees from their properties. Absent APHIS’ 

assistance and expertise along with the absence of more effective 

measures to contain and control the spread of CG and ACP, new areas of 

infestation would be expected to continue and become more widespread. 

The lack of effective control measures to prevent the spread of CG from 

sites of infestation to other areas and counties could lead to higher 

production costs and an increase in shortages of availability of citrus fruits 

and plants to the general economy. This would potentially result in 

increased costs for survey, detection, and treatment for the control of CG 

and ACP as it spreads to other areas and counties. 

B. Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action alternative, APHIS would be involved in the 

proposed control program measures previously discussed which include 

inspections, quarantines, and treatments. The aspects of the proposed 

control program, which include routine inspections and quarantines of 

commercial nurseries11, are program activities that pose negligible 

environmental effects that need not be described in detail. Such “routine” 

control measures are specifically designated as “categorically excluded”12

activities and actions pursuant to APHIS’ NEPA implementing regulations 

(7 CFR § 372.5(c)(1)). The primary action in this proposed control 

program that could be associated with any potentially noteworthy 

environmental impacts is the use of chemical and irradiation treatments. 

The environmental impacts of these requirements will be discussed below. 

Under the proposed action alternative, APHIS would allow the use of 

multiple pesticides, which may provide some benefits to the environment 

over the use of a single pesticide. One such benefit may be the increased 

ability of nurseries to find one product that is registered to treat multiple 

pests. With a greater number of products to choose from, it is possible 

that applicators could find products that are not only registered for use 

 

11 The proposed program would consider a nursery to be any commercial location where nursery 

stock is grown, propagated, stored, maintained, or sold, or any commercial location from which 

nursery stock is distributed. In contrast, this environmental assessment primarily examines the 

application of treatments in commercial nurseries. APHIS recognizes that this is more limited in 

scope than the proposed program’s definition; for example, it does not consider treatment 

applications in commercial retail stores. However, the EPA approved labels of most of the insecticide 

treatments that the program intends to approve for use limit application to a commercial nursery. 

Moreover, only commercial nurseries are currently shipping regulated articles interstate and APHIS 

considers it likely that only commercial nurseries would request to do so under the proposed action 

alternative. Finally, many States that are quarantined for ACP have elected to maintain quarantines 

that effectively limit treatment to the site of propagation. 

12 Categorical exclusion “means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in 

procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these regulations (§ 1507.3) and for 

which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 

required” (40 CFR § 1508.4). 

1. Chemical 

Treatments 
10 

against ACP, but are also registered against additional pests. Instead of 

applying two products against two pests, applicators may only need to 

apply one product to combat two pests. In addition, allowing multiple 

pesticides to be used against ACP increases the potential for applicators to 

employ sustainable pest management which may minimize pesticide 

resistance. EPA has defined pesticide resistance as a “heritable and 

significant decrease in the sensitivity of a pest population to a pesticide 

that is shown to reduce the field performance of pesticides” (EPA, 2001). 

EPA indicates that an important pesticide resistance management strategy 

is to avoid the repeated use of a particular pesticide (EPA, 2001). By 

alternating the chemicals used to combat ACP, applicators might reduce 

the ability of ACP to develop pesticide resistance. 

The only potentially affected areas to be treated pursuant to the proposed 

program are within commercial nurseries. Provided that persons applying 

the chemical treatments follow the pesticide label, its applicable 

directions, and all restrictions and precautions, including statements 

pertaining to Worker Protection Standards13, the effects to the 

environment and to humans from chemical treatments within nurseries are 

not expected to be substantial. 

Due to the fact that chemical treatments would only be applied to specific 

articles in limited locations, the number of treatments that would be 

required under the proposed program is expected to be minimal. 

Currently, nurseries in portions or all of Alabama, California, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Guam, 

and Puerto Rico are required to use chemical treatments against ACP if 

they move their ACP host articles interstate. 

While additional States may be added to this list, the number of treatments 

applied annually is still expected to remain low due to the limited number 

of nurseries that intend to move host plants interstate. The cumulative 

number of treated plants in any State will depend on the extent and 

duration of the proposed program in that State. The number of host plants 

and plant parts that would require treatment annually under the proposed 

control program is not available for most States; however, APHIS believes 

that use of chemicals to combat ACP in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas 

currently represents the vast majority of the use of chemicals to combat 

ACP. 

 

In 2007, 32 Texas counties were quarantined for ACP. As part of the 

Texas Department of Agriculture’s evaluation of the fiscal implications of 

the quarantine, they established that of the 18 commercial citrus nurseries 

that operate in Texas, nine were located inside the 2007 quarantine area. 

 

13 It is “unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its 

labeling” (7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(2)(G)). 
11 

Additionally, “89 percent (240,000) of the 275,000 citrus nursery plants 

produced annually in Texas are grown in the quarantine area....70 percent 

(168,000) of the 240,000 plants produced in the quarantined area are 

shipped outside the quarantined area” (4 TAC §§ 19.410–19.41314). 

Therefore, under the 2007 quarantine, when 32 Texas counties were under 

quarantine for ACP, approximately 168,000 plants were being chemically 

treated for ACP. APHIS expects the number of plants treated in these 

counties to remain constant; thus, APHIS predicts that no fewer than 

168,000 plants would be treated for ACP in Texas annually. 

Under the 2009 quarantine, in which the entire State of Texas became 

quarantined, APHIS expects the total the number of plants treated in Texas 

to increase, although minimally. If 240,000 of the 275,000 of the citrus 

nursery plants produced annually in Texas were grown inside the 2007 

quarantined area, then approximately 35,00015 citrus nursery plants were 

produced outside the 2007 quarantined area. These plants now fall within 

the statewide quarantine area. At most then, an additional 35,000 citrus 

plants could be treated for ACP within this newly quarantined area, 

although the actual number may be far less than 35,000. 

Under the proposed program, Florida could only ship their plants out of 

the State for immediate exportation from the United States. Three 

commodities that are shipped out of Florida for immediate export are 

Murraya, Calamondin, and kumquat plants. According to the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in 2008, there were 13 

nurseries which propagated 1,922,512 plants that were potential hosts of 

CG (FDACS, 2009). However, the number of plants that would need to 

be treated under the proposed program may be far less than 1,922,512. 

 

In the State of Louisiana, the majority, if not all, commercial citrus 

nursery products are located within one parish, Plaquemines Parish. 

According to the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, there 

are roughly 10 citrus nurseries located in Plaquemines Parish, which 

produce a total of 350,000 to 400,000 trees per year. Roughly 60 to 

70 percent of the trees (210,000 to 280,000 trees) are moved interstate 

and, therefore, would require chemical treatment (LDAF, 2008). 

Provided that EPA and/or State approved pesticide labels are adhered to, 

human and environmental exposure in each of the above mentioned States 

should be minimal. 

a. Soil Drench or In-ground Granular Treatment 

 

14 Texas Register, 2008. Volume 33, pp. 1465–1656. 15 275,000 citrus nursery plants – 240,000 citrus nursery plants = 35,000 citrus nursery plants 
12 

Under the proposed action alternative, unless fumigated with methyl 

bromide, regulated nursery stock will need to be treated with a soil drench 

or in-ground granular treatment containing dinotefuran or imidacloprid as 

the sole active ingredient in the pesticide product, not more than 30 days 

and not less than 20 days prior to movement, in order to move interstate. 

Soil drenches and in-ground granular treatments are applied to the soil 

around the article, absorbed into the plant, and are then translocated within 

the plant’s system. Potential human exposure and risk from these types of 

applications is greatest for applicators and workers in nurseries. To ensure 

adequate safety for the use of either chemical, they must be used 

according to label directions, including any restrictions or precautionary 

label language. Exposure would be less to those who may handle treated 

nursery stock after application, since the chemicals would have already 

moved into the treated articles. The potential environmental impacts of 

soil drenches and in-ground granular treatments are discussed below. 

(1) Dinotefuran 

(a) Human Health 

Dinotefuran is a systemic insecticide, belonging to the neonicitinoid class 

but within the nitroguanidine sub-class. Dinotefuran has moderate acute 

toxicity to mammals and low inhalation and dermal toxicity. It is not 

considered a skin irritant based on skin sensitization and irritation studies; 

however, it is considered an eye irritant. Based on sublethal study results, 

dinotefuran is not considered a carcinogen or mutagen, and developmental 

effects only occur at doses that are maternally toxic. Immune- and 

endocrine-related effects have been observed in multiple studies (EPA, 

2004a). These effects were observed during prolonged exposures and 

would not be anticipated in this program. The primary immune systemrelated effect observed in the studies was altered thymus weights which 

may not be related to direct immune toxicity of dinotefuran. However, 

they may be a secondary effect due to overall reduced body size and 

weight gain during exposures that were 13 weeks or greater, depending on 

the type of study. Based on EPA’s evaluation of risk to different human 

population subgroups, including occupational exposures, it was 

determined that the dinotefuran risk alone, as well as aggregate risk when 

including other neonicitinoid insecticides, did not exceed agency levels of 

concern (EPA, 2004a). 

The proposed use of dinotefuran in this program is restricted to 

applications to soil on regulated nursery stock; therefore, potential humanrelated exposure would be restricted to workers and applicators. Exposure 

to workers and applicators would be minimized by adherence to all 

precautionary statements on the label, as well as the use of appropriate 

personal protective equipment. 
13 

(b) Nontarget Organisms 

Dinotefuran has low to moderate acute and chronic toxicity to nontarget 

wildlife, such as mammals and birds. Dinotefuran also has low toxicity to 

fish and most aquatic invertebrates with the exception of some marine 

invertebrates, where it is considered highly toxic. Toxicity is also high for 

pollinators, such as the honey bee. Degradates of dinotefuran are less 

toxic to aquatic organisms based on available toxicity data. Based on the 

available effects data for nontarget organisms and the proposed use pattern 

for dinotefuran in this program, the risk to terrestrial and aquatic nontarget 

organisms is expected to be negligible (EPA, 2004a). All soil applications 

would be made on regulated nursery stock, reducing off-site movement 

via drift or runoff. Potential impacts to terrestrial invertebrates would be 

restricted to the nursery where treatments occur to soil. 

(c) Environmental Quality 

The environmental fate of dinotefuran suggests it is highly mobile, based 

on solubility and soil adsorption characteristics. Dinotefuran is stable to 

hydrolysis, but is somewhat susceptible to microbial degradation and is 

very sensitive to photolysis. Based on the method of application, which 

would eliminate significant off-site drift, no adverse impacts on air quality 

are expected. Off-site negative impacts to soil and ground or surface 

water are not expected, based on the use pattern for dinotefuran and its 

environmental fate. 

(2) Imidacloprid 

(a) Human Health 

Imidacloprid is a systemic, chloro-nicotinyl insecticide chemically related 

to the tobacco toxin nicotine. The mode of toxic action is unique and 

works by interfering with the transmission of stimuli in the insect’s 

nervous system. Specifically, it causes a blockage in a type of neuronal 

pathway (nicotinergic) that is more abundant in insects than in warmblooded animals. Because of their molecular shape, size, and charge, 

nicotine and nicotinoids fit into receptor molecules in the nervous system 

that normally receive the molecule acetylcholine. This molecule carries 

nerve impulses from one nerve cell to another or from a nerve cell to the 

tissue that a nerve controls. Imidacloprid overstimulates the nerve, 

ultimately resulting in the insect’s paralysis and eventual death. Because 

this nicotinergic site of action is more prevalent in insects than in higher 

organisms, the pesticide is selectively more toxic to insects. Signs and 

symptoms in humans include fatigue, twitching, cramps, and muscle 

weakness, including the muscles for breathing. Imidacloprid is not 

considered carcinogenic by EPA. The application of this pesticide is 

restricted to soil treatments for regulated nursery stock. Imidacloprid is 
14 

the least toxic of the systemic program pesticides. None of the routine or 

extreme exposure scenarios pose unacceptable risks to workers or 

applicators. Moreover, required protective gear and safety precautions 

further ensure that no adverse effects to program workers are expected 

(USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

(b) Nontarget Organisms 

The program use of imidacloprid is unlikely to impact most nontarget 

wildlife. Imidacloprid is moderately to severely toxic to birds including, 

but not limited to, the American robin, northern mockingbird, European 

starling, red-winged blackbird, and house sparrow. However, the area 

affected by the pesticide would be limited to nurseries and should only 

affect a limited number of birds, if any at all. Although it is nontoxic to 

fish, it is highly toxic to aquatic insects. Adherence to label and program 

application restrictions should preclude any drift or runoff to water. 

Terrestrial invertebrates within the nursery where treatments would occur 

could be impacted; however, the effects would be localized and restricted 

to those plants that have been treated (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

(c) Environmental Quality 

Any potential impacts of imidacloprid to the quality of the air, soil, and 

water would be limited to nurseries and of limited time duration. 

Imidacloprid is moderately soluble in water and will dissipate quickly. It 

is absorbed by soil particles and has low mobility. Imidacloprid is readily 

taken up by plants and translocated; however, program treatments are not 

expected to result in any bioaccumulation hazards (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

b. Foliar Treatment 

Under the proposed action alternative, unless fumigated with methyl 

bromide, regulated nursery stock will need to be treated with a foliar spray 

10 days prior to movement in order to move interstate. Foliar sprays are 

applied to the leaves of plants according to label instructions. The 

program would require foliar applications containing either bifenthrin, 

chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, fenpropathrin, or a mixture of imidacloprid and 

cyfluthrin as the sole active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product. 

Potential human-related exposure to and risk caused by program 

insecticides would be greatest for applicators and workers in nurseries. 

The products must be used according to label directions, including any 

restrictions or precautionary label language. After regulated articles are 

treated, the potential for human exposure and risk decreases because as 

pesticide treatments dry, the potential for dermal exposure is greatly 

reduced and pesticides degrade over time. The potential environmental 

impacts of foliar treatments are discussed below. 
15 

(1) Bifenthrin 

(a) Human Health 

Bifenthrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide with a mode of action 

similar to other pyrethroids, such as fenpropathrin and cyfluthrin, which 

have been previously discussed. Bifenthrin has moderate acute oral 

toxicity but low dermal toxicity. It is not considered to be a dermal 

sensitizer or an eye or skin irritant (EPA, 2004b). Bifenthrin is not 

considered to be a reproductive or developmental toxicant. However, it is 

considered a potential carcinogen based on the formation of urinary 

bladder tumors administered at high doses to mice. The application of this 

pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated nursery stock. The potential 

for bifenthrin exposure would be restricted to applicators; however, by 

adhering to the label and other standard operating procedures, no adverse 

effects to applicators are expected. 

(b) Nontarget Organisms 

Bifenthrin has low to slight toxicity to birds and moderate acute toxicity to 

wild mammals. Bifenthrin is considered highly toxic to honey bees by 

oral and contact exposure. 

Similar to other pyrethroid insecticides, bifenthrin is considered highly 

toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Toxicity values for both groups of 

organisms range from the low part per trillion to the low part per billion, 

depending on the test species and conditions (Solomon et al., 2001; EPA, 

2008). 

Significant exposure and risk to most nontarget terrestrial and aquatic 

biota is not expected. Potential impacts are restricted to nurseries and, 

based on the application method, would not result in significant off-site 

movement of residues through drift or runoff. Impacts to terrestrial 

invertebrates from bifenthrin treatments within the nursery are expected; 

however, effects would be localized and populations would recover 

rapidly due to movement of invertebrates from untreated areas into 

previously treated nursery areas. 

(c) Environmental Quality 

Bifenthrin is not expected to have any off-site adverse impacts on soil, 

water, or air, based on the proposed use pattern and environmental fate for 

this class of insecticides. Bifenthrin has extremely low solubility and 

mobility in soil, which suggests that it would not be a threat to 

groundwater. The low solubility and mobility, along with its use being 

restricted to nursery-only applications, would also reduce the potential 
16 

exposure to surface water. Impacts to air are not expected, based on the 

low vapor pressure for bifenthrin. 

(2) Chlorpyrifos 

(a) Human Health 

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that can cause neurotoxic 

effects. The toxicity of chlorpyrifos occurs primarily through the 

inhibition of acetylcholinesterase enzyme activity which permits the 

transmission of nerve impulses across the nerve synapse. Signs and 

symptoms of low doses include localized effects (such as nosebleeds, 

blurred vision, and bronchial constriction) and systemic effects (such as 

nausea, sweating, dizziness, and muscular weakness). At higher doses the 

signs and symptoms include irregular heartbeat, elevated blood pressure, 

cramps, and convulsions. Chlorpyrifos is not considered carcinogenic, 

based upon studies acceptable to EPA (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

The application of this pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated 

nursery stock. The only individuals that might be affected by the use of 

this insecticide are the nursery workers and the occupational workers who 

apply the pesticide. Several chlorpyrifos scenarios (such as backpack 

applicators, hydraulic rig applicators, and ground personnel) do exceed the 

maximum acceptable exposure that poses no evident risk to human health 

(Regulatory Reference Value (RRV)) when proper safety precautions are 

not taken and protective gear is not worn. However, this elevated risk is 

not life-threatening. Protective gear and safety precautions required by 

label adherence and standard program operating procedures are designed 

to ensure that no adverse effects to program workers are expected (USDA, 

APHIS, 2005). 

(b) Nontarget Organisms 

The program use of chlorpyrifos is unlikely to impact most nontarget 

wildlife. Chlorpyrifos has a moderate toxicity to mammals when 

consumed. It can be moderately toxic to birds and severely toxic to some 

individual bird species; however, mammals and birds would generally not 

be in the affected area at the time of spraying. Symptoms of nonfatal 

exposure to birds include cholinesterase depression (ChE), weight loss, 

reduced egg production, and reduced hatchling survival. Impacts to 

terrestrial invertebrates, such as earthworms and worker honey bees, are 

expected; nevertheless, this effect would be restricted to areas within the 

nursery, and invertebrates from outside the treatment area would 

repopulate areas after treatment. Chlorpyrifos can be severely toxic to fish 

and aquatic invertebrates; however, the label does not allow direct 

application to water. Residues from drift or runoff are not anticipated to 

pose substantial risks to these species (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 
17 

(c) Environmental Quality 

Any potential impacts of chlorpyrifos to the quality of the air, soil, or 

water would be limited to nurseries and of limited time duration. 

Chlorpyrifos can persist in soil and water for several months under certain 

conditions; however, the persistence is generally only for a month or less. 

This is dependent on the organic content of the soil. Nevertheless, it can 

remain in silt which can run off or drift to surface waters. Significant 

bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in aquatic organisms is not expected due 

to its proposed use, which would minimize drift and runoff to aquatic 

areas.

(3) Deltamethrin 

(a) Human Health 

Deltamethrin is a pyrethroid insecticide that has both contact and ingestion 

activity to several pest insects. It is widely used on a variety of crops and 

ornamentals to control sucking insects as well as some lepidopteran pests. 

Based on the test conditions and species, acute mammalian toxicity for 

deltamethrin is variable, with oral toxicity values ranging from toxic to 

practically nontoxic (CA DPR, 2000; Barlow et al., 2001). Dermal 

toxicity is considered to be low, as well as inhalation toxicity for most 

formulations, with the exception of one emulsifiable concentrate (EC) 

formulation which demonstrates moderate inhalation toxicity (CA DPR, 

2000). Several studies have shown that deltamethrin is not a carcinogen, 

mutagen, or teratogen (Barlow et al., 2001; EPA, 2004b). 

The application of this pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated 

nursery stock. The potential for exposure to deltamethrin would be 

restricted to applicators; however, by adhering to the label and other 

standard operating procedures, no adverse effects to applicators are 

expected. 

(b) Nontarget Organisms 

Comparative deltamethrin toxicity to nontarget birds and mammals 

suggests effects at lower concentrations for mammals when compared to 

birds, where deltamethrin is considered practically nontoxic (EPA, 2008). 

Deltamethrin is considered highly toxic to honey bees. 

 

Deltamethrin is considered highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, 

with fish being less sensitive than aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 2008; 

Solomon et al., 2001). Acute fish toxicity values vary based on test 

species and conditions, but range from the mid-part per trillion to low-part 
18 

per billion range (EPA, 2008). Acute aquatic invertebrate toxicity is also 

dependent on the test species and condition, with toxicity values that range 

from low-part per trillion to low-part per billion range (EPA, 2008). 

Aquatic chronic toxicity is also high for fish and aquatic invertebrates, 

with no effect concentrations in the low-parts per trillion range. 

Significant risk to nontarget organisms is not expected due to the restricted 

use of deltamethrin on nursery stock. Application methods would reduce 

the possibility of off-site drift and runoff. There is the potential for 

localized impacts to terrestrial invertebrates; however, it would be limited 

to those insects that are foraging within the nursery during the time of 

treatment. 

(c) Environmental Quality 

Deltamethrin has low solubility and a strong binding affinity for soil and 

sediment. In aquatic environments, deltamethrin is stable to degradation 

at a neutral pH, but will degrade quickly in more alkaline environments. 

Deltamethrin is susceptible to photolysis and microbial degradation in 

water and soil (Laskowski, 2002). Deltamethrin has low vapor pressure 

and is not expected to have adverse impacts to air quality. Due to its use 

being restricted to application on nursery stock and its environmental fate, 

no off-site impacts to soil or ground and surface water are expected. 

(4) Fenpropathrin

(a) Human Health 

Fenpropathrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide which affects the 

nervous system. It is a moderate skin and eye irritant. Signs and 

symptoms can include muscle contractions, tremors, ataxia, and nerve 

paralysis at moderate to high levels of exposure. Fenpropathrin is not 

considered carcinogenic by EPA (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

The application of this pesticide is limited to treatments of regulated 

nursery stock. Potential pesticide exposures are limited to nursery workers 

and the occupational workers who apply the pesticide. Backpack spray 

application and hydraulic rig applications for the extreme exposure 

scenario are the only circumstances that exceed the RRV. The extreme 

exposure scenario presumes that the worker would be exposed to higher 

quantities of the pesticide when that individual is not following safety 

protocols or wearing protective gear. Protective gear and safety 

precautions required by label adherence and standard program operating 

procedures are designed to ensure that no adverse effects to program 

workers are expected (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

(b) Nontarget Organisms 
19 

The program use of fenpropathrin is unlikely to impact most nontarget 

wildlife. The toxicity of fenpropathrin is moderate to mammals and has a 

slight oral toxicity to birds and terrestrial stages of reptiles and 

amphibians. For shrews and bats there is a high risk for exposure; 

however, given the limited use of fenpropathrin in this program, shrews 

and bats are unlikely to be located in the affected area. It is highly toxic to 

most aquatic organisms; nevertheless, aquatic organisms would most 

likely not be affected because the limited area of application within the 

nursery should not pose any risk of drift or runoff to waters containing 

aquatic organisms. Terrestrial invertebrates could be impacted in areas of 

treatment; however, these effects would be restricted to the nursery and 

would be temporary due to recolonization from untreated areas (USDA, 

APHIS, 2005). 

(c) Environmental Quality 

Impacts to air, water, and soil from the proposed fenpropathrin 

applications are expected to be minimal, based on its use pattern and 

environmental fate properties. Fenpropathrin is persistent in water at a 

neutral pH but degrades more quickly at alkaline pH values, with a 

hydrolysis half-life of 14 days. Photolytic degradation in soil is much 

faster than photolytic degradation in water, with a reported half-life in soil 

of 14 days compared to a half-life in water greater than a year. Potential 

mobility is low, based on low water solubility and a high binding affinity 

for soil, which reduces the potential for runoff. Residues on treated 

vegetation are also of short persistence (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

(5) Imidacloprid/Cyfluthrin Mixture

(a) Human Health 

Imidacloprid is a systemic, chloro-nicotinyl insecticide whose mode of 

toxic action and toxicity has been described above. Cyfluthrin is a 

synthetic pyrethroid insecticide which affects the nervous system in a 

manner similar to fenpropathrin. Cyfluthrin is not considered to be an eye 

irritant or skin sensitizer. Signs and symptoms can include muscle 

contractions, tremors, ataxia, and nerve paralysis at moderate to high 

levels of exposure. Cyfluthrin is not considered to be carcinogenic, 

mutagenic, or teratogenic by EPA. The difference in mechanism of toxic 

action ensures that this mixture does not pose increased toxicity through 

synergistic action. Although synergistic effects on toxicity are possible 

with simultaneous exposure to organophosphates (such as chlorpyrifos) 

and cyfluthrin, this type of exposure is unlikely with the safety precautions 

required of this program. The application of this pesticide is limited to 

treatments of nursery stock. None of the routine or extreme exposure 

scenarios from this mixture pose unacceptable risks to workers or 
20 

applicators. Moreover, required protective gear and safety precautions 

further ensure that no adverse effects to program workers are expected. 

(b) Nontarget Organisms 

The program use of this mixture for treatment in nurseries is unlikely to 

impact most nontarget wildlife. Although imidacloprid is moderately to 

highly toxic to some songbirds and cyfluthrin poses some risks to small 

mammals, program use of this mixture is not expected to pose a high risk 

because of the limited exposure potential. Both products are toxic to fish 

and most aquatic organisms; however, adherence to label and program 

application restrictions should reduce off-site drift and runoff to surface 

water. Terrestrial invertebrates could be impacted in treated areas, but 

these effects are restricted to the nursery and would be temporary due to 

the movement of invertebrates from untreated areas into previously treated 

nursery areas (USDA, APHIS, 2005). 

(c) Environmental Quality 

Any potential impacts of this formulation to the quality of the air, soil, and 

water would be limited to nurseries and of limited time duration. 

Although cyfluthrin is of low water solubility and adsorbs readily to 

organic matter, it is not as persistent as imidacloprid in soil. Imidacloprid 

is moderately soluble in water and dissipates quickly. It is also absorbed 

by soil particles and has low mobility. Both compounds are readily taken 

up by plants and translocated; however, program treatments are not 

expected to result in any bioaccumulation hazards. 

c. Fumigation Treatment 

Methyl bromide is a broad-spectrum fumigant chemical that can be used 

as an acaricide16, antimicrobial, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, 

nematicide, and vertebrate control agent. It is a colorless and odorless gas 

at normal temperatures and pressures. When used as a commodity 

treatment, methyl bromide gas is injected into an enclosure or chamber 

containing the commodities. 

Under the proposed control program, regulated articles may be moved 

interstate if they are treated with methyl bromide according to the APHISapproved treatment schedule MB T101-n-2. 

Methyl bromide T101-n-2 treatments are conducted at normal atmospheric 

pressure for 2 hours at the following rates: 

Temperature (°F) Dosage rate of methyl bromide 

 

16 An acaricide is a pesticide toxic to mites, ticks, and spiders. 
21 

(lb/1,000 cubic feet) 

70 or above 2 

60-69 2.5 

50-59 3 

45-49 3.5 

40-44 4 

The fumigation treatment facility must be certified by APHIS. Facilities 

are required to be inspected and recertified annually. Treatment must be 

monitored by an official authorized by APHIS to ensure proper 

administration of the treatment. 

Since methyl bromide fumigation is conducted in contained facilities, 

potential exposure to the environment and to nontargets, including humans 

in the surrounding communities, is minimal. The greater concern is 

exposure of workers and bystanders to methyl bromide at the use site. 

EPA has identified potential human health risks associated with methyl 

bromide treatments on commodities from acute inhalation exposure to 

workers and bystanders. “Human exposure to high concentrations of 

methyl bromide can result in central nervous system and respiratory 

system failure, as well as specific and severe deleterious actions on the 

lungs, eyes, and skin” (EPA, 2009a). However, adherence to good 

practices and guidelines should ensure that there are no adverse effects on 

workers and bystanders. 

To minimize risks, all methyl bromide products are classified as restricteduse pesticides (RUP). This restriction is required to appear on the product 

labels. Restricted-use products may only be used by certified pesticide 

applicators or those working under their direct supervision. Another label 

requirement includes aerating treatment enclosures and the treated 

commodity within the enclosures (EPA, 2006). These measures protect 

not only workers that must re-enter the fumigated area and other 

bystanders, but those that handle the commodity during transport. 

To further reduce potential human exposures, additional requirements 

include (but are not limited to): site-specific fumigant management 

plans17, respiratory protection, buffer zones in which only supervisors or 

pesticide applicators are allowed to enter, notification to workers that 

handle commodities that a commodity has been treated with methyl 

bromide, and notification to the community living or working in close 

proximity to commodity fumigation sites that methyl bromide is being 

utilized (EPA, 2006). 

 

17 Fumigant management plans17 (FMPs) must contain general site information, treatment and 

aeration procedures, buffer zones, personal protective equipment, posting and notification plans, 

record keeping, emergency procedures, site security, etc. FMPs must be made available to the 

surrounding community (EPA, 2006). 
22 

Lastly, consumers are unlikely to be impacted by handling a commodity 

which has been fumigated with methyl bromide because methyl bromide 

dissipates quickly once the commodity is removed from the fumigation 

chamber. 

Methyl bromide is a substance classified by EPA under the Clean Air Act 

as a Class I ozone-depleting chemical. The expected use of methyl 

bromide in fumigations of articles under this quarantine is well below any 

levels that could contribute measurably to ozone depletion. A thorough 

review of the potential effects of methyl bromide uses in fumigations on 

ozone depletion was originally presented in the final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for “Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material—

August, 2003” (USDA, APHIS, 2003). This document has recently been 

updated and is titled “Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material, 

Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement—October 2007” 

(USDA, APHIS, 2007). This EIS determined that the cumulative impact 

of methyl bromide on ozone depletion from routine commodity treatments 

is not expected to be consequential. 

Under the proposed control program, regulated articles intended for 

consumption, for use as apparel or a similar personal accessory, or for 

other decorative purposes may be moved interstate if treated with 

irradiation. Irradiation treatment would involve exposure of the articles, 

under controlled conditions, to gamma rays or to electron beams. The 

amount of energy absorbed is expressed in units of Grays (Gy). The 

required minimum dose (Dmin) is 400 Gy to sterilize ACP. 

Consumption of irradiated regulated articles poses no significant risk to 

consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final rule regarding food 

irradiation in 1986 (21 CFR part179) which states that absorption rates 

below 1,000 Gy will not make food radioactive, affect the safety of the 

food, alter the nutritional value of the food, or adversely affect the balance 

between microbial spoilage organisms and pathogenic organisms. 

Since irradiation is conducted in contained facilities, the potential 

exposure to the environment and nontargets, including humans in the 

surrounding communities, is minimal. Irradiation facilities are strictly 

regulated for human and environmental safety. Irradiation treatments 

involving gamma rays utilize radioactive sources, such as colbalt-60 or 

cesium-137. Facilities utilizing such radioactive sources must follow the 

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing requirements. 

Facilities that utilize electron beams are regulated by the United States 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the appropriate State 

agencies. According to EPA, the basic elements of radiation protection at 

all food irradiation facilities consist of facility design; worker training, 

2. Irradiation 
23 

procedures, and supervision; and regulatory oversight. Shielding the 

radiation source is an important component of facility design. While the 

amount of shielding necessary depends on the strength of the radiation 

source, facility treatment chambers may be surrounded with as much as 

9 feet of concrete or a combination of concrete and earth or sand (EPA, 

2009b). Facility designs must also anticipate and protect workers and the 

surrounding communities from natural disasters such as an earthquake, 

fire, or tornado (EPA, 2009b). If workers need to enter an irradiation 

room, the energy source is turned off in an electron beam facility or the 

energy source is lowered into a pool of water that absorbs the radiation 

and protects the workers from exposure (FDA, 2000). 

While EPA has indicated that accidents have occurred at irradiation 

facilities which resulted in contamination, all occurred when safety 

systems and control procedures were bypassed (EPA, 2009b). Under the 

proposed control program, a written certification by a licensed engineering 

and safety inspector would be issued showing that an irradiation facility 

meets all safety and health requirements for safe operation in compliance 

with 7 CFR part 305. Provided that safety standards are adhered to, no 

impacts to human health are expected. 

IV. Other Environmental Considerations 

A. Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations 

require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The 

potential for affecting endangered and threatened species exists only at the 

site where required pesticide treatments may occur, namely in nurseries. 

APHIS is in the process of gathering pertinent information and intends to 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine 

Fisheries Service to ensure that proper measures are taken to protect 

endangered and threatened species. Any conservation measures decided 

upon would be incorporated into the compliance agreements required by 

APHIS for the nurseries. 

B. Executive Orders 

Consistent with Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income 
24 

Populations,” APHIS considered the potential for the proposed control 

measures to have any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any minority populations and low-income 

populations. Because chemical treatments are being applied within very 

limited controlled areas, primarily nurseries, APHIS has determined that 

the human health and environmental effects from the proposed 

applications are minimal and are not expected to have disproportionate 

adverse effects to any minority or low-income populations. 

Consistent with EO 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks,” APHIS considered the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse environmental health and safety risks 

to children resulting from the proposed control measures. Because 

chemical treatments are being applied within very limited controlled areas, 

primarily nurseries, no exposure to children is expected to occur. It is the 

responsibility and obligation of the program pesticide applicators (either 

employees of the commercial plant nursery or those hired by the 

commercial plant nursery to perform the pesticide applications) to ensure 

that the general public is not in or around areas being treated. This ensures 

that no exposure of the general public or children would occur during the 

application process. The only possible exposure would be to the applicator 

and nursery workers when not following the prescribed label use and 

safety directions. Therefore, it was determined that no disproportionate 

effects to children are anticipated as a consequence of implementing the 

proposed action alternative. 

Executive Order (EO) 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments,” was issued to ensure that there would be 

“meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the 

development of Federal policies that have tribal implications....” APHIS 

is in the process of complying with this EO by collaborating with Indian 

tribal officials to ensure that they are well-informed and represented in 

decisions regarding the proposed program. 
25 

V. Agencies, Organizations, and 

Individuals Consulted 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Policy and Program Development 

Environmental Services 

4700 River Road, Unit 149 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Emergency and Domestic Programs 

4700 River Road, Unit 134 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Planning, Analysis, and Regulatory Coordination 

4700 River Road, Unit 156 

Riverdale, MD 20737 
26 

VI. References 

Barlow, S.M., Sullivan, F.M., and Lines, J., 2001. Risk assessment of the 

use of deltamethrin on bednets for the prevention of malaria. Food Chem. 

Toxicol. 39:407–422. 

CA DPR—See California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2000. Deltamethrin risk 

characterization document, volume 1. Medical Toxicology Branch–

Department of Pesticide Regulation. 93 pp. 

EPA—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FDA—See U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FDACS —See Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 

Correspondence with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, 2009. 

Laskowski, D.A. Physical and chemical properties of pyrethroids. Rev. 

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 174:49–177. 

LDAF—See Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 

Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Correspondence with

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2008. 

Solomon, K.R., Giddings, J.M., and Maund, S.J., 2001. Probabilistic risk 

assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I. Distributional analysis of laboratory 

aquatic toxicity data. Env. Toxicol. Chem. 20(3):652–659. 

USDA—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2007. Importation of solid wood packing material, supplement to 

the final environmental impact statement—October, 2007. USDA, 

APHIS, Riverdale, Maryland. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2005. Citrus greening eradication program pesticide applications 
27 

human health and non-target species risk assessment, September, 2005. 

USDA, APHIS, Riverdale, Maryland. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2003. Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material—August, 

2003. USDA, APHIS, Riverdale, Maryland. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Ozone Layer Depletion 

Regulatory Programs; Methyl Bromide Questions & Answers. April 14, 

2009. [Online]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/qa.html. 

[May 18, 2009]. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Radiation Protection; 

Facility Safety and Environmental Impact. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/facility_env.html. [May 18, 2009] 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

2008. OPP Ecotox Database. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/index.cfm. [May 26, 2008]. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Report of Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management 

Decision (TRED) for Methyl Bromide, and Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) for Methyl Bromide’s Commodity Uses. August, 2006. 

[Online]. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/methyl_bromide_tred.pdf. [May 19, 

2009]. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004a. Pesticide fact sheet: 

dinotefuran. Conditional Registration. 63 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004b. Deltamethrin pesticide 

tolerance—final rule. Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 207:62602–62615. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticide 

and Toxic Substances, 2001. Guidance for pesticide registrants on 

pesticide resistance management labeling. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/#2001. [July 10, 2008]. Fax 

on demand: 202–401–0522. 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2000. Food Irradiation: A Safe 

Measure. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html. [May 19, 2009].