**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Trays to Produce tobacco
transplants]{.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  | Trays to Produce Tobacco Transplants            |
| of                 |                                                 |
| Nominati           |                                                 |
| on:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

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

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

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

  Title:                   Division Director

  Address:                 Biological and Economic Analysis Division

                           Office of Pesticide Programs

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                           Mail Code 7503C

                           Washington, DC 20460

                           U.S.A.

  Telephone:               \(703\) 308-3099

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Table of Contents***

[[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps} 5](#part-a-summary)

[1. Nominating Party 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65638008)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65638009)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65638010)

[4. Methyl Bromide Nominated 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65638011)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
5](#__RefHeading___Toc65638012)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
6](#__RefHeading___Toc65638013)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
7](#__RefHeading___Toc65638014)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65638015)

[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region 8](#__RefHeading___Toc65638016)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl
Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}
9](#tobacco-transplant-trays---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl
Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65638018)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and
Climate 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65638019)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an
Exemption Is Requested 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65638020)

[[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
12](#tobacco-trays---part-c-technical-validation)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65638022)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and
Potential)* Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as
Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65638023)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)*
Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65638024)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 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
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65638025)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 17. Are There Any Other Potential
Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace
Methyl Bromide? 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65638026)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to
Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65638027)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Summary of Technical Feasibility
15](#tobacco-trays-summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 16](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use 16](#__RefHeading___Toc65638030)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 16](#__RefHeading___Toc65638031)

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

[21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65638033)

[22. Gross and Net Revenue 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65638034)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
19](#__RefHeading___Toc65638035)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 20](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 21](#part-f.-future-plans)

[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65638038)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65638039)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65638040)

[26. Citations 22](#__RefHeading___Toc65638041)

[Citations Reviewed but Not Applicable 22](#__RefHeading___Toc65638042)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
28](#__RefHeading___Toc65638043)

***List of Tables***

[*[Part A: Summary]{.smallcaps}* 5](#part-a-summary)

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65638045)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65638046)

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

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide
Requested for Critical Use
8](#tray-tobacco---table-8.1-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use)

[Table A.2: 2005 Sector Request 9](#__RefHeading___Toc65638049)

[Table A.3: 2006 Sector Nomination 9](#__RefHeading___Toc65638050)

[*[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl
Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}*
9](#tobacco-transplant-trays---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and
Reason for Methyl Bromide Request 9](#__RefHeading___Toc65638052)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65638053)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and
Crop Schedule 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65638054)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65638055)

[*[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
12](#tobacco-trays---part-c-technical-validation)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not
Being Feasible 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65638057)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible
Alternatives Discussion 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65638058)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65638059)

[**[Tobacco Transplant Trays -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of
Alternatives -- Key Pest 1]{.smallcaps}**
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65638060)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65638061)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 16](#part-d-emission-control)

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

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

[Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65638065)

[Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65638066)

[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65638067)

[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65638068)

[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives 19](#__RefHeading___Toc65638069)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 21](#part-f.-future-plans)

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
24](#__RefHeading___Toc65638071)

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638008
  .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638009 .anchor}

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Trays to Produce Tobacco
  Transplants
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop
  System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638010 .anchor}

  Over the past 15 years, most tobacco producers in the U.S. have
  transitioned from seedlings produced in methyl bromide-fumigated soil
  beds to containerized-seedling production in greenhouses and outdoor
  "float beds". This includes production in the states of North Carolina,
  South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia,
  Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois and Kansas. The direct-seeded float system,
  using polystyrene trays, provides plants with water and nutrients
  through a waterbed and is the most common method of tobacco transplant
  production. Direct seeded systems use a variety of commercially
  prepared and sanitized media. The most common media contains 50% peat
  and 50% vermiculite and are generally sterilized using steam
  treatments. Seedlings are germinated in the same polystyrene trays from
  which they will be transplanted, thereby eliminating the task of
  seedling transfer from a starter tray to the float tray. Direct seeding
  is also less labor intensive than transferring starter plugs into a
  tray. When plants reach transplant size, they are immediately
  transplanted to the field to avoid disease development. Soil contact is
  avoided between float bed and trays as many tobacco diseases are
  soil-borne.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638011 .anchor}

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638045 .anchor}

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

  **2006**                 **4,112**               **86**
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638012 .anchor}

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

Over the past 15 years, tobacco producers have transitioned from
seedlings produced in methyl bromide-fumigated soil beds to
containerized-seedling production in greenhouses and outdoor "float
beds." This has resulted in a massive reduction in methyl bromide use
for tobacco production. However, while use of methyl bromide in
polystyrene float tray tobacco seedling production is minimal, it is a
critical use. As a result of high plant density and high moisture
conditions in float tray systems, which favor the development and spread
of seedling diseases, float bed trays can become highly contaminated
with a wide range of fungal pathogens. Float trays must be disinfected
of potentially crop threatening pathogens prior to reuse during a
subsequent season. Methyl bromide fumigation of the trays is the most
practical and effective means to control the target pathogens.

**[Table A.1: Executive Summary for tobacco
trays]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638046 .anchor}

+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| ### Region                                     | ***Tray Tobacco***  |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Amount of Nomination**                       |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms                           | 4,112               |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/[1000                   | 48                  |
| m^3^]{.smallcaps})**                           |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Volume [(1000 m^3^)]{.smallcaps}**           | 86                  |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Amount of Applicants Request**               |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| ####  2005 Kilograms                           | 10,942              |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/[1000                   | 48                  |
| m^3^]{.smallcaps})**                           |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Volume [(1000 m^3^)]{.smallcaps}**           | 228                 |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms                           | 10,942              |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/[1000                   | 48                  |
| m^3^]{.smallcaps})**                           |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Volume [(1000 m^3^)]{.smallcaps}**           | 228                 |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Economics**                                  |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Marginal Strategy**                          | **Steam**           |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| ####  Yield Loss (%)                           | 0%\*                |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Loss per hectare (US\$/ha)**                 | \$1,142             |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Loss per kg Methyl Bromide (US\$/kg)**       | \$340               |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%)**             | 11%                 |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Loss as % of Net Revenue (%)**               | 12%                 |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+

> \*Additional costs are due to price of conversion to steam.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638013 .anchor}:

  Heat treatment, steaming, commonly deforms polystyrene trays used in
  float bed seedling production. Tobacco growers tend to avoid the high
  temperatures and/or times needed for heat to be effective, therefore,
  efficacy against the target pathogens cannot be guaranteed. In
  addition, most tobacco farms are not setup to use heat sterilization to
  sanitize transplant trays and would incur significant costs to
  establish such a system. Bleach and disinfectants are much less
  effective than methyl bromide or heat treatment and can result in
  serious plant phytotoxicity issues, worker exposure concerns, and
  environmental concerns (disposal of disinfectant solutions). Discarding
  and purchasing new trays each year presents serious environmental
  disposal problems and is a more costly alternative. Routine use of
  fungicides is not a sound practice because of resistance management
  issues as these same pathogens are also major field pathogens. Early
  use of available fungicides during seedling production could limit
  their effectiveness during field production of tobacco. In addition,
  transplant market is not sufficiently large to support the labeling of
  new products and the liability is high. Minor Crop-Use funding is not
  allowed to pursue registration.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638014 .anchor}

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

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

+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Region where       | **[Total crop        | **[Proportion of      |
| Methyl Bromide use is | area]{.smallcaps}**  | total crop area       |
| req                   |                      | treated with methyl   |
| uested]{.smallcaps}** | **[(2001 and 2002    | bromide               |
|                       | Average              | (%)]{.smallcaps}**    |
|                       | (ha))]{.smallcaps}** |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| ##### Tob             | Not applicable.      | Not available because |
| acco Transplant Trays |                      | of overlapping use of |
|                       |                      | field and tray grown  |
|                       |                      | transplants.          |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[National           | Not available.       | Not available.        |
| Total:]{.smallcaps}** |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **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.]{.smallcaps}**

  Not applicable as only the float trays are 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}**

  No, methyl bromide is critical to ensure pathogen free transplants.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638015 .anchor}

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

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

+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| # [United States]{.smallcaps}              |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}  | **         | **         |
|                                            | [2005]{.sm | [2006]{.sm |
|                                            | allcaps}** | allcaps}** |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}  | 10,942     | 10,942     |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed         | [          | [          |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                     | Transplant | Transplant |
|                                            | Trays]{.   | Trays]{.   |
|                                            | smallcaps} | smallcaps} |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of   | 98/2       | 98/2       |
| methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixture)* [to  |            |            |
| be used for the CUE]{.smallcaps}           |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl  | 228        | 228        |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin     |            |            |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(1000 m^3^)*     |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/      | 49.04      | 49.04      |
| m^3^* [) for the                           |            |            |
| **formulation**]{.smallcaps}               |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^3^)* [of | 49.04      | 49.04      |
| **formulation** used to calculate          |            |            |
| requested kilograms of methyl              |            |            |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                       |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| [Application Rate (]{.smallcaps}*g/        | 48.06      | 48.06      |
| m^3^*[) for the **active                   |            |            |
| ingredient**]{.smallcaps}                  |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| [Dosage rate\*                             | 48.06      | 48.06      |
| *(*]{.smallcaps}*g/m^3^[)]{.smallcaps}*    |            |            |
| [of **active ingredient** used to          |            |            |
| calculate requested kilograms of methyl    |            |            |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                       |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity |
| Nominated for Each                                                    |
| Region]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638016                   |
| .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the U.S. was calculated as  |
| follows:                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Only the tobacco acreage using float tray seedling production is  |
|     included in the nomination.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Growth or increasing production (the amount requested by the      |
|     applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was     |
|     subtracted. The 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. QPS amounts were   |
|     removed from the request.                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**[Table A.2: 2006 Sector Request -- Tobacco
Trays\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638049 .anchor}

+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| ###          |                                    | **State/Tobacco  |
| ## 2005 (Sec |                                    | Transplant       |
| tor) Request |                                    | Trays**          |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Applicant  | #### Kilograms                     | 10,942           |
| Request for  |                                    |                  |
| 2005**       |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Application Rate (kg/[1000       | 48               |
|              | m^3^]{.smallcaps})**               |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Volume [(1000                    | 228              |
|              | m^3^)]{.smallcaps}**               |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+

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

**[Table A.3: 2006 Sector
Nomination\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638050 .anchor}

+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| #####        |                                    | **State/Tobacco  |
| 2006 (Sector |                                    | Transplant       |
| ) Nomination |                                    | Trays**          |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Applicant  | #### Kilograms                     | 10,942           |
| Request for  |                                    |                  |
| 2006**       |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Application Rate (kg/[1000       | 48               |
|              | m^3^]{.smallcaps})**               |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Volume [(1000                    | 228              |
|              | m^3^)]{.smallcaps}**               |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **CUE        | #### Kilograms                     | 4,112            |
| Nominated    |                                    |                  |
| for 2006**   |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Application Rate (kg/[1000       | 48               |
|              | m^3^]{.smallcaps})**               |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Volume [(1000                    | 86               |
|              | m^3^)]{.smallcaps}**               |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **2006       | Overall Reduction (%)              | 62%              |
| Sector       |                                    |                  |
| Nomination   |                                    |                  |
| Totals**     |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Total 2006 U.S. Sector Nominated | **4,112**        |
|              | Kilograms (kg)**                   |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Tobacco Transplant Tra                                             |
| ys - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which
  Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638018 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and
Reason for Methyl Bromide
Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638052 .anchor}

+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **[Region  | **[Key disease(s) and | **[Specific reasons why methyl |
| where      | weed(s) to genus and, | bromide is                     |
| methyl     | if known, to species  | needed]{.smallcaps}\           |
| bromide    | level]{.smallcaps}**  | **                             |
| use is     |                       |                                |
| requ       |                       |                                |
| ested]{.sm |                       |                                |
| allcaps}** |                       |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Tobacco    | *Rhizoctonia spp.*    | No effective alternative       |
| Transplant |                       | controls available.            |
| Trays      | *Pytheium and         |                                |
|            | Phytopthora spp.*     |                                |
|            |                       |                                |
|            | Thielaviopsis         |                                |
|            | basicola              |                                |
|            |                       |                                |
|            | Soil fungi and        |                                |
|            | bacteria              |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Trays - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics
  of Cropping System and
  Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638019 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638053 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ### [                      |
|                                         | Tobacco Trays]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.     | Transplant production      |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)* |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Annual (1 year)            |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years       |                            |
| between replanting)*                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation]{.smallcaps}** | Not applicable.            |
| *(if any)* **[and use of methyl bromide |                            |
| for other crops in the                  |                            |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,   | Hydroponic (50% peat and   |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                      | 50% vermiculite)           |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | Yearly                     |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              |                            |
|                                         |                            |
| *(e.g. every two years)*                |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | Item to be treated is      |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 | polystyrene transplant     |
|                                         | trays.                     |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

**[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and
Crop Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638054 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<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: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></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>
<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>
</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 colspan="12">6a and 6b plant hardiness zones.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall*</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>60.7</td>
<td>34.8</td>
<td>192.5</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>109.0</td>
<td>68.7</td>
<td>44.7</td>
<td>74.2</td>
<td>138.2</td>
<td>165.6</td>
<td>126.7</td>
<td>103.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)*</em></span></td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>14.3</td>
<td>16.2</td>
<td>23.6</td>
<td>26.2</td>
<td>25.6</td>
<td>22.3</td>
<td>13.3</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule**</span></strong></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</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 colspan="12">Not relevant</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Market
Window</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="12">Not relevant</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> \* Kentucky data provided as representative of the growing region
>
> \*\* Not applicable to transplant tray seedling production. Fumigation
> may occur directly prior to tray use or at the end of the previous
> growing season.

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

  None were identified as being relevant factors.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Trays - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide,
  and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638020 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Trays - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638055 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Volume        | 185   | 197   | 227   | 226   | 216   | 216   |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(1,000 cubic    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| meters)*         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of Flat | Not   |       |       |       |       |       |
| Fumigation       | rel   |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide   | evant |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to strip/bed | (     |       |       |       |       |       |
| use if strip     | Trays |       |       |       |       |       |
| treatment is     | are   |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              | f     |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | umiga |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ted). |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 9,399 | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     |
| methyl bromide   |       | 0,084 | 1,592 | 1,484 | 1,001 | 0,974 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  |
| of methyl        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromid           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin)*  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by     | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   |
| which methyl     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| applie           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. injected  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| at 25cm depth,   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| hot gas)*        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 48.3  | 50.5  | 50.5  | 50.5  | 50.5  | 50.5  |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| g/m^3^ \***      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 48.3  | 50.5  | 50.5  | 50.5  | 50.5  | 50.5  |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| g/m^3^ \***      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 47.4  | 49.5  | 49.5  | 49.5  | 49.5  | 49.5  |
| rate of active   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| g/m^3^ \***      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 47.4  | 49.5  | 49.5  | 49.5  | 49.5  | 49.5  |
| rate of active   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| g/m^3^ \***      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Trays - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638022 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Trays -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638057 .anchor}

+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| **[Name of   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons for  | **[Is    |
| Al           | the alternative not being feasible or      | the      |
| ternative]{. | available]{.smallcaps}**                   | alt      |
| smallcaps}** |                                            | ernative |
|              |                                            | co       |
|              |                                            | nsidered |
|              |                                            | cost     |
|              |                                            | e        |
|              |                                            | ffective |
|              |                                            | ?]{.smal |
|              |                                            | lcaps}** |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| #            |                                            |          |
|  [Chemical A |                                            |          |
| lternatives] |                                            |          |
| {.smallcaps} |                                            |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| Etridizole   | Etridizole has not been shown to be        | No       |
|              | effective against *Rhizoctonia spp.* and   |          |
|              | does not provide adequate control of       |          |
|              | *Phytophthora spp*. (major cause of        |          |
|              | damping off in tobacco transplants).       |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| Sanitizers   | Not as effective as they do not penetrate  | No       |
| and          | the spaces with the polystyrene trays to   |          |
| d            | kill fungal pathogens. Phytoxicity         |          |
| isinfectants | problems. Worker safety concerns.          |          |
| (chlorine    | Environmental concerns.                    |          |
| and          |                                            |          |
| quaternary   |                                            |          |
| ammonia)     |                                            |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| #### [No     |                                            |          |
| n Chemical A |                                            |          |
| lternatives] |                                            |          |
| {.smallcaps} |                                            |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| B            | Not applicable as still experimental.      | No       |
| iofumigation |                                            |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| Purchase new | Cost prohibitive. Environmental problems   | No       |
| trays        | associated with disposal of large          |          |
|              | quantities of polystyrene trays            |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| Steam        | Fixed costs for the average grower make    | No       |
| s            | this prohibitive. Trays are easily damaged |          |
| terilization | to the point of being unusable by this     |          |
|              | system.                                    |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| Solarization | Unacceptable tray damage and unacceptable  | No       |
|              | disease control.                           |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| Irradiation  | No data has been found which indicates     | No       |
|              | that irradiation is effective and does not |          |
|              | damage the polystyrene trays. Economically |          |
|              | infeasible due to high cost of irradiation |          |
|              | plus transportation to the facility.       |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| Resistant    | Already used but not sufficient disease    | No       |
| cultivars    | control by themselves against any of these |          |
|              | pathogen in a seed situation. In fact,     |          |
|              | using resistant varieties for this purpose |          |
|              | could result in widespread field           |          |
|              | development of the disease by harboring    |          |
|              | the pathogens at low levels in a hidden    |          |
|              | state. It is more desirable for black      |          |
|              | shank to appear prior to transplanting so  |          |
|              | that infected plants will not be           |          |
|              | transferred into the production fields.    |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| #### [Combi  |                                            |          |
| nations of A |                                            |          |
| lternatives] |                                            |          |
| {.smallcaps} |                                            |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+
| No           |                                            |          |
| combinations |                                            |          |
| identified.  |                                            |          |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------+----------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Trays - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}**
  *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
  Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638023 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Trays -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638058 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| None               | There are no available alternatives for the     |
|                    | control of fungal pathogens.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Trays -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638024
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Tobacco Trays -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638059 .anchor}

+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of | ##### [Present Regi          | **            | **[Date  |
| Altern     | stration Status]{.smallcaps} | [Registration | of       |
| ative]{.sm |                              | being         | possible |
| allcaps}** |                              | considered by | future   |
|            |                              | national      | regi     |
|            |                              | authorities?  | stration |
|            |                              | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|            |                              | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| I          | Not-registered               | Y             | Unknown  |
| odomethane |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| F          | Not-registered               | Y             | Unknown  |
| osthiazate |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Furfural   | Not-registered               | Y             | Unknown  |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Not-registered. No           | N             | Unknown  |
| azide      | registration package has     |               |          |
|            | been received.               |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Not-registered. No           | N             | Unknown  |
| bromide    | registration package has     |               |          |
|            | been received.               |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Diallyl    | Registered to control        | N             | Unknown  |
| sulfide    | *Sclerotinia* fungus, but    |               |          |
|            | label does not include float |               |          |
|            | bed systems.                 |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Trays - 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___Toc65638025 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Trays -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives
--]{.smallcaps} *Rhizoctonia spp.***[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638060
.anchor}

+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+
| **[Key Pest: Key Pest | # |          |   |       |                  |
| 1]{.smallcaps}**      | # |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | # |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | # |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | # |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | [ |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | A |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | v |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | e |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | r |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | g |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | e |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | d |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | i |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | s |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | e |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | s |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | e |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | % |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | o |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | r |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | r |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | t |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | i |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | n |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | g |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | n |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | d |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | y |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | i |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | e |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | l |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | d |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | s |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | i |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | n |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | p |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | s |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | t |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | 3 |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | \ |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | ~ |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | 5 |          |   |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | y |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | e |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | r |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | s |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | ] |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | { |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | . |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | s |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | m |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | l |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | l |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | c |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | a |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | p |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | s |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | } |          |   |       |                  |
+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+
| **[Methyl Bromide     | > | **       | > | **[A  | > **[Citatio     |
| formulations and      |   | [Disease |   | ctual | n]{.smallcaps}** |
| Altern                | * | (% or    | * | Y     |                  |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | * | rating   | * | ields |                  |
|                       | [ | )]{.smal | [ | (     |                  |
|                       | \ | lcaps}** | \ | t/ha) |                  |
|                       | # |          | # | ]{.sm |                  |
|                       | > |          | > | allca |                  |
|                       |   |          |   | ps}** |                  |
|                       | o |          | o |       |                  |
|                       | f |          | f |       |                  |
|                       | > |          | > |       |                  |
|                       |   |          |   |       |                  |
|                       | T |          | T |       |                  |
|                       | r |          | r |       |                  |
|                       | i |          | i |       |                  |
|                       | a |          | a |       |                  |
|                       | l |          | l |       |                  |
|                       | s |          | s |       |                  |
|                       | ] |          | ] |       |                  |
|                       | { |          | { |       |                  |
|                       | . |          | . |       |                  |
|                       | s |          | s |       |                  |
|                       | m |          | m |       |                  |
|                       | a |          | a |       |                  |
|                       | l |          | l |       |                  |
|                       | l |          | l |       |                  |
|                       | c |          | c |       |                  |
|                       | a |          | a |       |                  |
|                       | p |          | p |       |                  |
|                       | s |          | s |       |                  |
|                       | } |          | } |       |                  |
|                       | * |          | * |       |                  |
|                       | * |          | * |       |                  |
+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+
| Methyl bromide (5.07  | 1 | 0%       |   |       | Gutierrez et al. |
| g/m^3^ **,** gas)     |   |          |   |       |                  |
+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+
| New trays             | 1 | 0%       |   |       | Gutierrez et al. |
+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+
| Heat (steam)          | 1 | 0%       |   |       | Gutierrez et al. |
+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+
| Heat (dry)            | 1 | 56%      |   |       | Gutierrez et al. |
+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+
| Disinfectants         | 1 | 56%      |   |       | Gutierrez et al. |
| (chlorine)            |   |          |   |       |                  |
+-----------------------+---+----------+---+-------+------------------+

Gutierrez, WA, HD Shew and TA Melton. 1997. Plant Disease 81:604-606.

**[Tobacco Trays -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638061 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| New trays        | pathogen      | 0%             | 0%              |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Heat (steam)     | pathogen      | 0%             | 0%              |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Heat (dry)       | pathogen      | 55 - 100% \*   | 70%             |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Disinfectants    | pathogen      | 55 - 100% \*   | 70%             |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **70%\***       |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                |                 |
| imate for All Al |               |                |                 |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                |                 |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

\*Though Guitierrez et al show a 56% yield loss, losses can reach 100%
as producers will not purchase seedlings from float bed production
facilities that may be potentially infected.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Trays - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638026 .anchor}

  No. Transplant market is not sufficiently large to support labeling
  products and liability is high. Minor Crop-Use funding is not allowed
  for tobacco. Pesticide companies are not interested in labeling
  pesticides on tobacco for disease control due to economic and image
  issues.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Trays 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the
  Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638027 .anchor}

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

[T]{.smallcaps}obacco farmers have reduced methyl bromide use by over
95% by moving from field transplant production to greenhouse float
systems. The remaining methyl bromide use is to sterilize production
trays to prevent pathogen contamination in subsequent years. While this
method has reduced the use of methyl bromide, it has not eliminated the
need for methyl bromide.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [[Tob                                                               |
| acco Trays Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.underline}]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The biological analysis of alternatives to methyl bromide to control
target pathogens in float tray tobacco seedling production indicates no
acceptable alternatives that can provide the necessary efficacy at this
time. It is essential in float tray tobacco seedling production to
produce a totally pathogen free crop for transplantation into tobacco
fields. Disinfectants, chlorine bleach, can be used but are less
effective than methyl bromide and require extreme care and expertise to
achieve acceptable control and avoid plant phytotoxicity. Most farmers
do not have the expertise to ensure repeatable results using
disinfectants. In addition, disinfectants also have issues pertaining to
worker and environmental safety, which limit their adoption by tobacco
producers. Heat sterilization using steam is as effective as methyl
bromide. However, the polystyrene trays used in float bed tobacco
seedling production are easily misshapen or deformed by heat and
producers tend to avoid the high temperatures and exposure times
required to ensure tray sterilization. In addition, very few farms have
equipment available for steam sterilization and would incur significant
costs to establish a steam sterilization program.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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___Toc65638030 .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      Currently some growers No                         No                           No
  reduction methods are     use HDPE tarps.                                                                
  presently                                                                                                
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[What further           The U.S. anticipates   The U.S. anticipates that  The U.S. anticipates that    The U.S. anticipates that
  use/emission reduction    that the decreasing    the decreasing supply of   the decreasing supply of     the decreasing supply of
  steps will be taken for   supply of methyl       methyl bromide will        methyl bromide will motivate methyl bromide will motivate
  the methyl bromide used   bromide will motivate  motivate growers to try    growers to increase the      growers to try less frequent
  for critical              growers to try high    lower dosage rates.        percentage of chloropicrin.  applications
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**      barrier films.                                                                 

  **[Other                  Not available.         Examination of promising   Not available.               Not available.
  measures]{.smallcaps}**                          but presently unregistered                              
  *(please describe)*                              alternative fumigants,                                  
                                                   alone or in combination                                 
                                                   with non-chemical methods,                              
                                                   is planned                                              
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being  |
| Used]{.smallcaps}**                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **[or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the                    |
| Nomination]{.smallcaps}**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **[State Reasons]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638031         |
| .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Number range CHAPTERIn accordance with the criteria of the critical use
exemption, each party is required to describe ways in which it strives
to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. The use of methyl
bromide in the growing of tobacco seedlings in plant beds in the United
States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity,
methyl bromide has, for the last 40 years, been regulated as a
restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl
bromide can only be used by certified applicators that are trained at
handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl
bromide is applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators
with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level
possible to achieve the needed results.

As methyl bromide has become scarcer, users in the United States have,
where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl bromide and
chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl bromide was
typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made up of 95% methyl
bromide and 5% chloropicrin, with the chloropicrin being included solely
to give the chemical a smell enabling those in the area to be alerted if
there was a risk. However, with the outset of very significant controls
on methyl bromide, users have been experimenting with significant
increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions in the level of
methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally been effective
at controlling target pests, at low to moderate levels of infestation,
it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is
unknown.

Tarpaulin (high density polyethylene) is also used to minimize use and
emissions of methyl bromide.

Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, cultural practices,
and the extensive use of tarpaulins to cover land treated with methyl
bromide has resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that
we believe is among the lowest in the world for the uses described in
this nomination.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638033
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638065 .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                         \$612              \$612              \$612

  Steam                           100                         \$1752             \$1752             \$1752

  10% Chlorine bleach             30                          \$340              \$340              \$340
  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638034
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638066 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| ####                  |                       |                      |
|  [Year 1]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$10,210              | \$9,600              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Steam                 | \$10,206              | \$8,458              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 10% Chlorine bleach   | \$3,063               | \$2,725              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638067 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 2]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$10,210              | \$9,600              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Steam                 | \$10,206              | \$8,458              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 10% Chlorine bleach   | \$3,063               | \$2,725              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638068 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$10,210              | \$9,600              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Steam                 | \$10,206              | \$8,458              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 10% Chlorine bleach   | \$3,063               | \$2,725              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638035
  .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Trays - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638069
.anchor}

  --------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------- --------------------------
  **Tobacco Transplant Trays**      **[Methyl                **[Steam]{.smallcaps}**   **[Bleach]{.smallcaps}**
                                    Bromide]{.smallcaps}**                             

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}**  0                        0                         70%

  **[Yield per                      2,379                    2,379                     695
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                               

  **[\* Price per Unit              2                        2                         2
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare    \$4,758                  \$4,758                   \$3,063
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare  \$612                    \$1,752                   \$339
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare      \$4,146                  \$3,006                   \$2,725
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                

  **Loss Measures**                                                                    

  **[1. Loss per Hectare            \$0                      \$1,142                   6,875
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl \$0                      \$340                     2,045
  Bromide (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                        

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of     0%                       11%                       67%
  Gross Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                     

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of Net 0%                       12%                       72%
  Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                           
  --------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------- --------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Summary of Economic Feasibility                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The economic analysis compared the costs of two alternative control   |
| scenarios to the baseline costs for methyl bromide. The economic      |
| estimates were first calculated in pounds and acres and then          |
| converted to kilograms and hectares. The costs for the first          |
| alternative are based on using portable steam equipment to sterilize  |
| tobacco polystyrene trays while the costs for the second alternative  |
| are based on the cost for dipping polystyrene trays into a 10%        |
| chlorine solution. The chlorine costs were derived from CUE applicant |
| data and the steam from U.S. EPA data. The baseline costs were based  |
| on the average number of applications to treat tobacco trays with     |
| methyl bromide per year, which was 1, with 3 pounds methyl bromide    |
| per 1,000 cubic feet. The loss per hectare measures the value of      |
| methyl bromide based on changes in operating costs and/or changes in  |
| yield. The loss as a percentage of the gross revenue is based on the  |
| ratio of the 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 derive     |
| gross revenue and the operating costs for each alternative were       |
| averaged from the three tobacco polystyrene tray CUE's (numbers,      |
| 03-25, 63 and 65). Tobacco beds will be discussed under a separate    |
| review. The differences in the cost of production were primarily from |
| the cost of the capitol investments and/materials costs. Labor was    |
| assumed to cost \$6.50 per hour. The estimated cost of a portable     |
| steam generator was depreciated over 10 years. One gallon of chlorine |
| was assumed to cost \$1 per gallon. Yield loss estimates were based   |
| on data from the CUE, and U.S. EPA data as well as expert opinion.    |
| Yield losses for steam was estimated to be 0% and 70% for the 10%     |
| chlorine bleach solution.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Using steam (Under Alternative 1), operating costs in U.S. dollars    |
| per hectare was \$1,752. The estimated net revenue was \$8,458 per    |
| hectare. The loss per hectare is estimated to be \$1,142. The loss    |
| per kilogram of methyl bromide in U.S. dollars is estimated to be     |
| \$340 per kilogram.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Under alternative 2 (bleach), the 10% chlorine bleach treatment was   |
| based on dipping trays into a solution of 1gallon of chlorine bleach  |
| and 9 gallons of water and allowing to air dry. EPA estimated that a  |
| 70% yield loss would result with the use of chlorine bleach.          |
| Operating costs in U.S. dollars per hectare was \$340. The estimated  |
| net revenue was \$2,725 per hectare. The loss per hectare is          |
| estimated to be \$6,875. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in   |
| U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$2,045 per kilogram.                 |
|                                                                       |
| It should be noted that the applicants do not consider any            |
| alternative to be feasible and that these estimates are a first draft |
| attempt to measure potential impacts. The final numbers and economic  |
| feasibility conclusions will not be decided until the accuracy of the |
| data used in the calculation of the economic measures are thoroughly  |
| examined.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
  Alternatives for This
  Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638038 .anchor}

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

Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of
alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the
U.S. EPA currently has more applications pending in its registration
review queue than the resources to evaluate them, U.S. EPA prioritizes
the applications. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl
bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U.S.
EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in
turn for the U.S. EPA to initiate its review.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to
methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on data
generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the
Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety
standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency
has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application,
allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the
methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, Agency scientists routinely
meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling
them through the preregistration process to increase the probability
that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are
minimized

The U.S. EPA has also co-chaired the USDA/EPA Methyl Bromide
Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research,
development and the registration of viable alternatives. This
coordination has resulted in key registration issues (such as worker and
bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking
water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural
Research Service's US\$15 million per year research program conducted at
more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also 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.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638039 .anchor}

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

The U.S. wants to note that our usage rate is among the lowest in the
world in requested sectors and represents efforts of both the government
and the user community over many years to reduce use rates and
emissions. We will continue to work with the user community in each
sector to identify further opportunities to reduce methyl bromide use
and emissions.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[25. Additional Comments on the
  Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638040 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638041 .anchor}

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

Gutierrez, WA, HD Shew and TA Melton. 1997, Sources of Inoculum and
Management for *Rhizoctonia solani* Damping-off on Tobacco Transplants
under Greenhouse Conditions. Pla. Science 81:604-606.

Gutierrez, WA, HD Shew and TA Melton. 2001. Rhizoctonia Diseases in
Tobacco Greenhouses. Plant Pathology Extension/North Carolina State
University. TB07- Tobacco Disease Note 7.\
<http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/notes/Tobacco/tdin007/tb07.html>

Clemson Extension. South Carolina Tobacco Growers Guide 2003.
[http://www.clemson.edu/peedeerec/Tobacco/2003%20tableof.htm](http://www.clemson.edu/peedeerec/Tobacco/2003 tableof.htm)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Citations reviewed but not
  applicable]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638042 .anchor}

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

Hensley Sr., R and DJ Fowlkes. The Float System for Producing Tobacco
Transplants.

Bateman K. 2002. Tobacco Greenhouse Float Tray Sanitation. NC State
University Cooperative Extension Service.
<http://www.utextension.utk.edu/tobaccoinfo/2002TOC.htm>

Reed, TD. 1998. Float Greenhouse Tobacco: Transplant Production Guide.
Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication Number 436-051.
<http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/tobacco/436-051/436-051.html>

Vani Muller, J J. 2000. Brazilian Tobacco Growers Choose Floating Seed
Trays as Methyl Bromide Replacement. RUMBA April 2000.
<http://www.uneptie.org/ozonaction/compliance/rumba/00april.html>

Dimock, WJ, CS Johnson, TD Reed, PJ Semtner, RL Jones and MJ Weaver.
2001. Crop Profile for Tobacco in Virginia. USDA/NASS.\
<http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/vatobacco.html>

Mulrooney, B. 1998. Weekly Crop Update -- Sanitation of Greenhouse
Trays. University of Delaware Cooperative Extension. Volume 1, Issue 1
March 13, 1998. <http://www.rec.udel.edu/Update98/upd31398.html>

Hensley, DD. Disease Management in Transplant Production.

Nesmith, W. 1995. New Harvest - Disinfect Planter Flats and Materials
for Growing Transplants. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension
Service.\
<http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/commhort/1995-07/commhort-35.html>

Salles, LA, DA Sosa and A Valeiro. 2001. Alternatives for the
Replacement of Methyl Bromide in Argentina. FAO Plant Production and
Protection Paper, No.166:3-11.
<http://fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1809E/y1809e02.htm>

Salles, LA. 2001. Effective Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Brazil.
FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, No.166:13-24.
<http://fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1809E/y1809e02.htm>

The mentioned articles were reviewed but not cited because either they
contained material only outlining the production methodology or did not
include relevant scientific methods and data in support of the
conclusions.

**APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65638071 .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**
  ------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------