**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Strawberries Grown for Fruit in Open Fields on Plastic
Tarps]{.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     |
| Descriptive Title  | Preplant Soil Use for Strawberries Grown for    |
| of                 | Fruit in Open Fields on Plastic                 |
| Nominati           | Tarps]{.smallcaps}                              |
| 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]{.smallcaps} 7](#part-a-summary)

[1. Nominating Party 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65581749)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65581750)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65581751)

[4. Methyl Bromide Nominated 8](#__RefHeading___Toc65581752)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65581753)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65581754)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
10](#__RefHeading___Toc65581755)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
11](#__RefHeading___Toc65581756)

[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65581757)

[California - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}
13](#california---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[California - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65581759)

[California - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65581760)

[California - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65581761)

[[California - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
16](#california---part-c-technical-validation)

[California - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65581763)

[California - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65581764)

[California - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration
Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
19](#__RefHeading___Toc65581765)

[California - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested 20](#__RefHeading___Toc65581766)

[California - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65581767)

[California - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
22](#__RefHeading___Toc65581768)

[California - Summary of Technical Feasibility
22](#california---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[Eastern US - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}
22](#eastern-us---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Eastern US - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
22](#__RefHeading___Toc65581771)

[Eastern US - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65581772)

[Eastern US - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
24](#__RefHeading___Toc65581773)

[[Eastern US - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
25](#eastern-us---part-c-technical-validation)

[Eastern US - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
25](#__RefHeading___Toc65581775)

[Eastern US - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65581776)

[Eastern US - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration
Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
28](#__RefHeading___Toc65581777)

[Eastern US - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested 28](#__RefHeading___Toc65581778)

[Eastern US - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
29](#__RefHeading___Toc65581779)

[Eastern US - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
29](#__RefHeading___Toc65581780)

[Eastern US - Summary of Technical Feasibility
29](#eastern-us---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[Florida - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}
30](#florida---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Florida - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65581783)

[Florida - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65581784)

[Florida - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65581785)

[[Florida - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
33](#florida---part-c-technical-validation)

[Florida - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
33](#__RefHeading___Toc65581787)

[Florida - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 35](#__RefHeading___Toc65581788)

[Florida - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
36](#__RefHeading___Toc65581789)

[Florida - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested 36](#__RefHeading___Toc65581790)

[Florida - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
37](#__RefHeading___Toc65581791)

[Florida - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
37](#__RefHeading___Toc65581792)

[Florida - Summary of Technical Feasibility
37](#florida-summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 38](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use 38](#__RefHeading___Toc65581795)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 39](#__RefHeading___Toc65581796)

[[Part E: Economic Assessment]{.smallcaps}
40](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
40](#__RefHeading___Toc65581798)

[22. Gross and Net Revenue 41](#__RefHeading___Toc65581799)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
42](#__RefHeading___Toc65581800)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 43](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 47](#part-f.-future-plans)

[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 47](#__RefHeading___Toc65581803)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 51](#__RefHeading___Toc65581804)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
54](#__RefHeading___Toc65581805)

[26. Citations 56](#__RefHeading___Toc65581806)

[Citations Reviewed but Not Applicable 58](#__RefHeading___Toc65581807)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
64](#__RefHeading___Toc65581808)

***List of Tables***

[*[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps}* 7](#part-a-summary)

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 8](#__RefHeading___Toc65581810)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 9](#__RefHeading___Toc65581811)

[Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
10](#table-7.1-proportion-of-crops-grown-using-methyl-bromide)

[California - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
Use
11](#california---table-8.1-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use)

[Eastern US - Table 8.2: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
Use 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65581814)

[Florida - Table 8.3: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
Use
12](#florida---table-8.3-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use)

[Table A.2: 2006 Sector Nomination -- Strawberries
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65581816)

[*[California - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
13](#california---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[California - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65581818)

[California - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65581819)

[California - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65581820)

[California - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65581821)

[*[California - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
16](#california---part-c-technical-validation)

[California -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65581823)

[California -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65581824)

[California -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
19](#__RefHeading___Toc65581825)

[California -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Key Pest 1
20](#__RefHeading___Toc65581826)

[Table 16.2. Effects of Soil Fumigation with Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin
(MB/CP) vs. Dichloropropene/Chloropicrin (DP/CP) on Yields (grams/plant)
of Strawberry in 10 Studies 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65581827)

[California -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65581828)

[*[Eastern US - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
22](#eastern-us---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Eastern US - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 22](#__RefHeading___Toc65581830)

[Eastern US - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65581831)

[Eastern US - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65581832)

[Eastern US - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
24](#__RefHeading___Toc65581833)

[*[Eastern US - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
25](#eastern-us---part-c-technical-validation)

[Eastern US -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65581835)

[Eastern US -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
28](#__RefHeading___Toc65581836)

[Eastern US -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
28](#__RefHeading___Toc65581837)

[*[Florida - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
30](#florida---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Florida - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 30](#__RefHeading___Toc65581839)

[Florida - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65581840)

[Florida - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
31](#__RefHeading___Toc65581841)

[Florida - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65581842)

[*[Florida - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
33](#florida---part-c-technical-validation)

[Florida -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
36](#__RefHeading___Toc65581844)

[Florida -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
36](#__RefHeading___Toc65581845)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 38](#part-d-emission-control)

[Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions
38](#table-19.1-techniques-to-minimize-methyl-bromide-use-and-emissions)

[*[Part E: Economic Assessment]{.smallcaps}*
40](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 40](#__RefHeading___Toc65581849)

[Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
41](#__RefHeading___Toc65581850)

[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
41](#__RefHeading___Toc65581851)

[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
41](#__RefHeading___Toc65581852)

[California - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
42](#__RefHeading___Toc65581853)

[Eastern US - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
42](#__RefHeading___Toc65581854)

[Florida - Table E.3: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
42](#__RefHeading___Toc65581855)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 47](#part-f.-future-plans)

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
60](#__RefHeading___Toc65581857)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps}                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581749
  .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581750 .anchor}

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
  Strawberries Grown for Fruit in Open Fields On Plastic Tarps
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop
  System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581751 .anchor}

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

This nomination covers methyl bromide use in three major strawberry
production areas---California, Florida, and states in the Eastern US
(Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, West
Virginia and Virginia).

***California.*** California produces more than 80 percent of the fresh
market and processed strawberries grown in the U.S. California produces
about 20 percent of the world's strawberries. Most strawberries exported
from California go to Canada, Japan, and Mexico.

California has two distinct strawberry production areas. The southern
region produces both fresh (63 percent) and processed (37 percent)
strawberries. The northern region includes both rotated and non-rotated
strawberry production regimes, with each producing fresh (84 percent)
and processed (16 percent) strawberries. The majority of growers are
farming between 4 and 20 hectares of land with strawberry fields in
rotation. Because strawberry production in California is concentrated in
a small geographic location due to optimal growing conditions, factors
that affect this small area can be significant. An example of this,
which is discussed later in this chapter, is the regulatory limit on the
amount of 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone) that can be used in each township
(i.e., 36 square mile area, approximately 95 square km) in California.

Depending on the region, California strawberries are planted in the
Summer or Fall. Prior to planting, fumigation is typically performed on
flat ground over the entire surface of the field. Immediately after
fumigation the field is covered with plastic. At the end of the
fumigation period, the plastic is removed and planting beds are formed
and covered with fresh plastic. Strawberry plants are transplanted about
two weeks after fumigation to ensure that no phytotoxic levels of methyl
bromide remain. Harvest begins about 2 to 3 months later. At the end of
the first harvest, the strawberry plants are removed and the field is
readied for the next crop. Rotational crops that are planted after
strawberries, and that benefit from the previous use of methyl bromide
include broccoli, celery, lettuce, radish, leeks, and artichokes.

***Florida.*** Florida is the second largest strawberry producing state
with 12 percent of the total U.S. production. Nearly all of the
domestically produced strawberries harvested in the winter are grown in
Florida.

Strawberries are grown as an annual crop in Florida using a raised-bed
system. Methyl bromide in combination with chloropicrin is applied to
the soil during construction of the raised-beds approximately two weeks
prior to planting transplants. Immediately after application, the bed is
covered with plastic mulch. Drip or overhead irrigation is used to help
establish plants, irrigate plants, and to protect the plants from frost.
Many strawberry growers utilize the beds and drip tubes to grow a second
crop, such as cucurbits or solanaceous crops.

***Eastern U.S.*** The Eastern U.S. strawberry industry is highly
de-centralized and primarily consists of small family farms with several
hectares of strawberries that are directly marketed through U-pick,
ready-pick, roadside stands, and farmers markets

Strawberry production in the eastern states differs from that in Florida
because of soils type (Florida typically has sandy soils; eastern soils
are heavier); topography (Florida has much karst topography; much less
common in other states), climate (very mild winters in Florida), farm
size (farms are larger in Florida), and marketing practices (Florida is
typically commercial compared to small U-pick operations) In the Eastern
U.S., the vast majority of the strawberry farms use an annual cropping
plasti-culture production system where the berries are grown on raised
beds similar to Florida strawberry production. Planting time is similar
to Florida, but the production peak occurs later in the season, between
April and May. About 50 percent of the soils have textures finer than
sandy loam. Nutsedge is a primary pest on about 40 percent of the land
that typically has coarse-textured soils. Some double cropping of beds
occurs.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581752 .anchor}

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581810 .anchor}

  ------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
  **[Year]{.smallcaps}**   **[Nomination Amount           **[Nomination Area
                           (kg)]{.smallcaps}**            (ha)]{.smallcaps}**

  **2006**                 **1,615,339**                  **8,680**
  ------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581753 .anchor}

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

The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are not
suitable. In US strawberry fruit production there are several factors
that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. 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 for use in
    strawberry fruit production.

-   geographic distribution of key target pests: i.e., some alternatives
    may be comparable to methyl bromide as long as key pests occur at
    low pressure, and in such cases the US is only nominating a CUE for
    strawberry fruit where the key pest pressure is moderate to high
    such as nutsedge in the Southeastern US.

-   regulatory constraints: e.g., telone use is limited in California
    due to townships caps and in Florida due to the presence of karst
    geology.

-   delay in planting and harvesting: e.g., the plant-back interval for
    telone+chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl
    bromide+chloropicrin. Delays in planting and harvesting result in
    users missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues
    through lower prices.

-   unsuitable topography: e.g., alternatives that must be applied with
    drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with rolling or sloped
    topography due to uneven distribution of the fumigant.

The United States (U.S.) nomination for strawberry fruit-field is a
critical need for an amount of methyl bromide (MB) in areas with
moderate to severe pest pressure, because currently there are no
feasible alternatives and farmers would face severe economic hardships
in the absence of MB. Where there is moderate to severe pest pressure,
the suggested alternatives for strawberry fruit production fail to
provide the necessary degree of pest control or their use is not easily
adoptable due to state-imposed restrictions. The nomination also notes
that applying alternatives is further complicated when plant-back
restrictions prevent farmers from meeting marketing windows (e.g.,
winter or early spring) when strawberry sale prices are as much as 100%
higher than during the rest of the year (see Market Window Information).
The nomination notes significant progress in adopting emission reduction
technologies and changing formulations and application rates to reduce
MB dosage rates to some of the lowest in the world, and that further
trials are being conducted to evaluate new alternatives, and to test
ways of overcoming constraints in further lowering MB formulations and
adopting even more impermeable barriers.

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581811 .anchor}

+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ### Region                  | ***Cal     | ***Eastern | ***        |
|                             | ifornia*** | US***      | Florida*** |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ##### [Amount               |            |            |            |
|  of Nomination]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms        | 1,086,777  | 230,332    | 295,853    |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Application Rate          | 196        | 151        | 185        |
| (kg/ha)**                   |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Area (ha)**               | 5,552      | 1,528      | 1,600      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ##### [Amount of App        |            |            |            |
| licant Request]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms        | 1,632,931  | 350,534    | 579,691    |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Application Rate          | 202        | 151        | 202        |
| (kg/ha)**                   |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Area (ha)**               | 8,094      | 2,317      | 2,873      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| #### [Economics For Next Be |            |            |            |
| st Alternative]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Marginal Strategy**       | 1,3-D+PIC  | 1,3-D+PIC  | ####       |
|                             |            |            |  1,3-D+PIC |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ####  Yield Loss (%)        | 14         | 14         | 25         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Loss per hectare          | 11,817     | 9,319      | 14,447     |
| (US\$/ha)**                 |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Loss per kg Methyl        | 58.57      | 62.05      | 77.72      |
| Bromide (US\$/kg)**         |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Loss as % of Gross        | 16         | 18         | 20         |
| Revenue (%)**               |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Loss as % of Net Revenue  | 87         | 42         | 52         |
| (%)**                       |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581754 .anchor}:

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

Despite use of many alternatives, many of which have already been
incorporated into standard strawberry production systems, methyl bromide
is believed to be the only currently available treatment that
consistently provides reliable control of nutsedge species, nematodes
and the disease complex affecting strawberry production. Only acreage
with moderate to high pest pressure is included in this nomination.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581755 .anchor}

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

#### [[Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}

+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **[Region where   | **[Total crop     | **[Proportion of total crop  |
| Methyl Bromide    | ar                | area treated with methyl     |
| use is            | ea]{.smallcaps}** | bromide]{.smallcaps}**       |
| request           |                   |                              |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | **[2001 & 2002    | **[(%)]{.smallcaps}**        |
|                   | Avera             |                              |
|                   | ge]{.smallcaps}** |                              |
|                   |                   |                              |
|                   | **[(h             |                              |
|                   | a)]{.smallcaps}** |                              |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| ##### California  | 11,109            | 74                           |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **Eastern US**    | Not available     | Not available                |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **Florida**       | 2,873             | 94                           |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **[National       | 19,486            | 65                           |
| Total\            |                   |                              |
| *:]{.smallcaps}** |                   |                              |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+

\* National total includes other regions not requesting methyl bromide.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*ii*) [If only part of the crop area is treated with methyl
  bromide, indicate the reason why methyl bromide is not used in the
  other area, and identify what alternative strategies are used to
  control the target pathogens and weeds without methyl bromide
  there.]{.smallcaps}**

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

-   California has requested enough methyl bromide to treat about 75-85%
    of the state's strawberry crop with methyl bromide.

-   Southeastern states consortium claims that 90% of the total acreage
    grown in this area is treated with methyl bromide.

-   Total acreage grown is 6900 acres and Florida has requested 7100
    acres to be treated with methyl bromide.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*iii*) [Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods
  to cover at least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl
  bromide? What changes would be necessary to enable this?]{.smallcaps}**

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

California has proposed to rigorously test alternatives and is committed
to finding alternatives to methyl bromide. The other regions have not
proposed reduction in use, however, these regions use significantly less
methyl bromide than does California.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581756 .anchor}

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

#### [California - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use]{.smallcaps}

+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| # [Region: California]{.smallcaps}                       | ##### C   |
|                                                          | alifornia |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}                | **[2      |
|                                                          | 006]{.sma |
|                                                          | llcaps}** |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}                | 1,632,931 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed                       | Flat      |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                                   | F         |
|                                                          | umigation |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of methyl          |           |
| bromide/chloropicrin mixture)* [to be used for the       |           |
| CUE]{.smallcaps}                                         |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl bromide or     | 8,094     |
| methyl bromide/Chloropicrin formulation]{.smallcaps}     |           |
| *(m^2^ or ha)*                                           |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| [Application rate\* (kg/ha) for the **active             | 202       |
| ingredient**]{.smallcaps}                                |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\* (g/m^2^) of **active ingredient** used to |           |
| calculate requested kilograms of methyl                  |           |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                                     |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [for the      |           |
| **formulation**]{.smallcaps}                             |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of               |           |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested kilograms of |           |
| methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}                              |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+

*\* For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may
be the same.*

**[Eastern US - Table 8.2: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for
Critical Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581814 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| # [Region: EASTERN UNITED States]{.smallcaps}             | ###      |
|                                                           | ## Easte |
|                                                           | rn U. S. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}                 | **[200   |
|                                                           | 6]{.smal |
|                                                           | lcaps}** |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}                 | 350,534  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed Treatment]{.smallcaps} | Bed      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of methyl           | 67:33    |
| bromide/Chloropicrin mixture)* [to be used for the        |          |
| CUE]{.smallcaps}                                          |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl bromide or      | 2,317    |
| methyl bromide/Chloropicrin formulation]{.smallcaps}      |          |
| *(m^2^ or ha)*                                            |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| [Application rate\* (kg/ha) for the **active              | 151      |
| ingredient**]{.smallcaps}                                 |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| [Dosage rate\* (g/m^2^) of **active ingredient** used to  | 30.2     |
| calculate requested kilograms of methyl                   |          |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                                      |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [for the       | 151      |
| **formulation**]{.smallcaps}                              |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of                | 15       |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested kg of methyl  |          |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                                      |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+

*\* For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may
be the same.*

#### 

#### [Florida - Table 8.3: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use]{.smallcaps}

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| # [Region: Florida]{.smallcaps}                            | #####   |
|                                                            | Florida |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}                  | *       |
|                                                            | *[2006] |
|                                                            | {.small |
|                                                            | caps}** |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}                  | 579,691 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed                         | Bed     |
| Treatment\*]{.smallcaps}                                   |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of methyl            | 98:2    |
| bromide/Chloropicrin mixture)* [to be used for the         |         |
| CUE\*\*]{.smallcaps}                                       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl bromide or       | 2,873   |
| methyl bromide/Chloropicrin formulation]{.smallcaps}       |         |
| *(m^2^ or ha)*                                             |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| [Application rate\* (kg/ha) for the **active               | 202     |
| ingredient**]{.smallcaps}                                  |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| [Dosage rate\* (g/m^2^) of **active ingredient** used to   | 14      |
| calculate requested kilograms of methyl                    |         |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                                       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [for the        | 206     |
| **formulation**]{.smallcaps}                               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of **formulation** | 142     |
| used to calculate requested kg of methyl                   |         |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                                       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

*\* Florida states maximum bed width is 3 feet with 10,100 linear bed
feet/acre, which totals 69% of acre treated.*

*\*\* Florida states that growers use 98:2 formulation for sting
nematode control.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity |
| Nominated for Each                                                    |
| Region]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581757 .anchor}          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the US was calculated as    |
| follows:                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   The percent of regional hectares in the applicant's request was   |
|     divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region      |
|     covered by the request. Values greater than 100 percent are due   |
|     to the inclusion of additional varieties in the applicant's       |
|     request that were not included in the USDA National Agricultural  |
|     Statistics Service surveys of the crop.                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within   |
|     one year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl        |
|     bromide were subtracted. There was no double counting in this     |
|     sector.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Growth or increasing production (the amount of area requested by  |
|     the applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was |
|     subtracted. The three applicants that included growth in their    |
|     request had the growth amount removed.                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares is the area in the     |
|     applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Not applicable in  |
|     this sector.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following        |
|     impacts were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy  |
|     key pest pressure, regulatory impacts, karst topography, buffer   |
|     zones, and unsuitable terrain.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**[Table A.2: 2006 Sector Nomination --
Strawberries\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581816 .anchor}

+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| #####   |                       | **Cal     | ##### E   | **        |
| 2006 St |                       | ifornia** | astern US | Florida** |
| rawberr |                       |           |           |           |
| ies Sec |                       |           |           |           |
| tor Nom |                       |           |           |           |
| ination |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Ap    | Requested Hectares    | 8,094     | 2,317     | 2,873     |
| plicant | (ha)                  |           |           |           |
| Request |                       |           |           |           |
| for     |                       |           |           |           |
| 2006**  |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Requested Application | 202       | 151       | 202       |
|         | Rate (kg/ha)          |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Requested Kilograms   | 1,632,931 | 350,534   | 579,691   |
|         | (kg)                  |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **CUE   | Nominated Hectares    | 5,552     | 1,528     | 1,600     |
| No      | (ha)                  |           |           |           |
| minated |                       |           |           |           |
| for     |                       |           |           |           |
| 2       |                       |           |           |           |
| 006\*** |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Nominated Application | 196       | 151       | 185       |
|         | Rate (kg/ha)          |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Nominated Kilograms   | 1,086,777 | 230,332   | 295,853   |
|         | (kg)                  |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2006  | Overall Reduction (%) | 37        |           |           |
| Sector  |                       |           |           |           |
| Nom     |                       |           |           |           |
| ination |                       |           |           |           |
| T       |                       |           |           |           |
| otals** |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | **2006 U. S. CUE      | 1,612,962 |           |           |
|         | Nomination (kg)**     |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | **Research Amount     | 2,377     |           |           |
|         | (kg)**                |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | **Total 2006 U.S.     | **1,      |           |           |
|         | Sector Nominated      | 615,339** |           |           |
|         | Kilograms (kg)**      |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

\* See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount
use calculated.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Californ                                                           |
| ia - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581759 .anchor}

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

**[California - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581818 .anchor}

  -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------
  **[Region where methyl     **[Key disease(s) and    **[Specific reasons why methyl
  bromide use is             weed(s) to genus and, if bromide is needed]{.smallcaps}**
  requested]{.smallcaps}**   known, to species        
                             level]{.smallcaps}**     

  California                 Diseases: Black root rot At moderate to severe pest
                             *(Rhizoctinia* and       pressure only MB can effectively
                             *Pythium* spp.), crown   control the target pests found in
                             rot (*Phytophthora       California. Uses of alternatives
                             cactorum*),              are limited by regulatory
                                                      restrictions such as the township
                                                      caps on the amount of
                                                      1,3-dichloropropene that can be
                                                      used. MB applications in
                                                      strawberries are typically made
                                                      using 67:33 or, where feasible,
                                                      57:43 mixtures with chloropicrin
                                                      under plastic mulch. Related
                                                      dosage rates of 202 kg/ha are
                                                      below the threshold in the MBTOC
                                                      2002 Report, making further
                                                      reduction difficult to achieve
                                                      without compromising pest
                                                      management.

  California                 Nematodes: root knot     
                             nematode (*Meloidogyne*  
                             spp.) Sting nematode     
                             (*Belonolaimus* spp.)    

  California                 Weeds: Yellow nutsedge   
                             (*Cyperus esculentus*),  
                             purple nutsedge          
                             (*Cyperus rotundus*),    
                             ryegrass, and winter     
                             annual weeds.            
  -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping
  System and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581760
  .anchor}

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

**[California - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581819 .anchor}

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}       | ###                      |
|                                           | [California]{.smallcaps} |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.       | Fruiting plants grown    |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)*   | from transplants         |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                    | Cultured as annual       |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years between |                          |
| replanting)*                              |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation]{.smallcaps}**   | Vegetables (e.g.         |
| *(if any)* **[and use of methyl bromide   | broccoli, celery,        |
| for other crops in the                    | lettuce, radish, leeks,  |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*       | cauliflower, artichokes) |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,     | Light and medium soils   |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                        |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide            | Yearly                   |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**                |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| *(e.g. every two years)*                  |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Other relevant factors:]{.smallcaps}** | None Identified          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

**[California - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581820 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><h6 id="jul"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">9 B</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>trace</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>trace</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>44.7</td>
<td>56.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>30.5</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>72.1</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)*</em></span></td>
<td>30.3</td>
<td>27.4</td>
<td>25.1</td>
<td>18.4</td>
<td>13.4</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>20.8</td>
<td>25.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting in
North**</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting in
South**</span></strong></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\*For Fresno, California.

\*\* In Northern California the crop is planted in September/October and
harvested from December through June/July. In Southern California the
crop is planted in the summer, generally in July, and harvested from
September thru December. The rotational crop, often celery, is grown
from March thru May. Average farm size in this area is about 30 acres,
100% of which is treated. Rotational crops include lettuce, celery, and
broccoli. In Northern California planting occurs in October/November and
harvesting occurs from April thru October; average farm size is 60
acres; rotational crops include lettuce, strawberries, broccoli and
cauliflower.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above
  characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any
  relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**

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

To the best of our knowledge none of the following characteristics of
the cropping system would affect adoption of a relevant alternative. The
US believes that the Telone township caps prevent the further adoption
of Telone as an alternative.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581761 .anchor}

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

**[California - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581821 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 6,808 | 7,401 | 8,600 | 8,248 | 8,456 | 7,912 |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of Flat | All   |       |       |       |       |       |
| Fumigation       | Flat  |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide   | Fumig |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to strip/bed | ation |       |       |       |       |       |
| use if strip     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| treatment is     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 1,83  | 1,92  | 2,26  | 1.91  | 1,61  | 1,59  |
| methyl bromide   | 3,235 | 8,597 | 4,789 | 9,240 | 1,775 | 2,156 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | Typi  |       |       |       |       |       |
| of methyl        | cally |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromid           | 67:33 |       |       |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin)*  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by     | Shank |       |       |       |       |       |
| which methyl     | inj   |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide          | ected |       |       |       |       |       |
| applie           | 25 to |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | 30 cm |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | deep  |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. injected  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| at 25cm depth,   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| hot gas)*        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 269   | 260   | 275   | 244   | 191   | 201   |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 26.9  | 26    | 27.5  | 24.4  | 19.1  | 20.1  |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulation      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| s]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

*\* For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may
be the same.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [California - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581763 .anchor}

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

**[California, California -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not
Being Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581823 .anchor}

+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| **[Name of   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons  | **[Is the    |
| Al           | for the alternative not being feasible | alternative  |
| ternative]{. | or available]{.smallcaps}**            | considered   |
| smallcaps}** |                                        | cost         |
|              |                                        | e            |
|              |                                        | ffective?]{. |
|              |                                        | smallcaps}** |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #            |                                        |              |
|  [Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-D        | Used alone, 1,3- Dichloropropene does  | No           |
| Dic          | not adequately control diseases and    |              |
| hloropropene | weeds. Buffer zones of 100 feet are    |              |
|              | too constraining for small fields.     |              |
| (1,3-D,      | Required Protective equipment          |              |
| Telone)      | (protective suits) pose a health risk  |              |
|              | to workers in hot and humid weather.   |              |
|              | Long pre-planting intervals affect     |              |
|              | cultivar selection, Integrated Pest    |              |
|              | Management practices, timing of        |              |
|              | harvest, marketing window options,     |              |
|              | land leasing decisions and crop        |              |
|              | rotation schedules. In CA, states      |              |
|              | regulations require township caps,     |              |
|              | which limits use of 1,3-               |              |
|              | Dichloropropene.                       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Basamid      | Basamid is not registered in the U.S.  | No           |
|              | for strawberry fruit production.       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Chloropicrin | Chloropicrin alone is not a            | No           |
|              | technically feasible alternative       |              |
|              | because it provides poor nematode and  |              |
|              | weed control, although it provides     |              |
|              | good disease control                   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam sodium | Metam-sodium alone is not a            | No           |
|              | technically feasible alternative       |              |
|              | because it provides unpredictable      |              |
|              | disease, nematode, and weed control.   |              |
|              | Metam sodium suffers from erratic      |              |
|              | efficacy most likely due to irregular  |              |
|              | distribution of the product through    |              |
|              | soil. Metam sodium if not technically  |              |
|              | feasible in California because it has  |              |
|              | limited activity against soilborne     |              |
|              | pathogens in strawberry fields.        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam        | Metam-sodium with chloropicrin is not  | No           |
| sodium,      | a technically feasible alternative     |              |
| chloropicrin | because it provides unpredictable      |              |
|              | disease, nematode, and weed control.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Methyl       | Promising, but it is not currently     | No           |
| iodide       | registered in the U.S. for strawberry  |              |
|              | fruit production.                      |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Nematicides  | Addressed individually (e.g., 1,3-D).  | No           |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Ozone        | Ozone is not technically feasible      | No           |
|              | alone because it doesn't control       |              |
|              | diseases and weeds.                    |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [No     |                                        |              |
| n Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| B            | Biofumigation is not technically       | No           |
| iofumigation | feasible because of the quantity of    |              |
|              | Brassica crop that would be needed to  |              |
|              | control target pests in strawberries   |              |
|              | (approximately three hectares would be |              |
|              | required for every hectare of          |              |
|              | strawberry production). Incorporation  |              |
|              | of Brassica at these levels is likely  |              |
|              | to have allelopathic effects on the    |              |
|              | target crop. In addition, field trials |              |
|              | growing tomatoes in cabbage residue    |              |
|              | produced inconsistent and inadequate   |              |
|              | efficacy, and poor yield in two years  |              |
|              | out of three.                          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Solarization | Solarization, when used alone for      | No           |
|              | pre-plant fumigation, is not           |              |
|              | technically feasible because it does   |              |
|              | not provide adequate control of a wide |              |
|              | range of soil-borne diseases and       |              |
|              | pests. This process is highly weather  |              |
|              | dependent and works best in            |              |
|              | combination with IPM for control of    |              |
|              | pests and diseases.                    |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Steam        | Although practiced successfully in     | No           |
|              | greenhouse situations, fumigation with |              |
|              | steam, when used alone in the field    |              |
|              | for pre-plant fumigation, is not       |              |
|              | operationally practical due to low     |              |
|              | application speeds and high energy     |              |
|              | requirements (1-3 weeks to treat one   |              |
|              | hectare). In addition results from     |              |
|              | field experiments steam treatment have |              |
|              | been erratic.                          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Biological   | Biological control is not technically  | No           |
| Control      | feasible as a stand alone replacement  |              |
|              | for methyl bromide because it does not |              |
|              | provide adequate control of target     |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Cover Crops  | Although already in use as part of an  | No           |
| and Mulching | Integrated Pest Management Program,    |              |
|              | cover crops and mulching alone do not  |              |
|              | provide adequate control of the target |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Crop         | Crop rotation is already being used in | No           |
| rot          | many strawberry production areas, but  |              |
| ation/fallow | does not adequately control the target |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Flooding and | Flooding and water management are not  | No           |
| water        | feasible due to limited water          |              |
| management   | resources, uneven topography in        |              |
|              | California, and in the eastern states  |              |
|              | by sandy soil types that would not     |              |
|              | retain the flood for an adequate time  |              |
|              | to control the pests.                  |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| General IPM  | General IPM is already practiced in    | No           |
|              | strawberry production, but it is not   |              |
|              | technically feasible as a stand-alone  |              |
|              | replacement for methyl bromide since a |              |
|              | combination of IPM methods do not      |              |
|              | offer adequate pest control by itself. |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Grafti       | Grafting/resistant rootstock/plant     | No           |
| ng/Resistant | breeding is not being used and it is   |              |
| roo          | not technically feasible because       |              |
| tstock/plant | grafting is not possible given the     |              |
| breeding     | physical characteristics of strawberry |              |
|              | plants. Breeding for resistance to     |              |
|              | pathogens is valuable as a long-term   |              |
|              | endeavor and the U.S. continues work   |              |
|              | in this area. At this point in time,   |              |
|              | plant breeding has not resulted in a   |              |
|              | cultivar that is sufficiently          |              |
|              | resistant to the major target pests.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | Organic Amendments/Compost is already  | No           |
| Amendm       | being used in certain regions of the   |              |
| ents/Compost | U.S., but is not technically feasible  |              |
|              | as a stand-alone replacement for       |              |
|              | methyl bromide.                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | In certain regions of the U.S. some    | No           |
| production   | organic production of strawberries     |              |
|              | occurs. However, as a stand alone      |              |
|              | replacement for methyl bromide it is   |              |
|              | not technically feasible because of    |              |
|              | reduced yields.                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Resistant    | Resistant cultivars are already being  | No           |
| cultivars    | used in certain regions of the U.S.,   |              |
|              | but it is not technically feasible as  |              |
|              | a stand-alone replacement for methyl   |              |
|              | bromide.                               |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Soil-less    | Soil-less culture is not being used    | No           |
| culture      | and it is not technically feasible     |              |
|              | because it requires a complete         |              |
|              | transformation of the U.S. production  |              |
|              | system. There are high costs           |              |
|              | associated with this as compared to    |              |
|              | current production practices.          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Sub          | Substrates/plant plugs are currently   | No           |
| strates/Plug | being used but are not technically     |              |
| plants       | feasible as a stand-alone replacement  |              |
|              | for methyl bromide. Although plug      |              |
|              | plants have actually proven to be more |              |
|              | vigorous than bare root transplants in |              |
|              | research trials, it is not known to    |              |
|              | what extent pathogens are controlled   |              |
|              | by this method. Weed control would     |              |
|              | still be an issue. And adopting this   |              |
|              | use would also require major retooling |              |
|              | of the industry.                       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Hand-weeding | Hand-weeding not listed as a standard  | No           |
|              | option. Hand-weeding strawberries is   |              |
|              | not a desirable practice for           |              |
|              | controlling weeds because they cannot  |              |
|              | be removed without damaging the        |              |
|              | plastic and thereby reducing its       |              |
|              | effectiveness in excluding weeds,      |              |
|              | insects, and pathogens.                |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [Combi  |                                        |              |
| nations of A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dich     | This combination is considered         | No, in areas |
| loropropene/ | technically feasible as an alternative | with         |
| Chloropicrin | in certain circumstances. Together     | moderate to  |
|              | they provide good nematicidal and      | severe pest  |
|              | fungicidal capabilities, but would     | infestation  |
|              | still require a herbicide partner to   | and if not   |
|              | control weeds. Regulatory restrictions | allowed by   |
|              | for each of the chemicals may further  | local        |
|              | limit their use.                       | regulations. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dich     | These combinations also provide good   | No, in areas |
| loropropene/ | nematicidal and fungicidal             | with         |
| Chloropicrin | capabilities, but would still require  | moderate to  |
| and Metam    | a herbicide partner to control weeds.  | severe pest  |
| sodium       |                                        | infestation  |
|              |                                        | and if not   |
|              |                                        | allowed by   |
|              |                                        | local        |
|              |                                        | regulations. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Basamid +    | Basamid is not registered in the U.S.  | No           |
| Chloropicrin | for strawberry fruit production.       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+

*\* Regulatory reasons include local restrictions (e.g. occupational
health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of
registration.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}**
  *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
  Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581764 .anchor}

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

**[California -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581824 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1                  | Drip application of 1,3-D in California, are    |
| ,3-Dichloropropene | less expensive and require smaller buffer zones |
|                    | than broadcast applications, making it the      |
|                    | preferred application method for this           |
|                    | alternative (drip, 90%; broadcast, 10%).        |
|                    | However, when 1,3-D fumigations by drip are     |
|                    | used other production costs are significantly   |
|                    | higher due to the need for herbicide            |
|                    | applications (i.e. metam sodium) and hand       |
|                    | weeding operations. Recent studies in           |
|                    | California found that fruit production costs    |
|                    | were 20-212% higher than with methyl            |
|                    | bromide/chloropicrin (Goldhue), with the        |
|                    | smaller cost estimates coming from VIF mulch    |
|                    | treatments that are not currently usable due to |
|                    | regulatory and technical issues.                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Chloropicrin       | Chloropicrin alone is not a technically         |
|                    | feasible alternative because it provides poor   |
|                    | nematode and weed control, although it provides |
|                    | good disease control                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Metam sodium       | Metam-sodium alone is not a technically         |
|                    | feasible alternative because it provides        |
|                    | unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed       |
|                    | control. Metam sodium suffers from erratic      |
|                    | efficacy most likely due to irregular           |
|                    | distribution of the product through soil. Metam |
|                    | sodium if not technically feasible in           |
|                    | California because it has limited activity      |
|                    | against soilborne pathogens in strawberry       |
|                    | fields.                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Sodium azide       | Does not sterilize ground. Yields equal to      |
|                    | untreated.                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1,3D/chloropicrin  | This combination is considered technically      |
|                    | feasible as an alternative in certain           |
|                    | circumstances. Together they provide good       |
|                    | nematicidal and fungicidal capabilities, but    |
|                    | would still require a herbicide partner to      |
|                    | control weeds. Regulatory restrictions for each |
|                    | of the chemicals may further limit their use.   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581765
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[California -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581825 .anchor}

+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of | #####                        | **            | **[Date  |
| Altern     |  Present Registration Status | [Registration | of       |
| ative]{.sm |                              | being         | possible |
| allcaps}** |                              | considered by | future   |
|            |                              | national      | regi     |
|            |                              | authorities?  | stration |
|            |                              | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|            |                              | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Basamid    | Not registered for use in    | Y             | Unknown  |
|            | U.S.                         |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Methyl     | Not registered for use in    | Y             | Unknown  |
| Iodide     | U.S.                         |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Registration in US has not   | N             | Unknown  |
| bromide    | yet been requested.          |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Registration in US has not   | N             | Unknown  |
| azide      | yet been requested.          |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[California -- 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant
  Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target
  Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581766 .anchor}

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

**[California -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Key Pest 1
Yellow Nutsedge]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581826 .anchor}

+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| **[Key Pest: Key Pest      | #####        |              |          |
| 1]{.smallcaps}**           |  [Average di |              |          |
|                            | sease % or r |              |          |
|                            | ating and yi |              |          |
|                            | elds in past |              |          |
|                            |  3\~5 years] |              |          |
|                            | {.smallcaps} |              |          |
+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| **[Methyl Bromide          | **[\# of     | **[Actual    | **       |
| formulations and           | Trials]{.    | Yields       | [Citatio |
| A                          | smallcaps}** | (t/ha)]{.    | n]{.smal |
| lternatives]{.smallcaps}** |              | smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| MBR: Chloropicrin (67:33)  | 1            | lb/A         | F        |
| 200 lb                     |              |              | erguson, |
|                            |              | 14109        | 2001     |
| Telone: chloropicrin 17.5  |              |              |          |
| gal. drip                  |              | 15551        |          |
|                            |              |              |          |
| Chloropicrin EC 100 lb     |              | 14613        |          |
| drip                       |              |              |          |
|                            |              | 15117        |          |
| Metam sodium 35 gal drip   |              |              |          |
|                            |              | (N.S.)       |          |
+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| MBR: Chloropicrin 390kg/ha | 1 of 2       | flats/ha     | L        |
|                            |              |              | ocascio, |
| Telone + 35% chloropicrin  |              | 4131 (a)     | 1999     |
| (327 L)                    |              |              |          |
|                            |              | 3541 (ab)    |          |
| Telone + 17% chloropicrin  |              |              |          |
| (327 L)                    |              | 3620 (ab)    |          |
|                            |              |              |          |
| Metam sodium (300L)        |              | 2552 (bcd)   |          |
|                            |              |              |          |
| Metam NA + chloropicrin    |              | 2199 (cd)    |          |
| (300L +170 kg)             |              |              |          |
|                            |              | 2710 (bcd)   |          |
| Solarization (painted      |              |              |          |
| black)                     |              |              |          |
+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| MBR: Chloropicrin 390kg/ha | 2 of 2       | flats/ha     | L        |
|                            |              |              | ocascio, |
| Telone + 35% chloropicrin  |              | 3511 (ab)    | 1999     |
| (327 L)                    |              |              |          |
|                            |              | 3553 (ab)    |          |
| Telone + 17% chloropicrin  |              |              |          |
| (327 L)                    |              | 3333 (ab)    |          |
|                            |              |              |          |
| Metam NA + chloropicrin    |              | 3279 (ab)    |          |
| (300L +170 kg)             |              |              |          |
|                            |              | 2933 (bc)    |          |
| Metam sodium (300L)        |              |              |          |
|                            |              | 3210 (b)     |          |
| Solarization (painted      |              |              |          |
| black)                     |              |              |          |
+----------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+

**[California -- Table 16.2: Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Multiple
Pests]{.smallcaps}**

Effects of Soil Fumigation with Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin (MB/CP) vs.
Dichloropropene/Chloropicrin (DP/CP) on Yields (grams/plant) of
Strawberry in 10 Studies[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581827 .anchor} (From
Shaw and Larson 1999).

  ----------- --------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- --------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
                        **MB:CP              **DP:CP                                                    
                        treated**            treated**                                                  

  **Study**   **No      **Mean      **SD**   **Mean      **SD**   **Percent       **t^y^**   **p^y^**   **d^y^**
              Reps.**   Yield**              Yield**              Increase^z^**                         

  2           6         992         177      856         109      15.9            1.60       0.070      0.93

  5           6         1331        40       1046        55       27.2            10.27      \<0.001    5.93

  7           5         1096        110      687         62       59.5            6.76       \<0.001    4.28

  21          6         886         71       914         48       -2.9            -0.78      0.727      -0.45

  31          4         655         65       647         54       1.0             0.15       0.443      0.11

  58          6         871         56       836         11       4.3             1.52       0.077      0.88

  64          36        1381        146      1180        185      17.0            5.12       \<0.001    1.21

  65          10        1742        131      1489        141      17.0            4.16       \<0.001    1.86

  66          6         994         88       981         97       1.3             0.37       0.355      0.15

  67          4         610         46       591         46       3.2             0.58       0.291      0.41
  ----------- --------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- --------------- ---------- ---------- ----------

^z^ Unweighted percent increase in yield for the MB:CP treatment over
the DP:CP treatment group.

^y^ *t* is Student's *t* test value, *p* is a one-tailed probability
(requires *P*\<0.025 for conventional significance), and d is the
standardized effect size.

Average Percent Increase across all studies is 14.35%.

**[California -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581828 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3-             | Weeds,        | 1% gain to 14% | 14.4% (Shaw and |
| Dichloropropene/ | nematodes and | loss           | Larson, 1999)   |
|                  | diseases      |                |                 |
| Chloropicrin     |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Ch               | Multiple      | 6.6-47%        | 27% Locascio,   |
| loropicrin/Metam | pests         |                | 1999            |
| sodium           |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Metam sodium     | Weeds,        | 16%-29.8%      | 29.8% (Shaw and |
|                  | nematodes and |                | Larson,1999)    |
|                  | diseases      |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **14%**         |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                |                 |
| imate for All Al |               |                |                 |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                |                 |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[California - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under  |
| Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl              |
| Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581767 .anchor}        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Previous research evaluating various chemical alternatives to methyl  |
| bromide suggests that the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone)     |
| with chloropicrin, coupled with separate, but complementary           |
| chloropicrin and herbicide treatments for weed control, has a         |
| potential an IPM alternative to methyl bromide to manage soil-borne   |
| pests and sustain crop yields, but this is only feasible in areas     |
| where groundwater concerns could allow the use of Telone. There are   |
| no selective herbicides for the control of the wide range of weeds    |
| found in strawberries.                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Iodomethane plus chloropicrin is a promising alternative. It is       |
| actively being researched with promising results and, if registered,  |
| would be a viable alternative to methyl bromide, depending on what    |
| regulatory restrictions may arise.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[California - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the  |
| Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl                                  |
| Bromide?:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581768 .anchor}       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For chemical alternatives, see above in section 17. Otherwise no,     |
| when strawberries are grown in the field for fruit, the growth habit  |
| of strawberries (producing runners which take root in the soil) does  |
| not lend itself to technologies such as soil-less systems, plug       |
| plants, or containerized plants.                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [[Ca                                                                |
| lifornia - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.underline}]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Regulatory constraints such as township caps, as well as biological   |
| considerations such as heavy pressure from pathogens, nematodes and   |
| weeds, increasing nematode damage over time from not using methyl     |
| bromide, phytotoxicity, variation in yields, time lost due to delays  |
| in planting, and missing early harvest with high strawberry prices    |
| contribute to the technical infeasibility of replacing methyl         |
| bromide.                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are  |
| not suitable. In US strawberry fruit production there are several     |
| factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide        |
| unsuitable. 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 for use in strawberry fruit production.                |
|                                                                       |
| -   geographic distribution of key target pests: i.e., some           |
|     alternatives may be comparable to methyl bromide as long as key   |
|     pests occur at low pressure, and in such cases the US is only     |
|     nominating a CUE for strawberry fruit where the key pest pressure |
|     is moderate to high..                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   regulatory constraints: e.g., telone use is limited in California |
|     due to township caps.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   delay in planting and harvesting: e.g., the plant-back interval   |
|     for telone+chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl           |
|     bromide+chloropicrin. Delays in planting and harvesting result in |
|     users missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues   |
|     through lower prices.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   unsuitable topography: e.g., alternatives that must be applied    |
|     with drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with rolling or |
|     sloped topography due to uneven distribution of the fumigant.     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Eastern                                                            |
| US - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581771 .anchor}

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

**[Eastern US - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581830 .anchor}

+------------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
| **[Region  | **[Key disease(s) and    | **[Specific reasons why      |
| where      | weed(s) to genus and, if | methyl bromide               |
| methyl     | known, to species        | needed]{.smallcaps}**        |
| bromide    | level]{.smallcaps}**     |                              |
| use is     |                          |                              |
| requ       |                          |                              |
| ested]{.sm |                          |                              |
| allcaps}** |                          |                              |
+------------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
| Eastern US | Diseases: Black Root Rot | At moderate to severe pest   |
|            | (*Pythium,*              | pressure only MB can         |
|            | *Rhizoctonia*),          | effectively control the      |
|            |                          | target pests found in the    |
|            | Crown rot (*Phytopthora  | Eastern United States.       |
|            | cactorum*),              | Related dosage rates of 202  |
|            |                          | kg/ha are below the          |
|            |                          | threshold in the MBTOC 2002  |
|            |                          | Report, making further       |
|            |                          | reduction difficult to       |
|            |                          | achieve without compromising |
|            |                          | pest management.             |
+------------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
|            | Nematodes: Root knot     |                              |
|            | nematode (*Meloidogyne*  |                              |
|            | spp.)                    |                              |
+------------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
|            | Weeds: Yellow nutsedge   |                              |
|            | (*Cyperus escultentus*)  |                              |
|            |                          |                              |
|            | Purple nutsedge          |                              |
|            | (*Cyperus rotundus)*     |                              |
|            |                          |                              |
|            | Ryegrass (*Lolium* spp.) |                              |
+------------+--------------------------+------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping
  System and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581772
  .anchor}

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

**[Eastern US - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581831 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}           | ### [Eas             |
|                                               | tern US]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.           | Fruiting plants      |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)*       | grown from           |
|                                               | transplants.         |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial Crop:]{.smallcaps}**   | Cultured as annual.  |
| *(# of years between replanting)*             |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if  | Varies               |
| any)* **[and use of methyl bromide for other  |                      |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if    |                      |
| any)*                                         |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand, loam,   | 50% light, 45%       |
| clay, etc.)*                                  | medium, 5% heavy     |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide                | Yearly               |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g. every two   |                      |
| years)*                                       |                      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **[Other relevant factors:]{.smallcaps}**     | None Identified      |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+

**[Eastern US - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581832 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-1"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-1"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">5b – 8b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)*</span></em></td>
<td>248.2</td>
<td>trace</td>
<td>158</td>
<td>84.3</td>
<td>121.9</td>
<td>108.7</td>
<td>136.9</td>
<td>36.6</td>
<td>131.3</td>
<td>206</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>147.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)*</em></span></td>
<td>25.6</td>
<td>27.2</td>
<td>27.5</td>
<td>25.1</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>15.1</td>
<td>17.7</td>
<td>22.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* Macon, GA

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above
  characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any
  relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**

  To our knowledge the above characteristics would not prevent adoption
  of any relevant alternative.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581773 .anchor}

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

**[Eastern US, Southeastern United states - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern
of Use of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581833
.anchor}

+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[For as     | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| many years as | 1997** | 1998** | 1999** | 2000** | 2001** | 2002** |
| possible as   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| shown         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| specify:]{    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Area       | 1421   | 1446   | 1593   | 1694   | 1823   | 1879   |
| Treated]{     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(hectares)*  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[ratio of   | All    | All    | All    | All    | All    | All    |
| Flat          | str    | str    | str    | str    | str    | str    |
| Fumigation    | ip/bed | ip/bed | ip/bed | ip/bed | ip/bed | ip/bed |
| methyl        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide use   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| to strip/bed  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| use if strip  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| treatment is  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| used]{        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Amount of  | 3      | 3      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      |
| methyl        | 12,231 | 17,918 | 39,851 | 54,689 | 74,405 | 83,530 |
| bromide       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| active        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ingredient    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| used]{        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|               |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(total kg)*  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| [*            | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  | 67:33  |
| *formulations |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| of methyl     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide**     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(*]{.smal    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| lcaps}*methyl |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| /c            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| hloropicrin)* |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Method by  | Press  |        |        |        |        |        |
| which methyl  | urized |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide       | inj    |        |        |        |        |        |
| applied]{     | ection |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** | at 20  |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(e.g.        | cm     |        |        |        |        |        |
| injected at   | depth  |        |        |        |        |        |
| 25cm depth,   | -- two |        |        |        |        |        |
| hot gas)*     | shan   |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | ks/bed |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | (a     |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | pproxi |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | mately |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | 76 cm  |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | wide   |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | bed;   |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | 25 cm  |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | height |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | at     |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | crown  |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | of     |        |        |        |        |        |
|               | bed)   |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| *             | 220    | 220    | 151    | 150    | 151    | 151    |
| *[Application |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| rate of       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| formulations  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| in            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ]{.smallcaps} |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| kg/ha\***     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Actual     | 45     | 45     | 45     | 45     | 45     | 45     |
| dosage rate   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| of            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| f             |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ormulations]{ |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(g/          |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| m^2^)***[\*]{ |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

*\* For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may
be the same.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Eastern US - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581775 .anchor}

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

**[Eastern US -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**

+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| **[Name of   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons  | **[Is the    |
| Al           | for the alternative not being feasible | alternative  |
| ternative]{. | or available]{.smallcaps}**            | considered   |
| smallcaps}** |                                        | cost         |
|              |                                        | e            |
|              |                                        | ffective?]{. |
|              |                                        | smallcaps}** |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #            |                                        |              |
|  [Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-D        | Used alone, 1,3- Dichloropropene does  | No           |
| Dic          | not adequately control diseases and    |              |
| hloropropene | weeds. Buffer zones of 100 feet are    |              |
|              | too constraining for small fields.     |              |
| (1,3-D,      | Required Protective equipment          |              |
| Telone)      | (protective suits) pose a health risk  |              |
|              | to workers in hot and humid weather.   |              |
|              | Long pre-planting intervals affect     |              |
|              | cultivar selection, Integrated Pest    |              |
|              | Management practices, timing of        |              |
|              | harvest, marketing window options,     |              |
|              | land leasing decisions and crop        |              |
|              | rotation schedules                     |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Basamid      | Basamid is not registered in the U.S.  | No           |
|              | for strawberry fruit production.       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Basamid,     | Basamid is not registered in the U.S.  | No           |
| Chloropicrin | for strawberry fruit production.       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Chloropicrin | Chloropicrin alone is not a            | No           |
|              | technically feasible alternative       |              |
|              | because it provides poor nematode and  |              |
|              | weed control, although it provides     |              |
|              | good disease control                   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam sodium | Metam-sodium alone is not a            | No           |
|              | technically feasible alternative       |              |
|              | because it provides unpredictable      |              |
|              | disease, nematode, and weed control.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam        | Metam-sodium with chloropicrin is not  | No           |
| sodium,      | a technically feasible alternative     |              |
| chloropicrin | because it provides unpredictable      |              |
|              | disease, nematode, and weed control.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Methyl       | Promising, but it is not currently     | No           |
| iodide       | registered in the U.S. for strawberry  |              |
|              | fruit production.                      |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Nematicides  | Addressed individually.                | No           |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Ozone        | Ozone is not technically feasible      | No           |
|              | alone because it doesn't control       |              |
|              | diseases and weeds.                    |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [No     |                                        |              |
| n Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| B            | Biofumigation is not technically       | No           |
| iofumigation | feasible because of the quantity of    |              |
|              | Brassica crop that would be needed to  |              |
|              | control target pests in strawberries   |              |
|              | (approximately three hectares would be |              |
|              | required for every hectare of          |              |
|              | strawberry production). Incorporation  |              |
|              | of Brassica at these levels is likely  |              |
|              | to have allelopathic effects on the    |              |
|              | target crop. In addition, field trials |              |
|              | of growing tomatoes in cabbage residue |              |
|              | produced inconsistent and inadequate   |              |
|              | efficacy, and poor yield in two years  |              |
|              | out of three.                          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Solarization | Solarization, when used alone for      | No           |
|              | pre-plant fumigation, is not           |              |
|              | technically feasible because it does   |              |
|              | not provide adequate control of a wide |              |
|              | range of soil-borne diseases and       |              |
|              | pests. This process is highly weather  |              |
|              | dependent and works best in            |              |
|              | combination with IPM for control of    |              |
|              | pests and diseases. However,           |              |
|              | solarization only suppresses nutsedge  |              |
|              | at best. (Chase et.al. 1998. Egley,    |              |
|              | 1983)                                  |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Steam        | Steam, although successfully used in   | No           |
|              | greenhouse situations, when used alone |              |
|              | in the field for pre-plant fumigation, |              |
|              | is not operationally practical due to  |              |
|              | low application speeds and high energy |              |
|              | requirements (1-3 weeks to treat one   |              |
|              | hectare). In addition results from     |              |
|              | field experiments steam treatment have |              |
|              | been erratic.                          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Biological   | Biological control is not technically  | No           |
| Control      | feasible as a stand-alone replacement  |              |
|              | for methyl bromide because it does not |              |
|              | provide adequate control of target     |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Cover Crops  | Although already in use as part of an  | No           |
| and Mulching | Integrated Pest Management Program,    |              |
|              | cover crops and mulching alone do not  |              |
|              | provide adequate control of the target |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Crop         | Crop rotation is already being used in | No           |
| rot          | many strawberry production areas, but  |              |
| ation/fallow | does not adequately control the target |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Flooding and | Flooding and water management are not  | No           |
| water        | feasible due to limited water          |              |
| management   | resources, uneven topography in        |              |
|              | California, and in the eastern states  |              |
|              | by sandy soil types that would not     |              |
|              | retain the flood for an adequate time  |              |
|              | to control the pests.                  |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| General IPM  | General IPM is already practiced in    | No           |
|              | strawberry production, but it is not   |              |
|              | technically feasible as a stand-alone  |              |
|              | replacement for methyl bromide since a |              |
|              | combination of IPM methods do not      |              |
|              | offer adequate pest control by itself. |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Grafti       | Grafting/resistant rootstock/plant     | No           |
| ng/Resistant | breeding is not being used and it is   |              |
| roo          | not technically feasible because       |              |
| tstock/plant | grafting is not possible given the     |              |
| breeding     | physical characteristics of strawberry |              |
|              | plants. Breeding for resistance to     |              |
|              | pathogens is valuable as a long-term   |              |
|              | endeavor and the U.S. continues work   |              |
|              | in this area. At this point in time,   |              |
|              | plant breeding has not resulted in a   |              |
|              | cultivar that is sufficiently          |              |
|              | resistant to the major target pests.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | Organic Amendments/Compost is already  | No           |
| Amendm       | being used in certain regions of the   |              |
| ents/Compost | U.S., but is not technically feasible  |              |
|              | as a stand-alone replacement for       |              |
|              | methyl bromide.                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | In certain regions of the U.S. some    | No           |
| production   | organic production of strawberries     |              |
|              | occurs. However, as a stand alone      |              |
|              | replacement for methyl bromide it is   |              |
|              | not technically feasible because of    |              |
|              | reduced yields.                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Resistant    | Resistant cultivars are already being  | No           |
| cultivars    | used in certain regions of the U.S.,   |              |
|              | but it is not technically feasible as  |              |
|              | a stand-alone replacement for methyl   |              |
|              | bromide.                               |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Soil-less    | Soil-less culture is not being used    | No           |
| culture      | and it is not technically feasible     |              |
|              | because it requires a complete         |              |
|              | transformation of the U.S. production  |              |
|              | system. There are high costs           |              |
|              | associated with this as compared to    |              |
|              | current production practices.          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Sub          | Substrates/plant plugs are currently   | No           |
| strates/Plug | being used but are not technically     |              |
| plants       | feasible as a stand-alone replacement  |              |
|              | for methyl bromide. Although plug      |              |
|              | plants have actually proven to be more |              |
|              | vigorous than bare root transplants in |              |
|              | research trials, it is not known to    |              |
|              | what extent pathogens are controlled   |              |
|              | by this method. Weed control would     |              |
|              | still be an issue. And adopting this   |              |
|              | use would also require major retooling |              |
|              | of the industry.                       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Hand-weeding | Hand weeding strawberries is not a     | No           |
|              | desirable practice for controlling     |              |
|              | nutsedge. Sedges reproduce through     |              |
|              | below-ground tubers or nutlets. When a |              |
|              | sedge plant is removed by hand the 10  |              |
|              | to 30 tubers, which grow 2 to 30 cm (1 |              |
|              | to 12 inches) below ground, will       |              |
|              | rapidly produce new plants. Therefore, |              |
|              | had weeding can lead to a rapid 10- to |              |
|              | 30-fold increase in weeds. In          |              |
|              | addition, those sedges that germinate  |              |
|              | under the plastic mulch cannot be      |              |
|              | removed by hand without damaging the   |              |
|              | plastic and reducing its effectiveness |              |
|              | in excluding weeds, insects, and       |              |
|              | pathogens.                             |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [Combi  |                                        |              |
| nations of A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dich     | This combination is considered         | No, in areas |
| loropropene/ | technically feasible as an alternative | with         |
| Chloropicrin | in certain circumstances where weed    | moderate to  |
|              | pressures are low. Together they       | severe pest  |
|              | provide good nematicidal and           | infestation  |
|              | fungicidal capabilities, but would     | and if not   |
|              | still require an herbicide partner to  | allowed by   |
|              | control weeds such as nutsedge.        | local        |
|              | Regulatory restrictions for each of    | regulations. |
|              | the chemicals may further limit their  |              |
|              | use.                                   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dich     | These combinations also provide good   | No, in areas |
| loropropene/ | nematicidal and fungicidal             | with         |
| Chloropicrin | capabilities, but would still require  | moderate to  |
| and Metam    | a herbicide partner (or hand weeding)  | severe pest  |
| sodium       | to control.                            | infestation  |
|              |                                        | and if not   |
|              |                                        | allowed by   |
|              |                                        | local        |
|              |                                        | regulations. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+

*\* Regulatory reasons include local restrictions (e.g. occupational
health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of
registration.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}**
  *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
  Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581776 .anchor}

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

**[Eastern US -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581835 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Metam sodium       | This potential alternative has an extended time |
|                    | between application and crop planting (compared |
|                    | to methyl bromide) and is not very effective on |
|                    | nutsedge. It also can be inconsistent for       |
|                    | disease control.                                |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| chloropicrin       | The alternative does not give effective control |
|                    | of nutsedge. It also produces objectionable     |
|                    | odors (a serious issue in urban fringe areas    |
|                    | where strawberries are grown.) Insufficient     |
|                    | root knot nematode control.                     |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1,3-D              | The alternative does not give effective control |
|                    | of nutsedge. Excessive PPE requirements, and    |
|                    | set or buffer space requirements.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1,3-D,             | The alternative does not give effective control |
| chloropicrin       | of nutsedge. Excessive PPE requirements, and    |
|                    | set or buffer space requirements. There are     |
|                    | occasional phytotoxicity problems associated    |
|                    | with this alternative.                          |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1,3-D,             | The alternative does not give effective control |
| chloropicrin,      | of nutsedge. Excessive PPE requirements, and    |
| metam sodium       | set or buffer space requirements.               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Metam sodium,      | The alternative does not give effective control |
| chloropicrin       | of nutsedge.                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Nematicides        | None registered except 1,3-D.                   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581777 .anchor}

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

**[Eastern US -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**

+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of | #####                        | **            | **[Date  |
| Altern     |  Present Registration Status | [Registration | of       |
| ative]{.sm |                              | being         | possible |
| allcaps}** |                              | considered by | future   |
|            |                              | national      | regi     |
|            |                              | authorities?  | stration |
|            |                              | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|            |                              | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Basamid    | Not registered for use in    | Y             | Unknown  |
|            | U.S.                         |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Methyl     | Not registered for use in    | Y             | Unknown  |
| Iodide     | U.S.                         |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Registration in US has not   | N             | Unknown  |
| bromide    | yet been requested.          |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Registration in US has not   | N             | Unknown  |
| azide      | yet been requested.          |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581836 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant
  Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target
  Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581778 .anchor}

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

See California region, Section 16, for discussion of studies of relevant
alternatives.

**[Eastern US -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581837 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3-             | Weeds,        | 1% gain to 14% | 14.4% (Shaw and |
| Dichloropropene/ | nematodes and | loss           | Larson, 1999)   |
|                  | diseases      |                |                 |
| Chloropicrin     |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Ch               | Multiple      | 6.6-47%        | 27% Locascio,   |
| loropicrin/Metam | pests         |                | 1999            |
| sodium           |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Metam sodium     | Weeds,        | 16%-29.8%      | 29.8% (Shaw and |
|                  | nematodes and |                | Larson,1999)    |
|                  | diseases      |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **14%**         |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                |                 |
| imate for All Al |               |                |                 |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                |                 |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581779 .anchor}

  Iodomethane plus chloropicrin is the clear alternative. It is actively
  being researched with promising results and, if registered, would be a
  viable alternative to methyl bromide.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Eastern US - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the
  Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581780 .anchor}

  For chemical alternatives, see above in section 17. Otherwise, no, the
  growth habit of strawberries (producing runners which take root in the
  soil) does not lend itself to technologies such as soil-less systems,
  plug plants, or containerized plants.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [[Ea                                                                |
| stern US - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.underline}]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control   |
| the target pests found in the Eastern US. MB applications in          |
| strawberries are typically made using 67:33 or, where feasible, 50:50 |
| mixtures with chloropicrin under plastic mulch. Related dosage rates  |
| of 202 kg/ha are below the threshold in the MBTOC 2002 Report, making |
| further reduction difficult to achieve without compromising pest      |
| management.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are  |
| not suitable. In US strawberry fruit production there are several     |
| factors that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide        |
| unsuitable. 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 for use in strawberry fruit production.                |
|                                                                       |
| -   geographic distribution of key target pests: i.e., some           |
|     alternatives may be comparable to methyl bromide as long as key   |
|     pests occur at low pressure, and in such cases the US is only     |
|     nominating a CUE for strawberry fruit where the key pest pressure |
|     is moderate to high such as nutsedge in the Southeastern US.      |
|                                                                       |
| -   regulatory constraints: e.g., telone use is limited due to the    |
|     presence of karst geology.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   delay in planting and harvesting: e.g., the plant-back interval   |
|     for telone+chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl           |
|     bromide+chloropicrin. Delays in planting and harvesting result in |
|     users missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues   |
|     through lower prices.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   unsuitable topography: e.g., alternatives that must be applied    |
|     with drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with rolling or |
|     sloped topography due to uneven distribution of the fumigant.     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Flori                                                              |
| da - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581783 .anchor}

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

**[Florida, Florida - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for
Methyl Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581839
.anchor}

+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| **[Region    | **[Key disease(s) and | **[Specific reasons why       |
| where methyl | weed(s) to genus and, | methyl bromide                |
| bromide use  | if known, to species  | needed]{.smallcaps}**         |
| is           | level]{.smallcaps}**  |                               |
| requested]{. |                       |                               |
| smallcaps}** |                       |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| Florida      | Diseases:             | At moderate to severe pest    |
|              | Phytophthora,         | pressure only MB can          |
|              |                       | effectively control the       |
|              | Crown Rot (*P.        | target pests found in         |
|              | citricola, P.         | Florida. In addition, the use |
|              | cactorum*)            | of alternatives are limited   |
|              |                       | in some areas because the     |
|              |                       | soil overlays a vulnerable    |
|              |                       | water table (karst            |
|              |                       | topography). Finally, there   |
|              |                       | are other areas where         |
|              |                       | regulatory restrictions such  |
|              |                       | as mandatory buffers around   |
|              |                       | inhabited structures make     |
|              |                       | alternatives infeasible. MB   |
|              |                       | applications in strawberries  |
|              |                       | are typically made using      |
|              |                       | 67:33 or, where feasible,     |
|              |                       | 50:50 mixtures with           |
|              |                       | chloropicrin under plastic    |
|              |                       | mulch. Related dosage rates   |
|              |                       | of 202 kg/ha are below the    |
|              |                       | threshold in the MBTOC 2002   |
|              |                       | Report, making further        |
|              |                       | reduction difficult to        |
|              |                       | achieve without compromising  |
|              |                       | pest management.              |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| Florida      | Nematodes: Sting      |                               |
|              | (*Belonolaimus        |                               |
|              | longicaudatus*)       |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | Root-knot             |                               |
|              | (*Meloidogyne* spp.)  |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| Florida      | Weeds: Yellow         |                               |
|              | nutsedge (*Cyperus    |                               |
|              | esculentus*)          |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | Purple nutsedge       |                               |
|              | (*Cyperus rotundus*)  |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | Carolina Geranium     |                               |
|              | (*G. carolinianum*)   |                               |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | Cut-leaf Evening      |                               |
|              | Primrose (*Onoethera  |                               |
|              | laciniata*)           |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping System
  and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581784 .anchor}

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

**[Florida - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581840 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}    | ### [Florida]{.smallcaps}   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.    | Transplants                 |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or           |                             |
| cuttings)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                 | Cultured as annual.         |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years      |                             |
| between replanting)*                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                        | Cucurbits and peppers       |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     |                             |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for other |                             |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**  |                             |
| *(if any)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,  | Sandy to loam soil          |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide         | Annually                    |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.      |                             |
| every two years)*                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                      | None Identified             |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**[Florida - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581841 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-2"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-e.g.-temperate-tropical"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>(e.g. temperate, tropical)</em></h4></td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
<td>9a-10b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>72.6</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>175.8</td>
<td>193.3</td>
<td>152.7</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>42.7</td>
<td>158.8</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>66.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)</em></span></td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>22.1</td>
<td>25.3</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>24.1</td>
<td>19.2</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>16.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above
  characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any
  relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**

  To our knowledge none of these characteristics would prevent the
  adoption of relevant alternatives.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581785 .anchor}

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

**[Florida - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581842 .anchor}

+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many  | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as        | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| possible as     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify:        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area         | 2469  | 2509  | 2509  | 2509  | 2630  | 2792  |
| Treated         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of     | All   |       |       |       |       |       |
| Flat Fumigation | strip |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| strip/bed use   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| if strip        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| treatment is    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| used            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of    | 54    | 55    | 46    | 47    | 48    | 51    |
| methyl bromide  | 2,315 | 1,205 | 4,025 | 1,282 | 6,477 | 6,414 |
| active          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| used            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  |
| of methyl       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin)* |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by    | Chi   |       |       |       |       |       |
| which methyl    | seled |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide         | into  |       |       |       |       |       |
| applied         | soil  |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** | 30-45 |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. injected | cm    |       |       |       |       |       |
| at 25cm depth,  | below |       |       |       |       |       |
| hot gas)*       | su    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                 | rface |       |       |       |       |       |
|                 | of    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                 | bed   |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application  | 220   | 220   | 185   | 188   | 185   | 185   |
| rate of         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps} |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual       | 15    | 15    | 13    | 13    | 13    | 13    |
| dosage rate of  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\* |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

*\* For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may
be the same.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Florida - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581787 .anchor}

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

**[Florida -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**

+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| **[Name of   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons  | **[Is the    |
| Al           | for the alternative not being feasible | alternative  |
| ternative]{. | or available]{.smallcaps}**            | considered   |
| smallcaps}** |                                        | cost         |
|              |                                        | e            |
|              |                                        | ffective?]{. |
|              |                                        | smallcaps}** |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #            |                                        |              |
|  [Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-D        | Used alone, 1,3- Dichloropropene does  | No           |
| Dic          | not adequately control diseases and    |              |
| hloropropene | weeds. Buffer zones of 100 feet are    |              |
|              | too constraining for small fields.     |              |
| (1,3-D,      | Required Protective equipment          |              |
| Telone)      | (protective suits) pose a health risk  |              |
|              | to workers in hot and humid weather.   |              |
|              | Long pre-planting intervals affect     |              |
|              | cultivar selection, Integrated Pest    |              |
|              | Management practices, timing of        |              |
|              | harvest, marketing window options,     |              |
|              | land leasing decisions and crop        |              |
|              | rotation schedules                     |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Basamid      | Basamid is not registered in the U.S.  | No           |
|              | for strawberry fruit production.       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Chloropicrin | Chloropicrin alone is not a            | No           |
|              | technically feasible alternative       |              |
|              | because it provides poor nematode and  |              |
|              | weed control, although it provides     |              |
|              | good disease control                   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam sodium | Metam-sodium alone is not a            | No           |
|              | technically feasible alternative       |              |
|              | because it provides unpredictable      |              |
|              | disease, nematode, and weed control.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam        | Metam-sodium with chloropicrin is not  | No           |
| sodium,      | a technically feasible alternative     |              |
| chloropicrin | because it provides unpredictable      |              |
|              | disease, nematode, and weed control.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Methyl       | Promising, but it is not currently     | No           |
| iodide       | registered in the U.S. for strawberry  |              |
|              | fruit production.                      |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Nematicides  | Addressed individually (e.g., 1,3-D).  | No           |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Ozone        | Ozone is not technically feasible      | No           |
|              | alone because it doesn't control       |              |
|              | diseases and weeds.                    |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [No     |                                        |              |
| n Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| B            | Biofumigation is not technically       | No           |
| iofumigation | feasible because of the quantity of    |              |
|              | Brassica crop that would be needed to  |              |
|              | control target pests in strawberries   |              |
|              | (approximately three hectares would be |              |
|              | required for every hectare of          |              |
|              | strawberry production). Incorporation  |              |
|              | of Brassica at these levels is likely  |              |
|              | to have allelopathic effects on the    |              |
|              | target crop. In addition, filed trials |              |
|              | on tomatoes grown in cabbage residue   |              |
|              | produced inconsistent and inadequate   |              |
|              | efficacy, and poor yield in two years  |              |
|              | out of three.                          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Solarization | Solarization, when used alone for      | No           |
|              | pre-plant fumigation, is not           |              |
|              | technically feasible because it does   |              |
|              | not provide adequate control of a wide |              |
|              | range of soil-borne diseases and       |              |
|              | pests. This process is highly weather  |              |
|              | dependent and works best in            |              |
|              | combination with IPM for control of    |              |
|              | pests and diseases. However,           |              |
|              | solarization only suppresses nutsedge  |              |
|              | at best. (Chase et.al. 1998. Egley,    |              |
|              | 1983)                                  |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Steam        | Steam, when used alone for pre-plant   | No           |
|              | fumigation, is not operationally       |              |
|              | practical due to low application       |              |
|              | speeds and high energy requirements    |              |
|              | (1-3 weeks to treat one hectare). In   |              |
|              | addition results from field            |              |
|              | experiments steam treatment have been  |              |
|              | erratic.                               |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Biological   | Biological control is not technically  | No           |
| Control      | feasible as a stand alone replacement  |              |
|              | for methyl bromide because it does not |              |
|              | provide adequate control of target     |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Cover Crops  | Although already in use as part of an  | No           |
| and Mulching | Integrated Pest Management Program,    |              |
|              | cover crops and mulching alone do not  |              |
|              | provide adequate control of the target |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Crop         | Crop rotation is already being used in | No           |
| rot          | many strawberry production areas, but  |              |
| ation/fallow | does not adequately control the target |              |
|              | pests.                                 |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Flooding and | Flooding and water management are not  | No           |
| water        | feasible due to limited water          |              |
| management   | resources, uneven topography in        |              |
|              | Florida, and in the eastern states by  |              |
|              | sandy soil types that would not retain |              |
|              | the flood for an adequate time to      |              |
|              | control the pests.                     |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| General IPM  | General IPM is already practiced in    | No           |
|              | strawberry production, but it is not   |              |
|              | technically feasible as a stand alone  |              |
|              | replacement for methyl bromide since   |              |
|              | even a combination of IPM methods do   |              |
|              | not offer adequate pest control by     |              |
|              | itself.                                |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Grafti       | Grafting/resistant rootstock/plant     | No           |
| ng/Resistant | breeding is not being used and it is   |              |
| roo          | not technically feasible because       |              |
| tstock/plant | grafting is not possible given the     |              |
| breeding     | physical characteristics of strawberry |              |
|              | plants. Breeding for resistance to     |              |
|              | pathogens is valuable as a long-term   |              |
|              | endeavor and the U.S. continues work   |              |
|              | in this area. At this point in time,   |              |
|              | plant breeding has not resulted in a   |              |
|              | cultivar that is sufficiently          |              |
|              | resistant to the major target pests.   |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | Organic Amendments/Compost is already  | No           |
| Amendm       | being used in certain regions of the   |              |
| ents/Compost | U.S., but is not technically feasible  |              |
|              | as a stand-alone replacement for       |              |
|              | methyl bromide.                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | In certain regions of the U.S. some    | No           |
| production   | organic production of strawberries     |              |
|              | occurs. However, as a stand alone      |              |
|              | replacement for methyl bromide it is   |              |
|              | not technically feasible because of    |              |
|              | reduced yields.                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Resistant    | Resistant cultivars are already being  | No           |
| cultivars    | used in certain regions of the U.S.,   |              |
|              | but it is not technically feasible as  |              |
|              | a stand-alone replacement for methyl   |              |
|              | bromide.                               |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Soil-less    | Soil-less culture is not being used    | No           |
| culture      | and it is not technically feasible     |              |
|              | because it requires a complete         |              |
|              | transformation of the U.S. production  |              |
|              | system. There are high costs           |              |
|              | associated with this as compared to    |              |
|              | current production practices.          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Sub          | Substrates/plant plugs are currently   | No           |
| strates/Plug | being used but are not technically     |              |
| plants       | feasible as a stand-alone replacement  |              |
|              | for methyl bromide. Although plug      |              |
|              | plants have actually proven to be more |              |
|              | vigorous than bare root transplants in |              |
|              | research trials, it is not known to    |              |
|              | what extent pathogens are controlled   |              |
|              | by this method. Weed control would     |              |
|              | still be an issue. Adopting this use   |              |
|              | would also require major retooling of  |              |
|              | the industry.                          |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Hand-weeding | Hand weeding strawberries is not a     | No           |
|              | desirable practice for controlling     |              |
|              | nutsedge. Sedges reproduce through     |              |
|              | below-ground tubers or nutlets. When a |              |
|              | sedge plant is removed by hand the 10  |              |
|              | to 30 tubers, which grow 2 to 30 cm (1 |              |
|              | to 12 inches) below ground, will       |              |
|              | rapidly produce new plants. Therefore, |              |
|              | had weeding can lead to a rapid 10- to |              |
|              | 30-fold increase in weeds. In          |              |
|              | addition, those sedges that germinate  |              |
|              | under the plastic mulch cannot be      |              |
|              | removed by hand without damaging the   |              |
|              | plastic and reducing its effectiveness |              |
|              | in excluding weeds, insects, and       |              |
|              | pathogens.                             |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [Combi  |                                        |              |
| nations of A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dich     | This combination is considered         | No, in areas |
| loropropene/ | technically feasible as an alternative | with         |
| Chloropicrin | in certain circumstances where weed    | moderate to  |
|              | pressure is low. Together they provide | severe pest  |
|              | good nematicidal and fungicidal        | infestation  |
|              | capabilities, but would still require  | and if not   |
|              | a herbicide partner to control weeds   | allowed by   |
|              | such as nutsedge. Regulatory           | local        |
|              | restrictions for each of the chemicals | regulations. |
|              | may further limit their use.           |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-Dich     | This combination also provides good    | No, in areas |
| loropropene/ | nematicidal and fungicidal             | with         |
| Chloropicrin | capabilities, but would still require  | moderate to  |
| and Metam    | a herbicide partner (or hand weeding)  | severe pest  |
| sodium       | to control.                            | infestation  |
|              |                                        | and if not   |
|              |                                        | allowed by   |
|              |                                        | local        |
|              |                                        | regulations. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+

*\* Regulatory reasons include local restrictions (e.g. occupational
health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of
registration.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
  as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581788 .anchor}

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

**[Florida -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1                  | Drip application of 1,3-D in Florida are less   |
| ,3-Dichloropropene | expensive and require smaller buffer zones than |
|                    | broadcast applications, making it the preferred |
|                    | application method for this alternative (drip,  |
|                    | 90%;broadcast, 10%). However, when 1,3-D        |
|                    | fumigations by drip are used other production   |
|                    | cots are significantly higher due to the need   |
|                    | for herbicide applications (i.e. metam sodium)  |
|                    | and hand weeding operations. Recent studies in  |
|                    | California found that fruit production costs    |
|                    | were 20-212% higher than with methyl            |
|                    | bromide/chloropicrin (Goldhue), with the        |
|                    | smaller cost estimates coming from VIF mulch    |
|                    | treatments that are not currently usable due to |
|                    | technical issues.                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Chloropicrin       | Chloropicrin alone is not a technically         |
|                    | feasible alternative because it provides poor   |
|                    | nematode and weed control, although it provides |
|                    | good disease control                            |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Metam sodium       | Metam-sodium alone is not a technically         |
|                    | feasible alternative because it provides        |
|                    | unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed       |
|                    | control. Metam sodium suffers from erratic      |
|                    | efficacy most likely due to irregular           |
|                    | distribution of the product through soil. Metam |
|                    | sodium if not technically feasible in           |
|                    | California because it has limited activity      |
|                    | against soilborne pathogens in strawberry       |
|                    | fields.                                         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Sodium azide       | Does not sterilize ground. Yields equal to      |
|                    | untreated.                                      |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1,3D/chloropicrin  | This combination is considered technically      |
|                    | feasible as an alternative in certain           |
|                    | circumstances where weed pressure is low.       |
|                    | Together they provide good nematicidal and      |
|                    | fungicidal capabilities, but would still        |
|                    | require a herbicide partner to control weeds    |
|                    | such as nutsedge. Regulatory restrictions for   |
|                    | each of the chemicals may further limit their   |
|                    | use. Not economically feasible.                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581789
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Florida -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**

+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of | #####                        | **            | **[Date  |
| Altern     |  Present Registration Status | [Registration | of       |
| ative]{.sm |                              | being         | possible |
| allcaps}** |                              | considered by | future   |
|            |                              | national      | regi     |
|            |                              | authorities?  | stration |
|            |                              | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|            |                              | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Basamid    | Not registered for use in    | Y             | Unknown  |
|            | U.S.                         |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Methyl     | Not registered for use in    | Y             | Unknown  |
| Iodide     | U.S.                         |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Registration in US has not   | N             | Unknown  |
| bromide    | yet been requested.          |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Registration in US has not   | N             | Unknown  |
| azide      | yet been requested.          |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581844 .anchor}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
  Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
  for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581790 .anchor}

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

See California Region, Section 16, for discussion of studies of relevant
alternatives.

**[Florida -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581845 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3-             | Weeds,        | 1% gain to 14% | 14.4% (Shaw and |
| Dichloropropene/ | nematodes and | loss           | Larson, 1999)   |
|                  | diseases      |                |                 |
| Chloropicrin     |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Ch               | Multiple      | 6.6-47%        | 27% Locascio,   |
| loropicrin/Metam | pests         |                | 1999            |
| sodium           |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Metam sodium     | Weeds,        | 16%-29.8%      | 29.8% (Shaw and |
|                  | nematodes and |                | Larson,1999)    |
|                  | diseases      |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **25%**         |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                |                 |
| imate for All Al |               |                |                 |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                |                 |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Florida - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under     |
| Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl              |
| Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581791 .anchor}        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Previous research evaluating various chemical alternatives to methyl  |
| bromide suggests that the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone)     |
| with chloropicrin, coupled with separate , but complementary          |
| chloropicrin and herbicide treatments for weed control, has a         |
| potential an IPM alternative to methyl bromide to manage soil-borne   |
| pests and sustain crop yields. There are no currently registered      |
| herbicides for the control of sedges in strawberries.                 |
|                                                                       |
| Current research priorities include the following:                    |
|                                                                       |
| -Continue to identify and further define optimum conditions and       |
| procedures required to maximize performance of Telone, chloropicrin,  |
| and other fumigant and herbicide products. -Develop a more            |
| comprehensive understanding of the possible biologic and economic     |
| impacts of implementing the proposed alternatives to methyl bromide   |
| in commercial Florida agriculture.                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -Continue to identify and resolve implementation constraints to       |
| methyl bromide alternatives (i.e., high costs, lower efficacy,        |
| increased production or environmental risks, regulatory constraints,  |
| and/or reduced farm profitability) that negatively impact future      |
| widespread adoption of such alternatives.                             |
|                                                                       |
| -Continue to develop effective multi-crop, IPM based systems,         |
| including characterization of impacts and residual effects within     |
| current double cropping systems.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -Maintain technology transfer projects to educate growers to learn    |
| how to effectively choose, apply, and incorporate alternative         |
| chemical so as to maximize pest control, crop response and to avoid   |
| problems of plant phytotoxicity and crop loss.                        |
|                                                                       |
| -Continue to evaluate mulch technologies and procedures to minimize   |
| emissions of methyl bromide and other soil fumigant compounds from    |
| soil.                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| \- Continue to identify and evaluate emerging nonchemical             |
| alternatives.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida -- 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
  which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581792 .anchor}

  For chemical alternatives, see above in section 17. Otherwise, no, the
  growth habit of strawberries (producing runners which take root in the
  soil) does not lend itself to technologies such as soil-less systems,
  plug plants, or containerized plants.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #                                                                     |
|  [[Florida Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.underline}]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Karst topography, as well as biological considerations such as heavy
pest pressure (especially with nutsedge), increasing nematode damage
over time from not using methyl bromide, phytotoxicity, variation in
yields, time lost due to delays in planting, and missing early harvest
with high strawberry prices contribute to the technical infeasibility of
replacing methyl bromide.

The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are not
suitable. In US strawberry fruit production there are several factors
that make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. 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 for use in
    strawberry fruit production.

-   geographic distribution of key target pests: i.e., some alternatives
    may be comparable to methyl bromide as long as key pests occur at
    low pressure, and in such cases the US is only nominating a CUE for
    strawberry fruit where the key pest pressure is moderate to high
    such as nutsedge in the Southeastern US.

-   regulatory constraints: e.g., telone use is limited due to the
    presence of karst geology.

-   delay in planting and harvesting: e.g., the plant-back interval for
    telone+chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl
    bromide+chloropicrin. Delays in planting and harvesting result in
    users missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues
    through lower prices.

-   unsuitable topography: e.g., alternatives that must be applied with
    drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with rolling or sloped
    topography due to uneven distribution of the fumigant.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **19. [Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
  Use and Emissions in the Particular
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581795 .anchor}

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

#### [Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions]{.smallcaps}

  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
  **[Technique or Step      **[VIF or High Barrier **[methyl bromide dosage   **[Increased % chloropicrin  **[Less frequent
  Taken]{.smallcaps}**      Films]{.smallcaps}**   reduction]{.smallcaps}**   in methyl bromide            application]{.smallcaps}**
                                                                              formulation]{.smallcaps}**   

  **[What use/emission      Although research      Between 1997 and 2000 the  Reduction of MB/Pic in       The US anticipates that the
  reduction methods are     appears to be          US has reduced the use of  mixtures, i.e. changes from  decreasing supply of methyl
  presently                 promising, early       methyl bromide in          67:33 to 57:43 -- this may   bromide will motivate
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**   adoption has come upon strawberries grown for     have some promise, but       growers to try less frequent
                            serious logistical and fruit production by 24%.   nutsedge is a primary pest   applications.
                            practical limitations                             on 40% of the land in        
                            such as: 1. Unreliable                            Eastern region (890 ha), and 
                            supplies of the VIF                               below 30.2 g/m2 a.i. dosage, 
                            film since no US                                  nutsedge cannot be           
                            source of VIF film                                controlled successfully.     
                            exists (only European                                                          
                            sources); 2. US                                                                
                            requires season long                                                           
                            UV protection in film                                                          
                            vs. Europe's 2 weeks;                                                          
                            and 3. Difficulty                                                              
                            applying VIF under US                                                          
                            production systems                                                             
                            without damaging film.                                                         

  **[What further           Investigations are     None identified            None identified              None identified
  use/emission reduction    going to be initiated                                                          
  steps will be taken for   in 2004-2005 with VIF                                                          
  the methyl bromide used   in Eastern region                                                              
  for critical              (North Carolina)                                                               
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                     

  **[Other                  None identified        None identified            None identified              None identified
  measures]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being  |
| Used]{.smallcaps}**                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **[or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State  |
| Reasons]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc65581796 .anchor}        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1\. 1. Chloropicrin (drip AND shank) shows great promise in Eastern
Region, but economic feasibility is a concern with Pic. Multiple Field
studies and economic evaluation have been conducted by Dr. Frank Louws
(frank_louws@ncsu.edu) and Lisa Ferguson (lisa_ferguson@ncsu.edu) Also,
the USDA-Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research/Extension
interdisciplinary working group at NCSU (contact Lisa Ferguson) is
preparing an important summary of multiple years of alternatives
research for several Eastern Region States and a manuscript is now being
written by Dr. Charles Safley, NCSU, Economist, "O. Sydorovych, C. D.
Safley, L. M. Ferguson, F. J. Louws, G. E. Fernandez, and E. B. Poling,
*Economic Evaluation of the Methyl Bromide Alternatives for the
Production of Strawberries in the Southeastern United States*

2\. VIF OR HIGH BARRIER FILMS --E.B. POLING is initiating work in late
summer 2004 with harvest in Spring 2005 -- reports available in summer
2005.

3\. Telone-C35/InLine -- extensive work has been conducted with InLine
by our interdisciplinary group (see Word Document attachment), and
yields are comparable to MB, but important limitations with use of
1,3-D + Pic in the Eastern Region have already been presented in the
Narratives for 2002 and 2003.

4\. Iodomethane is an excellent replacement for MB (it has been tested
extensively by NCSU researchers), and if there is EPA registration in
late 2004, there could be widespread industry adoption by the 2005-2006
season. Two years of unpublished studies at NCSU (2002-2003, 2003-2004)
are indicating potential of using relatively low application rates with
Iodomethane \-- the cost savings associated with these lower rates will
potentially speed the adoption of Iodomethane in the Eastern Region.
Studies in 2004-2005 will be initiated with tank mixes of Methyl
Bromide + Iodomethane, to further reduce MB needs in 2005-2006.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part E: Economic Assessment]{.smallcaps}                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***Reader please note that in this study net revenue is calculated as
gross revenue minus operating costs. This is a good measure as to the
direct losses of income that may be suffered by the users. It should be
noted that net revenue does not represent net income to the users. Net
income, which indicates profitability of an operation for an enterprise,
is gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs. Net income
is smaller than the net revenue measured in this study, often
substantially so. We did not include fixed costs because they are
difficult to measure and verify.***

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581798
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581849 .anchor}

  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  **[Alternative]{.smallcaps}**   **[Yield\*]{.smallcaps}**   **[Cost in year    **[Cost in year    **[Cost in year
                                                              1]{.smallcaps}**   2]{.smallcaps}**   3]{.smallcaps}**
                                                              *(US\$/ha)*        *(US\$/ha)*        *(US\$/ha)*

  Methyl Bromide                  100                         1,248              1,248              1,248

  Chloropicrin+ metam sodium      73                          964                964                964

  1,3-d chloropicrin              86                          1,416              1,416              1,416

  Metam Sodium                    70                          849                849                849
  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

*\* As percentage of typical or 3-year average yield, compared to methyl
bromide.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581799 .anchor}

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

**Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581850 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| ####                  |                       |                      |
|  [Year 1]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$29,818              | \$5484               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin+ metam   | \$20,679              | \$-1,716             |
| sodium                |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d chloropicrin    | \$24,362              | \$702                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | \$19,829              | \$-2,396             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581851 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 2]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$29,818              | \$5484               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin+ metam   | \$20,679              | \$-1,716             |
| sodium                |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d chloropicrin    | \$24,362              | \$702                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | \$19,829              | \$-2,396             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581852 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$29,818              | \$5484               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Chloropicrin+ metam   | \$20,679              | \$-1,716             |
| sodium                |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-d chloropicrin    | \$24,362              | \$702                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | \$19,829              | \$-2,396             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581800
  .anchor}

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

**[California - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581853 .anchor}

+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **California**            | **[    | **[Alt   | **[Alt   | **[Alt   |
|                           | Methyl | ernative | ernative | ernative |
|                           | Brom   | Pic+M    | 1,3-d+pi | M        |
|                           | ide]{. | S]{.smal | c]{.smal | S]{.smal |
|                           | smallc | lcaps}** | lcaps}** | lcaps}** |
|                           | aps}** |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[Yield Loss             | 0      | 27%      | 14%      | 30%      |
| (%)]{.smallcaps}**        |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[Yield per Hectare      | 48,438 | 35,359   | 41,639   | 33,906   |
| (Fresh)]{.smallcaps}**    |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[\* Price per Unit      | \$1.71 | \$1.62   | \$1.62   | \$1.62   |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**     |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[= Gross Revenue per    | \$     | 51,099   | 60,173   | 48,999   |
| Hectare                   | 73,683 |          |          |          |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**     |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[- Operating Costs per  | \$     | 55,339   | 58,438   | 54,921   |
| Hectare                   | 60,131 |          |          |          |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**     |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[= Net Revenue per      | \$     | (4,240)  | (1,735)  | (5,922)  |
| Hectare                   | 13,552 |          |          |          |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**     |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| #### [L                   |        |          |          |          |
| oss Measures]{.smallcaps} |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[1. Loss per Hectare    | \$0    | 17,792   | 11,817   | 19,474   |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**     |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[2. Loss per Kilogram   | \$0    | 88.19    | 58.57    | 96.52    |
| of Methyl Bromide         |        |          |          |          |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**     |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[3. Loss as a           | 0%     | 24%      | 16%      | 26%      |
| Percentage of Gross       |        |          |          |          |
| Revenue                   |        |          |          |          |
| (%)]{.smallcaps}**        |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **[4. Loss as a           | 0%     | 131%     | 87%      | 144%     |
| Percentage of Net Revenue |        |          |          |          |
| (%)]{.smallcaps}**        |        |          |          |          |
+---------------------------+--------+----------+----------+----------+

**[Florida - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581854 .anchor}

  ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------
  **Florida**                                       **[Methyl                **[Alternative
                                                    Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   1,3-d+pic]{.smallcaps}**

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}**                  0                        25

  **[Yield per Hectare]{.smallcaps}**               3,138                    2,353

  **[\* Price per Unit (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**        23.10                    23.10

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare                    72,511                   54,360
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                      

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare                  44,459                   40,795
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                      

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare                      28,012                   13,565
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                      

  **[Loss Measures]{.smallcaps}**                                            

  **[1. Loss per Hectare (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**      \$0                      14,447

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide         \$0                      77.72
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                      

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue       0%                       20%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue         0%                       52%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                         
  ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------

**[Eastern United States - Table E.3: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581855 .anchor}

  -------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------------------------- -------------------
  **Eastern United States**  **[Methyl                **[Alternative          **[Alternative             **[Alternative
                             Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Pic+MS]{.smallcaps}**   1,3-d+pic]{.smallcaps}**   MS]{.smallcaps}**

  **[Yield Loss              0%                       27%                     14%                        30%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                     

  **[Yield per               22,417                   16,364                  19,270                     15,692
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                 

  **[\* Price per Unit       2.59                     2.59                    2.59                       2.59
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[= Gross Revenue per     51,892                   37,881                  44,608                     36,324
  Hectare                                                                                                
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[- Operating Costs per   29,623                   30,555                  31,658                     30,270
  Hectare                                                                                                
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[= Net Revenue per       22,269                   7,327                   12,950                     6,054
  Hectare                                                                                                
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[Loss                                                                                                
  Measures]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                

  **[1. Loss per Hectare     \$0                      14,942                  9,319                      16,215
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of \$0                      99.49                   62.05                      107.96
  Methyl Bromide                                                                                         
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage 0%                       29%                     18%                        31%
  of Gross Revenue                                                                                       
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                     

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage 0%                       67%                     42%                        73%
  of Net Revenue                                                                                         
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                     
  -------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------------------------- -------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Summary of Economic Feasibility                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The economic analysis evaluated methyl bromide alternative control
scenarios for strawberry production of fruit in Southeastern states,
Florida, and California by comparing the economic outcomes of methyl
bromide oriented production systems to those using alternatives.

The economic factors that most influence the feasibility of methyl
bromide alternatives for fresh market strawberry production are: (1)
yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, (2)
increased production costs, which may be due to the higher-cost of using
an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or resulting
shifts in other production or harvesting practices, and (3) missed
market windows due to plant back time restrictions, which also affect
the quantity and price received for the goods.

The economic reviewers analyzed crop budgets for pre-plant sectors to
determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were unavailable.
Various measures were used to quantify the impacts, including the
following:

\(1\) **Loss per Hectare.** For crops, this measure is closely tied to
income. It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to
interpret in isolation.

\(2\) **Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide**. This measure indicates
the nominal marginal value of methyl bromide to crop production.

\(3\) **Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue.** This measure has the
advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over
some unit, *e.g.*, a hectare of land or a storage operation. However,
high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also
entail high costs. Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues
could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity.

\(4\) **Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue**. We define net
cash revenues as gross revenues minus operating costs. This is a very
good indicator as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by
the owners or operators of an enterprise. However, operating costs can
often be difficult to measure and verify.

\(5\) **Operating Profit Margin**. We define operating profit margin to
be net operating revenue divided by gross revenue per hectare. This
measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of the
loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be
difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult, therefore
fixed costs were not included in the analysis.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic
feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users, who
are tomato producers in this case. Because producers (suppliers)
represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we interpret
the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if there is a
significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide. The
economic measures provide the basis for making that determination.

Several methodological approaches will help interpret the findings.
Economic estimates were first calculated in pounds and acres and then
converted to kilograms and hectares. Costs for alternatives are based on
market prices for the control products multiplied by the number of
pounds of active ingredient that would be applied. Baseline costs were
based on the average number of annual applications necessary to treat
strawberries with methyl bromide.

Net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating costs. This
is a good measure as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered
by the users. It should be noted that net revenue does not represent net
income to the users. Net income, which indicates profitability of an
operation of an enterprise, is gross revenue minus the sum of operating
and fixed costs. Net income should be smaller than the net revenue
measured in this study. Fixed costs were not included because they are
difficult to measure and verify.

Loss per hectare measures the value of methyl bromide based on changes
in operating costs and/or changes in yield. Loss expressed as a
percentage of the gross revenue is based on the ratio of the revenue
loss to the gross revenue. Likewise for the loss as a percentage of net
revenue. The profit margin percentage is the ratio of net revenue to
gross revenue per hectare. The values to estimate gross revenue and the
operating costs for each alternative were derived for three alternative
fumigation scenarios for the Eastern States and California, relative to
methyl bromide: 1) metam sodium + chloropicrin; 2) 1,3-d + chloropicrin;
and 3) metam sodium. Yield loss estimates were based on data from the
CUE's and EPA data, as well as expert opinion.

For Florida, three scenarios were compared to the methyl bromide
baseline: 1) 1,3-d plus chloropicrin; 2) Iodomethane; and 3)
Iodomethane + chloropicrin. Because Iodomethane **is not registered**,
it is not considered a feasible alternative but the analysis is provided
for comparative purposes.

**Florida**

In 2002, Florida had 2,792 hectares (6,900 acres) or 100% of harvested
area treated with an average of 75 kilograms (166 pounds) of methyl
bromide per hectare (acre). The closest chemical alternative to methyl
bromide is 1,3-d plus chloropricrin (as Telone C-35). However, US-EPA
estimates that approximately 40% of Florida's strawberry growing areas
overlay Karst geology, which prohibits the use of 1,3-d because of the
potential for groundwater contamination. The use of 1,3-d also requires
a 100-foot buffer around inhabited structures. This would reduce the
strawberry producing acreage by about 10%. Nematodes and nutsedge are
key pests in Florida strawberry controlled with methyl bromide.
Chloropicrin is not as effective in controlling weeds as methyl bromide.
Using chloropicrin adds to production costs through increased weeding
and labor costs (to search for and pick the fruit).

The least-loss scenario for Florida in the absence of methyl bromide is
for growers to use 1,3-d plus chloropicrin. Under that scenario, yield
loss would be approximately 27%, not including increases in labor costs
for hand weeding, drip irrigation costs, or changes in market prices due
to later harvests missing early market price-premiums. A delay in
planting occurs due to the longer plant-back interval for 1,3-d, which
means delayed harvesting. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture
data, market prices for Florida strawberries decline approximately 18%
between December and January. Yield and price impacts together make up
impacts on gross revenues.

Under Alternative 1 (1,3-d plus chloropicrin), the yield loss was
estimated to be 25% with operating costs in US dollars per hectare of
\$40,795. The estimated net revenue was \$13,565 per hectare. The
estimated loss per hectare is estimated to be \$14. The loss per
kilogram of methyl bromide in US dollars is estimated to be \$77.72 per
kilogram. If growers miss the December market window, a loss of
approximately one month's revenue would reduce grower gross revenues by
about 22% in addition to the yield loss of 25%.

**The following alternatives are presented for comparative purposes only
as the products are not registered**. Under alternative 2 (Iodomethane),
the yield loss was estimated to be 14%. Operating costs in US dollars
per hectare are \$40,795. The estimated net revenue was \$21,538 per
hectare. The loss per hectare is estimated to be \$6,474. The loss per
kilogram of methyl bromide in US dollars is estimated to be \$34.83 per
kilogram.

Under alternative 3 (Iodomethane + chloropicrin), the yield loss was
estimated to be 30%. Operating costs in US dollars per hectare are
\$40,795. The estimated net revenue was \$9,963 per hectare. The loss
per hectare is estimated to be \$18,049. The loss per kilogram of methyl
bromide in US dollars is estimated to be \$97.11 per kilogram.

**California**

In California, 1,3-d plus chloropicrin would also be the primary
replacement for methyl bromide. California restricts total use of 1,3-d,
at the local level (township cap). Approximately 63 percent of
California's strawberry acreage is fumigated with methyl bromide, and 31
percent is fumigated with alternatives. Approximately 15 percent of the
strawberry acreage is on hillsides with slopes severe enough to make
drip irrigation impractical.

Increased production preparation time would delay planting in the
Southern Region and reduce the harvest period in the Northern Region,
leading to decreases in the prices farmers receive. Ground preparation
between crops takes 30 days longer using 1,3-d and chloropicrin because
of the time required to prepare drip irrigation. According to U.S.
Department of Agriculture data, market prices for strawberries
California decline 5% between January and February. If using the
alternatives delays the harvest period, US-EPA estimates there will be a
market price decline in addition to a yield loss. The following
paragraphs illustrate the estimated losses with three alternatives for
California.

Alternative 1 (chloropicrin+metam sodium), yield loss was estimated to
be 27%, and gross revenues are expected to decline 24%. The estimated
net revenue is estimated to decline more than 131%. The loss per
kilogram of methyl bromide in US dollars is estimated to be \$88.19 per
kilogram.

Under alternative 2 (1,3-d plus chloropicrin), the yield loss was
estimated to be 14% and prices by 05%, if growers miss key market
windows. Gross revenue is expected to decline 16%. The net revenue is
expected to decline by more than 87%. The loss per kilogram of methyl
bromide in US dollars is estimated to be \$58.57 per kilogram.

Under alternative 3 (metam sodium), the yield loss was estimated to be
30%, and the gross revenue loss was estimated to by 26%. The loss per
kilogram of methyl bromide in US dollars is estimated to be \$96.52 per
kilogram.

**Eastern United States**:

Under Alternative 1 (chloropicrin+metam sodium), yield loss was
estimated to be 27%, with gross revenues decline 29%, and a loss in
estimated net revenue of 67%. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in
US dollars is estimated to be \$99.49 per kilogram.

Under alternative 2 (1,3-d + chloropicrin), the yield loss was estimated
to be 14%, with gross revenues declining 18%, and net revenues expected
to decline by 42%. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in US dollars
is estimated to be \$62.05 per kilogram.

Under alternative 3 (Metam Sodium), the yield loss was estimated to be
30%, with gross revenues declining 31%, and net revenues expected to
decline by 73%. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in US dollars is
estimated to be \$107.96 per kilogram.

Note: Market price data was not available for the Eastern United States
but it is assumed that the net effect of shifting from methyl bromide to
any of the alternatives would result in additional revenue reductions
due fluctuations in market price due to changes in production and
harvesting times.

It should be noted that the applicants do not consider any alternative
to be feasible and that these estimates are an attempt to measure
potential impacts.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy       |
| Alternatives for This                                                 |
| Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581803 .anchor}           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The amount of methyl bromide requested for research purposes is       |
| considered critical for the development of effective alternatives.    |
| Without methyl bromide for use as a standard treatment, the research  |
| studies can never address the comparative performance of              |
| alternatives. This would be a serious impediment to the development   |
| of alternative strategies. The U.S. government estimates that         |
| strawberry fruit research will require 2377 kg per year of methyl     |
| bromide for 2005 and 2006. This amount of methyl bromide is necessary |
| to conduct research on alternatives and is in addition to the amounts |
| requested in the submitted CUE applications. One example of the       |
| research is a field study testing the comparative performance of      |
| methyl bromide, host resistance, cultural practices, pest management  |
| approaches for control of root-knot nematodes. Another example is a   |
| five year field study comparing methyl bromide to 1,3-D combined with |
| biologically based materials including transplant treatments for      |
| control of weeds, root-knot nematodes and soil borne fungal           |
| pathogens.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Research for a methyl bromide alternative for strawberry production   |
| continues to be a very active area of research. USDA, University of   |
| Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and the Florida  |
| Fruit and Vegetable Association are currently conducting research in  |
| this area. Over 100 peer-reviewed articles have been published to     |
| date based on trials conducted by the above groups. Control of        |
| nutsedge and winter annual weeds is crucial to successful berry       |
| production in Florida. Control of nutsedge is also extremely          |
| important to 40 percent of the Eastern strawberry production land     |
| where nutsedge is a problem. In the near term, research is needed to  |
| find a suitable pre-emergent herbicide, or to find ways to get better |
| herbicidal efficacy from currently available fumigants. In the long   |
| term, efforts should be continued to find non-chemical means to       |
| suppress nutsedge damage. Some additional research to fine-tune use   |
| of alternative fumigants to maximize efficacy and yield is also       |
| needed.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Research studies submitted with the critical use exemption request    |
| packages include trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the  |
| most likely chemical and non-chemical alternatives to methyl bromide, |
| including some potential alternatives that are not currently included |
| in the MBTOC list. Based on preliminary results from research         |
| conducted in this area and largely in the area of tomatoes and        |
| strawberries, researchers believe that a mix of fumigants together    |
| with an herbicide treatment is the best possible alternative to       |
| methyl bromide. Combinations of 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrin, and |
| metam-sodium/chloropicrin are being tested for disease and weed       |
| control. Future research plans will test combinations of these        |
| fumigants with chemicals such as halosulfuron, metolachlor, and       |
| sulfentrazone. A program to evaluate host resistance to               |
| *Phytophthora* root and crown rot has been implemented. Growers are   |
| starting to deploy lines identified as having both genetic resistance |
| and acceptable horticultural qualities.                               |
|                                                                       |
| As demonstrated by the chart and description below, U.S. efforts to   |
| research alternatives for methyl bromide have been substantial, and   |
| they have been growing in size as the phase out has approached. The   |
| U.S. is committed to sustaining its research efforts out into the     |
| future until technically and economically viable alternatives are     |
| found for each and every controlled use of methyl bromide. The U.S.   |
| is also committed to continuing to share our research, and enable a   |
| global sharing of experience. Toward that end, for the past several   |
| years, key U.S. government agencies have collaborated with industry   |
| to host an annual conference on alternatives to methyl bromide. This  |
| conference, the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach (MBAO), has      |
| become the premier forum for researchers and others to discuss        |
| scientific findings and progress in this field.                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Funding History**              |
|                                                                       |
|   --------------------------- --------------------------------------  |
|   **Year**                    **Amount (Million)**                    |
|                                                                       |
|   1993                        US\$ 7.255 M                            |
|                                                                       |
|   1994                        US\$ 8.453 M                            |
|                                                                       |
|   1995                        US\$ 13.139 M                           |
|                                                                       |
|   1996                        US\$ 13.702 M                           |
|                                                                       |
|   1997                        US\$ 14.580 M                           |
|                                                                       |
|   1998                        US\$ 14.571 M                           |
|                                                                       |
|   1999                        US\$ 14.380 M                           |
|                                                                       |
|   2000                        US\$ 14.855 M                           |
|                                                                       |
|   2001                        US\$ 16.681 M                           |
|                                                                       |
|   2002                        US\$ 17.880 M                           |
|   --------------------------- --------------------------------------  |
|                                                                       |
| The numerous methyl bromide alternative research trials that have     |
| been produced quantitative yield data are summarized in the table     |
| below. This table shows that, even among studies that demonstrate     |
| significant yields using the alternatives, there is significant       |
| variation in the performance of the alternative. Thus, while a given  |
| alternative may perform well in one study, it may also perform below  |
| acceptable standards in another study. The standard used to           |
| characterize success in the analysis presented here is if the         |
| alternative produced crops with at least 95 percent of the yield of   |
| the crop with a methyl bromide control. However, in some instances,   |
| even a 95 percent yield may involve some profit losses.               |
|                                                                       |
| **Summary of Research Results for Methyl Bromide Alternatives on U.S. |
| Strawberry.**                                                         |
|                                                                       |
|   ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|   **Alternatives**            **Total      **Number of Studies with   |
|                               Number of    Yield at Least 95% of      |
|                               Studies**    Methyl Bromide**           |
|   --------------------------- ------------ -------------------------- |
|   **Basamid (Dazomet) and     27           12                         |
|   combinations**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
|   **Chloropicrin and          58           36                         |
|   combinations**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
|   **Compost systems**         11           6                          |
|                                                                       |
|   **Enzone**                  3            0                          |
|                                                                       |
|   **Metam sodium (Vapam) and  73           24                         |
|   combinations**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
|   **Organic production**      5            1                          |
|                                                                       |
|   **Ozone**                   1            1                          |
|                                                                       |
|   **Solarization and          22           6                          |
|   Combinations**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
|   **Tarps**                   3            1                          |
|                                                                       |
|   **Telone                    93           41                         |
|   (1,3-dichloropropene) and                                           |
|   combinations**                                                      |
|   ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|                                                                       |
| **Registration**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| While the U.S. government's role to find alternatives is primarily in |
| the research arena, we know that research is only one step in the     |
| process. As a consequence, we have also invested significantly in     |
| efforts to register alternatives, as well as efforts to support       |
| technology transfer and education activities with the private sector. |
|                                                                       |
| The U.S. has one of the most rigorous programs for ensuring that new  |
| pesticides are safe for both health and the environment. These        |
| safeguards, however, come at a cost of both money and time. It can    |
| take a new pesticide, or new pesticide use, several years to be       |
| registered by the U.S. EPA. This is in addition to the time it takes  |
| to perform, draft results, and deliver the very large number of       |
| health and safety studies that are required for registration. Few     |
| countries, particularly in the developing world, have the resources   |
| to conduct and review these studies or the market power to leverage   |
| chemical companies to perform and submit the necessary data. Thus,    |
| U.S. registration decisions are often the basis for other countries'  |
| pesticide regulations, which means that the benefits from assuring    |
| human and environmental safety accrue globally.                       |
|                                                                       |
| The U.S. EPA regulates the use of pesticides under two major federal  |
| statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act     |
| (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), both    |
| significantly amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996      |
| (FQPA). Under FIFRA, U.S. EPA registers pesticides provided its use   |
| does not pose unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the           |
| environment. Under FFDCA, the U.S. EPA is responsible for setting     |
| tolerances (maximum permissible residue levels) for any pesticide     |
| used on food or animal feed. With the passage of FQPA, the U.S. EPA   |
| is required to establish a single, health-based standard for          |
| pesticides used on food crops and to determine that establishment of  |
| a tolerance will result in a "reasonable certainty of no harm" from   |
| aggregate exposure to the pesticide.                                  |
|                                                                       |
| The process by which U.S. EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide |
| to determine if they are safe is called the registration process. The |
| U.S. EPA evaluates the pesticide to ensure that it will not have any  |
| unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and          |
| non-target species. Applicants seeking pesticide registration are     |
| required to submit a wide range of health and ecological effects      |
| toxicity data, environmental fate, residue chemistry and              |
| worker/bystander exposure data and product chemistry data. A          |
| pesticide cannot be legally used in the U.S. if U.S. EPA has not      |
| registered it, unless it has an exemption from regulation under       |
| FIFRA.                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Since 1997, the U.S. EPA has made the registration of alternatives to |
| methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the U.S. EPA     |
| currently has more applications for all types of pesticides pending   |
| in its review process than resources to evaluate them, U.S. EPA       |
| prioritizes the applications in its registration queue. By virtue of  |
| being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter  |
| the science review process as soon as U.S. EPA receives the           |
| application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the   |
| EPA to initiate its review. This review process takes an average of   |
| 38 months to complete. Additionally, the registrant (the pesticide    |
| applicant) has, in most cases, spent approximately 7-10 years         |
| developing the data necessary to support registration.                |
|                                                                       |
| As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives   |
| to methyl bromide, the U.S. EPA has worked to reduce the burdens on   |
| data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the |
| U.S. EPA's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety   |
| standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the U.S.   |
| EPA 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, U.S. EPA     |
| scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative |
| applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to    |
| increase the probability that the data is done 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. The work     |
| group conducted six workshops in Florida and California (states with  |
| the highest use of methyl bromide) with growers and researchers to    |
| identify potential alternatives, critical issues, and grower needs    |
| covering the major methyl bromide dependent crops and post harvest    |
| uses.                                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| This coordination has resulted in key registration issues (such as    |
| worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps,  |
| and 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 U.S. 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.  |
|                                                                       |
| Several additional, promising alternatives are under review at EPA    |
| that may be able to be used on strawberries in the future. These      |
| include: iodomethane (methyl iodide) and propargyl bromide, which     |
| currently look very promising in field studies. Although iodomethane  |
| is chemically similar to methyl bromide, it photodegrades before it   |
| reaches the stratosphere, and therefore is not a significant ozone    |
| depleter. While iodomethane and propargyl bromide are not currently   |
| registered for use as pesticides in the U.S., research on             |
| combinations of pesticides with chemicals like methyl iodide are also |
| planned. Some of these trials will incorporate screening of           |
| strawberry varieties for tolerance/resistance to *Phytophthora        |
| capsici*. Again, while these activities appear promising, it must be  |
| noted that concerns about toxicity, drinking water contamination, and |
| the release of air pollutants regarding some alternatives presents    |
| another difficulty that may restrict use since many of the growing    |
| regions are in sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to    |
| schools and homes. Ongoing research on alternate fumigants is         |
| evaluating ways to reduce emission under various application regimes  |
| and examining whether commonly used agrochemicals, such as            |
| fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors, could be used to rapidly    |
| degrade soil fumigants. If registration of iodomethane or propargyl   |
| bromide occurs in the near future, commercial availability and costs  |
| will be factors that must be taken into consideration.                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the  |
| Critical Use in the                                                   |
| Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581804 .anchor}         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| First, the Eastern region strawberry growers *already apply fumigants |
| in the strip/bed*, and this accounts for 50% lower methyl bromide     |
| (MB) use compared to strawberry growing regions (e.g. CA) using       |
| broadcast applications.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Second, in 1999 the industry switched to the 67:33 formulation from   |
| 98:2, and this is the main factor accounting for the fact that while  |
| total plasticulture acreage in our consortium has increased 32        |
| percent since 1997, total methyl bromide usage has decreased from     |
| 312,236 kg (a.i.) in 1997 to 283,535 kg (a.i.) in 2002.               |
|                                                                       |
| Third, an extensive number of research and grower trials in the       |
| Eastern Region would suggest that further alterations in the MB:pic   |
| formulation offers our best near term strategy to achieve significant |
| reductions in MB dependency without creating significant market       |
| disruption. Chloropicrin is expected to be a very important part of   |
| pest control practices in the Eastern Region when methyl bromide is   |
| no longer available. Either alone or in combination with other        |
| materials, chloropicrin has performed well in research trials, and    |
| two years of recent research has demonstrated very high strawberry    |
| yields in plots treated with a stand alone rate of 250 lb/acre of 96% |
| chloropicrin (Plymouth, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002). But, this          |
| formulation of chloropicrin is also a very objectionable chemical to  |
| work with -- causing severe eye irritation and potential acute        |
| breathing problems. Worker protection standards must be high. Because |
| of very objectionable odor, it may be impractical to use by farmers   |
| in this consortium, most of whom have their strawberry pick-your-owns |
| and ready-pick operations on the fringe of urban and suburban         |
| populations. Drift could also be a serious problem.                   |
|                                                                       |
| Nonetheless, we wish to achieve further reductions in MB use in areas |
| of the Eastern Region where nutsedge is not a primary pest            |
| (representing about 60% of the industry, or 1333 ha) by actively      |
| pursuing a change in formulation to 57:43 for the non-nutsedge areas  |
| \-- this one change can result in a 9% reduction methyl bromide use   |
| in 2005 (Table 2). By 2006, it may be feasible to use 50:50 mixtures  |
| with chloropicrin under plastic mulch beds to achieve further         |
| reductions -- shown in Table 3.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Stepwise Reductions Proposed for the Eastern Region (January 2004)    |
|                                                                       |
| Table 1. Base information before implementation of stepwise           |
| reductions                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| +----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+    |
| | Eastern  | Year    | Nutsedge  | Non       | Total MB | Appli  |    |
| | Region   |         | areas =   | -nutsedge |          | cation |    |
| |          |         | 40%       | areas =   | a.i.     | rate   |    |
| | (h       |         | C         | 60% of    |          | for    |    |
| | ectares) |         | onsortium | C         |          | the    |    |
| |          |         |           | onsortium |          | a.i.   |    |
| |          |         |           |           |          | (      |    |
| |          |         |           |           |          | kg/ha) |    |
| +----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+    |
| | 2222     | 2005    | 134,278   | 201,418   | 335,696  | 151    |    |
| +----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+    |
| | 2317     | 2006    | 140,216   | 210,324   | 350,841  | 151    |    |
| +----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+    |
| | 2376     | 2007    | 143,936   | 215,905   | 359,841  | 151    |    |
| +----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+    |
|                                                                       |
| Table 2. Reductions for Step 1 -- With adoption of 57:43 by           |
| non-nutsedge group                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | Eastern | Year  | Nutsedge | Non-     | Table  | Adj   | A   |      |
| | Region  |       | areas =  | nutsedge | 1 MB   | usted | ve. |      |
| |         |       | 40%      | areas =  |        | MB    |     |      |
| | (he     |       | Co       | 60% of   | Kg     |       | Ap  |      |
| | ctares) |       | nsortium | Cons.    | (a.i.) | Kg    | pl. |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        | (     |     |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        | a.i.) | R   |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | ate |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       |     |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | (kg |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | /h) |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2222    | 2005  | 134,278  | 171,356  | 3      | 30    | 138 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 35,696 | 5,634 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2317    | 2006  | 140,216  | 178,932  | 3      | 31    | 138 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 50,841 | 9,148 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2376    | 2007  | 143,936  | 183,680  | 3      | 32    | 138 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 59,841 | 7,616 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
|                                                                       |
| Table 3. Reductions for Step 1 -- With adoption of 50:50 by           |
| non-nutsedge group in 2006                                            |
|                                                                       |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | Eastern | Year  | Nutsedge | Non-     | Table  | Adj   | A   |      |
| | Region  |       | areas =  | nutsedge | 1 MB   | usted | ve. |      |
| |         |       | 40%      | areas =  |        | MB    |     |      |
| | (he     |       | Co       | 60% of   | Kg     |       | Ap  |      |
| | ctares) |       | nsortium | Cons.    | (a.i.) | Kg    | pl. |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        | (     |     |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        | a.i.) | R   |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | ate |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       |     |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | (kg |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | /h) |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2222    | 2005  | 134,278  | 171,356  | 3      | 30    | 138 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 35,696 | 5,634 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2317    | 2006  | 140,216  | 156,958  | 3      | 29    | 128 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 50,841 | 7,174 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2376    | 2007  | 143,936  | 161,122  | 3      | 30    | 128 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 59,841 | 5,058 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
|                                                                       |
| Step 1 (increasing the percentage of Pic) can occur with the fewest   |
| obstacles to implementation, and can potentially reduce MB use by 9%  |
| in 2005, 15% in 2006 and 15% in 2007 (Table 3).                       |
|                                                                       |
| It is more difficult to accomplish comparable reductions in MB use    |
| for growers in nutsedge regions by formulation changes, as our        |
| experience has shown that MB dosages below 30.2 g/m2 do not provide   |
| satisfactory nutsedge control. Therefore, for growers in nutsedge     |
| areas, we wish to investigate, in cooperation with VIF or High        |
| Barrier film manufacturers, the potential of growers in these areas   |
| to cut MB usage by at least 1/3^rd^ with these films.                 |
|                                                                       |
| If VIF or High Barrier Research and Extension Demonstrations in High  |
| Pressure Nutsedge Areas of the Eastern Region in 2004-2005 and        |
| 2005-2006 are successful, there is potential in 2006 and 2007 to      |
| significantly reduce methyl bromide use further: the current          |
| projected amount of MB a.i. needed in Eastern Region nutsedge areas   |
| for 2006 is calculated to be 140,216 kg (350,540 x .4), and this      |
| research has the potential to lower this region's dependency from     |
| 140,216 kg to 93,947 kg (Table 4). The net effect of implementing     |
| steps 1 and 2 on the Eastern Region would be a 28.4 % reduction in    |
| 2006, and 28.4% reduction in 2007 (relative to our current request),  |
| and a lowering of the average application rate for our region to 108  |
| kg/ha.                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| > Table 4. Reductions for Step 2 -- With adoption of High Barrier     |
| > Films by Nutsedge                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | Eastern | Year  | Nutsedge | Non-     | Table  | Adj   | A   |      |
| | Region  |       | areas =  | nutsedge | 1 MB   | usted | ve. |      |
| |         |       | 40%      | areas =  |        | MB    |     |      |
| | (he     |       | Co       | 60% of   | Kg     |       | Ap  |      |
| | ctares) |       | nsortium | Cons.    | (a.i.) | Kg    | pl. |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        | (     |     |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        | a.i.) | R   |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | ate |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       |     |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | (kg |      |
| |         |       |          |          |        |       | /h) |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2222    | 2005  | 134,278  | 171,356  | 3      | 30    | 138 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 35,696 | 5,634 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2317    | 2006  | 93,947   | 156,958  | 3      | 25    | 108 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 50,841 | 0,905 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
| | 2376    | 2007  | 96,437   | 161,122  | 3      | 25    | 108 |      |
| |         |       |          |          | 59,841 | 7,559 |     |      |
| +---------+-------+----------+----------+--------+-------+-----+      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[25. Additional Comments on the                                     |
| Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581805 .anchor}     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| In summary, a review of the critical use exemption criteria in        |
| Decision IX/6 demonstrates that the Parties clearly understood the    |
| many issues that make methyl bromide distinctly different from the    |
| industrial chemicals previously addressed by the Parties under the    |
| essential use process. It is now the challenge of the MBTOC, TEAP and |
| the Parties to consider the national submission of critical use       |
| nominations in the context of that criteria, and the information      |
| requirements established under Decision XIII/11.                      |
|                                                                       |
| In accordance with those Decisions, we believe that the U.S.          |
| nomination contained in this document provides all of the information |
| that has been requested by the Parties. On the basis of an exhaustive |
| review of a large, multi-disciplinary team of sector and general      |
| agricultural experts, we have determined that the MBTOC listed        |
| potential alternatives for the strawberry sector are not currently    |
| technically or economically feasible from the standpoint of U.S.      |
| strawberry growers covered by this critical use exemption nomination. |
| Under certain circumstances in the absence of heavy pest pressure and |
| regulatory constraints, 1,3-dichloropropene with chloropicrin, and    |
| possibly also with metam sodium, may be economically feasible, and    |
| indeed, the U.S. request has been reduced to take into account        |
| possible use in areas that may meet such ideal circumstances.         |
| However, any of the following factors would or could make the         |
| alternatives economically infeasible:                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Regulatory constraints such as township caps, buffer zones, and   |
|     karst topology,                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Heavy pest pressure such as nutsedge,                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Increasing nematode damage over time from not using methyl        |
|     bromide,                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Phytotoxicity,                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Variation in yields,                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Time lost due to delays in planting,                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Missing early harvests with high strawberry prices, and           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Less vigorous starter plants if strawberry nurseries cannot use   |
|     methyl bromide.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| We have demonstrated that we have and continue to expend significant  |
| efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and that potential    |
| alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in strawberries may be on   |
| the horizon. The registration process, which is designed to ensure    |
| that new pesticides do not pose an unacceptable risk, is long and     |
| rigorous. The U.S. need for methyl bromide for strawberries will be   |
| maintained for the period being requested.                            |
|                                                                       |
| In addition, significant efforts have been made to reduce the use and |
| emissions of methyl bromide associated with strawberries. It is       |
| particularly valuable to note that the strawberry production industry |
| in California has done a good job of integrating more sustainable and |
| environmentally compatible techniques into their current production   |
| system. These currently employed strategies include the use of        |
| insects for biological control, and many techniques that limit losses |
| to disease including use of crop rotation, alternation of chemicals   |
| fungicides to limit resistance buildup, clean tillage, water          |
| management and field sanitation. Unfortunately the continued success  |
| of their well constructed IPM system is dependent on the use of       |
| methyl bromide as a pre-plant soil fumigant. Initial reductions in    |
| populations of the entire pest complex achieved with methyl bromide   |
| make it feasible to use more environmentally sound control measures   |
| throughout the season to keep reduced pest populations in check.      |
| Without a replacement capable of controlling all of the pests that    |
| methyl bromide controls, the entire IPM strategy must be              |
| reconstructed. Research on alternatives for this commodity has been   |
| progressive and productive. There have been promising advances        |
| towards the development of alternative fumigants and application      |
| methodologies. The regulatory constraints for employment of the       |
| currently available alternatives remain as the largest obstacle to    |
| their adoption for strawberry production.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581806 .anchor}

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

California Department of Food and Agriculture. California Agricultural
Statistics Service.

Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on
1,3-DC will Impact Adjustment to Methyl bromide Phase-out. California
Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3.

Carpenter, Janet and Lori Lynch. 1999. Impact of 1,3-D Restrictions in
California after a Ban on Methyl Bromide. Presentation at the 1999
Annual International Conference of Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in California. 1999. United States
Department of Agriculture,

NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in Florida. 2002. United States Department
of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in Virginia. 2000. United States
Department of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Florida
Agricultural Statistics Service.

Florida Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Oct. 2002. Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Furguson L. M., Ducharme D.T., Driver J.G., Louws F. J., Snelson J.D.
Alternatives to methyl bromide to control black root rot of strawberry
in North Carolina, 2001-2002. Undated. Publication not stated or
unpublished data. No untreated control reported.

Gamini,S. and R.K. Nishimoto. 1987. Propagules of purple nutsedge
(Cyperus rotundus) in soil. Weed Technol. 1:217-220.

Georgia Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Jan. 2000. Georgia
Department of

Agriculture.

Gilreath, J.P., J.W. Noling, and P.R. Gilreath. 1999. Nutsedge
management with cover crop for tomato in the absence of methyl bromide.
Research summary., USDA Specific Cooperative Agreement 58-6617-6-013.

Holm, L.G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The
world's worst weeds: distribution and biology. Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawaii Press, pp.8-24.

Locascio S.J., Olson S.M., Chase C.A., Sinclair T.R., Dickson D.W.,
Mitchell D.J. and Chellemi D.O. 1999. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. North
Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service.

North Carolina Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Jan. 2003. North
Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Patterson, D.T. 1998. Suppression of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus)
with polyethylene film mulch. Weed Technol.12:275-280.

Shaw V.S., and Larson K.D., 1999. A meta-analysis of Strawberry Yield
Response to Pre-plant Soil Fumigation with Combinations of Methyl
Bromide-chloropicrin and Four Alternative Systems. HortScience
34:839-845.

SoilZone, 1999. Ozone Gas as a Soil Fumigant. 1998 Research Program.
Electric Power Research Institute.

Sorenson, Kenneth A., W. Douglas Gubler, Norman C. Welch, and Craig
Osteen. The Importance of Pesticides and Other Pest Management Practices
in U.S. Strawberry Production. 1997. Special Funded Project of the
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Pesticide
Impact Assessment program. Document Number 1-CA-97.

Tennessee State Department of Agriculture. Tennessee Agricultural
Statistics Service. Tennessee Summary of Plant Protection Regulations.
Apr. 2000. Tennessee Department of Agriculture.

Thullen, R.J. and P.E. Keeley. 1975. Yellow nutsedge sprouting and
resprouting potential. Weed Sci. 23:333-337.

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Virginia
Agricultural Statistics Service.

Webster, T.M., A.S. Casinos, A.W. Johnson, C.C. Dowler, D.R. Sumner, and
R.L. Fery. 2001(a). Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper-squash
rotation. Crop Rotation 20:605-614

Webster, T.M. and G.E. Macdonald. 2001(b). A survey of weeds in various
crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771-790.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Citations reviewed but not
  applicable]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581807 .anchor}

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

**Southeastern Literature Citations**

Benlioglu S., Boz, O., Yildiz A., Kaskavalci G., Benlioglu, K., 2002.
Soil Solarization Options in Aydin Strawberry Without Methyl Bromide.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions.

Eger J.E. Efficacy of Telone Products in Florida Crops: A Seven Year
Summary. 2000. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Motis T.N., and Gilreath, J.P., 2002. Stimulation of Nutsedge Emergence
With Chloropicrin. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Nelsen K.A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D., 2002. Yellow Nutsedge
(Cyperus esculentus) Control and Tuber Yield with Glyphosate and
Glufosinate. Weed Technology 16:360-365.

Shaw V.S., and Larson K.D., 1999. A meta-analysis of Strawberry Yield
Response to Pre-plant Soil Fumigation with Combinations of Methyl
Bromide-chloropicrin and Four Alternative Systems. HortScience
34:839-845.

**California Studies:**

Ajwa, H. Study conducted from 2001 through 2003. Iodomethane and Iodine
-based Materials for Strawberry Production in California. Publication
not specified, UC-Davis.

Ajwa H., Kabir Z. and Fennimore S. Year of experiment or publication not
specified. Drip Fumigation. UC- Davis.

Ajwa H., Trout, T. Mueller S., Wilhelm S., Nelson S.D., Scoppe R. and
Shately D., Application of Alternative Fumigants Through Drip Irrigation
Systems. Phytopathology 92:1349-1355.

Browne G.T., Becherer S.T., Bhat R.G. and Lee R.C.M.. 2003. Strategies
for Management of Pytophthora on California Strawberries. USDA-ARS,
Department of Plant Pathology UC Davis, Monterey Bay Academy Field Day.

Duniway J.M., Status of Chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Pre-plant Fumigation of Soil. 2002. Phytopathology 92:1337-1343.

Duniway J., Dopkins D. and Hao J. 2003. Current Experiments on
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Strawberry. Published for the Annual
Monterey Bay Academy Field Day.

Fennimore S.A., and Valdez J., Study conducted in 2002 and 2003.
Strawberry Herbicide Evaluation, Monterey Bay Academy. UC-Davis,
Publication not specified.

Kabir Z., Fennimore S., Ajwa H., and Roth K. Study conducted in 2001 and
2002. Chloropicrin and InlineTM Field Dose-Response Study Under VIF and
Standard Tarp: Weed Biomass and Weeding Time at Las Cuevas, CA.
Publication not stated.

Kabir Z., Fennimore S., Ajwa, and Roth K. Study conducted in 2002 and
2003. The Efficacy of Agrizide and Plant Pro Alone or in Combination
with Chloropicrin on Weeds Seeds and Native Weeds at La Cuevas, CA.
Publication not stated.

Kabir Z., Fennimore S., Ajwa, and Roth K. Weed Control Efficacy of Drip
and Shank Applied Iodomethane: Chloropicrin at MBA, CA 2002-3.
Publication not specified.

Martin F.N., Management of Root Diseases of Strawberry. USDA-ARS
Publication not specified.

Martin F.N., Study conducted in 2002. The Use of Remote Sensing in
Strawberry Production. Publication unspecified.

Martin F.N., and Bull D.T., Biological Approaches for Control of Root
Pathogens of Strawberry. Phytopathology 92:1356-1362.

Noling J. W. The Practical Realities of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:
Concluding Remarks. Presented at the Methyl Bromide Alternatives -
Meeting the Deadlines Symposium. 2002. Published in Phytopathology
92:1373-1375.

Subbarao K.V. Methyl Bromide Alternatives - Meeting the Deadlines.
Presented at the 92^nd^ Annual Meeting of the American Phytopathological
Society, Augus 14, 2000. Accepted for publication by the American
Phytopathological Society on 23 July 2002.

Trout, T. and Gartung J., 2003. Irrigation Water Requirements for
California Strawberries. Not used, neither methyl bromide nor
alternatives were evaluated, just water requirements. Publication
unspecified.

Yates S.R., Gan J. Papiernik S.K. Dungan R. and Wang D. Reducing
Fumigant Emissions After Soil Application. 2002. Phytopathology
92:1344-1348.

**APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65581857 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Footnotes for Appendix A:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

1.  **[Average Hectares in the US]{.underline}** -- Average Hectares in
    the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in
    this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA
    National Agricultural Statistics Service.

2.  **[% of Average Hectares Requested]{.underline}** - Percent (%) of
    Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request
    divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the
    NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector
    nominations in the U.S. CUE nomination (e.g., roma and cherry
    tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not
    included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due
    to the inclusion of these varieties in the U.S. CUE request that
    were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are
    often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of
    applications received from growers.

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 acres of methyl
    bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of
    methyl bromide per acre. 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 US 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 total pounds active ingredient
    of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and
    application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per
    acre. 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) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's
    request subject to QPS treatments.

6.  **[Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares]{.underline}** --
    Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002
    average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These
    figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate
    estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural
    Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the
    Georgia Acreage estimates.

7.  [**Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %**]{.underline} - Regional
    Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request
    divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered
    by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
    Service (NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not
    always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U.S.
    CUE nomination (e.g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the
    applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values
    greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties
    in the U.S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS:
    nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the
    requested coverage of applications received from growers.

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 their 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. **[(%) Karst topography]{.underline}** -- Percent karst topography
    is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is
    characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater
    can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues.
    Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of
    concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to
    its karst topography.

17. **[(%) 100 ft Buffer Zones]{.underline}** -- Percentage of the
    acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide
    cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be
    maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure.

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
    example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, *Phytophthora* spp.
    infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern
    states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge.

19. **[Regulatory Issues (%)]{.underline}** - Regulatory issues (%) is
    the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be
    legally used (e.g., township caps) pursuant to state and local
    limits on their use.

20. **[Unsuitable Terrain (%)]{.underline}** -- Unsuitable terrain (%)
    is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot
    be used due to soil type (e.g., heavy clay soils may not show
    adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly
    terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and
    coverage problems.

21. **[Cold Soil Temperatures]{.underline}** -- Cold soil temperatures
    is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures
    remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and
    still have sufficient time to produce the normal (one or two) number
    of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain
    the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of
    the season.

22. **[Combined Impacts (%)]{.underline}** - Total combined impacts are
    the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be
    used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. 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). For example, if
    50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure
    and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the
    area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the
    alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key
    pests and an additional 25% (50% of 50%) affected by karst
    topography.

23. **[Qualifying Area]{.underline}** - Qualifying area (ha) is
    calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined
    impacts.

24. **[Use Rate]{.underline}** - Use rate is the lower of requested use
    rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate.

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

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

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

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

29. **[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.

30. **[Strip Bed Treatment]{.underline}** -- Strip bed treatment is
    'yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise.

31. **[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.

32. **[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.

33. **[Tarps/ Deep Injection Used]{.underline}** -- Because all
    pre-plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by
    deep injection, this variable takes on the value 'tarp' when tarps
    are used and 'deep' when deep injection is used.

34. **[Pest-free cert. Required]{.underline}** - This variable is a
    'yes' when the product must be certified as 'pest-free' in order to
    be sold

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

36. **[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.

37. **[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.

38. **[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.

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

40. **[Loss per Hectare]{.underline}** -- This measures the total loss
    per hectare 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. It is measured in
    current US dollars.

41. **[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 US dollars.

42. **[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 US dollars.

43. **[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 US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns.

44. **[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.

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

**[APPENDIX C. 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**
  -------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------