**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use by NPMA
for Facilities and Commodities]{.smallcaps}**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [For Administrative Purposes Only:]{.smallcaps}                       |
|                                                                       |
| **[Date received by Ozone Secretariat:]{.smallcaps}**                 |
|                                                                       |
| YEAR: CUN:                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Nominating      | # The United States of America                  |
| Par                |                                                 |
| ty:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Brief           | Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post |
| Descriptive Title  | Harvest Use by NPMA for Facilities and          |
| of                 | Commodities.                                    |
| Nominati           |                                                 |
| on:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| **[Nominating Party  |                                               |
| Contact              |                                               |
| De                   |                                               |
| tails]{.smallcaps}** |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Contact Person:      | John E. Thompson, Ph. D.                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Title:               | International Affairs Officer                 |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Address:             | Office of Environmental Policy                |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | U.S. Department of State                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | 2201 C Street N.W. Room 4325                  |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | Washington, DC 20520                          |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      | U.S.A.                                        |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Telephone:           | \(202\) 647-9799                              |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Fax:                 | \(202\) 647-5947                              |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| E-mail:              | <ThompsonJE2@state.gov>                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                      |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Following the        |                                               |
| requirements of      |                                               |
| Decision IX/6        |                                               |
| paragraph (a)(1),    |                                               |
| the United States of |                                               |
| America has          |                                               |
| determined that the  |                                               |
| specific use         |                                               |
| detailed in this     |                                               |
| Critical use         |                                               |
| Nomination is        |                                               |
| critical because the |                                               |
| lack of availability |                                               |
| of methyl bromide    |                                               |
| for this use would   |                                               |
| result in a          |                                               |
| significant market   |                                               |
| disruption.          |                                               |
|                      |                                               |
| X Yes  No           |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

  ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------
  **[Contact or Expert(s)  
  for Further Technical    
  Details]{.smallcaps}**   

  Contact/Expert Person:   Tina E. Levine, Ph.D.

  Title:                   Division Director

  Address:                 Biological and Economic Analysis Division

                           Office of Pesticide Programs

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                           Mail Code 7503C

                           Washington, DC 20460

                           U.S.A.

  Telephone:               \(703\) 308-3099

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

  E-mail:                  <levine.tina@epa.gov>

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

# [List of Documents Sent to the Ozone Secretariat in Official Nomination Package]{.smallcaps}

List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating
Party to the Ozone Secretariat

+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
| 1.  **[Paper Documents:]{.smallcaps}**       | **     | **Date Sent |
|                                              | Number | to Ozone    |
| > **Title of Paper Documents and             | of     | Se          |
| > Appendices**                               | P      | cretariat** |
|                                              | ages** |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+

+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
| 2.  **[electronic copies of all paper        | **Size | **Date Sent |
|     documents:]{.smallcaps}**                | of     | to Ozone    |
|                                              | File   | Se          |
| **Title of Electronic Files**                | (kb)** | cretariat** |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+
|                                              |        |             |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------------+

***TABLE OF CONTENTS***

[Part A: Summary 5](#part-a-summary)

[**1.** Nominating Party 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65589422)

[**2.** Descriptive Title of Nomination 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65589423)

[**3.** Situation of Nominated Methyl Bromide Use
5](#__RefHeading___Toc65589424)

[**4.** Methyl Bromide Nominated For Post-Harvest Use (Commodities and
Facilities) Not Included in Other Chapters
5](#__RefHeading___Toc65589425)

[**5.** Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
5](#__RefHeading___Toc65589426)

[**7.** Location of the Facility or Facilities Where the Proposed
Critical Use of Methyl Bromide Will Take Place
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65589427)

[Part B: Situation Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65589455)

[**8.** Key Pests for which Methyl Bromide is Requested:
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65589429)

[Part C: Technical Validation 15](#__RefHeading___Toc65589430)

[**11.** Summarize the Alternative(s) Tested, Starting with the Most
Promising Alternative(s): 15](#__RefHeading___Toc65589431)

[**12.** Summarize Technical Reasons, if any, for each Alternative not
being Feasible or Available for your Circumstances:
17](#__RefHeading___Toc65589432)

[Part D: Emission Control 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65589467)

[**13.** How has this Sector Reduced the Use and Emissions of Methyl
Bromide in the Situation of the Nomination?
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65589434)

[Part E: Economic Assessment 19](#__RefHeading___Toc65589435)

[**14.** Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
Period 19](#__RefHeading___Toc65589436)

[**15.** Summarize Economic Reasons, if any, for each Alternative not
being Feasible or Available for your Circumstances
19](#__RefHeading___Toc65589437)

[**Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives**
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65589438)

[Part F: Future Plans 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65589439)

[**16.** Provide a Detailed Plan Describing how the Use and Emissions of
Methyl Bromide will be Minimized in the Future for the Nominated Use.
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65589440)

[**17.** Provide a Detailed Plan Describing what Actions will be
Undertaken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for this Use
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65589441)

[17.1. Research 21](#research)

[17.2. Registration 23](#__RefHeading___Toc65589443)

[**18.** Additional Comments 23](#__RefHeading___Toc65589444)

[**19.** Citations 24](#__RefHeading___Toc65589445)

[**Bibliography** 25](#__RefHeading___Toc65589446)

[Appendix a 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65589447)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
33](#__RefHeading___Toc65589448)

***List of Tables***

[*Part A: Summary* 5](#part-a-summary)

[**Table 4.1:** Methyl Bromide Nominated For Post-Harvest Use
(Commodities and Facilities) Not Included in Other Chapters
5](#__RefHeading___Toc65589450)

[**Table A.1:** Executive Summary 8](#__RefHeading___Toc65589451)

[**Table 6.1:** Methyl Bromide Consumption for the Past 5 Years and the
Amount Requested in the Year(s) Nominated For Post-Harvest Use
(Commodities and Facilities) Not Included In Other Chapters
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65589452)

[**Table A.2 2005** Request --For Post-Harvest Use (Commodities and
Facilities) Not Included in Other Chapters
10](#__RefHeading___Toc65589453)

[[**Table A.3 2006**]{.smallcaps} Nomination -- Post-Harvest Use
(Commodities and Facilities) Not Included In Other Chapters
11](#__RefHeading___Toc65589454)

[***Part B: Situation Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use***
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65589455)

[**Table 8.1:** Key Pests for Methyl Bromide Request:Facilties
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65589456)

[**Table 8.1:** Key Pests for Methyl Bromide Request:Commodities
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65589457)

[**Table B.1:** Characteristic of Sector - Facilities
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65589458)

[**Table B.2:** Characteristic of Sector: Commodities
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65589459)

[Table 9.1: (a) Food Processing Plants 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65589460)

[Table 9.1: (b) Fixed Facilities 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65589461)

[***Part C: Technical Validation*** 15](#__RefHeading___Toc65589430)

[Table 11.1: Summary of the Alternatives Tested
15](#table-11.1-summary-of-the-alternatives-tested)

[**Table C.1:** Summary of Review or Position Papers concerning
Alternatives for Stored Product Pests 16](#__RefHeading___Toc65589464)

[**Table 12.1:** Summary of Technical Reason for each Alternative not
being Feasible or Available 17](#__RefHeading___Toc65589465)

[Table 12.2: Comparison of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation
17](#table-12.2-comparison-of-alternatives-to-methyl-bromide-fumigation)

[***Part D: Emission Control*** 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65589467)

[***Part E: Economic Assessment*** 19](#__RefHeading___Toc65589435)

[**Table 15.1:** Summary of Economic Reasons for each Alternative not
being Feasible or Available 19](#__RefHeading___Toc65589469)

[***Part F: Future Plans*** 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65589439)

[***Appendix a*** 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65589447)

[**Appendix A - Table 1:** Effect of temperature on concentration and
time thresholds for some pests of stored products. (From: Bell, C. H.
2000) 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65589472)

[**Appendix A - Table 2:** Concentration-Time Product recommendations by
National Pest Management Association 28](#__RefHeading___Toc65589473)

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
29](#__RefHeading___Toc65589474)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # Part A: Summary                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589422
  .anchor}

  The United States of America (U. S.)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589423 .anchor}

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination For Post-Harvest Use By NPMA For
  Facilities and Commodities
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Situation of Nominated Methyl Bromide
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589424 .anchor}

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

This sector includes commodities and food processing plants treated by
National Pest Management Association members. Commodities included in
this application are; processed foods (such as chips, crackers, cookies
and pasta), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, tea pellets, coffee
beans, tomato and bell peppers, citrus and cassava. Methyl bromide is
typically utilized in processed food and feed facilities as a space
fumigant for treating the facility 1 to 3 times per year. As the need
arises, methyl bromide is also used for trailer fumigations of product
or packaging material. These facilities are under intense pressure from
many insect pests as well as rodents.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **4.** **[Methyl Bromide Nominated For Post-harvest Use (commodities
  and facilities) not included in other
  chapters]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589425 .anchor}

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated For Post-Harvest Use (commodities
and facilities) not included in other chapters]{.smallcaps}**
[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589450 .anchor}

  ------------------------ --------------------------- -------------------------
  **[Year]{.smallcaps}**   **[Nomination amount        **[Nomination Volume
                           (kg)]{.smallcaps}**         (1000
                                                       m^3^)]{.smallcaps}**

  **[2006]{.smallcaps}**   **[181,079]{.smallcaps}**   **[7,536]{.smallcaps}**
  ------------------------ --------------------------- -------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589426 .anchor}

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

The US nomination is only for those uses where the alternatives are not
suitable. In the U.S. there are a number of factors that make the
potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable for use on
structures and commodities. These include:

-   pest control efficacy of alternatives: the efficacy of alternatives
    may not be comparable to methyl bromide in some areas, making these
    alternatives technically and/or economically infeasible

-   technical difficulties in adopting alternatives, for example heat
    may not be suitable for wood frame buildings or commodities with
    high oil content (development of rancidity)

-   regulatory concerns, such as the adoption of a new fumigant such as
    sulfuryl fluoride that may not be registered in all states

**[[Commodities:]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}** Methyl Bromide fumigation
for commodities occurs to ensure pest-free food and meet the strict
requirements of the Food Sanitation Regulations. The uses listed in this
chapter, processed foods (chips, cookies, crackers, pasta, etc.), spices
and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheese, tea pellets, coffee beans, have no
technically feasible alternative that can be used without incurring
significant economic losses. Phosphine alone or combined with carbon
dioxide is the only chemical alternative currently available for use on
these commodities. Phosphine fumigations, however, take much longer than
methyl bromide fumigations and are not a feasible alternative when rapid
fumigations are needed. Harvest of commodities occurs in autumn, when
temperatures are falling, making temperature-dependent phosphine
fumigation less likely. These sectors are already using phosphine alone
or in combination to the extent that their processing systems and
marketing needs allow it. Any additional shifting from methyl bromide to
the slower phosphine fumigation would result in disruption of commodity
processing during peak production times, lost market windows, and
substantial economic losses. In addition, adoption of not in kind
alternatives, such as controlled atmospheres, cold, and carbon dioxide
under pressure, would require major investments for appropriate
treatment units and /or retrofitting of existing warehouses.

**[[Facilities:]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}** Food processing facilities
in the United States have reduced the number of methyl bromide
fumigations by incorporating many of the alternatives identified by
MBTOC. Most important have been implementing IPM strategies, especially
sanitation, in all areas of a facility. Plants are now being monitored
for pest populations, using visual inspections, pheromone traps, light
traps and electrocution traps. When insect pests are found, plants will
attempt to contain the infestation with treatments of low volatility
pesticides applied to both surfaces and cracks and crevices. These
techniques do not disinfest a facility but are critical in monitoring
and managing pests.

Facilities in the United States also are using both phosphine and heat
treatments to disinfest at least portions of their plants. Phosphine,
both alone and in combination with carbon dioxide, is often used to
treat incoming grain and some finished products. Unfortunately,
phosphine is corrosive to copper, silver, gold and their alloys. These
metals are critical components of both the computers that run the
machines as well as some of the machines in the plants. Therefore,
phosphine is not feasible in all areas of food processing facilities.
Additionally, phosphine requires more time to kill insect pests than
does methyl bromide, so plants will need to be shut down longer to
achieve mortality, with associated economic losses from this downtime.
There are also reports of stored product pests becoming resist to
phosphine.

There are a number of limitations associated with the use of heat in
this industry. Not all areas of a plant can be efficiently fumigated
with heat. Some food substances, for instance cheeses will go rancid
with heat treatments. Not all finished food products can be heated for
the length of time heat is required for efficient kill of pests. In
addition, geography of the United States plays a crucial role in the use
of heat treatment. Food processing plants in the northern United States
will experience winters with several weeks of sustaining temperatures of
-32° to -35° C (-30° to -25° F). In these areas plants have heaters and
the power plants have the capability to supply excess power as needed.
However, the southern and parts of the western zones of the United
States are geographically quite different. Winter temperatures there
seldom reach --1.2° C (30° F) and when temperatures should fall that
low, it is typically for only a few hours one night. Most winters some
of these warmer areas of the U. S. don't freeze at all. Subsequently,
these facilities do not have heaters, nor do the power plants have
sufficient power to allow them to heat such large areas and sustain the
temperatures necessary for a kill. Additionally, escaping insects can
survive these outdoor temperatures and re-enter the facility after
treatment, even when low volatility pesticides are used to treat the
surfaces existing in the plant. Still, many southern and western
facilities use heat treatments as a spot treatment whereas some northern
facilities use heat treatments for all or parts of their plants.

By utilizing all these options, facilities in the U. S. have been able
to reduce the number of methyl bromide fumigations from an average of 6
times a year to an average of two times in the south and west and once
every 3 to 5 years in the north. The U.S. CUE nomination in this sector
only includes a request for methyl bromide use where use of alternatives
is limited for the reasons described above. There are many food
processing facilities in the United States for which we are not
requesting methyl bromide use because they have been able to
successfully implement alternatives.

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589451 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 20%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td><strong>Processed Foods (chips, cookies, crackers, Pasta,
etc)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><p id="spices-and-herbs" class="heading">Spices and
Herbs</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Cocoa</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Dried Milk</strong></td>
<td colspan="2">Cheese processing Plants</td>
<td>Other Commodity<a href="#fn1" class="footnote-ref" id="fnref1"
role="doc-noteref"><sup>1</sup></a></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="14"><h5 id="amount-of-request"><span
class="smallcaps">Amount of Request</span></h5></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"><blockquote>
<p><strong>2005</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><p id="kilograms-kg" class="heading">Kilograms (kg)</p></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>94,226</strong></td>
<td><strong>10,936</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>89,022</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>1,320</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>3,856</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>4,794</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Application Rate (kg/1000m<sup>3</sup>)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>24.03</strong></td>
<td><strong>48.05</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>48.05</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>24.03</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>24.03</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>48.05</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Volume (1000m<sup>3</sup>)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>3921</strong></td>
<td><strong>228</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>1853</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>55</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>160</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>100</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><blockquote>
<p><strong>2006</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>Kilograms (kg)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>93,442</strong></td>
<td><strong>9,938</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>85,393</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>503</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>3,856</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>4,905</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Application Rate (kg/1000m<sup>3</sup>)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>24.03</strong></td>
<td><strong>48.05</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>48.05</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>24.03</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>24.03</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>48.05</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Volume (1000m<sup>3</sup>)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>3,893</strong></td>
<td><strong>207</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>1,777</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>21</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>160</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>102</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14"><strong>Nominated Amount</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>2006 Nominated Amount (kg)</strong></td>
<td><strong>89,861</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>5,869</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>76,899</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>503</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>3,596</strong></td>
<td><strong>4,352</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="14"><h5 id="economics"><span
class="smallcaps">Economics</span></h5></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><p id="marginal-strategy" class="heading">Marginal
Strategy</p></td>
<td colspan="11"><strong>Unknown</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><p id="time-lost" class="heading">Time Lost</p></td>
<td colspan="11" rowspan="5"><strong>Not Provided by
Applicant</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Loss per 1000 m³</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Loss per kg MB (US$/kg)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Loss as % of Net Revenue (%)</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<aside id="footnotes" class="footnotes footnotes-end-of-document"
role="doc-endnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1"><p>Includes tea on pallets, coffee beans, tomatoes, bell
peppers, citrus and cassava.<a href="#fnref1" class="footnote-back"
role="doc-backlink">↩︎</a></p></li>
</ol>
</aside>

\*See Appendix B for complete description of how the nominated amount
was calculated.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[6. Methyl Bromide Consumption for Past 5 Years and Amount Requested
  in the Year(s) Nominated For Post Harvest Use (commodities and
  facilities) not included in other chapters]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Table 6.1: Methyl Bromide Consumption for the Past 5 Years and the
Amount Requested in the Year(s) Nominated For post harvest use
(commodites and facilities) not included in other
chapters\*]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc65589452 .anchor}

  --------------- -------------------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- -------------------- ------- ---------- -------
                  **[Historical                                                                                   **[Requested                            
                  Use]{.smallcaps}**                                                                              Use]{.smallcaps}**                      

  **For each year **1997\*\***         **1998\*\***   **1999**   **2000**                   **2001**   **2002**   **2005**                     **2006**   
  specify:**                                                                                                                                              

  **Amount of MB                                      220,300    219,616                    193149     217,636    204,153                      198,037    
  (kg)**                                                                                                                                                  

  **Volume                                            7,020                 8,037           6,791      8,293      8,497                8,245              
  Treated (1000                                                                                                                                           
  m³)**                                                                                                                                                   

  **Formulation   The applicant did                                                                               Unknown                                 
  of MB**         not provide any                                                                                                                         
                  information on                                                                                                                          
                  formulation                                                                                                                             

  **Dosage Rate                                       24.03                         24.03   24.03      24.03      24.03                                   24.03
  (kg/1000 m³)**                                                                                                                                          

  **Actual (A)    Unknown                                                                                         Unknown                                 
  Estimate (E)**                                                                                                                                          
  --------------- -------------------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- -------------------- ------- ---------- -------

\*Based on most current information.

\*\* No data from NPMA for 1997 & 1998.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[7. Location of the Facility or Facilities Where the Proposed
  Critical Use of Methyl Bromide Will Take
  Place]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589427 .anchor}

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

This nomination package represents a wide variety of food processing and
commodity facilities. The location of each facility where methyl bromide
fumigations may take place was not requested by the U.S. Government in
the forms filled out by the applicants. Therefore, we currently do not
have a complete listing of the actual addresses for each facility.

**[Table A.2 2005 Request - Post Harvest Use (Commodities and
Facilities) not included in other
chapters\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589453 .anchor}

+------+--------------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
| **[2 |              | *     | #### | *    | *   | **     | **Other |
| 005] |              | *Proc | #### | *Coc | *Dr | Cheese | Commo   |
| {.sm |              | essed | # Sp | oa** | ied | Proc   | dity¹** |
| allc |              | Foods | ices |      | Mil | essing |         |
| aps} |              | (c    |  and |      | k** | Pl     |         |
| R    |              | hips, |  Her |      |     | ants** |         |
| eque |              | crac  | bs { |      |     |        |         |
| st - |              | kers, | #spi |      |     |        |         |
| Post |              | coo   | ces- |      |     |        |         |
| Har  |              | kies, | and- |      |     |        |         |
| vest |              | pas   | herb |      |     |        |         |
| Use  |              | ta)** | s-1} |      |     |        |         |
| for  |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| Food |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| Pr   |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| oces |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| sing |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| Pl   |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| ants |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| (o   |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| ther |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| wise |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| not  |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| inc  |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| lude |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| d)** |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
+------+--------------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
| >    | Requested    | [94,2 | 10   | [89, | [   | [      | [4,79   |
|  **A | Kilograms    | 26]{. | ,936 | 022] | 1,3 | 3,856] | 4]{.sma |
| ppli | (kg)         | small |      | {.sm | 20] | {.smal | llcaps} |
| cant |              | caps} |      | allc | {.s | lcaps} |         |
| >    |              |       |      | aps} | mal |        |         |
|  Req |              |       |      |      | lca |        |         |
| uest |              |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
| >    |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
|  for |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| > 20 |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| 05** |              |       |      |      |     |        |         |
+------+--------------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|      | Requested    | [24.  | [48  | [48  | [   | [      | [48.0   |
|      | Application  | 03]{. | .05] | .05] | 24. | 24.03] | 5]{.sma |
|      | Rate (g/m³)  | small | {.sm | {.sm | 03] | {.smal | llcaps} |
|      |              | caps} | allc | allc | {.s | lcaps} |         |
|      |              |       | aps} | aps} | mal |        |         |
|      |              |       |      |      | lca |        |         |
|      |              |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
+------+--------------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|      | Requested    | [3,9  | [    | [1   | [   | [160]  | [10     |
|      | Area (1000   | 21]{. | 228] | 853] | 55] | {.smal | 0]{.sma |
|      | m³)          | small | {.sm | {.sm | {.s | lcaps} | llcaps} |
|      |              | caps} | allc | allc | mal |        |         |
|      |              |       | aps} | aps} | lca |        |         |
|      |              |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
+------+--------------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+

Includes tea on pallets, coffee beans, tomatoes, bell peppers, citrus
and cassava.

\*See Appendix B for complete description of how the nominated amount
was calculated.

**[Table A.3 2006 Nomination -- Post-Harvest Use (Commodities and
Facilities) not included in other
chapters\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589454 .anchor}

+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
| **[200  |           | *     | #### | *    | *   | **     | **Other |
| 6]{.sma |           | *Proc | #### | *Coc | *Dr | Cheese | Commo   |
| llcaps} |           | essed | # Sp | oa** | ied | Proc   | dity¹** |
| Nomin   |           | Foods | ices |      | Mil | essing |         |
| ation - |           | (c    |  and |      | k** | Pl     |         |
| Post    |           | hips, |  Her |      |     | ants** |         |
| Harvest |           | crac  | bs { |      |     |        |         |
| Use for |           | kers, | #spi |      |     |        |         |
| Food    |           | coo   | ces- |      |     |        |         |
| Pro     |           | kies, | and- |      |     |        |         |
| cessing |           | pas   | herb |      |     |        |         |
| Plants  |           | ta)** | s-2} |      |     |        |         |
| (ot     |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| herwise |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| not     |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| incl    |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| uded)** |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
| > **Ap  | Requested | [93,4 | [9,  | [85, | [5  | [      | [4,90   |
| plicant | Kilograms | 42]{. | 938] | 393] | 03] | 3,856] | 5]{.sma |
| >       | (kg)      | small | {.sm | {.sm | {.s | {.smal | llcaps} |
| Request |           | caps} | allc | allc | mal | lcaps} |         |
| > for   |           |       | aps} | aps} | lca |        |         |
| >       |           |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
|  2006** |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|         | Requested | [24.  | 4    | [48  | [   | [      | [48.0   |
|         | Ap        | 03]{. | 8.05 | .05] | 24. | 24.03] | 5]{.sma |
|         | plication | small |      | {.sm | 03] | {.smal | llcaps} |
|         | Rate      | caps} |      | allc | {.s | lcaps} |         |
|         | (g/m³)    |       |      | aps} | mal |        |         |
|         |           |       |      |      | lca |        |         |
|         |           |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|         | Requested | [3,8  | [    | [1,  | [   | [160]  | [10     |
|         | Area      | 93]{. | 207] | 777] | 21] | {.smal | 2]{.sma |
|         | (1000 m³) | small | {.sm | {.sm | {.s | lcaps} | llcaps} |
|         |           | caps} | allc | allc | mal |        |         |
|         |           |       | aps} | aps} | lca |        |         |
|         |           |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
| > **CUE | Nominated | [3,8  | [    | [1,  | [   | [160]  | [10     |
| > No    | Volume    | 93]{. | 207] | 777] | 21] | {.smal | 2]{.sma |
| minated | (1000 m³) | small | {.sm | {.sm | {.s | lcaps} | llcaps} |
| > for   |           | caps} | allc | allc | mal |        |         |
| >       |           |       | aps} | aps} | lca |        |         |
|  2006** |           |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|         | Nominated | [24.  | [48  | [48  | [   | [      | [48.0   |
|         | Ap        | 03]{. | .05] | .05] | 24. | 24.03] | 5]{.sma |
|         | plication | small | {.sm | {.sm | 03] | {.smal | llcaps} |
|         | Rate (g/  | caps} | allc | allc | {.s | lcaps} |         |
|         | m³)       |       | aps} | aps} | mal |        |         |
|         |           |       |      |      | lca |        |         |
|         |           |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|         | Nominated | [93,4 | [9,  | [85, | [5  | [      | [4,90   |
|         | Kilograms | 42]{. | 938] | 393] | 03] | 3,856] | 5]{.sma |
|         | (kg)      | small | {.sm | {.sm | {.s | {.smal | llcaps} |
|         |           | caps} | allc | allc | mal | lcaps} |         |
|         |           |       | aps} | aps} | lca |        |         |
|         |           |       |      |      | ps} |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|         |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
| **2006  | Overall   | **[9  |      |      |     |        |         |
| Sector  | Percent   | ]{.sm |      |      |     |        |         |
| Nom     | Reduction | allca |      |      |     |        |         |
| ination | (%)       | ps}** |      |      |     |        |         |
| T       |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
| otals** |           |       |      |      |     |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+
|         | **Total   | **[18 |      |      |     |        |         |
|         | 2006 U.S. | 1,079 |      |      |     |        |         |
|         | Sector    | ]{.sm |      |      |     |        |         |
|         | Nominated | allca |      |      |     |        |         |
|         | Kilograms | ps}** |      |      |     |        |         |
|         | (kg)**    |       |      |      |     |        |         |
+---------+-----------+-------+------+------+-----+--------+---------+

Includes tea on pallets, coffee beans, tomatoes, bell peppers, citrus
and cassava.

\* See Appendix B for complete description of how the nominated amount
was calculated.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Part B: Situation Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
  Use**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589455 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[8. Key Pests for which Methyl Bromide is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**:[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589429 .anchor}

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

**[Table 8.1: Key Pests for Methyl Bromide Request:
Facilities]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589456 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Genus and     | **[Common     | **[Specific Reason why Methyl     |
| species of major | Name]{        | Bromide is Needed]{.smallcaps}**  |
| pests for which  | .smallcaps}** |                                   |
| the use of       |               |                                   |
| Methyl Bromide   |               |                                   |
| is               |               |                                   |
| critica          |               |                                   |
| l]{.smallcaps}** |               |                                   |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| # Tr             | Confused      | Pest status is due to health      |
| ibolium confusum | flour beetle  | hazard: allergens; plus body      |
|                  |               | parts, exuviae, and excretia      |
|                  |               | violate FDA regulations^1^.       |
|                  |               | Methyl bromide is needed because  |
|                  |               | these insects can occur in areas  |
|                  |               | with electronic equipment and     |
|                  |               | materials that cannot tolerate    |
|                  |               | high temperatures (i.e. cooking)  |
|                  |               | so phosphine and heat are not     |
|                  |               | completely adequate.              |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Tribolium       | Red flour     |                                   |
| castaneum*       | beetle        |                                   |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Trogoderma      | Warehouse     | Health hazard: choking and        |
| variable*        | beetle        | allergens; plus body parts,       |
|                  |               | exuviae, and excretia violate FDA |
|                  |               | regulations. Methyl bromide is    |
|                  |               | needed because these insects can  |
|                  |               | occur in areas with electronic    |
|                  |               | equipment and materials that      |
|                  |               | cannot tolerate high temperatures |
|                  |               | (i.e. cooking) so phosphine and   |
|                  |               | heat are not completely adequate. |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Lasioderma      | Cigarette     | Food contamination violates FDA   |
| serricorne*      | beetle        | regulations. Methyl bromide is    |
|                  |               | needed because these insects can  |
|                  |               | occur in areas with electronic    |
|                  |               | equipment and materials that      |
|                  |               | cannot tolerate high temperatures |
|                  |               | (i.e. cooking of some products;   |
|                  |               | oils and butter go rancid with    |
|                  |               | heat) so phosphine and heat are   |
|                  |               | not completely adequate.          |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Sitophilus      | Rice weevil   |                                   |
| oryzae*          |               |                                   |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Plodia          | Indianmeal    |                                   |
| interpunctella*  | moth          |                                   |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Oryzaephilus    | Merchant      |                                   |
| mercator*        | grain beetle  |                                   |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Cryptolestes    | Flat grain    |                                   |
| pusillus*        | beetle        |                                   |
+------------------+---------------+-----------------------------------+

^1^ FDA regulations can be found at:
<http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact4.htm> and
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/\~dms/dalbook.html.

**[Table 8.2: Key Pests for Methyl Bromide Request:
Commodities]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589457 .anchor}

  ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------
  **[Genus and species for  **[Common             **[Specific Reason why Methyl
  which the use of Methyl   Name]{.smallcaps}**   Bromide is Needed]{.smallcaps}**
  Bromide is                                      
  critical]{.smallcaps}**                         

  *Cydia pomonella*         Codling moth          MB is used mainly where rapid
                                                  fumigations are needed to meet
                                                  customer timelines during
                                                  critical market windows and peak
                                                  production periods. During peak
                                                  production months, phosphine
                                                  fumigation takes three times
                                                  longer than conventional MB
                                                  fumigation and 17 times longer
                                                  than vacuum MB fumigation. The
                                                  required duration of phosphine
                                                  fumigation increases as
                                                  commodity temperature decreases,
                                                  making its use impractical
                                                  during the cold winter months.
                                                  No technically or economically
                                                  feasible alternatives exist at
                                                  present during these critical
                                                  periods.

  *Amyelois transitella*    Navel orangeworm      

  *Plodia interpunctella*   Indianmeal moth       

  *Tribolium castaneum*     Red Flour Beetle      

  *Cadra figulilella*       Raisin Moth           

  *Carpophilus* sp.         Dried Fruit Beetle    

  *Ectomyelois ceratoniae*  Carob pod moth        

  *Carpophilus* spp.,       Nitidulid beetles     
  *Haptoncus* spp.                                
  ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------

**[Table B.1: Characteristic of Sector -
Facilities]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589458 .anchor}

  -------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                 **[Jan]{.smallcaps}**   **[Feb]{.smallcaps}**   **[Mar]{.smallcaps}**   **[Apr]{.smallcaps}**   **[May]{.smallcaps}**   Jun   **[Jul]{.smallcaps}**   **[Aug]{.smallcaps}**   **[Sep]{.smallcaps}**   **[Oct]{.smallcaps}**   **[Nov]{.smallcaps}**   **[Dec]{.smallcaps}**

  **Harvest or   X                       X                       X                       X                       X                       X     X                       X                       X                       X                       X                       X
  Raw Material                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  In**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

  **Fumigation                                                                                                   X                                                                             X                                                                       
  Schedule                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
  (MB)\***                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

  **Retail       N/A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
  Target Market                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  Window**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
  -------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

\* Plants in the southern United States may fumigate twice a year;
plants in the northern United States may fumigate once every 3 years.
However, fumigations may occur whenever a population explosion occurs.

**[Table B.2: Characteristic of Sector:
Commodities]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589459 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 32%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Jan</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Feb</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Mar</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Apr</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>May</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Jun</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Jul</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Aug</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Sep</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Oct</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Nov</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Dec</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Fumigation Schedule (MB):<br />
All Commodities</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td>x</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Retail Target Market Window:<br />
All Commodities</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Although fumigations may occur whenever a pest population explosion
occurs, ideally food-processing plants will be fumigated with methyl
bromide on 3-day holiday weekends just prior to the summer and at
summer's end. This maximizes efficiency since the facilities are usually
closed and workers are not present; and prior to very warm temperatures
that increases insect pressure.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[9. Summary of the Circumstances in which the Methyl Bromide is
  Currently Being Used]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Table 9.1:]{.smallcaps} (a) [Food Processing
Plants]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589460 .anchor}

+-----------+--------+--------+----+-----------+------------+--------+
| **[       | **[MB  | **[Ex  | ** | Number of | **[        | **     |
| CUE]{.sma | Dosage | posure | [T | Fu        | Proportion | [Fixed |
| llcaps}** | (]     | Time   | em | migations | of         | (F)    |
|           | {.smal | (]{.sm | p( | per Year  | Facility   | mobile |
|           | lcaps} | allcap | ]{ |           | Treated at | (M)    |
|           | ***kg/ | s}***h | .s |           | this       | Stack  |
|           | 1000m³ | ours** | ma |           | Dose]{.sm  | (S)]{. |
|           | ***)** | *[)]{. | ll |           | allcaps}** | smallc |
|           |        | smallc | ca |           |            | aps}** |
|           |        | aps}** | ps |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | }* |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | ** |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | ºC |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | ** |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | *[ |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | )] |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | {. |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | sm |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | al |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | lc |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | ap |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | s} |           |            |        |
|           |        |        | ** |           |            |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+----+-----------+------------+--------+
| *         | Ave.   | 24 hrs |    | 1-3       | 60-100%    | F, M   |
| *National |        |        |    |           |            |        |
| Pest      | 24-48  |        |    |           |            |        |
| M         |        |        |    |           |            |        |
| anagement |        |        |    |           |            |        |
| Asso      |        |        |    |           |            |        |
| ciation** |        |        |    |           |            |        |
+-----------+--------+--------+----+-----------+------------+--------+

**[Table 9.1:]{.smallcaps} (b) [Fixed
Facilities]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589461 .anchor}

+-----------+-------------------+-------------+--------+-------------+
| **[       | Type of           | **[Volume   | **[    | **[G        |
| CUE]{.sma | Construction and  | (1,000]{.sm | Number | astightness |
| llcaps}** | Approximate age   | allcaps}*** | of     | E           |
|           | in Years          | m³***[)]{.s | F      | stimate]{.s |
|           |                   | mallcaps}** | acilit | mallcaps}** |
|           |                   |             | ies]{. |             |
|           |                   | #           | smallc |             |
|           |                   | [or Range]{ | aps}** |             |
|           |                   | .smallcaps} |        |             |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+--------+-------------+
| *         | 5-10% 1-15 yrs    | Not         | Not    | Tilt-up     |
| *National | old typically     | available   | ava    | concrete -- |
| Pest      | newer structures  |             | ilable | good to     |
| M         | are tilt-up       |             |        | medium      |
| anagement | concrete          |             |        |             |
| Asso      | construction.     |             |        | Metal,      |
| ciation** |                   |             |        | wood, brick |
|           | 80% 15-75 yrs     |             |        | c           |
|           | old, combination  |             |        | onstruction |
|           | of metal, wood,   |             |        | -- medium   |
|           | brick and         |             |        | to poor.    |
|           | concrete.         |             |        |             |
|           |                   |             |        | Trailers    |
|           | 5-10% 75+ years   |             |        | /containers |
|           | old, combination  |             |        | --good to   |
|           | of construction   |             |        | poor, must  |
|           | materials and     |             |        | be          |
|           | methods.          |             |        | inspected   |
|           |                   |             |        | prior to    |
|           |                   |             |        | treatment.  |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+--------+-------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[10. List Alternative Techniques that are being Used to Control Key
  Target Pest Species in this Sector]{.smallcaps}**

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

Many of the MBTOC not in kind alternatives to methyl bromide are
critical to monitoring pest populations and managing those populations,
but they do not render a facility free of pests. . The most critical of
these are: sanitation and IPM strategies. Sanitation is important and
constantly addressed in management programs (Arthur and Phillips 2003).
Cleaning and hygiene practices alone do not reduce pest populations, but
reportedly improve the efficacy of insecticides or diatomaceous earth
(Arthur and Phillips 2003). The principles of IPM are to utilize all
available chemical, cultural, biological, and mechanical pest control
practices. These include pheromone traps, electrocution traps**,** and
light traps to monitor pest populations. If pests are found in traps,
then contact insecticides and low volatility pesticides are applied in
spot treatments for surfaces, cracks and crevices, or anywhere the pests
may be hiding. These applications are intended to restrict pests from
spreading throughout the facility to try to avoid a plant fumigation
(Arthur and Phillips 2003). However, IPM is not designed to completely
eliminate pests from any given facility or to ensure that a facility
remains free from infestation. In addition a major problem is the
infestation of equipment and bins where there are no legal pesticides
for those use sites other than the fumigants. Although FDA allows
minimal contamination of food products, there is a zero tolerance for
insects imposed by market demands, therefore, neither sanitation nor IPM
is acceptable as an alternative to methyl bromide fumigation; but these
strategies are used to manage pest populations and extend the time
between methyl bromide fumigations.

In addition to sanitation and IPM, most food processing manufacturers in
the United States currently use both phosphine, alone and in combination
with carbon dioxide, and heat to fumigate their facilities. Many of the
facilities treat incoming grains and their storage facilities with
phosphine, but the corrosive nature of phosphine limits its use
throughout the entire plant, especially in areas with electronic
components. Phosphine is problematic in that some stored product pests
are already becoming resistant to this chemical. Some facilities,
probably due to construction, are unable to use phosphine and/or heat.
Facilities in the southern and western parts of the United States do not
have heat sources on the premises thereby making heat fumigations
impractical. Additionally, heat is a problem causing rancidity in
butters and oils and denaturing proteins that may be used in the
facility. Yet, there are plants in the U.S. that have incorporated both
fumigation techniques and still need to fumigate with methyl bromide
although they have been able to lengthen times between methyl bromide
applications, thereby reducing the amount of methyl bromide used.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Part C: Technical Validation**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589430 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[11. Summarize the Alternative(s) Tested, Starting with the Most
  Promising Alternative(s]{.smallcaps})**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589431
  .anchor}

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

### Table 11.1: Summary of the Alternatives Tested

+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| **         | **      | # [Results]{.smallcaps}       | **           |
| [Pest]{.sm | [Study] |                               | [Citation]{. |
| allcaps}** | {.small |                               | smallcaps}** |
|            | caps}** |                               |              |
|            |         |                               |              |
|            | *       |                               |              |
|            | *[Type] |                               |              |
|            | {.small |                               |              |
|            | caps}** |                               |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| # *T. c    | Pilot   | Insects contained in plastic  | Mahroof, et  |
| astaneum*  | feed    | boxes. Non-uniform heat.      | al. 2003     |
|            | and     | Number of hours to reach 50°  |              |
|            | flour   | C varied between the mills    |              |
|            | mills;  | and within mills. 100%        |              |
|            |         | mortality at most locations   |              |
|            |         | of 50-60°C for 52 hrs. Old    |              |
|            |         | instars and pupae more heat   |              |
|            |         | tolerant                      |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| *T.        | Lab     | Mortality of each life stage  | Mahroof, et  |
| castaneum* |         | increased with increase in    | al. 2003     |
|            |         | temperature and exposure      |              |
|            |         | time. Young larvae most heat- |              |
|            |         | tolerant and required 7.2 hr  |              |
|            |         | at \>50°C.                    |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| *T.        | Lab     | Mortality increased as        | Arthur 2000  |
| castaneum  |         | temperature increased and     |              |
| & T.       |         | decreased as humidity         |              |
| confusum*  |         | increased. Mortality at one   |              |
|            |         | week was greater than initial |              |
|            |         | mortality probably due to     |              |
|            |         | delayed effects of DE. *T.    |              |
|            |         | confusum* mortality lower     |              |
|            |         | than *T. castaneum.*          |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| *R         | Lab     | Initial investigation of      | Dunkel &     |
| hyzopertha |         | volatiles from mountain       | Sears 1998   |
| dominica;  |         | sagebrush demonstrated some   |              |
| P.         |         | activity in against these     |              |
| inter      |         | insects in bioassays. No      |              |
| punctella; |         | indication of whether this is |              |
| & T.       |         | really a potential            |              |
| castaneum* |         | alternative                   |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| *T.        | 2^nd^ & | Adult insects in open rings   | Dowdy &      |
| confusum*  | 3^rd^   | placed in mill. 100%          | Fields 2002  |
|            | floors  | mortality of beetles in 25 hr |              |
|            | of a    | on the north end of the 3^rd^ |              |
|            | Pilot   | floor, but south end of 2^nd^ |              |
|            | flour   | floor had only 75% mortality  |              |
|            | mill    | with full DE and 50%          |              |
|            |         | mortality with partial DE     |              |
|            |         | after 64 hr.                  |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| *Ephestia  | Lab     | Efficacy was influenced by    | Nielsen 1998 |
| k          |         | age of the medium with DE     |              |
| uehniella* |         | when investigated under       |              |
|            |         | driest conditions (58% rh).   |              |
|            |         | But this is not a pest of     |              |
|            |         | concern in the U. S.          |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| *T.        | Lab     | Field collected flour beetles | Zettler 1991 |
| castaneum  |         | demonstrated varying degrees  |              |
| & T.       |         | of resistance to several      |              |
| confusum*  |         | pesticides: malathion,        |              |
|            |         | chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos,     |              |
|            |         | phosphine, but not to         |              |
|            |         | resmethrin. *T. castaneum*    |              |
|            |         | more resistant than           |              |
|            |         | *confusum*.                   |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+
| *T.        | Lab     | Malathion-resistant flour     | Arthur 1992  |
| castaneum  |         | beetles were susceptible to   |              |
| & T.       |         | cyfluthrin treated steel      |              |
| confusum*  |         | panels. Longer residuals on   |              |
|            |         | unpainted panels than on      |              |
|            |         | painted panels                |              |
+------------+---------+-------------------------------+--------------+

**[Table 11.2: Summary of Review or Position Papers concerning
Alternatives for Stored Product
Pests]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589464 .anchor}

  ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
  **[Synopsis of Review or Position                    **[Citation]{.smallcaps}**
  Papers]{.smallcaps}**                                

  Review of methyl bromide alternatives for stored     Fields & White 2002
  product insects: Heat: gradients in buildings,       
  insect refugia, rate can be problematic due to       
  structures, some equipment heat sensitive, plastics  
  warp, dust explosions, sugar, oils, butter &         
  adhesives removed, not all food products can be      
  heated; phosphine: activity slow, flammability above 
  concentrations of 1.8% by volume, corrosion of       
  copper, silver, and gold, no data for in combination 
  with CO2 and heat; modified atmospheres: activity    
  slow, requires air-tight structures; sulfuryl        
  fluoride^1^: no food tolerances in the U. S., no     
  registration for this use.                           

  Cites studies on: the development of resistance to   Bell 2000
  phosphine in stored product pests; interaction of    
  time, temperature and concentration of performance   
  of phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride's difficulty in      
  killing egg stage; Tables comparing phosphine to     
  methyl bromide (Table 1, Appendix A)                 

  Theoretical paper based on a few lab studies and     Cox 2004
  small field crop trials indicating that traps        
  currently used for monitoring pest populations could 
  be used to reduce those populations. No studies on a 
  commercial scale or food processing/storage facility 
  were present.                                        

  Mostly lab studies on assorted stored product pests  Oberlander, et al. 1997
  indicate that IGRs, especially methoprene and        
  diflubenzuron, may play a role in controlling these  
  insects                                              

  A simulation model in Denmark suggests that increase Skovgard, et al. 1999
  temperatures inside mills drives moth outbreaks and  
  if mills were cooled to outdoor temperatures, moth   
  outbreaks would be less frequent.                    

  Investigations into chemical control strategies      Zettler & Arthur 2000
  should include a thorough examination of physical,   
  biological and environmental factors that can affect 
  pesticide toxicity. These include: application rate, 
  formulation, timing, surface substrate, and target   
  pest. WP formulation of cyfluthrin applied to        
  concrete lasted longer than the EC formulation. *T.  
  confusum* was more susceptible than *T. castaneum*   
  to WP.                                               
  ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------

^1^At the time of this review, sulfuryl fluoride had not been registered
in the United States for any food uses. The new registration does not
include the commodities within this sector.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[12. Summarize Technical Reasons, if any, for each Alternative
  [not]{.underline} being Feasible or Available for your
  Circumstances]{.smallcaps}**:[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589432 .anchor}
  **[(]{.smallcaps}***For economic constraints, see Question
  15***[):]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Table 12.1: Summary of Technical Reason for each Alternative
[not]{.underline} being Feasible or
Available]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589465 .anchor}

+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| **[In Kind    | **[Tec | # [Comments]{.smallcaps}                   |
| A             | hnical |                                            |
| lternatives]{ | Fe     |                                            |
| .smallcaps}** | asibil |                                            |
|               | ity]{. |                                            |
|               | smallc |                                            |
|               | aps}** |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Carbon        | No     | Facilities in the United States are not    |
| Dioxide (high |        | airtight enough for modified atmospheres   |
| pressure)     |        | or carbon dioxide to be effective          |
|               |        | primarily because most are more than 25    |
|               |        | years old and are not subsidized by the    |
|               |        | federal government. Downtime required for  |
|               |        | CO~2~ alone is much longer, at 6-12 days.  |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Controlled &  | No     |                                            |
| Modified      |        |                                            |
| Atmospheres   |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Ethyl/Methyl  | No     | Not registered in United States (last      |
| Formate       |        | product cancelled in Oct. 1989)            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Hydrogen      | No     | Not registered in United States (last      |
| Cyanide       |        | product cancelled in Feb. 1988)            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Phosphine,    | No     | Although does kill insects, it is          |
| alone         |        | corrosive to metals, especially copper and |
|               |        | its alloys, bronze and brass. These metals |
|               |        | are important components of the            |
|               |        | electronics that run the manufacturing     |
|               |        | equipment. In addition some of the         |
|               |        | equipment itself (for example: motors,     |
|               |        | mixers, etc.) also have metal parts that   |
|               |        | contain copper. In addition it requires    |
|               |        | longer application time. This alternative  |
|               |        | is already being used in the areas without |
|               |        | electronics and where temperatures are not |
|               |        | a factor. Resistance to this fumigant has  |
|               |        | also been reported for several stored      |
|               |        | product pests.                             |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Phosphine, in | No     |                                            |
| combination   |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Sulfuryl      | No     | United States recent registration does not |
| fluoride      |        | include these uses                         |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| **[Not in     | **[Tec | # [Comments]{.smallcaps}                   |
| Kind          | hnical |                                            |
| Alternative]{ | Fe     |                                            |
| .smallcaps}** | asibil |                                            |
|               | ity]{. |                                            |
|               | smallc |                                            |
|               | aps}** |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Heat          | No     | Sufficiently high temperature will kill    |
| Treatment     |        | insects given enough time; but heat        |
|               |        | sources are not readily available in all   |
|               |        | areas of United States (such as those in   |
|               |        | the south where hot weather is the norm    |
|               |        | and no heaters are available); and heat    |
|               |        | requires longer time of exposure. In areas |
|               |        | that can use heat, it is being used. It is |
|               |        | not feasible in remaining plants or areas  |
|               |        | of a plant.                                |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Cold          | No     | Does not completely disinfest facility;    |
| Treatment     |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Contact       | No     |                                            |
| Insecticides  |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Cultural      | No     |                                            |
| Practices     |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Electrocution | No     |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Inert Dust    | No     |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Pest          | No     |                                            |
| Exclu         |        |                                            |
| sion/Physical |        |                                            |
| Removal       |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Pesticides of | No     |                                            |
| Low           |        |                                            |
| Volatility    |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Pheromones    | No     |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Physical      | No     |                                            |
| Rem           |        |                                            |
| oval/Cleaning |        |                                            |
| /Sanitation   |        |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+
| Rodenticide   | No     |                                            |
+---------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+

### Table 12.2: Comparison of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation 

+-------------+---------+---------+--------+-------------------------+
| #           | **[Prep | Fum     | Dissi  | **[Minimum Number of    |
| [Fumigant]{ | aration | igation | pation | Applications to One MB  |
| .smallcaps} | Time    | Time    | Time   | App                     |
|             | (hr)]   | (hrs)   | (hrs)  | lication]{.smallcaps}** |
|             | {.small |         |        |                         |
|             | caps}** |         |        |                         |
+-------------+---------+---------+--------+-------------------------+
| Methyl      | 24      | 24      | 24     | \--                     |
| Bromide     |         |         |        |                         |
+-------------+---------+---------+--------+-------------------------+
| Phosphine,  | 24      | 48-72   | 24     | 0-2                     |
| alone       |         |         |        |                         |
+-------------+---------+---------+--------+-------------------------+
| Phosphine + | 24      | 48-72   | 24     | 3-4                     |
| CO2         |         |         |        |                         |
+-------------+---------+---------+--------+-------------------------+
| Heat        | 36      | 48-52   | 24     | 3-4                     |
+-------------+---------+---------+--------+-------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Part D: Emission Control**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589467 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[13. How has this Sector Reduced the Use and Emissions of Methyl
  Bromide in the Situation of the
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**?[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589434 .anchor}

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

Using sanitation, IPM, i.e. the "not-in-kind" alternatives the industry
has been able to reduce methyl bromide use by extending the time between
fumigations. Plants in the southern United States used to fumigate with
methyl bromide as much as 4-6 times a year. The use of IPM strategies
and more stringent sanitation methods have allowed these facilities to
reduce the number of methyl bromide fumigations to twice a year. These
fumigations are typically at the beginning of the summer and at the end
of the summer.

In the northern regions of the United States, IPM strategies and
sanitation methods have enabled some of these facilities to fumigate
with methyl bromide once every 3 years, and a few facilities have gone
without a methyl bromide fumigation for almost 5 years. The facilities
in the northern United States have been able to exploit heat treatments
more extensively than their southern counterparts, as well as opening up
facilities during extremely cold weather for extensive cleaning with low
volatility pesticides (organophosphates, pyrethroids, insect growth
regulators, botanicals) at the perimeters to kill pests within the
facilities.

The use of methyl bromide in food processing plants in the U. S. is
minimized in several ways. In preparation for the loss of methyl
bromide, the food processing industry has been active in finding ways to
reduce pests in the plants (these techniques were described in Table
12.1).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Part E: Economic Assessment**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589435 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[14. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589436 .anchor}

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

No data are available.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[15. Summarize Economic Reasons, if any, for each Alternative
  [not]{.underline} being Feasible or Available for your
  Circumstances]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589437 .anchor}

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

**[Table 15.1. Summary of Economic Reasons for each Alternative
[not]{.underline} being Feasible or
Available]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589469 .anchor}

+---+----------+---------------------------------+---------------------+
| * | *        | **[Economic Reason (if any) for | **[Estimated        |
| * | *[Methyl | the Alternative not Being       | Month/Year when the |
| [ | Bromide  | Available]{.smallcaps}**        | Economic Constraint |
| N | Al       |                                 | [could]{.underline} |
| o | ternativ |                                 | be                  |
| . | e]{.smal |                                 | So                  |
| ] | lcaps}** |                                 | lved]{.smallcaps}** |
| { |          |                                 |                     |
| . |          |                                 |                     |
| s |          |                                 |                     |
| m |          |                                 |                     |
| a |          |                                 |                     |
| l |          |                                 |                     |
| l |          |                                 |                     |
| c |          |                                 |                     |
| a |          |                                 |                     |
| p |          |                                 |                     |
| s |          |                                 |                     |
| } |          |                                 |                     |
| * |          |                                 |                     |
| * |          |                                 |                     |
+===+==========+=================================+=====================+
| * | ##       | Under laboratory conditions,    | No indication was   |
| * | # Heat T | brief exposure of commodities   | given by the        |
| [ | reatment | to high temperatures may        | applicant as to a   |
| 1 |          | eliminate insects without       | timetable to solve  |
| ] |          | adversely affecting product     | identified          |
| { |          | quality. Sufficiently high      | problems.           |
| . |          | temperature will kill insects   |                     |
| s |          | given enough time; but heat     |                     |
| m |          | sources are not readily         |                     |
| a |          | available in all areas of       |                     |
| l |          | United States (such as those in |                     |
| l |          | the south where hot weather is  |                     |
| c |          | the norm and no heaters are     |                     |
| a |          | available); and heat requires   |                     |
| p |          | longer time of exposure. In     |                     |
| s |          | areas that can use heat, it is  |                     |
| } |          | being used. It is not feasible  |                     |
| * |          | in remaining plants or areas of |                     |
| * |          | a plant. Also, this approach is |                     |
|   |          | not feasible for treating       |                     |
|   |          | commercial-scale commodity      |                     |
|   |          | volumes. Most insects do not    |                     |
|   |          | survive more than 12 hours when |                     |
|   |          | exposed to 45^o^C or more than  |                     |
|   |          | 5 minutes when exposed to       |                     |
|   |          | 50^o^C (Fields, 1992). However, |                     |
|   |          | the effectiveness of this       |                     |
|   |          | approach has not been tested    |                     |
|   |          | with large volumes of           |                     |
|   |          | commodities. Substitution of    |                     |
|   |          | heat treatments where high      |                     |
|   |          | temperatures are not already    |                     |
|   |          | used for other applications     |                     |
|   |          | would require extensive         |                     |
|   |          | retrofitting of existing        |                     |
|   |          | facilities, as well as heat     |                     |
|   |          | delivery systems capable of     |                     |
|   |          | rapidly and uniformly heating   |                     |
|   |          | large volumes of commodities in |                     |
|   |          | order to achieve total insect   |                     |
|   |          | control. Furthermore, cheese    |                     |
|   |          | quality may be adversely        |                     |
|   |          | affected by exposure to heat.   |                     |
+---+----------+---------------------------------+---------------------+
| * | ### P    | Although does kill insects, it  | No indication was   |
| * | hosphine | is corrosive to metals,         | given by the        |
| [ |  alone o | especially copper and its       | applicant as to a   |
| 2 | r in com | alloys, bronze and brass. These | timetable to solve  |
| ] | bination | metals are important components | identified          |
| { |          | of the electronics that run the | problems.           |
| . |          | manufacturing equipment. In     |                     |
| s |          | addition some of the equipment  |                     |
| m |          | itself (for example: motors,    |                     |
| a |          | mixers, etc.) also have metal   |                     |
| l |          | parts that contain copper. In   |                     |
| l |          | addition it requires longer     |                     |
| c |          | application time. This          |                     |
| a |          | alternative is already being    |                     |
| p |          | used in the areas without       |                     |
| s |          | electronics and where           |                     |
| } |          | temperatures are not a factor.  |                     |
| * |          | Resistance to this fumigant has |                     |
| * |          | also been reported for several  |                     |
|   |          | stored product pests. Also, not |                     |
|   |          | suitable to replace methyl      |                     |
|   |          | bromide when rapid fumigations  |                     |
|   |          | are needed to meet customer     |                     |
|   |          | timelines. Furthermore, cheese  |                     |
|   |          | makers claim that phosphine     |                     |
|   |          | causes damage to the cheese,    |                     |
|   |          | "melting of the cheese" and may |                     |
|   |          | cause acid residue, acrid       |                     |
|   |          | off-odors and affect flavor.    |                     |
|   |          |                                 |                     |
|   |          | Phosphine fumigation takes 3-10 |                     |
|   |          | days, depending on temperature, |                     |
|   |          | compared to 1 day for MB        |                     |
|   |          | (Hartsell et al., 1991,         |                     |
|   |          | Zettler, 2002, Soderstrom et    |                     |
|   |          | al., 1984, phosphine labels).   |                     |
|   |          | An additional 2 days are needed |                     |
|   |          | for outgassing phosphine.       |                     |
|   |          | Phosphine fumigation is least   |                     |
|   |          | feasible during the colder      |                     |
|   |          | winter months when, according   |                     |
|   |          | to label directions, the        |                     |
|   |          | minimum exposure periods        |                     |
|   |          | increases to 8-10 days (plus    |                     |
|   |          | two days for aeration) when     |                     |
|   |          | commodity temperature decreases |                     |
|   |          | to 5^o^C - 12 ^o^C. Phosphine   |                     |
|   |          | is not used when commodity      |                     |
|   |          | temperature drops below 5^o^C   |                     |
|   |          | (Phosphine and Eco2fume®        |                     |
|   |          | labels).                        |                     |
+---+----------+---------------------------------+---------------------+
| * | ### Irr  | Although rapid and effective,   | No indication was   |
| * | adiation | irradiation may result in       | given by the        |
| [ |          | living insect left in the       | applicant as to a   |
| 3 |          | treated product. Treated        | timetable to solve  |
| ] |          | insects are sterilized and stop | identified          |
| { |          | feeding, but are not            | problems.           |
| . |          | immediately killed. The high    |                     |
| s |          | dosages necessary to cause      |                     |
| m |          | immediate mortality in target   |                     |
| a |          | insects may reduce product      |                     |
| l |          | quality. Irradiation requires   |                     |
| l |          | major capital expenditures and  |                     |
| c |          | irradiated food are not widely  |                     |
| a |          | accepted by consumers.          |                     |
| p |          |                                 |                     |
| s |          |                                 |                     |
| } |          |                                 |                     |
| * |          |                                 |                     |
| * |          |                                 |                     |
+---+----------+---------------------------------+---------------------+
| * | ##       | Facilities in the United States | No indication was   |
| * | # Carbon | are not airtight enough for     | given by the        |
| [ |  Dioxide | modified atmospheres or carbon  | applicant as to a   |
| 4 |  (high p | dioxide to be effective         | timetable to solve  |
| ] | ressure) | primarily because most are more | identified          |
| { |          | than 25 years old.              | problems.           |
| . |          |                                 |                     |
| s |          |                                 |                     |
| m |          |                                 |                     |
| a |          |                                 |                     |
| l |          |                                 |                     |
| l |          |                                 |                     |
| c |          |                                 |                     |
| a |          |                                 |                     |
| p |          |                                 |                     |
| s |          |                                 |                     |
| } |          |                                 |                     |
| * |          |                                 |                     |
| * |          |                                 |                     |
+---+----------+---------------------------------+---------------------+

Commodities and facilities listed in this chapter were requested by the
National Pest Management Association which represents members that
provide fumigation services to food processing and storage facilities.
The economic impacts on the facility from using the next best
alternative could not be assessed since the applicant is not the
end-user. However, the uses included in this chapter are those with no
technically and economically feasible alternative. In general, economic
impacts to the commodity and food processing sector can be characterized
as arising from three contributing factors. First, the direct pest
control costs increased in most cases because phosphine is more
expensive due to increased labor time required for longer treatment time
and increased number of treatments. Second, capital expenditures may be
required to adopt phosphine for accelerated replacement of plant and
equipment due to corrosive nature of phosphine. Finally, additional
production downtimes for the use of alternatives are unavoidable. Many
facilities operate at or near full production capacity and alternatives
that take longer than methyl bromide or require more frequent
application can result in manufacturing slowdowns, shutdowns, and
shipping delays. Slowing down production would result in additional
costs to the methyl bromide users.

The industries that use methyl bromide for commodity and facility
fumigation are, in general, subject to limited pricing power, changing
market conditions, and government regulations. Companies within these
industries operate in a highly competitive global marketplace
characterized by high sales volume, low profit margins, and rapid
turnover of inventories. In addition, producers' associations generally
manage companies of this type, and, therefore, making new capital
investment is often difficult.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589438 .anchor}

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

No information available.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Part F: Future Plans**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589439 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[16. Provide a Detailed Plan Describing how the Use and Emissions of
  Methyl Bromide will be Minimized in the Future for the Nominated
  Use.]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589440 .anchor}

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

The industry is committed to studying how to improve insect control with
IPM strategies and sanitation and to further reduce the number of methyl
bromide fumigations. They are also continuing to pursue research of heat
treatments to maximize efficiency. The United States government is
supporting research in this sector (see Section 17.1) and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) has made
registering methyl bromide alternatives a priority (see Section 17.2).
EPA registered sulfuryl fluoride for some commodities and some mills on
January 23, 2004 (see Section 17.2.1).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[17. Provide a Detailed Plan Describing what Actions will be
  Undertaken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for this
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589441
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

# 17.1. Research

The number of available insecticides that can be used in and around food
plants, processing mills, and food warehouses in the U. S. has declined
in recent years. The research and development of chemical alternatives
to be used by this sector is a critical need in the U. S. The
post-harvest food-processing sector has invested substantial time and
funding into research and development of technically and economically
feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. Past and current research
focuses on the biology and ecology of the pests, primarily insect pests.
To implement non-chemical controls and reduce methyl bromide use
requires a thorough understanding of the pests in order to exploit their
weaknesses. Some of these investigations have studied the effects of
temperature and humidity on the fecundity, development, and longevity of
a specific species. Other studies have been to determine the structural
preferences and microhabitat requirements of a species. Studies of
factors affecting population growth (interactions within and among
species) have been conducted. However, there is still much research that
needs to be done.

IPM and sanitation methods are also under investigation. Studies have
focused on food plant design, engineering modifications for pest
exclusion, and insect-resistant packaging. New research is demonstrating
a potential to incorporate chemical repellents into packaging materials
(Arthur and Phillips 2003). Further studies with pheromones and trapping
strategies are helping to improve IPM in food processing plants.

The USDA is continuing to fund research projects for post-harvest/food
processing plants. Such activities include:

> Biology and Management of Food Pests (Oct 2002- Sep 2007) to: examine
> the reproductive biology and behavior of storage weevils, Indianmeal
> moth, and red and confused flour beetles; determine the influence of
> temperature on the population growth, mating and development of
> storage pests, specifically storage weevils, Indianmeal moth, and red
> and confused flour beetles; examine the use of CO~2~ concentrations
> within a grain mass to predict storage weevils and flour beetle
> population growth; and examine the use of alternative fumigants on
> insect mortality (ozone, sagebrush, Profume^®^).
>
> Chemically Based Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Post harvest and
> Quarantine Pests (Jul 2000 - Dec 2004) to: develop quarantine/post
> harvest 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
> nonchemical methodologies which will yield integrated pest control
> management programs; and develop methods to detect insect
> infestations.

The rice milling industry has spent over US\$500,000 on research to
develop alternatives since 1992, and plans to use additional pesticides,
such as carbonyl sulfide, carbon dioxide, phosphine, magnesium phosphide
(magtoxin), and dichlorvos (vapona) over the next few years.
Non-chemical methods used by this sub-sector, to reduce methyl bromide
use, include heat and cold treatments, and many individual companies are
involved in further research and testing of alternatives. Industry
experts also recommend further studies on sulfuryl fluoride tolerances
and combination treatments of heat/carbon dioxide/phosphine.

The bakery sector is implementing heat as an alternative at those
facilities where heat is technically feasible. Currently, heat is being
implemented at several facilities nationwide, but further trials are
needed to determine the effects of heat on a long-term basis. However,
older facilities with hardwood floors and plant electrical wiring
systems are unsuitable for heat treatments. Other methods being used to
reduce reliance on methyl bromide are: exclusion, cleaning, early
detection, improved design of equipment, trapping, and other integrated
pest management (IPM) approaches. Phosphine continues to be tested.

The flour milling industry is committed to IPM techniques in order to
minimize reliance on any one tool. Many plants have reduced the amount
of annual fumigations from 4-5 per year to 2-3 per year. Some of these
facilities combine methyl bromide with carbon dioxide. Further, these
applicants have authored three manuals on fumigation best practices,
which are widely utilized throughout the industry. The industry
continues to test high heat, phosphine, alone and in combination; and
the combination of heat, phosphine, and carbon dioxide.

**17.2. Registration**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589443 .anchor}

Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of
alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the
EPA currently has more applications pending in its registration review
queue than the resources to evaluate them, EPA prioritizes the
applications. 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.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to
methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on data
generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the
Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety
standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency
has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application,
allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the
methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, Agency scientists routinely
meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling
them through the preregistration process to increase the probability
that the data is done right the first time and rework 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. This
coordination has resulted in key registration issues (such as worker and
bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking
water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural
Research Service's US\$15 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 each year
for USDA's US\$2.5 million per year methyl bromide alternatives research
has further ensured close coordination between the U.S. government and
the research community.

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

-   2000: Phosphine in combination to control stored product insect
    pests

-   2001: Indianmeal Moth Granulosis Virus to control Indianmeal moth in
    stored grains

-   2004: Sulfuryl fluoride registered as a post-harvest fumigant for
    grains and flour mills, but not for the commodities included in this
    chapter.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[18. Additional Comments]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589444
  .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[19. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589445 .anchor}

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

Arthur, F. H. 2000. Toxicity of diatomaceous earth to red flour beetles
and confused flour beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of
temperature and relative humidity. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2): 526-532.

Arthur, F. H. 1992. Cyfluthrin WP and EC formulations to control
malathion-resistant red flour beetles and confused flour beetles
(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of paint on residual activity. J.
Entomol. Sci. 27(4):436-444.

Arthur, F. and T. W. Phillips. 2003. Stored-product insect pest
management an d control, In: Food Plant Sanitation eds: Y. H. Hui, B. L.
Bruinsma, J. R. Gorham, W. Nip, P. S. Tong, and P. Ventresca. Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, pp. 341-358.

Bell, C. H. 2000. Fumigation in the 21^st^ century. Crop Protection
19:563-569.

Cox, P.D. 2004. Potential for using semiochemicals to protect stored
products from insect infestation. J Stored Prod. Res. 40:1-25.

Dowdy, A K.& P. G. Fields. 2002. Heat combined with diatomaceous earth
to control the confused flour beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in a
flour mill. J Stored Prod. Res. 38:11-22.

Dunkel, F. V. and L. J. Sears. 1998. Fumigant properties of physical
preparations from Mountain big sagebrush*, Artemisia tridentate* Nutt.
ssp. v*aseyana* (Rydb.) Beetle for stored grain insects. J. Stored Prod.
Res. 34(4):307-321.

Fields, P. and N. D. G. White. 2002. Alternatives to methyl bromide
treatments for stored-product and quarantine insects. Annual Review of
Entomology 47:331-59.

Hou, X., P. Fields, and W. Taylor. 2004. The effect of repellents on
penetration into packaging by stored-product insects. J Stored Prod.
Res. 40:47-54.

Mahroof, R., Subramanyam, B. and Eustace, D. 2003. Temperature and
relative humidity profiles during heat treatment of mills and its
efficacy against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) life stages. J. Stored
Prod. Res. 39:555-569.

Mahroof, R., B. Subramanyam, J. E. Throne, and A. Menon. 2003.
Time-mortality relationships for *Tribolium castaneum* (Coleoptera:
Tenebrionidae) life stages exposed to elevated temperatures. J. Econ.
Entomol. 96(4): 1345-1351.

Nielsen, P. S. 1998. The effect of a diatomaceous earth formulation on
the larvae of *Ephestia kuehniella* Zeller. J Stored Prod. Res
34:113-121.

Oberlander, H., D. L. Silhacek, E. Shaaya, and I. Ishaaya. 1997. Current
status and future perspectives of the use of insect growth regulators
for the control of stored product insects. J Stored Prod. Res. 33:1-6.

Skovgard, H., N. Holst, and P. S. Nielsen. 1999. Simulation model of the
Mediterranean flour moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Danish flour mills.
Environ. Entomol. 28(6):1060-1066.

Zettler, J. L. 1991. Pesticide resistance in *Tribolium castaneum* and
*T. confusum* (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) form flour mills in the United
States. J. Econ. Entomol. 84(3):763-767.

Zettler, J. L. and F. H. Arthur. 2000. Chemical control of stored
product insects with fumigants and residual treatments. Crop Protection
19:577-582.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Bibliography]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589446 .anchor}

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

Arthur, F. H. 2000. Toxicity of diatomaceous earth to red flour beetles
and confused flour beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of
temperature and relative humidity. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2): 526-532.

Arthur, F. H. 1992. Cyfluthrin WP and EC formulations to control
malathion-resistant red flour beetles and confused flour beetles
(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Effects of paint on residual activity. J.
Entomol. Sci. 27(4):436-444.

Bell, C. H. 2000. Fumigation in the 21^st^ century. Crop Protection
19:563-569.

Cox, P.D. 2004. Potential for using semiochemicals to protect stored
products from insect infestation. J Stored Prod. Res. 40:1-25.

Dowdy, A K.& P. G. Fields. 2002. Heat combined with diatomaceous earth
to control the confused flour beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in a
flour mill. J Stored Prod. Res. 38:11-22.

Dunkel, F. V. and L. J. Sears. 1998. Fumigant properties of physical
preparations from Mountain big sagebrush*, Artemisia tridentate* Nutt.
ssp. v*aseyana* (Rydb.) Beetle for stored grain insects. J. Stored Prod.
Res. 34(4):307-321.

Fields, P. and N. D. G. White. 2002. Alternatives to methyl bromide
treatments for stored-product and quarantine insects. Annual Review of
Entomology 47:331-59.

Hou, X., P. Fields, and W. Taylor. 2004. The effect of repellents on
penetration into packaging by stored-product insects. J Stored Prod.
Res. 40:47-54.

Mahroof, R., Subramanyam, B. and Eustace, D. 2003. Temperature and
relative humidity profiles during heat treatment of mills and its
efficacy against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) life stages. J. Stored
Prod. Res. 39:555-569.

Mahroof, R., B. Subramanyam, J. E. Throne, and A. Menon. 2003.
Time-mortality relationships for *Tribolium castaneum* (Coleoptera:
Tenebrionidae) life stages exposed to elevated temperatures. J. Econ.
Entomol. 96(4): 1345-1351.

Mueller, D. K. 1998. Stored product protection...a period of transition.
Insects Limited, Inc., Indianapolis, IN. 337 pp.

Nielsen, P. S. 1998. The effect of a diatomaceous earth formulation on
the larvae of *Ephestia kuehniella* Zeller. J Stored Prod. Res
34:113-121.

Oberlander, H., D. L. Silhacek, E. Shaaya, and I. Ishaaya. 1997. Current
status and future perspectives of the use of insect growth regulators
for the control of stored product insects. J Stored Prod. Res. 33:1-6.

Skovgard, H., N. Holst, and P. S. Nielsen. 1999. Simulation model of the
Mediterranean flour moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Danish flour mills.
Environ. Entomol. 28(6):1060-1066.

UNEP. 1998. 1998 Assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. United
Nations Publication.

UNEP. 2001. Sourcebook of Technologies for protecting the ozone layer:
alternatives to methyl bromide. United Nations Publication

Zettler, J. L. 1991. Pesticide resistance in *Tribolium castaneum* and
*T. confusum* (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) form flour mills in the United
States. J. Econ. Entomol. 84(3):763-767.

Zettler, J. L. and F. H. Arthur. 2000. Chemical control of stored
product insects with fumigants and residual treatments. Crop Protection
19:577-582.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Appendix A**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589447 .anchor}

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

**[Appendix A - Table 1: Effect of temperature on concentration and time
thresholds for some pests of stored products. (From: Bell, C. H.
2000]{.smallcaps})**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589472 .anchor}

+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+
| **[Specie        | **[Fum     | **[          | **[Tem   |           |
| s]{.smallcaps}** | igant]{.sm | Threshold]{. | perature |           |
|                  | allcaps}** | smallcaps}** | (ºC      |           |
|                  |            |              | )]{.smal |           |
|                  |            | **[(ºC or    | lcaps}** |           |
|                  |            | time)]{.     |          |           |
|                  |            | smallcaps}** |          |           |
+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+
|                  |            |              | **[1     | **        |
|                  |            |              | 5]{.smal | [25]{.sma |
|                  |            |              | lcaps}** | llcaps}** |
+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+
| *Sitophilus      | Methyl     | ºC (mg/l)    | 0.6-0.9  | 1.3-2.0   |
| oryzae*          | Bromide    |              |          |           |
+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+
| *Tribolium       | Methyl     | ºC (mg/l)    | 1.3-2.0  | 2.5-3.0   |
| confusum*        | Bromide    |              |          |           |
+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+
| *Tribolium       | Methyl     | ºC (mg/l)    | 1.3-2.0  | 3.0-3.5   |
| castaneum*       | Bromide    |              |          |           |
+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+
| *Tribolium       | Phosphine  | ºC (mg/l)    |          | 0.0       |
| castaneum*       |            |              |          | 05-0.0011 |
+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+
| *Tribolium       | Phosphine  | Time (h)     |          | 0.5-1.5   |
| castaneum*       |            |              |          |           |
+------------------+------------+--------------+----------+-----------+

For phosphine relatively long exposure times are required for kill of
all stages & time threshold is more important than the concentration for
efficient fumigant action.

**[Appendix A - Table 2: Concentration-Time Product recommendations by
National Pest Management
Association]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589473 .anchor}

+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| **[Species      | *  | **[  | *       |         | *       |         |
| ]{.smallcaps}** | *[ | Temp | *[Ounce |         | *[Mg/l] |         |
|                 | St | (°C  | -Hours] |         | {.small |         |
|                 | ag | )]{. | {.small |         | caps}** |         |
|                 | e] | smal | caps}** |         |         |         |
|                 | {. | lcap |         |         |         |         |
|                 | sm | s}** |         |         |         |         |
|                 | al |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lc |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ap |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | s} |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ** |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 |    |      | **[Pho  | **[Pho  | **      | **[S    |
|                 |    |      | sphine] | sphine] | [Methyl | ulfuryl |
|                 |    |      | {.small | {.small | B       | Fl      |
|                 |    |      | caps}** | caps}** | romide] | uoride] |
|                 |    |      |         |         | {.small | {.small |
|                 |    |      | **[72   | **[144  | caps}** | caps}** |
|                 |    |      | hr]     | hr]     |         |         |
|                 |    |      | {.small | {.small |         |         |
|                 |    |      | caps}** | caps}** |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Lasioderma     | eg | 4.4  |         |         | 146.4   |         |
| serricorne*     | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | eg | 10   | 8.5     | 49.5    | 91.2    |         |
|                 | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | eg | 15.6 | 61.8    | 37.9    | 48      |         |
|                 | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | eg | 21.1 | 0.64    | 0.86    | 43.2    |         |
|                 | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | eg | 26.5 |         |         |         | 711.7   |
|                 | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 4.4  | 6.9     | 1.2     | 379.2   |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 10   | 3.7     | 0.86    | 206.4   |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 15.6 | 0.94    | 0.72    | 132     |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 21.1 | 0.5     | 0.43    | 120     |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 26.5 |         |         |         | 55.9    |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 4.4  | 5.6     | 7.4     | 1046    |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 10   | 5.6     | 4.6     | 324     |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 15.6 | 5.2     | 1.3     | 124.8   |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 21.1 | 0.58    | 0.3     | 108     |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 4.4  | 2.2     | 1.9     | 230.4   |         |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 10   | 1.8     | 1.1     | 105.6   |         |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 15.6 | 1       | 0.5     | 64.8    |         |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 21.1 | 0.36    | 0.3     | 57.6    |         |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 26.5 |         |         |         | 34.9    |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Sitophilus     | a  | 21   | 0.36    |         | 30      |         |
| oryzae*         | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Tribolium      | eg | 26.7 |         |         |         | 1124.8  |
| confusum*       | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 4.4  |         |         | 209.3   | 178.2   |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 15.6 |         |         | 92.8    | 97.6    |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 25   | 0.48    |         | 64      | 55      |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | a  | 26.7 |         |         | 74.2    | 76.5    |
|                 | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Tribolium      | a  | 24   | 11.5    |         | 62      |         |
| castaneum*      | du |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | lt |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| *Plodia         | eg | 15   |         |         | 53      |         |
| interpunctella* | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | eg | 20   |         |         | 29      |         |
|                 | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | eg | 25   |         |         | 22      |         |
|                 | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | eg | 30   |         |         | 21      |         |
|                 | gs |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 15   |         |         | 34      |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 20   |         |         | 31      |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 25   |         |         | 24      |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | la | 30   |         |         | 25      |         |
|                 | rv |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 15   |         |         | 64      |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 20   |         |         | 50      |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 25   |         |         | 43      |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                 | p  | 30   |         |         | 35      |         |
|                 | up |      |         |         |         |         |
|                 | ae |      |         |         |         |         |
+-----------------+----+------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

**REMINDER**

**Insert a blank for Appendix B**

**APPENDIX B. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65589474 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Footnotes for Appendix B:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

1.  **[Average Volume in the U.S.]{.underline}** -- Average Volume in
    the U.S. is the average of 2001 and 2002 total volume fumigated with
    methyl bromide in the U.S. in this sector (when available).

2.  **[% of Average Volume Requested]{.underline}** - Percent (%) of
    Average Volume Requested is the total volume in the sector's request
    divided by the Average Volume in the U.S. (when available).

3.  **[2006 Amount of Request]{.underline}** -- The 2006 amount of
    request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total
    pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total volume of methyl
    bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of
    methyl bromide per thousand cubic feet. U.S. units of measure were
    used to describe the initial request and then were converted to
    metric units to calculate the amount of the U.S. nomination.

4.  **[2001 & 2002 Average Use]{.underline}** -- The 2001 & 2002 Average
    Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures
    provided by the applicants given in kilograms active ingredient of
    methyl bromide, total volume of methyl bromide use, and application
    rate in kilograms active ingredient of methyl bromide per thousand
    cubic meters. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to
    unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use
    figure is used.

5.  **[Quarantine and Pre-Shipment]{.underline}** -- Quarantine and
    pre-shipment (QPS) is the percentage (%) of the applicant's
    requested amount subject to QPS treatments.

6.  **[Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume]{.underline}** --
    Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume is the 2001 and 2002
    average estimate of volume of methyl bromide used within the defined
    region (when available).

7.  [**Regional Volume, Requested Volume %**]{.underline} - Regional
    Volume, Requested Volume % is the volume in the applicant's request
    divided by the total volume fumigated with methyl bromide in the
    sector in the region covered by the request.

8.  **[2006 Nomination Options]{.underline}** -- 2006 Nomination Options
    are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust
    the initial applicant request into the nomination figure.

9.  **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts]{.underline}** --
    Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were
    subtracted from the initial request amount.

10. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request]{.underline}**
    -- Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting
    point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant
    request in kilograms.

11. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double
    Counting]{.underline}** - Subtractions from Requested Amounts,
    Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations
    where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual
    application while a consortium has also made a request for a CUE on
    their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the
    double counting is removed from the consortium application and the
    individual application takes precedence.

12. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE
    Comparison]{.underline}** - Subtractions from Requested Amounts,
    Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the
    estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the
    amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater
    than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the
    difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE
    application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003
    CUE application.

13. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS]{.underline}** -
    Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in
    kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction
    estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting,
    minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the
    percentage subject to QPS treatments. *Subtraction from Requested
    Amounts, QPS = (2006 Request -- Double Counting -- Growth)\*(QPS %)*

14. **[Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate
    Difference]{.underline}** -- Subtractions from requested amounts,
    use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the
    lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The
    subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double
    Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount,
    if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate
    and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares.

15. **[Adjustments to Requested Amounts]{.underline}** -- Adjustments to
    requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of
    methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations
    were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These
    are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to
    make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate
    category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category.

16. **[Use Rate kg/ 1000 m^3^ 2006]{.underline}** -- Use rate in pounds
    per thousand cubic feet, 2006, is the use rate requested by the
    applicant as derived from the total volume to be fumigated divided
    by the total amount (in pounds) of methyl bromide requested.

17. **[Use Rate kg/ 1000 m^3^ low]{.underline}** -- Use rate in pounds
    per thousand cubic feet, low, is the lowest historic use rate
    reported by the applicant. The use rate selected for determining the
    amount to nominate is the lower of this rate or the 2006 use rate
    (above).

18. **[(%) Key Pest Impacts]{.underline}** - Percent (%) of the
    requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are
    those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For
    structures/ food facilities and commodities, key pests are assumed
    to infest 100% of the volume for the specific uses requested in that
    100% of the problem must be eradicated.

19. **[Adopt New Fumigants (%)]{.underline}** -- Adopt new fumigants (%)
    is the percent (%) of the requested volume where we expect
    alternatives could be adopted to replace methyl bromide during the
    year of the CUE request.

20. **[Combined Impacts (%)]{.underline}** - Total combined impacts are
    the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be
    used due to key pest, regulatory, and new fumigants. In each case
    the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by
    any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently
    distributed unless contrary evidence was available (e.g., affects
    are known to be mutually exclusive).

21. **[Qualifying Volume]{.underline}** - Qualifying volume (1000 cubic
    meters) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted volume by the
    combined impacts.

22. **[CUE Nominated amount]{.underline}** - CUE nominated amount is
    calculated by multiplying the qualifying volume by the use rate.

23. **[Percent Reduction]{.underline}** - Percent reduction from initial
    request is the percentage of the initial request that did not
    qualify for the CUE nomination.

24. **[Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector]{.underline}** -
    Self-explanatory.

25. **[Total U.S. Sector Nomination]{.underline}** - Total U.S. sector
    nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that
    sector.

26. **[Dichotomous Variables]{.underline}** -- dichotomous variables are
    those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no.
    These variables were used to categorize the uses during the
    preparation of the nomination.

27. **[Currently Use Alternatives]{.underline}** -- Currently use
    alternatives is 'yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some
    portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use
    methyl bromide is made.

28. **[Research/ Transition Plans]{.underline}** -- Research/ Transition
    Plans is 'yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is
    research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to
    transition to alternatives.

29. **[Pest-free Market. Required]{.underline}** - This variable is a
    'yes' when the product must be pest-free in order to be sold either
    because of U.S. sanitary requirements or because of consumer
    acceptance.

30. **[Other Issues]{.underline}**.- Other issues is a short reminder of
    other elements of an application that were checked

31. **[Change from Prior CUE Request]{.underline}**- This variable takes
    a '+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a
    '0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a
    '-' if the current request is smaller that the previous request. If
    the applicant has not previously applied the word 'new' appears in
    this column.

32. **[Verified Historic Use/ State]{.underline}**- This item indicates
    whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been
    compared to records of historic use in that area.

33. **[Frequency of Treatment]{.underline}** -- This indicates how often
    methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from
    multiple times per year to once in several decades.

34. **[Economic Analysis]{.underline}** -- provides summary economic
    information for the applications.

35. **[Loss per 1000 m^3^]{.underline}** -- This measures the total loss
    per 1000 m^3^ of fumigation when a specific alternative is used in
    place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of
    yield loss (relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any
    additional costs incurred through use of the alternative, such as
    longer time spent in the fumigation chamber. It is measured in
    current U.S. dollars.

36. **[Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide]{.underline}** -- This
    measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is
    replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized
    value of yield loss (relative to yields obtained with methyl
    bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the
    alternative. It is measured in current U.S. dollars.

37. **[Loss as a % of Gross revenue]{.underline}** -- This measures the
    loss as a proportion of gross (total) revenue. Loss comprises both
    the monetized value of yield loss (relative to yields obtained with
    methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the
    alternative. It is measured in current U.S. dollars.

38. **[Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue]{.underline}** -This
    measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating
    costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss
    (relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional
    costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in
    current U.S. dollars. This item is also called net cash returns.

39. **[Quality/ Time/ Market Window/Yield Loss (%)]{.underline}** --
    When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses
    including quality losses, non-productive time, missed market windows
    and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy.

40. **[Marginal Strategy]{.underline}** -This is the strategy that a
    particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use
    methyl bromide.

**[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}**

A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this
application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases
they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already
well-characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors.
Examples of the former include significant additional country (cured,
uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant
trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu
of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage
production in Florida and California ('Ornamentals') and a group of
structures and process foods that we have termed 'Post-Harvest NPMA'
which includes processed (generally wheat-based foods), spices and
herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other
commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field-grown
tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both
technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate
sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to
ensure that no double-counting, growth, etc. were included and that the
amount was only sufficient to cover situations (key pests, regulatory
requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991
U.S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40%
for pre-plant uses and 60% for post-harvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that
would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the
range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl
bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional
methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U.S.
baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre-plant
and post-harvest sector.

  -------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------
  **Applicant Name**                        **2005 U.S. CUE Nomination
                                            (lbs)**

  California Cut Flower Commission          400,000

  National Country Ham Association          1,172

  Wayco Ham Company                         39

  California Date Commission                5,319

  National Pest Management Association      319,369

  Michigan Pepper Growers                   20,904

  Michigan Eggplant Growers                 6,968

  Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA -       2,254
  Transplant Trays                          

  Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA -       28,980
  Field Grown                               

  Virginia Tobacco Growers - Transplant     941
  Trays                                     

  Michigan Herbaceous Perennials            4,200

  Ozark Country Hams                        240

  Nahunta Pork Center                       248

  American Association of Meat              296,800
  Processors                                

  Total lbs                                 **1,087,434**

  Total kgs                                 **493,252**
  -------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------