**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
tomato Grown in Open Fields]{.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  | Pre-plant Soil Use for Tomato Grown in Open     |
| of                 | Fields (Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Use Season)  |
| 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.          |                                               |
|                      |                                               |
|  Yes  No           |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

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

  Signature                     Name                      Date

  Title:                                                  
  -------------------------- -- ---------------------- -- ------------------

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

  Contact/Expert Person:   Richard Keigwin

  Title:                   Acting 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:               \(703\) 305-8200

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

  E-mail:                  [Keigwin.Richard@epa.gov](mailto:knizner.steve@epa.gov)

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

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

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

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

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

***Table of Contents***

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

[1. Nominating Party 7](#__RefHeading___Toc125796868)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 7](#__RefHeading___Toc125796869)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 7](#__RefHeading___Toc125796870)

[4. Methyl Bromide Nominated 7](#__RefHeading___Toc125796871)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
7](#__RefHeading___Toc125796872)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
8](#__RefHeading___Toc125796873)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
8](#__RefHeading___Toc125796874)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
9](#__RefHeading___Toc125796875)

[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region 10](#__RefHeading___Toc125796876)

[Michigan - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}
11](#michigan-region---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Michigan - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
11](#__RefHeading___Toc125796878)

[Michigan - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
11](#__RefHeading___Toc125796879)

[Michigan - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
12](#__RefHeading___Toc125796880)

[[Michigan - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
13](#michigan-region---part-c-technical-validation)

[Michigan - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
13](#__RefHeading___Toc125796882)

[Michigan - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 15](#__RefHeading___Toc125796883)

[Michigan - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
16](#__RefHeading___Toc125796884)

[Michigan - 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 16](#__RefHeading___Toc125796885)

[Michigan - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
17](#__RefHeading___Toc125796886)

[Michigan - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
18](#__RefHeading___Toc125796887)

[Michigan - Summary of Technical Feasibility
18](#michigan-region---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[South-Eastern United States - [Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl
Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}
18](#south-eastern-united-states---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[South-Eastern United States - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which
Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
18](#__RefHeading___Toc125796890)

[South-Eastern United States - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System
and Climate 18](#__RefHeading___Toc125796891)

[South-Eastern United States - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an
Exemption Is Requested 19](#__RefHeading___Toc125796892)

[[South-Eastern United States - Part C: Technical
Validation]{.smallcaps}
23](#south-eastern-united-states---part-c-technical-validation)

[South-Eastern United States - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible 23](#__RefHeading___Toc125796894)

[South-Eastern United States - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and
Potential)* Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as
Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:
25](#__RefHeading___Toc125796895)

[South-Eastern United States - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)*
Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
26](#__RefHeading___Toc125796896)

[South-Eastern United States - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of
Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key
Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested
28](#__RefHeading___Toc125796897)

[South-Eastern United States - 17. Are There Any Other Potential
Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace
Methyl Bromide? 31](#__RefHeading___Toc125796898)

[South-Eastern United States - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to
Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
31](#__RefHeading___Toc125796899)

[South-Eastern United States - Summary of Technical Feasibility
31](#south-eastern-united-states---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 32](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use
32](#__RefHeading___Toc125796902)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 33](#__RefHeading___Toc125796903)

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

[21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
34](#__RefHeading___Toc125796905)

[22. Gross and Net Revenue 35](#__RefHeading___Toc125796906)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
36](#__RefHeading___Toc125796907)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 37](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 39](#part-f.-future-plans)

[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 39](#__RefHeading___Toc125796910)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 41](#__RefHeading___Toc125796911)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
41](#__RefHeading___Toc125796912)

[26. Citations 42](#__RefHeading___Toc125796913)

[APPENDIX B. List of Treatments in MBTOC Final Databases.
45](#__RefHeading___Toc125796914)

***List of Tables***

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

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 7](#__RefHeading___Toc125796236)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary for Tomatoes
8](#__RefHeading___Toc125796237)

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

[Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use --
Michigan, Southeast U.S., and Georgia
9](#table-8.1-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use-michigan-southeast-u.s.-and-georgia)

[Table 8.2: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use --
Florida
10](#table-8.2-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use-florida)

[*[Michigan - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use]{.smallcaps}*
11](#michigan-region---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[Michigan - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 11](#__RefHeading___Toc125796242)

[Michigan - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
11](#__RefHeading___Toc125796243)

[Michigan - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
12](#__RefHeading___Toc125796244)

[Michigan - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
13](#__RefHeading___Toc125796245)

[*[Michigan - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
13](#michigan-region---part-c-technical-validation)

[Michigan -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
13](#__RefHeading___Toc125796247)

[Michigan -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
15](#__RefHeading___Toc125796248)

[Michigan -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
16](#__RefHeading___Toc125796249)

[Michigan Region -- Table #?: Evaluation pf Fumigants for managing
*Phytophthora* 17](#__RefHeading___Toc125796250)

[Michigan -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Key Pest 1
17](#__RefHeading___Toc125796251)

[Michigan -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
17](#__RefHeading___Toc125796252)

[*[South-Eastern United States - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl
Bromide Use]{.smallcaps}*
18](#south-eastern-united-states---part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[South-Eastern United States - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and
Reason for Methyl Bromide Request 18](#__RefHeading___Toc125796254)

[South-Eastern United States - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System 19](#__RefHeading___Toc125796255)

[South-Eastern United States - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and
Crop Schedule 19](#__RefHeading___Toc125796256)

[Virginia - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
19](#__RefHeading___Toc125796257)

[Southeast U.S. \* - Table 12.2 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 20](#__RefHeading___Toc125796258)

[Georgia - Table 12.3 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
20](#__RefHeading___Toc125796259)

[Florida -- North Florida - Table 12.4 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 21](#__RefHeading___Toc125796260)

[Florida -- Ruskin / Palmetto - Table 12.5 Historic Pattern of Use of
Methyl Bromide 21](#__RefHeading___Toc125796261)

[Florida -- palm Beach - Table 12.6 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 22](#__RefHeading___Toc125796262)

[Florida -- Southwest - Table 12.7 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 22](#__RefHeading___Toc125796263)

[Florida -- Dade County - Table 12.8 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 22](#__RefHeading___Toc125796264)

[*[South-Eastern United States - Part C: Technical
Validation]{.smallcaps}*
23](#south-eastern-united-states---part-c-technical-validation)

[South-Eastern United States -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not
Being Feasible 23](#__RefHeading___Toc125796266)

[South-Eastern United States -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible
Alternatives Discussion 25](#__RefHeading___Toc125796267)

[South-Eastern United States -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status
of Alternatives 26](#__RefHeading___Toc125796268)

[South-Eastern United States -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of
Alternatives -- Key Pest 1 28](#__RefHeading___Toc125796269)

[South-Eastern U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.1: South-Eastern US Trellis
Tomato Fumigation Trial 28](#__RefHeading___Toc125796270)

[South-Eastern U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.2: South-Eastern US
Fumigants and Varieties to Manage Southern Bacterial Wilt of Tomato
28](#__RefHeading___Toc125796271)

[South-Eastern U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.3: Efficacy of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives for Verticilllium and Weed Management in Tomatoes
29](#__RefHeading___Toc125796272)

[South-Eastern U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.4: Methyl Bromide
Alternatives in Tomato Production Systems in North Carolina
29](#__RefHeading___Toc125796273)

[South-Eastern U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.5: Tomato Yields Are Not
Significantly Different But Percent Yield Loss Can Be Large
29](#__RefHeading___Toc125796274)

[South-Eastern U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.6: Pepper Yields Are Not
Significantly Different But Percent Yield Loss Can Be Large
30](#__RefHeading___Toc125796275)

[South-Eastern United States -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary 31](#__RefHeading___Toc125796276)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 32](#part-d-emission-control)

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

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

[Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 35](#__RefHeading___Toc125796280)

[Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
35](#__RefHeading___Toc125796281)

[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
36](#__RefHeading___Toc125796282)

[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
36](#__RefHeading___Toc125796283)

[Michigan - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
36](#__RefHeading___Toc125796284)

[Southeastern US - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 37](#__RefHeading___Toc125796285)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 40](#part-f.-future-plans)

[*APPENDIX A. 2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index (BUNNI)*.
44](#__RefHeading___Toc125796287)

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796868
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796869
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Pre-plant Soil Use for Tomato
Grown in Open Fields (Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Use Season).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop
  System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796870 .anchor}

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

Tomato Crops Grown in Open Fields for Fruit. In California, Michigan and
South-Eastern United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee). These
crops are grown in open fields on plastic tarps, often followed by
various other crops. Harvested fruit is destined for the fresh
market**.**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796871
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796236 .anchor}

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

  **2008**                 **1,840,100**           **14,131**
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

*\* Includes research amount*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796872 .anchor}

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

Currently registered alternatives to methyl bromide do not consistently
provide effective control of nutsedge weed species and more time is
needed to evaluate relationship between fumigant alternatives, various
mulches, and herbicide systems under different growing conditions.

The US nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are not
suitable. In US tomato production there are several factors that make
the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. These include:

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

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

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   delay in planting and harvesting: e.g., the plant-back interval for
    telone+chloropicrin is two weeks longer than methyl
    bromide+chloropicrin, and in Michigan an additional delay would
    occur because soil temperature must be higher to fumigate with
    alternatives. Delays in planting and harvesting result in users
    missing key market windows, and adversely affect revenues through
    lower prices.

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

**[Table A.1: Executive Summary for tomatoes
\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796237 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h3 id="region">Region</h3></td>
<td><em><strong>Michigan</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Virginia</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Southeast U.S**</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Georgia</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Florida – North Florida</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Florida – Ruskin / Palmetto</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Florida – Palm Beach</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Florida - Southwest</strong></em></td>
<td><em><strong>Florida – Dade County</strong></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><h5 id="amount-of-applicant-request"><span
class="smallcaps">Amount of Applicant Request</span></h5></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h4 id="kilograms">2008 Kilograms</h4></td>
<td>30,391</td>
<td>453,592</td>
<td>1,038,145</td>
<td>353,443</td>
<td>253,717</td>
<td>845,654</td>
<td>392,652</td>
<td>1,212,587</td>
<td>221,058</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><h5 id="amount-of-nomination"><span
class="smallcaps">Amount of Nomination*</span></h5></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h4 id="kilograms-1">2008 Kilograms</h4></td>
<td>30,310</td>
<td>91,628</td>
<td>377,955</td>
<td>147,366</td>
<td>98,222</td>
<td>327,373</td>
<td>152,396</td>
<td>473,253</td>
<td>136,097</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

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

*\*\*Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796873 .anchor}:

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

Research results confirm that methyl bromide alternatives options
provide inconsistent control of nutsedge weed species. Nutsedge is an
extremely competitive weed in tomato and can cause significant yield
losses in the Southeast. Methyl bromide alternatives also provide
incomplete control of soil pathogens in Michigan.

In addition, there is a regulatory prohibition on the use of 1,3-D on
karst geology in the South-Eastern United States, including Florida. In
Michigan, 1,3-D can only be used when soil temperature are higher than
required for using methyl bromide, and this results in a
planting/harvesting/marketing delay. In California, alternatives that
must be applied with drip irrigation may not be suitable in areas with
rolling or sloped topography due to uneven distribution of the
fumigant**.**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796874 .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}**  | Request for methyl    |
| req                   |                      | bromide in 2003       |
| uested]{.smallcaps}** | **[Average of 2001   | (%)]{.smallcaps}**    |
|                       | and 2003             |                       |
|                       | (ha)]{.smallcaps}**  |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Michigan Region**   | 769                  | 33                    |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **South-Eastern       | 28,646               | 100                   |
| United States**       |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[National Total :   | 51,506               | 57                    |
| \*]{.smallcaps}**     |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

\* National total includes other regions not requesting methyl bromide

*\*\*Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.*

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

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

The primary reason that some tomatoes may be grown without methyl
bromide in all three regions is the absence of key target pests (i.e.,
nutsedge in the Southeast, soil pathogens in Michigan, and pathogens and
nematodes in California).

In Florida, areas without karst geology and having low nutsedge pressure
can successfully employ a fumigation system relying on 1,3-D and
chloropicrin.

In Michigan, the majority of tomato producing acres do not have
*Phytopthora spp*., and do not use methyl bromide.

In California, areas with flat terrain successfully employ 1,3-D with
chloropicrin as a fumigant.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **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, areas that use methyl bromide do so because hilly terrain, cold soil
temperatures, and heavy pest pressure preclude the use of fumigants that
are employed when these conditions are not present.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796875 .anchor}

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

#### [Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use -- Michigan, Southeast U.S., and Georgia]{.smallcaps}

+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| # [Region                   | ***M       | **         | ***        |
| :]{.smallcaps}  {#region-1} | ichigan*** | *Southeast | Georgia*** |
|                             |            | U.S\*\**** |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| # [Year of Exe              |            |            |            |
| mption Request]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl        | 30,391     | 1,491,737  | 353,443    |
| Bromide]{.smallcaps}        |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| [Use: Broadcast or          | Strip/Bed  | Mostly     | Mostly     |
| Strip/Bed                   |            | Strip/Bed  | Strip/Bed  |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}      |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **                          | 67/33      | Mostly     | Mostly     |
| [Formulation]{.smallcaps}** |            | 67/33      | 67/33      |
| *(ratio of methyl           |            |            |            |
| bromide/chloropicrin        |            |            |            |
| mixture)* [to be used for   |            |            |            |
| the CUE]{.smallcaps}        |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| [Total Area to be treated   | 253        | 9,534      | 2,353      |
| with the methyl bromide or  |            |            |            |
| methyl bromide/Chloropicrin |            |            |            |
| formulation]{.smallcaps}    |            |            |            |
| *(m^2^ or ha)*              |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} | 12.0       | 16.2       | 15.0       |
| *(g/m^2^)* [of **active     |            |            |            |
| ingredient** used to        |            |            |            |
| calculate requested         |            |            |            |
| kilograms of methyl         |            |            |            |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}        |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+

*\*Only 36.7% percent of an hectare receives this amount of methyl
bromide formulation*

*\*\*Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.*

#### [Table 8.2: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use -- Florida]{.smallcaps}

+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+
| # [Region:]{.small | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***Fl   | * |         |
| caps}  {#region-2} | Florida | Florida | Florida | orida - | * |         |
|                    | --      | --      | -- Palm | South   | * |         |
|                    | North   | Ruskin  | B       | west*** | F |         |
|                    | Flo     | /       | each*** |         | l |         |
|                    | rida*** | Palm    |         |         | o |         |
|                    |         | etto*** |         |         | r |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | i |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | d |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | a |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | - |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | - |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | D |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | a |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | d |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | e |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | C |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | o |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | u |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | n |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | t |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | y |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | * |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | * |         |
|                    |         |         |         |         | * |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+
| # [Ye              | *       |         |         |         |   |         |
| ar of Exemption Re | *[2008] |         |         |         |   |         |
| quest]{.smallcaps} | {.small |         |         |         |   |         |
|                    | caps}** |         |         |         |   |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+
| [Kilograms of      | 253,717 | 845,654 | 392,652 | 1,      |   | 221,058 |
| Methyl             |         |         |         | 212,587 |   |         |
| Br                 |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| omide]{.smallcaps} |         |         |         |         |   |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+
| [Use: Broadcast or | Mostly  | Mostly  | Mostly  | Mostly  |   | Mostly  |
| Strip/Bed          | St      | St      | St      | St      |   | St      |
| Trea               | rip/Bed | rip/Bed | rip/Bed | rip/Bed |   | rip/Bed |
| tment]{.smallcaps} |         |         |         |         |   |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+
| **[Formulat        | Mostly  | Mostly  | Mostly  | Mostly  |   | Mostly  |
| ion]{.smallcaps}** | 67/33   | 67/33   | 67/33   | 67/33   |   | 67/33   |
| *(ratio of methyl  |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| br                 |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| omide/chloropicrin |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| mixture)* [to be   |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| used for the       |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| CUE]{.smallcaps}   |         |         |         |         |   |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+
| [Total Area to be  | 1,509   | 5,030   | 2,335   | 7,212   |   | 1,315   |
| treated with the   |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| methyl bromide or  |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| methyl             |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| br                 |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| omide/Chloropicrin |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| formul             |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| ation]{.smallcaps} |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| *(m^2^ or ha)*     |         |         |         |         |   |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+
| [Dosage            | 16.8    | 16.8    | 16.8    | 16.8    |   | 16.8    |
| r                  |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| ate\*]{.smallcaps} |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| *(g/m^2^)* [of     |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| **active           |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| ingredient** used  |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| to calculate       |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| requested          |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| kilograms of       |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| methyl             |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| br                 |         |         |         |         |   |         |
| omide]{.smallcaps} |         |         |         |         |   |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---+---------+

*\*Only 36.7% percent of a hectare receives this amount of methyl
bromide formulation*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
  Nominated for Each Region]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796876
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the US was calculated as
follows:

-   The percent of regional hectares in the applicant's request was
    divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered
    by the request. Values greater than 100 percent are due to the
    inclusion of additional varieties in the applicant's request that
    were not included in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
    Service surveys of the crop.

-   Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within one
    year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl bromide were
    subtracted. There was no double counting in this sector.

-   Growth or increasing production (the amount of area requested by the
    applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was
    subtracted. The three applicants that included growth in their
    request had the growth amount removed.

-   Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares is the area in the
    applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Not applicable in
    this sector.

-   Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following impacts
    were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy key pest
    pressure, regulatory impacts, karst geology, buffer zones,
    unsuitable terrain, and cold soil temperatures.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Michigan Regi                                                      |
| on - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl
  Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796878 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan Region - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for
Methyl Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796242
.anchor}

+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| **[Region    | **[Key disease(s) and | **[Specific reasons why       |
| where methyl | weed(s) to genus and, | methyl bromide                |
| bromide use  | if known, to species  | needed]{.smallcaps}**         |
| is           | level]{.smallcaps}**  |                               |
| requested]{. |                       |                               |
| smallcaps}** |                       |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| Michigan     | > 1\. Crown, root and | MB is currently the only      |
| Region       | > fruit rot caused by | product that can control      |
|              | > *Phytophthora       | these soil-borne pathogens    |
|              | > capsici*            | and allow MI growers to       |
|              | >                     | deliver their produce during  |
|              | > 2*. Fusarium        | premium priced early market   |
|              | > oxysporum* wilt     | windows. Other control        |
|              |                       | measures have plant back      |
|              |                       | restrictions that put MI      |
|              |                       | tomatoes outside the premium  |
|              |                       | priced fresh market.          |
|              |                       | Resistant varieties have not  |
|              |                       | been identified.              |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[michigan Region - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of
  Cropping System and
  Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796879 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan Region - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796243 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}    | ### [M                      |
|                                        | ichigan Region]{.smallcaps} |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.    | Transplant tomatoes to      |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or           | produce fruit               |
| cuttings)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                 | Annual                      |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years      |                             |
| between replanting)*                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                        | Squash, cucumber, eggplant  |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     | and melons. All are         |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for other | susceptible to              |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**  | *Phytpphthora capsici*.     |
| *(if any)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,  | Sandy to Loam               |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide         | Annual                      |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.      |                             |
| every two years)*                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                      | Low soil temperatures       |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                | during late March do not    |
|                                        | allow effective soil        |
|                                        | fumigation with telone,     |
|                                        | telone+ chloropicrin or     |
|                                        | metam sodium for tomato     |
|                                        | planting in April.          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**[Michigan Region - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796244 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-plant-hardiness-zone"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>(Plant Hardiness Zone)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">5B</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Soil Temp.</span></strong></p>
<p><em><span class="smallcaps">(°C)*</span></em></p></td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td>10-15</td>
<td>15-20</td>
<td>20-25</td>
<td>20-25</td>
<td>20-25</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>10-15</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Rainfall</span></strong></p>
<p><em><span class="smallcaps">(</span>mm<span class="smallcaps">)*
*</span></em></p></td>
<td>40</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong> <em>(°C) *
*</em></span></td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>17.7</td>
<td>20.6</td>
<td>20.9</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>-8.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Market
Window</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> [*\** Hausbeck and Cortright (2003).]{.smallcaps}
>
> *[\*\* Data source "]{.smallcaps}*
> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/grr/climate/f6/preliminary.php?site=LAN"

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

  In Michigan, low soil temperatures during late March to early April
  make the use of in-kind (metam-sodium, 1,3-D + chloropicrin) fumigants
  impractical because soil temperatures may be below the labeled minimums
  or plant back restrictions may be too long (14 to 30 days) to allow
  April transplanting of tomato seedlings in the field.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide,
  and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796880 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan Region - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796245 .anchor}

+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[For as     | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
| many years as | 1999** | 2000** | 2001** | 2002** | 2003** | 2004** |
| possible as   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| shown         |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| specify:]{    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Area       | 195    | 233    | 260    | 270    | 256    | 278    |
| Treated]{     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(hectares)*  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[ratio of   | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   | 100%   |
| flat          | strip  | strip  | strip  | strip  | strip  | strip  |
| fumigation    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| methyl        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide use   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| to strip/bed  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| use if strip  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| treatment is  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| used]{        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Amount of  | 23,493 | 28,003 | 31,235 | 32,461 | 30,781 | 33,430 |
| methyl        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| active        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ingredient    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| used]{        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
|               |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(total kg)*  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **            | 67/33  | 67/33  | 67/33  | 67/33  | 67/33  | 67/33  |
| [formulations |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| of methyl     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide]{     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(methyl      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| bromide       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| /c            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| hloropicrin)* |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Method by  | In     | In     | In     | In     | In     | In     |
| which methyl  | jected | jected | jected | jected | jected | jected |
| bromide       | 20-25  | 20-25  | 20-25  | 20-25  | 20-25  | 20-25  |
| applied]{     | cm     | cm     | cm     | cm     | cm     | cm     |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| *             | 120    | 120    | 120    | 120    | 120    | 120    |
| *[Application |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| rate of       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| active        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ingredient    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| in            |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ]{.smallcaps} |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| kg/ha\***     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **[Actual     | 12.0   | 12.0   | 12.0   | 12.0   | 12.0   | 12.0   |
| dosage rate   |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| of active     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| ingredient]{  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| *(g/          |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| m^2^)***[\*]{ |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| .smallcaps}** |        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

*\*Only 36.7 percent land area is treated in the form of beds and
therefore dosage rate (g/m^2^)* *is higher.*

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796882 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan Region -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796247 .anchor}

+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| **[Name of     | **[Technical and regulatory\*        | **[Is the   |
| Alternative]   | reasons for the alternative not      | alternative |
| {.smallcaps}** | being feasible or available +        | considered  |
|                | citations\*\*]{.smallcaps}**         | cost        |
|                |                                      | eff         |
|                |                                      | ective?]{.s |
|                |                                      | mallcaps}** |
+================+======================================+=============+
| # [Chemic      |                                      |             |
| al Alternative |                                      |             |
| s]{.smallcaps} |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1,3-D          | It is not effective against fungal   | No          |
|                | plant pathogens.                     |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam sodium   | Metam sodium is effective against    | No          |
|                | soil fungi. However, Michigan soil   |             |
|                | temperatures during April are too    |             |
|                | low to use this fumigant for an      |             |
|                | early fresh market tomato crop.      |             |
|                | Product label states that tomatoes   |             |
|                | cannot be transplanted to the field  |             |
|                | for up to 21 days after fumigation.  |             |
|                | Technically, it is MB alternative,   |             |
|                | but economically it is not a viable  |             |
|                | alternative.                         |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Chloropicrin   | Chloropicrin is ineffective as a     | No          |
|                | soil fumigant when applied alone.    |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| ##             |                                      |             |
| ## [Non Chemic |                                      |             |
| al Alternative |                                      |             |
| s]{.smallcaps} |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Soil           | Michigan is a northern state with    | No          |
| solarization   | cold weather conditions and          |             |
|                | therefore it is not a viable option. |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Steam          | While steam has been used            | No          |
|                | effectively against fungal pests in  |             |
|                | protected production systems, such   |             |
|                | as greenhouses, there is no evidence |             |
|                | that it would be effective in the    |             |
|                | open tomato fields. Any such system  |             |
|                | would also require large amounts of  |             |
|                | energy and water to provide          |             |
|                | sufficient steam necessary to        |             |
|                | pasteurize soil down to the rooting  |             |
|                | depth of field crops (at least 20-50 |             |
|                | cm).                                 |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Biological     | Biological control agents are not    | No          |
| Control        | technically feasible alternatives to |             |
|                | MB because they alone cannot control |             |
|                | the soil pathogens and/or nematodes. |             |
|                | While biological control may have    |             |
|                | utility as part of plant pathogen    |             |
|                | management strategy, it can not be a |             |
|                | methyl bromide alternative           |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Cover crops    | There is no evidence that these      | No          |
| and mulching   | practices effectively substitute for |             |
|                | the control MB provides against      |             |
|                | fungal pathogens and nematodes.      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Crop rotation  | The land is very expensive and there | No          |
| and fallow     | are not enough hectares in tomato    |             |
| land           | growing areas to rotate. The fungal  |             |
|                | pathogen survive for many years in   |             |
|                | soil and therefore crop rotation and |             |
|                | fallow are not a viable options      |             |
|                | (Lamour and Hausbeck, 2003\*)        |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Endophytes     | No information is available on       | No          |
|                | tomato endophytes that will control  |             |
|                | fungal and plant pathogens.          |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Flooding/Water | Flooding is not technically feasible | No          |
| management     | because it does not suppress fungal  |             |
|                | plant pathogens and nematodes.       |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Graf           | There are no studies documenting the | No          |
| ting/resistant | commercial availability of resistant |             |
| r              | rootstock immune to the fungal       |             |
| ootstock/plant | pathogens listed as target pests.    |             |
| bre            | Grafting and plant breeding are thus |             |
| eding/soilless | also rendered technically infeasible |             |
| c              | as MB alternatives for control of    |             |
| ulture/organic | fungal pathogens and nematodes.      |             |
| production/s   |                                      |             |
| ubstrates/plug |                                      |             |
| plants.        |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| ####           |                                      |             |
| [Combinations  |                                      |             |
| of Alternative |                                      |             |
| s]{.smallcaps} |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Telone +       | Telone is effective against          | No          |
| chloropicrin   | nematodes. Chloropicrin is effective |             |
|                | against fungal plant pathogens.      |             |
|                | Their combination is a technically   |             |
|                | feasible alternative, but Michigan's |             |
|                | low soil temperature does not allow  |             |
|                | soil fumigation during April months  |             |
|                | for early fresh market tomato crop.  |             |
|                | See paragraph below.                 |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam sodium + | Same as for metam sodium.            | No          |
| crop rotation  |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+

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

The proposal by MBTOC to obviate the use of methyl bromide in Michigan
by applying some alternative (specifically a combination of 1,3-D and
chloropicrin) in the autumn preceeding crop planting will not work on
tomatoes. In Michigan, the predominant agricultural treatment that uses
methyl bromide is one where methyl bromide is applied in strips of
raised beds. Areas between the raised beds are not treated. In addition
to the risk that the harsh winter conditions (prolonged periods of below
freezing weather with snow, sleet, and high winds) will tear the plastic
barrier, there is significant risk of flooding and concomitant
recontamination of the treated areas. The length and severity of the
winter means 4-5 months of precipitation is 'stored' in frozen form and
released over the short period of thaw in the spring. This thaw-based
flooding can be exacerbated by heavy rainfalls (in excess of 25
mm/event) that occur throughout the spring and summer in Michigan.
Because phytophthora and verticillium are endemic in the areas of
Michigan for which methyl bromide is being requested, flooding will
transfer spores from the untreated to treated areas, resulting in
additional infected plants and severe crop losses.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}**
  *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
  Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796883 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan Region -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796248 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| None               | Other than those options discussed above, there |
|                    | are no alternatives that may control the key    |
|                    | pest. Registered fungicides (such as            |
|                    | azoxystrobin, mefenoxam and mancozeb) may       |
|                    | control aerial infections of *Phytophthora      |
|                    | capsici*, but are not effective against crown   |
|                    | and root rot phase of this pathogen. Soil       |
|                    | fumigation with methyl bromide kills soil-borne |
|                    | primary inoculum of this pest and therefore     |
|                    | fungicide use is also reduced (Lamour and       |
|                    | Hausbeck, 2003\*)                               |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present
  ]{.smallcaps}***(and Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any
  Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796884
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Michigan Region -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796249 .anchor}

+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| **[Name of  | ##### [Present Regis        | **[          | **[Date  |
| Alte        | tration Status]{.smallcaps} | Registration | of       |
| rnative]{.s |                             | being        | possible |
| mallcaps}** |                             | considered   | future   |
|             |                             | by national  | regi     |
|             |                             | authorities? | stration |
|             |                             | (Y/N)]{.     | :]{.smal |
|             |                             | smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Methyl      | Not registered.             | Yes          | Unknown  |
| Iodide      |                             |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Sodium      | Not registered. No          | No           | Unknown  |
| azide       | registration package has    |              |          |
|             | been received.              |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Furfural    | Not registered.             | Yes          | Unknown  |
|             | Registration package has    |              |          |
|             | been received.              |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Propargyl   | Not registered. No          | No           | Unknown  |
| Bromide     | registration package has    |              |          |
|             | been received.              |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Muscadore   | Registration package has    | Yes          | Re       |
| albus       | been received.              |              | gistered |
| Strain QST  |                             |              | but not  |
| 20799       |                             |              | yet for  |
|             |                             |              | sale in  |
|             |                             |              | the U.S. |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region - 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___Toc125796885
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

In 2003, the applicant submitted the results of one small scale field
trial on the efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives in controlling
*Phytophthora capsici* and its effect on tomato yield (Hausbeck and
Cortwright, 2003). This study focused on tomato and a number of
vegetable crops (cucurbits, winter squash, and melons). As of July 2003,
results showed that methyl bromide+ chloropicrin (67/33, shank injected
@ 390 Kg/Hectare), metam sodium (drip applied) @ 355 KG ai/ha), 1,
3-D+chloropicrin (65/35, shank injected @ 150 liters/ha) resulted in 0,
12.9, 6.4 percent plant loss. Untreated control suffered 7.1% plant
loss. The fields were treated on May 15 and 16, 2003, and the weather
was unusually cooler than normal during May and early June of the year
2003. Results were inconclusive. The state expert claims that the
growers may suffer 6.4 and 12.9 percent yield losses using 1, 3-D +
chloropicrin and metam sodium if fields are fumigated in early May
instead of April (using methyl bromide + chloropicrin). In addition,
growers may also experience revenue losses if they miss early tomato
market when prices are higher.

This study was repeated during the 2004 growing season. However, this
study does not represent the typical Michigan conditions because due to
the cool wet weather the plots were not treated until June 8 when the
soil was warm enough for the alternatives to be effective. Results show
that yields from tomato plots treated with metam potassium (K-Pam),
alone or in combination with chloropicrin, and from plots treated with
1,3-D + chloropicrin (Telone C35) are not significantly different from
yields from plots treated with MB + chloropicrin or from yields from
untreated control plots (Hausbeck and Cartright, 2004). As for the 2003
trial discussed above, results of the 2004 study are still inconclusive,
probably because of the occurrence of low pest pressure in the study
area.

**[Michigan Region -- Table #? .]{.smallcaps} Evaluation of Fumigants
for Managing *Phytophthora* Crown and Fruit Rot of Solanaceous and
Cucurbit Crops 2004** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125796250 .anchor}

  -------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------
  **Alternative & Rate**           **Plant Loss (%)**       **Marketable
                                                            Yield Loss**

  MeBr 67:33 350 lb/A)             4.6 %                    0%

  Telone C-35 shank (392 gal/A)    15.3 %                   30%

  Chloropicrin shank (344 lb/A)    0.60%                    -23%
  plus Metam potassium drip (174                            
  lb/A)                                                     

  Chloropicrin shank (344 lb/A)    0.40%                    -12%
  plus Metam potassium drip (348                            
  lb/A)                                                     

  Chloropicrin 99% shank (25 gal)  24.30%                   11%

  Metam potassium drip (348 lb/A)  1.70%                    -17%

  Metam potassium drip (174 lb/A)  2.10%                    7%
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------

> Footnote. Due to a wet spring the treatments were applied later than
> typical for Michigan on June 8, 2004.
>
> From Hausbeck and Cortright, 2004.

**[Michigan Region -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Key
Pest 1]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796251 .anchor}

No additional information is available.

**[Michigan Region -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796252 .anchor}

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #               | ##### [         | ##### [Ra       | **[Best         |
| #### [Alternati | List Type of Pe | nge of Yield Lo | Estimate of     |
| ve]{.smallcaps} | st]{.smallcaps} | ss]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                 |                 |                 | Loss            |
|                 |                 |                 | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| methyl bromide+ | Phytophthora    | 0.0 -- 0.0      | 0.0             |
| chloropicrin    | capsici         |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| metam sodium    | Phytophthora    | 0.0 -- 12.9     | 12.9            |
|                 | capsici         |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1,              | Phytophthora    | 0.0 --6.4       | 6.4             |
| 3               | capsici         |                 |                 |
| -D+chloropicrin |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| chloropicrin    | Phytophthora    | 0.0 --6.4       | 6.4             |
|                 | capsici         |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Over     |                 | **0 - 13 % plus |                 |
| all Loss Estima |                 | revenue losses  |                 |
| te for All Alte |                 | due to planting |                 |
| rnatives to Pes |                 | delays; Most    |                 |
| ts]{.smallcaps} |                 | likely losses   |                 |
|                 |                 | are 6 % using   |                 |
|                 |                 | 1,3 D +         |                 |
|                 |                 | chloropicrin    |                 |
|                 |                 | (the best       |                 |
|                 |                 | alternative)**  |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

**Reference:** Alternatives for methyl bromide on cucurbit and
Solanaceous crops, 2003. M.K. Hausbeck, B.D. Cortright. 2003.
Unpublished.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives
  Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796886 .anchor}

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

In Michigan the critical use exemption application states that 1,3-D +
chloropicrin, metam-sodium, methyl iodide, sodium azide, and furfural
will continue to be under investigation as methyl bromide alternatives.
Most of these alternatives are currently unregistered for use on tomato,
and there are presently no commercial entities pursuing registration in
the United States. The timeline for developing the above-mentioned MB
alternatives in Michigan is as follows:

2003 -- 2005: Test for efficacy (particularly against the more prevalent
*Phytophthora*)

2005 -- 2007: Establish on-farm demonstration plots for effective MB
alternatives

2008 -- 2010: Work with growers to implement commercial use of effective
alternatives.

Research is also under way to optimize the use of a 50 % methyl bromide:
50 % chloropicrin formulation to replace the currently used 67:33
formulation. In addition, field research is being conducted to optimize
a combination of crop rotation, raised crop beds, black plastic, and
foliar fungicides. Use of virtually impermeable film (VIF) will also be
investigated as a replacement for the currently used low density
polyethylene (LDPE).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan Region - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce
  the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796887 .anchor}

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

Tomatoes are grown in fields. In Michigan, it is neither technically
feasible nor economically viable to grow tomatoes in soil-less culture
or in containers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Michigan Region - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.smallcaps}    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Although metam sodium and a combination of 1,3-D + chloropicrin can   |
| control the key target pest, *Phytophthora,* the resulting planting   |
| and harvesting delays due to cold soil temperatures and longer        |
| plant-back interval lead to a shorter growing season and missing key  |
| market windows when commodity prices are most favorable. These        |
| alternatives have plant back restriction that delay tomato harvest by |
| 14-28 days, resulting in lower net revenues per acre because tomato   |
| prices decline as season progresses.                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Currently unregistered alternatives, such as methyl iodide, sodium    |
| azide, propargyl bromide and furfural have good efficacy against the  |
| key pests involved. However, even if registration is pursued, the     |
| growers will need transition time to adopt them.                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STAT                                          |
| ES - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which
  Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796890 .anchor}

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

**[South-Eastern United States - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and
Reason for Methyl Bromide
Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796254 .anchor}

+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| **[Region    | **[Key disease(s) and | **[Specific reasons why       |
| where methyl | weed(s) to genus and, | methyl bromide                |
| bromide use  | if known, to species  | needed]{.smallcaps}\          |
| is           | level]{.smallcaps}**  | **                            |
| requested]{. |                       |                               |
| smallcaps}** |                       |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
| S            | Nutsedges (*Cyperus   | None of the listed MBTOC      |
| outh-Eastern | rotundus and C.       | alternatives is effective in  |
| United       | esculentus*)          | controlling the key pests in  |
| States       |                       | the South-Eastern United      |
|              | Root-Knot nematodes   | States.                       |
|              |                       |                               |
|              | *Phytophthora* Crown  |                               |
|              | and Root Rot.         |                               |
|              | *Fusarium* Wilt (*F.  |                               |
|              | oxysporum*)           |                               |
+--------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[South-Eastern United States - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[)
  Characteristics of Cropping System and
  Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796891 .anchor}

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

**[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796255 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}    | ### [SOUTH-EASTERN          |
|                                        | UNITED STATES]{.smallcaps}  |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.    | Transplant for tomato fruit |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or           | production                  |
| cuttings)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                 | Annual                      |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years      |                             |
| between replanting)*                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                        | Tomato. Tomato-Cucumber or  |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     | Squash or Watermelon or     |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for other | Cantaloupe.                 |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**  | Tomato-Cucurbits.           |
| *(if any)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,  | Sandy to loam, over karst   |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                     | geology in many areas       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide         | Annual                      |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.      |                             |
| every two years)*                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                      | No other information        |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                | provided.                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate
and Crop Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796256 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><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-1"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-plant-hardiness-zone-1"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>(Plant Hardiness Zone)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">6b, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9b, 10a, 10b</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong> <em>(°C)
**</em></span></td>
<td>17-20</td>
<td>17-21</td>
<td>21-24</td>
<td>22-26</td>
<td>25-29</td>
<td>26-29</td>
<td>27-30</td>
<td>28-32</td>
<td>27-29</td>
<td>25-27</td>
<td>21-23</td>
<td>19-21</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)*</span></em></td>
<td>51-203</td>
<td>51-203</td>
<td>51-203</td>
<td>51-203</td>
<td>102-203</td>
<td>102-203</td>
<td>51-203</td>
<td>51-203</td>
<td>25-102</td>
<td>25-102</td>
<td>25-102</td>
<td>25-102</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)*</em></span></td>
<td>11-22</td>
<td>16-23</td>
<td>21-25</td>
<td>25-28</td>
<td>26-28</td>
<td>25-28</td>
<td>23-25</td>
<td>17-25</td>
<td>10-22</td>
<td>7-19</td>
<td>7-19</td>
<td>8-19</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Market
Window</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*[\* Jacob (1977). \*\* Florida soil temperatutes source is
www.imok.ufl/edu/weather/archives/200/clim00]{.smallcaps}*

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

  In the Southeastern U.S., karst geology inhibits the use of all
  fumigants that contain 1,3-D in a significant portion of the tomato
  production areas.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[South-Eastern United States - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
  Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an
  Exemption Is Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796892
  .anchor}

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

**[Virginia - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796257 .anchor}

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specif            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| y:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area           | 1,439 | 1,719 | 2,038 | 2,102 | 1,983 | Not   |
| Treat             |       |       |       |       |       | Avai  |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       | lable |
| *(hectares)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat  | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if  | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment   | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| is                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of      | 24    | 28    | 34    | 35    | 33    | Not   |
| methyl bromide    | 2,014 | 8,961 | 2,711 | 3,325 | 3,390 | Avai  |
| active ingredient |       |       |       |       |       | lable |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations   | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| of methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.sm            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| allcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by      | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| which methyl      | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| bromide           | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| appli             | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
|                   | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
|                   | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                   | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage  | 16.8  | 16.8  | 16.8  | 16.8  | 16.8  | 16.8  |
| rate of Active    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredie          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| nt]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| \*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**[Southeast U.S. \* - Table 12.2 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796258 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many     | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible  | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| speci              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| fy:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area            | 5,564 | 5,816 | 6,052 | 5,947 | 6,131 | 6,252 |
| Trea               |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ted]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat   | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to  | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment is | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| u                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| sed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of       | 83    | 87    | 90    | 89    | 91    | 93    |
| methyl bromide     | 5,014 | 0,340 | 7,927 | 1,844 | 9,621 | 7,856 |
| active ingredient  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| u                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| sed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations of | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| methyl bromide     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.s              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| mallcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by which | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| methyl bromide     | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| appl               | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| ied]{.smallcaps}** | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
|                    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
|                    | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
|                    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                    | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage   | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  |
| rate of Active     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredi            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ent]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| [\*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

*\*Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee*

**[Georgia - Table 12.3 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796259 .anchor}

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specif            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| y:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area           | 2,686 | 2,307 | 2,216 | 2,353 | 2,341 | 2,688 |
| Treat             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat  | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if  | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment   | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| is                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of      | 51    | 35    | 33    | 35    | 35    | 40    |
| methyl bromide    | 2,423 | 4,727 | 2,778 | 3,443 | 1,620 | 3,710 |
| active ingredient |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations   | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| of methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.sm            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| allcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by      | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| which methyl      | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| bromi             | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| de]{.smallcaps}** | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
|                   | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
|                   | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
|                   | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                   | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage  | 19.1  | 15.4  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  |
| rate of Active    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredie          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| nt]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| \*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**[Florida -- North Florida - Table 12.4 Historic Pattern of Use of
Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796260 .anchor}

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specif            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| y:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area           | 1,032 | 1,376 | 1,376 | 1,942 | 1,700 | 1,509 |
| Treat             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat  | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if  | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment   | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| is                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of      | 19    | 24    | 24    | 34    | 33    | 29    |
| methyl bromide    | 9,690 | 6,754 | 6,754 | 8,359 | 5,295 | 1,740 |
| active ingredient |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations   | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| of methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.sm            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| allcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by      | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| which methyl      | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| bromide           | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| appli             | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
|                   | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
|                   | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                   | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage  | 19.4  | 17.9  | 17.9  | 17.9  | 19.7  | 19.3  |
| rate of Active    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredie          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| nt]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| \*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**[Florida -- Ruskin / Palmetto - Table 12.5 Historic Pattern of Use of
Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796261 .anchor}

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specif            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| y:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area           | 5,443 | 5,261 | 6,313 | 6,313 | 6,313 | 5,030 |
| Treat             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat  | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if  | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment   | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| is                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of      | 1,00  | 88    | 99    | 94    | 1,08  | 85    |
| methyl bromide    | 9,806 | 7,226 | 0,645 | 8,189 | 9,709 | 0,841 |
| active ingredient |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations   | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| of methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.sm            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| allcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by      | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| which methyl      | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| bromide           | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| appli             | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
|                   | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
|                   | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                   | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage  | 18.6  | 16.9  | 15.7  | 15.0  | 17.3  | 16.9  |
| rate of Active    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredie          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| nt]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| \*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**[Florida -- palm Beach - Table 12.6 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796262 .anchor}

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specif            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| y:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area           | 2,044 | 2,843 | 2,843 | 2,843 | 2,843 | 2,335 |
| Treat             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat  | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if  | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment   | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| is                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of      | 32    | 47    | 44    | 42    | 49    | 39    |
| methyl bromide    | 9,852 | 1,600 | 6,108 | 6,989 | 0,719 | 5,060 |
| active ingredient |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations   | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| of methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.sm            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| allcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by      | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| which methyl      | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| bromide           | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| appli             | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
|                   | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
|                   | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                   | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage  | 16.1  | 16.6  | 15.7  | 15.0  | 17.3  | 16.9  |
| rate of Active    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredie          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| nt]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| \*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**[Florida -- Southwest - Table 12.7 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796263 .anchor}

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specif            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| y:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area           | 7,345 | 8,529 | 8,529 | 8,529 | 8,529 | 7,212 |
| Treat             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat  | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if  | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment   | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| is                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of      | 1,32  | 1,34  | 1,33  | 1,28  | 1,47  | 1,22  |
| methyl bromide    | 0,936 | 7,883 | 8,323 | 0,966 | 2,156 | 0,025 |
| active ingredient |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations   | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| of methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.sm            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| allcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by      | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| which methyl      | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| bromide           | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| appli             | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
| *(e.g. injected   | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
| at 25cm depth,    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
| hot gas)*         | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage  | 18.0  | 15.8  | 15.7  | 15.0  | 17.3  | 16.9  |
| rate of Active    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredie          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| nt]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| \*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**[Florida -- Dade County - Table 12.8 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796264 .anchor}

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many    | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as possible | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
| as shown          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specif            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| y:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area           | 1,700 | 1,700 | 1,603 | 1,481 | 1,481 | 1,315 |
| Treat             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of flat  | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    | Ap    |
| Fumigation use to | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. | prox. |
| strip/bed use if  | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   | 50%   |
| strip treatment   | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip | strip |
| is                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of      | 28    | 28    | 25    | 22    | 25    | 22    |
| methyl bromide    | 3,858 | 3,858 | 1,471 | 2,460 | 5,663 | 6,121 |
| active ingredient |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| us                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations   | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 | 67/33 |
| of methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| (]{.sm            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| allcaps}***methyl |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /Chloropicrin)*   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by      | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     | M     |
| which methyl      | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly | ostly |
| bromide           | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| appli             | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    | at    |
|                   | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 | 25-30 |
|                   | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
|                   | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth | depth |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage  | 16.7  | 16.7  | 15.7  | 15.0  | 17.3  | 17.2  |
| rate of Active    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Ingredie          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| nt]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| \*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [SO                                                                 |
| UTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796894 .anchor}

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

**[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives
Not Being Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796266
.anchor}

+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| **[Name of     | **[Technical and regulatory\*        | **[Is the   |
| Alternative]   | reasons for the alternative not      | alternative |
| {.smallcaps}** | being feasible or                    | considered  |
|                | available]{.smallcaps}**             | cost        |
|                |                                      | eff         |
|                |                                      | ective?]{.s |
|                |                                      | mallcaps}** |
+================+======================================+=============+
| # [Chemic      |                                      |             |
| al Alternative |                                      |             |
| s]{.smallcaps} |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1,3            | Effective against nematodes, but not | No          |
| d              | against fungal plant pathogens and   |             |
| ichloropropene | nutsedge weeds. Approximately 40% of |             |
| (Telone)       | tomato land has Karst geology.       |             |
|                | Growers with Karst geology cannot    |             |
|                | use 1,3-D because of underground     |             |
|                | water contamination.                 |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam          | Metam (sodium or potassium) will     | No          |
| so             | control many weeds, but control of   |             |
| dium/potassium | nutsedge is very inconsistent, and   |             |
|                | this fumigant is not very effective  |             |
|                | against soil nematodes.              |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Chloropicrin   | Chloropicrin controls soil fungi,    | No          |
|                | but may also stimulate nutsedge weed |             |
|                | growth, and therefore it is not a    |             |
|                | viable option. It occasionally       |             |
|                | controls nutsedge as noted in the    |             |
|                | literature. Again, the issue is its  |             |
|                | inability to get consistent control  |             |
|                | (Culpepper, 2004).                   |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| ##             |                                      |             |
| ## [Non Chemic |                                      |             |
| al Alternative |                                      |             |
| s]{.smallcaps} |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Soil           | For nutsedge control in the          | No          |
| solarization   | southeastern U.S. states,            |             |
|                | solarization is unlikely to be       |             |
|                | technically feasible as a methyl     |             |
|                | bromide alternative. Research        |             |
|                | indicates that the lethal            |             |
|                | temperature for nutsedge tubers is   |             |
|                | 50^o^C or higher (Chase et al.       |             |
|                | 1999). While this may be achieved    |             |
|                | for some portion of the autumn       |             |
|                | cropping in southern growing         |             |
|                | regions, it is very unlikely for any |             |
|                | portion of the spring crops. Trials  |             |
|                | conducted in mid-summer in Georgia   |             |
|                | resulted in maximal soil             |             |
|                | temperatures of 43^o^C at 5 cm       |             |
|                | depth, not high enough to destroy    |             |
|                | nutsedge tubers, and tubers lodged   |             |
|                | deeper in the soil would be          |             |
|                | completely unaffected.               |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Steam          | Steam is not a technically feasible  | No          |
|                | alternative for open field tomato    |             |
|                | production because it requires       |             |
|                | sustained heat over a required       |             |
|                | period of time (UNEP 1998). While    |             |
|                | steam has been used effectively      |             |
|                | against fungal pests in protected    |             |
|                | production systems, such as          |             |
|                | greenhouses, there is no evidence    |             |
|                | that it would be effective in tomato |             |
|                | fields. Any such system would also   |             |
|                | require large amounts of energy and  |             |
|                | water to provide sufficient steam    |             |
|                | necessary to pasteurize soil down to |             |
|                | the rooting depth of field crops (at |             |
|                | least 20-50 cm).                     |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Biological     | Biological control agents are not    | No          |
| Control        | technically feasible alternatives to |             |
|                | methyl bromide because they alone    |             |
|                | cannot control the soil pathogens,   |             |
|                | nematodes and nutsedges.             |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Cover crops    | Cover crops and mulches appear to    | No          |
| and mulching   | reduce weed population, but not      |             |
|                | nutsedges (Burgos and Talbert 1996). |             |
|                | Mulching has also been shown to be   |             |
|                | ineffective in controlling           |             |
|                | nutsedges, since these plants are    |             |
|                | able to penetrate through both       |             |
|                | organic and plastic mulches (Munn    |             |
|                | 1992, Patterson 1998).               |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Crop rotation  | It is not a technically or           | No          |
| and fallow     | economically (cannot afford to take  |             |
| land           | land out of production) feasible     |             |
|                | alternative to MB because it does    |             |
|                | not, by itself, provide adequate     |             |
|                | control of fungi and/or nutsedges.   |             |
|                | Crops available for rotation to      |             |
|                | growers are also susceptible to      |             |
|                | fungi, while fallow land can still   |             |
|                | harbor fungal oospores. The nutsedge |             |
|                | tubers provide new plants with       |             |
|                | larger energy reserves than the      |             |
|                | annual weeds that can be frequently  |             |
|                | controlled by crop rotations and     |             |
|                | fallow land. Furthermore, nutsedge   |             |
|                | plants can produce tubers within 8   |             |
|                | weeks after emergence. This enhances |             |
|                | their survival across different      |             |
|                | cropping regimes that can disrupt    |             |
|                | other plants that rely on a longer   |             |
|                | undisturbed growing period to        |             |
|                | produce seeds to propagate the next  |             |
|                | generation.                          |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Endophytes     | This is not a technically viable     | No          |
|                | option because it has never been     |             |
|                | shown to work against the key pests  |             |
|                | in tomato or similar crops.          |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Flooding/Water | Flooding has never been shown to     | No          |
| management     | control nutsedge species. Nutsedges  |             |
|                | are much more tolerant of watery     |             |
|                | conditions than many other weed      |             |
|                | pests. For example, Horowitz (1972)  |             |
|                | showed that submerging nutsedge in   |             |
|                | flowing or stagnant water (for 8     |             |
|                | days and 4 weeks, respectively) did  |             |
|                | not affect the sprouting capacity of |             |
|                | tubers. There are also serious       |             |
|                | practical obstacles to implementing  |             |
|                | flood management approaches in       |             |
|                | cucurbit production in the southern  |             |
|                | and southeastern U.S. states.        |             |
|                | Droughts are common in many parts of |             |
|                | these regions, and the soil          |             |
|                | composition may not support flooding |             |
|                | and still remain productive.         |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Graf           | These technologies have never been   | No          |
| ting/resistant | shown to control listed key pests    |             |
| r              | under field conditions. Resistant    |             |
| ootstock/plant | root stock or cultivars may control  |             |
| bree           | one pest, but not the other. It is   |             |
| ding/soil-less | almost impossible to breed or        |             |
| c              | genetically engineer tomato          |             |
| ulture/organic | cultivars that has all agronomic     |             |
| production/s   | characters and is resistant to all   |             |
| ubstrates/plug | key pests. This has no effect on     |             |
| plants.        | managing nutsedge weeds.             |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| ####           |                                      |             |
| [Combinations  |                                      |             |
| of Alternative |                                      |             |
| s]{.smallcaps} |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1,3 D +        | A combination of fumigants and       | Some        |
| chloropicrin+  | herbicide partners is the most       | c           |
| a herbicide    | promising alternative for the        | ombinations |
| (such as       | control of all key pests in          | are         |
| napropamide +  | southeastern region. The executive   | promising   |
| s              | summary of dozens of research trials |             |
| -metolachlor + | show that the growers may harvest    |             |
| halosulfuron)  | tomato yield that is nearly equal to |             |
|                | yields obtained using MB and         |             |
|                | chloropicrin. With this combination, |             |
|                | in areas where it can be used,       |             |
|                | growers may lose an average of 6.2%  |             |
|                | yield (Chellemi *et al*., 2001).     |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam sodium + | Although this combination may be     | It shows    |
| Chloropicrin   | more effective than metam sodium     | promise     |
|                | alone in controlling fungal pests,   |             |
|                | it would not prevent yield losses    |             |
|                | caused by nutsedges and some species |             |
|                | of nematodes. This mixture along     |             |
|                | with a herbicide (for controlling    |             |
|                | nutsedge weeds) may be a viable MB   |             |
|                | alternative in the South-Eastern     |             |
|                | United States, where growers cannot  |             |
|                | use telone due to karst geology.     |             |
|                | Further studies need to be           |             |
|                | undertaken to ascertain whether or   |             |
|                | not it is technically and            |             |
|                | economically viable.                 |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Telone +       | This combination is effective        | No          |
| Chloropicrin   | against nematodes and fungal plant   |             |
|                | pathogens, but not against nutsedge  |             |
|                | and other weeds. Approximately 40    |             |
|                | and 8.0% of tomato land in Florida   |             |
|                | and Georgia, respectively, has Karst |             |
|                | geology. Growers in these areas      |             |
|                | cannot use telone because of state   |             |
|                | regulations and underground water    |             |
|                | contamination issues.                |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Telone + metam | This mixture could provide           | No          |
| sodium +       | reasonable control of pests when     |             |
| herbicide      | weed pressure is low to moderate and |             |
| (such as       | land does not have Karst geology.    |             |
| napropamide +  | Growers will need to use one of the  |             |
| s              | newly registered herbicides if they  |             |
| -metolachlor + | use this combination, although they  |             |
| halosulfuron)  | will be constrained by certain       |             |
|                | limitations (described below).       |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam sodium + | Same as metam sodium.                |             |
| Crop rotation  |                                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Fumigant       | Current research suggests that in    | Yes         |
| combination +  | areas of low pest pressure this      |             |
| herbicide      | combination may be suitable for some |             |
| partners       | growers as an alternative for methyl |             |
|                | bromide. In these situations growers |             |
|                | may employ a marginal strategy       |             |
|                | without major economic dislocation   |             |
|                | if given a reasonable time frame for |             |
|                | the transition.                      |             |
+----------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - 14. List and Discuss Why
  Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and
  Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to
  Methyl Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796895 .anchor}

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

**[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible
Alternatives Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796267
.anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Glyphosate         | It is a non-selective herbicide that can be     |
|                    | applied to row middles only, since direct       |
|                    | application to the rows would cause injury to   |
|                    | the tomato crop. It does not provide residual   |
|                    | control. As a post-emergence treatment,         |
|                    | glyphosate will not provide season long control |
|                    | of yellow and/or purple nutsedge in tomatoes.   |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Paraquat           | It is a non-selective herbicide that will not   |
|                    | control nutsedge in the plant rows. It does not |
|                    | provide residual control. Repetitive            |
|                    | applications are required to achieve fair       |
|                    | control of annual weeds in the row middle       |
|                    | (Culpepper, 2003). It may also be applied prior |
|                    | to crop emergence. Direct application to the    |
|                    | rows would cause injury to the tomato crop. For |
|                    | perennial weeds, such as nutsedge, it will burn |
|                    | down the top portion of the plant, but would    |
|                    | not affect tuber viability, allowing the weed   |
|                    | to grow again. Thus, paraquat cannot provide    |
|                    | season long.                                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present
  ]{.smallcaps}***(and Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any
  Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796896
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES -- Table 15.1: Present Registration
Status of Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796268
.anchor}

+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| **[Name  | ##### [Present                    | **[Reg    | **[Date  |
| of       |  Registration Status]{.smallcaps} | istration | of       |
| Al       |                                   | being     | possible |
| ternativ |                                   | c         | future   |
| e]{.smal |                                   | onsidered | regi     |
| lcaps}** |                                   | by        | stration |
|          |                                   | national  | :]{.smal |
|          |                                   | aut       | lcaps}** |
|          |                                   | horities? |          |
|          |                                   | (Y        |          |
|          |                                   | /N)]{.sma |          |
|          |                                   | llcaps}** |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| #### Hal | There are a number of             | Yes       | Recently |
| osulfuro | restrictions limiting the         |           | re       |
| n-methyl | potential to use this herbicide   |           | gistered |
|          | in tomatoes in the Southeast (see |           |          |
|          | additional notes below). Among    |           |          |
|          | these are potential crop injury   |           |          |
|          | and plant back restrictions for   |           |          |
|          | rotational crops. Efficacy is     |           |          |
|          | lowered in rainy conditions       |           |          |
|          | (which are common in this         |           |          |
|          | region). Need more time to        |           |          |
|          | experiment under field            |           |          |
|          | conditions.                       |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| ####     | For nutsedges: Was registered for | No        | No       |
| Pebulate | use in tomatoes only, but its     |           | longer   |
|          | registration expired in December, |           | re       |
|          | 2002 (the manufacturer went out   |           | gistered |
|          | of business)                      |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| S-met    | For nutsedges: Not registered in  | Yes       | Already  |
| olachlor | some states of concern. It is     |           | re       |
|          | effective against yellow nutsedge |           | gistered |
|          | and not effective against purple  |           |          |
|          | nutsedge (Culpepper, 2004).       |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| Terbacil | For nutsedges: Registered only in | No        | Unlikely |
|          | strawberries. The manufacturer    |           | due to   |
|          | claims that it is partially       |           | phyto    |
|          | effective against yellow nutsedge |           | toxicity |
|          | and does not control purple       |           |          |
|          | nutsedge.                         |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| Rim      | Registered for use on tomatoes.   | Y         | Already  |
| sulfuron | The product label states that it  |           | re       |
|          | is partially effective against    |           | gistered |
|          | nutsedges.                        |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| Trifloxy | For nutsedges: Newly Registrated  | Y         | Already  |
| sulfuron | for use in tomato. Efficacy needs |           | re       |
|          | to be tested under large scale    |           | gistered |
|          | field trials. Labeled for use in  |           |          |
|          | Florida only. It provides good    |           |          |
|          | postemergence control of nutsedge |           |          |
|          | but rotational restrictions may   |           |          |
|          | limit its large scale adoption.   |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| Methyl   | Not yet registered in the United  | Y         | Unknown  |
| Iodide   | States                            |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| Sodium   | Not registered. No registration   | No        | Unknown  |
| azide    | package has been received.        |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| Furfural | Not registered. Registration      | Yes       | Unknown  |
|          | package has been received.        |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| P        | Not registered. No registration   | No        | Unknown  |
| ropargyl | package has been received.        |           |          |
| Bromide  |                                   |           |          |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| M        | Registration package has been     | Yes       | Re       |
| uscadore | received.                         |           | gistered |
| albus    |                                   |           | but not  |
| Strain   |                                   |           | yet for  |
| QST      |                                   |           | sale in  |
| 20799    |                                   |           | the U.S. |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+----------+

##### 

##### Additional notes on specific herbicides listed:

##### Halosulfuron-methyl

In December 2002, halosulfuron-methyl (Sandea®) was registered for weed
control (including nutsedge) in tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, and
cucurbits. This recent registration was not on the list of alternatives
from MBTOC and several years are needed to see if it will be adopted.
Historically, in the United States it has taken three to five years for
an herbicide to be adopted by a significant number of vegetable crop
growers.

Halosulfuron-methyl has a number of limitations which may affect its
widespread adoption, that include: (1) phyto-toxicity with moderate
rainfall immediately after application; (2) cool temperatures, (3)
susceptible varieties, and (4) plant back restrictions. Specifically:

-   Rainfall or sprinkler irrigation greater than 2.5 cm, soon after a
    pre-emergent application of halosulfuron-methyl, may cause crop
    injury. Sudden storms with greater than 2.5 cm of rainfall are
    common in Florida and other areas of the southeastern United States.
    In addition, rainfall within four hours after a post-emergence
    application of halosulfuron-methyl may reduce effectiveness and
    cause crop injury.

-   Under cool temperatures that can delay early seedling emergence or
    growth, halosulfuron methyl can cause injury or crop failure. This
    is especially likely to occur during the first planting of the
    season. In addition, not all hybrids/varieties of tomatoes have been
    tested for sensitivity to halosulfuron-methyl. Halosulfuron may also
    delay maturity of treated crops.

-   Halosulfuron methyl plant back restrictions are up to 36 months.
    Many of the vegetable crops fall within the 4 to 12 month range,
    although some are longer. There are label limitations for
    halosulfuron methyl. As per product label, halosulfuron methyl
    should not be applied if the crop or target weeds are under stress
    due to drought, water saturated soils, low fertility, or other poor
    growing conditions. This herbicide can not be applied to soil that
    has been treated with organophosphate insecticides. Foliar
    applications of organophosphate insecticides may not be made within
    21 days before or 7 days after halosulfuron methyl application.

**Note:** All the limitations above are listed in the US registration
label for halosulfuron, which in turn is based on proprietary data
submitted to EPA by the registrant company.

##### S-metolachlor

It was registered for use in tomatoes in April 2003. However, it is not
registered in states of concern, and does not control purple nutsedge or
nightshade species. Further, it does not provide commercially acceptable
weed control in plasticulture systems.

**[Rimsulfuron]{.underline}**

There is evidence that rimsulfuron only provides suppressive control of
yellow nutsedge (40 to 70 percent control) (Nelson *et al*, 2002). In
addition, the label warns against tank mixing with organophosphate
insecticides because injury to the crop may occur. Also, for most of the
vegetable crops besides tomatoes there is a 12-month plant back
restriction. This plant back restriction can seriously compromise the
rotational interval needed for second crop production and IPM programs.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - 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___Toc125796897 .anchor}

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

Telone C35 (1,3 D + 35 % chloropicrin) plus pebulate herbicide has been
found to be the best alternative to methyl bromide in controlling listed
key pests under Florida growing conditions (Chellemi *et al*., 2001).
Pebulate is no longer registered in the U.S., however, so another
herbicide would have to be substituted into the fumigation mixture. The
results of many trials show that growers may harvest tomato yields that
are nearly equal to yields obtained using methyl bromide and
chloropicrin. Assuming that an herbicide is used that is as effective as
pebulate, growers using a 1,3-D + chloropicrin + herbicide mixture may
suffer an average of 6.2 percent yield losses (Chellemi *et al*., 2001).
Florida and Georgia crop experts maintain that tomato yield losses using
a combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + herbicides will be higher than
6.2 percent because pebulate is no longer registered and other
herbicides have limitations. However, in areas of low to moderate pest
pressure, information suggests that some growers may employ a marginal
strategy without major economic dislocation if given a reasonable time
frame for the transition. The assessment of need was adjusted to account
for this. The crop experts were unable to provide yield loss estimate
without 2-3 years of field trials and maintain that more time is needed
to evaluate various MB fumigant alternatives, mulches and herbicides
systems to study their effects on tomato yields.

**[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of
Alternatives -- Key Pest 1]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796269
.anchor}

South-Eastern US Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary 2005

**[SOUTH-EASTERN U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.1: South-Eastern US
Trellis Tomato Fumigation
Trial]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796270 .anchor}

+----------------------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
| # Treatment                | **Fusarium    | **Dead     | **M       |
|                            | infected      | Plants     | arketable |
|                            | stems**       | (%)**      | Yield     |
|                            |               |            | Loss      |
|                            |               |            | (%)**     |
+----------------------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
| Terrogas 98:2 (245 MeBr +  | 1.5           | 10.8       | 0         |
| 5 Pic lb ai/A)             |               |            |           |
+----------------------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
| Terrogas 80:20 (200 + 50   | 2.0           | 2.2        | 25        |
| lb ai/A)                   |               |            |           |
+----------------------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
| Telone C-17 (35 gal/A)     | 3.0           | 9.8        | 14        |
+----------------------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
| Metam sodium (50 gal/A)    | 1.8           | 3.3        | 15        |
+----------------------------+---------------+------------+-----------+

> **Footnote**: Baldwin, R.E. & C.M. Waldenmaier. 1991.

**[SOUTH-EASTERN U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.2: South-Eastern US
Fumigants and Varieties to Manage Southern Bacterial Wilt of
Tomato]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796271 .anchor}

+----------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+
| **Treatment**              | **Diseased Plants (%)** | **Marketable |
|                            |                         | Yield**      |
|                            | ***Ralstonia            |              |
|                            | solanacearum***         |              |
+----------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+
| MeBr 98:2 (292 + 8 lb/A)   | 59%                     | 0%           |
+----------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+
| Telone C-35 (35 gal/A)     | 84%                     | 23%          |
+----------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+
| Chlor-O Pic (10.5 gal)     | 81%                     | 28%          |
+----------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+
| Telone C-35 (30 gal/A)     | 84%                     | 35%          |
+----------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+

> **Footnote**: A *Ralstonia solanacearum* resistant variety BHN 446 was
> tried with low disease incidence but commercially undesireable because
> fruit was small and late maturing.
>
> Driver , J.G.,& F.J. Louws. 2000

**[SOUTH-EASTERN U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.3: Efficacy of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives for Verticillium and Weed Management in
Tomatoes]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125796272 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| **Treatment**         | ***Verticillium | **Weeds per     | **Mar   |
|                       | dahliae         | meter^2^**      | ketable |
|                       | Infected (%)    |                 | Yield   |
|                       | 2004***         | **(Aug 19,      | Loss    |
|                       |                 | 2004)**         | 2003**  |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| MeBr 67:33 (268 + 132 | 29              | 0               | 0%      |
| lb/A)                 |                 |                 |         |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| Telone C-35 shank (35 | 17.4            | 5.8             | 4%      |
| gal/A)                |                 |                 |         |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| Telone InLine C-35    | \-              | \-              | 13%     |
| drip (35 gal/A)       |                 |                 |         |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| Chloropicrin 99% (150 | 24.2            | 26.5            | 14%     |
| gal)                  |                 |                 |         |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| Metam sodium drip (75 | \-              | \-              | 8%      |
| gal/A)                |                 |                 |         |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| Metam sodium          | \-              | \-              | 15%     |
| spray/till (75 gal/A) |                 |                 |         |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+
| Tri chlor EC (200     |                 | \-              | 22%     |
| lb/A)                 |                 |                 |         |
+-----------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------+

> **Footnote**: Louws, F.J., L.M. Ferguson, K. Ivors, J. Driver, K.
> Jennings, D. Milks, P.B. Shoemaker & D.W. Monks. 2004

**[SOUTH-EASTERN U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.4: Methyl Bromide
Alternatives in Tomato Production Systems in North
Carolina]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125796273 .anchor}

  -------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------
  **Treatment**                    ***Verticillium dahliae  **Marketable
                                   Rating* (July 7, 2002)** Yield Loss**

  MeBr 67:33 (268 + 132 lb/A)      4.9bc                    0%

  Telone C-35 shank (35 gal/A)     10.6 bc                  -3%

  Telone InLine C-35 drip (35      24.6 ab                  5%
  gal/A)                                                    

  Chloropicrin shank (15 gal)      0 c                      -4%

  Metam sodium drip (75 gal/A)     13.4 abc                 2%

  Metam sodium spray/till (75      9.3 bc                   5%
  gal/A)                                                    

  Tri chlor EC (200 lb/A)          17.6 abc                 9%

  Tri chlor EC (200 lb/A) 1 week   15.1                     7%
  delay Metam (75 gal/A)                                    
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------

> **Footnote**: Louws, F.J., L.M. Ferguson, N.P. Lynch, & P. B.
> Shoemaker. 2002

In Florida Gilreath et al 2003 looked at methyl bromide plus
chloropicrin (350 lb per acre of 67:33) versus
1,3-D-35%Pic/trifluralin/napropamide/chloropicrin (28 gal/0.5 lb/2
lb/125 lb) for pepper yield. While the yields were not significantly
different there was a 14 to 13 percent yield loss compared to methyl
bromide plus chloropicrin. In addition this alternative treatment with
additional chemicals willl require extra time to apply the other
pesticides and allow the second application of chloropicrin to off gas
so that the transplants are not killed. This additional time delay would
lead to impacts in terms of the key market windows.

**[SOUTH-EASTERN U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.5: Tomato Yields Are Not
Significantly Different But Percent Yield Loss Can Be
Large]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125796274 .anchor}

+----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      | **        |          | **        |           |
|                      | Bradenton |          | Immokalee |           |
|                      | FL**      |          | FL**      |           |
+----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Treatment**        | **M       | **%      | **M       | **% Yield |
|                      | arketable | Yield    | arketable | Change    |
|                      | Yield**   | Change   | Yield**   | versus    |
|                      |           | versus   |           | MeBr**    |
|                      | **(kg per | MeBr**   | **(kg per |           |
|                      | 10        |          | 10        |           |
|                      | plants)** |          | plants)** |           |
+----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Untreated            | 23        | -56%     | 49        | -16%      |
+----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Methyl               | 53        | 0%       | 58        | 0%        |
| bromide:chloropicrin |           |          |           |           |
| (350 lb of 67:33)    |           |          |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1,3-D-35%Pic +       | 46        | -14%     | 51        | -13%      |
| trifluralin +        |           |          |           |           |
| napropamide +        |           |          |           |           |
| chloropicrin         |           |          |           |           |
|                      |           |          |           |           |
| (28 gal/0.5 lb/2     |           |          |           |           |
| lb/125 lb)           |           |          |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+-----------+

> **Footnote:** From Gilreath et al. 2003. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.

Recent research on have suggested that metham sodium, with and without
chloropicrin can provide yields that are not significantly different
than methyl bromide plus chloropicrin treated fields. However, under
heavy rainfall years (in June through July of 2004 in North Carolina
rain fell for 41 of 61 days) 1,3 D/Pic combinations have not shown
effective control in fields where heavy nutsedge pressure is present.
Combinations including trifluralin have shown stunting in tomato
especially during years of above average rainfall on the production
areas of the Southeastern US.

In other Florida research (Gilreath et al 2005) looked at methyl bromide
in combination with high barrier films for pepper production. In that
study which had a high *Cyperus spp.* pressure there were no significant
difference in yield between any of the rates of methyl bromide with the
different types of films. However, the non-significant difference
between treatment 2 and 3 is a 22% reduction in yield. And while not
significant the difference between treatment 2 and 5 and 6 are equal to
17 and 14 yield losses respectively. The data does go on to show that
there are virtually no difference in yield between treatment 2 and 4
(LDPE versus VIFP at one quarter the rate). This type of inconsistency
suggests that even for very adept researchers there appear to be other
factors at play that can impact plant yield. It also helps to reinforce
the fact that statistical significance may not always be the appropriate
benchmark when talking about yield loss.

**[SOUTH-EASTERN U.S. Alternatives -- Table 16.6: Pepper Yields Are Not
Significantly Different But Percent Yield Loss Can Be
Large]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125796275 .anchor}

+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+
|        | **Treatment**       | **Use      | *        | **% Change** |
|        |                     | Rate**     | *Yield** |              |
|        |                     |            |          |              |
|        |                     | **kg/ha**  | **t/ha** |              |
+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+
| 1      | Untreated           |            | 9.5      | -31%         |
+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+
| 2      | MeBr + Pic LDPE     | 392        | 13.8     | 0%           |
+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+
| 3      | MeBr + Pic VIFP     | 196        | 10.8     | -22%         |
+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+
| 4      | MeBr + Pic VIFP     | 98         | 13.6     | 1%           |
+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+
| 5      | MeBr + Pic VIFV     | 196        | 11.4     | -17%         |
+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+
| 6      | MeBr + Pic VIFV     | 98         | 11.9     | -14%         |
+--------+---------------------+------------+----------+--------------+

> **Footnote**: From Gilreath et al. 2005. Crop Protection 24: 285-287.
>
> LDPE is low density polyethylene, VIFP and VIFV are virtually
> impermeable film by Plastopil and Vikase respectively.

Another study by Gilreath, Santos, Motis, Noling and Mirusso (2005)
looks at nematode and *Cyperus* control in bell pepper (*Capsicum
annum*). In that study the authors state "For bell pepper yield, the
application of metam sodium and metam sodium + chloropicrin provided
similar fruit weight as for methy bromide + chloropicrin in two of the
three seasons." However, in that one year (Fall 2002) the yields went
from 18.8 t/ha for methyl bromide + chloropicrin to 13.7 t/ha for metam
sodium + chloropicrin or a 27% drop in yield. This level of yield loss
could have severe economic impacts for a grower. Because of the
inconsistency of some of the alternative treatments the U.S. does not
consider them to be a replacement for methyl bromide.

**[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss
Data Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796276 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [          | **[Best       |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | Range of Yield L | Estimate of   |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | oss]{.smallcaps} | Yield         |
|                  |               |                  | Loss]{        |
|                  |               |                  | .smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| 1,3 D +          | Fungi,        | 3.  -- 10.1      | 6.2           |
| chloropicrin +   | Nematodes and |                  |               |
| herbicide        | Nutsedges     | > (Chellemi *et  |               |
|                  |               | > al*., 2001)    |               |
+------------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| Telone C-35      | *             | > 3.0 better to  | 0 (+/- 3.5%)  |
| shank (35        | Verticillium* | > 4% worse.      |               |
| gal/A +          |               | >                |               |
| herbicide        |               | > Loews et al    |               |
|                  |               | > 2002 & 2004    |               |
+------------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| Chloropicrin     | *             | > 7% loss        | 7%            |
| followed by      | Verticillium* | >                |               |
| metam sodium     |               | > Loews et al    |               |
|                  |               | > 2002           |               |
+------------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| #####            |               |                  | Range 3.0 to  |
|                  |               |                  | 10.1%         |
+------------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+
| ##### [          |               |                  | **6.2%**      |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                  |               |
| imate for All Al |               |                  |               |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                  |               |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                  |               |
+------------------+---------------+------------------+---------------+

**[South-eastern United States -- 17. Are There Any Other Potential
Alternatives Under Development Which Are Being Considered To Replace
Methyl Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**

A combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + pebulate appeared to be the best
alternative in controlling key pests in tomato fields. Since pebulate
herbicide is no longer available then the growers will have to
substitute another herbicide for postemergence application, listed in
table 14.1 and 15.1 (such as halosulfuron, rimsulfuron or
trifloxysulfuron to achieve similar pest control). Florida and Georgia
state expert claim the yield losses using a combination of 1,3 D +
chloropicrin + herbicides will be higher than 6.2 losses because
pebulate is no longer registered and other herbicides have limitations.
The crop experts were unable to provide yield loss estimate without 2-3
years of field trials. The experts claim that more time is needed to
evaluate various methyl bromide fumigant alternatives, mulches and
herbicides systems to study their effects on tomato yields.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used
  to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796899 .anchor}

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

Tomatoes are grown in fields. In south-eastern U.S., it is neither
technically feasible nor economically viable to grow tomatoes in
soil-less culture or in containers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [South-                                                             |
| Eastern United States - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The submitted data showed that using the above best alternative the
growers are expected to suffer 6.2% yield losses (Chellemi, Botts and
Noling. 2001). A combination of 1,3-D + chloropicrin + pebulate appeared
to be the best alternative in controlling key pests in tomato fields.
Since pebulate is no longer available then the growers will need to
substitute another herbicides such as halosulfuron, rimsulfuron or
trifloxysulfuron for postmergence application to control nutsedge weeds.
But, these herbicides have significant limitations, as described in the
notes to Table 15.1. In addition, losses will be higher in areas of
Karst geology, where 1,3-D may not be used.

Florida and Georgia state experts claim that the yield losses using a
combination of 1,3 D + chloropicrin + other herbicides will be higher
than 6.2 losses because of limitations of other herbicides (see table
14.1 and 15.1). The experts were unable to provide yield loss estimate
without 2-3 years of field trials. The experts claim that more time is
needed to evaluate various methyl bromide fumigant alternatives, mulches
and herbicides systems to study their effects on tomato yields.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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___Toc125796902
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

Several members of MBTOC and the USG were recently able to tour field
research sites in Florida and Georgia including the plots of Dr.
Gilreath. During those discussions and in his recent research
publications (Gilreath et al 2005, Gilreath et al in press, and Gilreath
& Gilreath 2005) the improved pest control when using Virtually
Impermeable Film (VIF) or metalized films (using an aluminum layer such
as Canslit) was described (see also Table 16.5). Dr. Gilreath and other
researchers were contacted on the topics of low permeability barrier
films, and newer application techniques. Based on their input it appears
that VIF films have still not been widely adopted because of problems
in: laying the films, inelasticity and the resultant difficulty in
conforming to the bed shape, problems with linear shear, and the fact
that embossed films are not available. The current versions of metalized
films are being widely tested by several researchers and growers and
they have the potential to reduce fumigant use rates with better laying
and bedshape conforming characteristics. It is anticipated that the
results of many of these research plots and growers field tests will be
available next year. These metalized films pose several questions for
adoption: the fate of the aluminum coating if it "flakes off" on the
soil during removal and the photostability of the coating during
multiple crop cycles as is common in the southeastern U.S. An additional
concern with all of the low permeability films and reduced use rates is
poor uniformity of treatment unless the application equipment must be
redesigned to accommodate reduced flow rates and pressure (Gilreath and
Gilreath 2005). While all of these results are promising there are only
a few researchers that have multi-year trials with these films and new
or modified application equipment. Many growers are said to be testing
the new films, reduced rates of methyl bromide, and other alternatives.
Without multi-year trials under a range of environmental conditions the
consistency, feasibility, and adaptability cannot be assessed.

When evaluating research that MBTOC cites (Gilreath et al 2003) at the
Bradenton site the untreated control has 53 nutsedge (*Cyperus
rotundus*) plants per square yard while the Immokalee site has less than
one plant per square yard. The current standard that the US recommends
for moderate nutsedge pressure is 5 to 30 plants per square yard. At the
Bradenton site the nutsedge control was not significantly different
between MeBr:Pic (350 lb per acre) versus
1,3-D-35%Pic/trifluralin/napropamide/chloropicrin (28 gal/0.5 lb/2
lb/125 lb) but had 39% more nutsedge plants and a 17% reduction in
yield. When comparing the same treatments at the second site at
Immokalee which had low nutsedge pressure (\< 1 plant per square yard)
and no significant difference in *Fusarium*, or nematodes such as
*Meloidogyne spp, Belonolainus spp. and Tylenchorhynchus spp.* still had
a 12.5% reduction in yield compared to methyl bromide.

#### [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      Began research during  Already using 67:33 with   Already using 67:33 with the The US anticipates that the
  reduction methods are     2003                   the potential to use lower potential to use lower       decreasing supply of methyl
  presently                                        ratios in the future.      ratios in the future         bromide will motivate
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                          Between 1997 and 2002, the                              growers to try less frequent
                                                   US has achieved a 27 %                                  applications.
                                                   reduction in use rates.                                 

  **[What further           Began research during  Already using 67:33 with   Already using 67:33 with the Not applicable
  use/emission reduction    2003                   the potential to use lower potential to use lower       
  steps will be taken for                          ratios in the future       ratios in the future         
  the methyl bromide used                                                                                  
  for critical                                                                                             
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                     

  **[Other                  Not applicable         Not applicable             Not applicable               Not applicable
  measures]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  
  *(please describe)*                                                                                      
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being
  Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
  Reasons]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796903
  .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 tomato 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 who are trained at handling these hazardous
pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by a
limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge and
expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to achieve the
needed results. In keeping with both local requirements to avoid "drift"
of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as to preserve methyl
bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest level possible, methyl
bromide application for tomatoes is most often machine injected into
soil to specific depths.

As methyl bromide has become more scarce, 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 98% methyl bromide and 2% 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. In addition, cultural practices are
utilized by tomato growers.

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}                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The following economic analysis is organized by MeBr critical use
application. Cost of MeBr and alternatives are given first in table
21.1. This is followed in table 22.1 by a listing of net and gross
revenues by applicant. Expected losses when using MeBr alternatives are
then decomposed in tables E1 through E3.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796905
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796280 .anchor}

+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ##        | **[Al        | *   | **[Cost   | **[Cost   | **[Cost   |
| ### [Regi | ternative]{. | *[Y | in year   | in year   | in year   |
| on]{.smal | smallcaps}** | iel | 1]{.sma   | 2]{.sma   | 3]{.sma   |
| lcaps} {# |              | d\* | llcaps}** | llcaps}** | llcaps}** |
| region-3} |              | ]{. | *(        | *(        | *(        |
|           |              | sma | US\$/ha)* | US\$/ha)* | US\$/ha)* |
|           |              | llc |           |           |           |
|           |              | aps |           |           |           |
|           |              | }** |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| #         | ##### Me     | *   | **\$      | **\$      | **\$      |
| #### [Mic | thyl Bromide | *10 | 30,559**  | 30,559**  | 30,559**  |
| higan]{.s |              | 0** |           |           |           |
| mallcaps} |              |     |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | 1,3--D +     | 78  | \$ 29,555 | \$ 29,555 | \$ 29,555 |
|           | Chloropicrin |     |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Metam Sodium | 78  | \$ 29,739 | \$ 29,739 | \$ 29,739 |
+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Chloropicrin | 78  | \$ 29,555 | \$ 29,555 | \$ 29,555 |
+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ##### [S  | ##### Me     | *   | **\$      | **\$      | **\$      |
| outheaste | thyl Bromide | *10 | 26,380**  | 26,380**  | 26,380**  |
| rn US]{.s |              | 0** |           |           |           |
| mallcaps} |              |     |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | 1,3--D +     | 83  | \$ 24,946 | \$ 24,946 | \$ 24,946 |
|           | Chloropicrin |     |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------------+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+

*\* As percentage of typical or 3-year average yield, compared to methyl
bromide e.g. 10% more yield, write 110.*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796906
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796281 .anchor}

+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| #### [Y   |                |                   |                    |
| ear 1]{.s |                |                   |                    |
| mallcaps} |                |                   |                    |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| ##        | **             | **[Gross revenue  | **[Net Revenue for |
| ### [Regi | [Alternatives] | for last reported | last reported      |
| on]{.smal | {.smallcaps}** | ye                | y                  |
| lcaps} {# |                | ar]{.smallcaps}** | ear]{.smallcaps}** |
| region-4} | *(as shown in  | *(US\$/ha)*       | *(US\$/ha)*        |
|           | question 21)*  |                   |                    |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| #         | #####          | **\$ 39,996**     | **\$ 9,438**       |
| #### [Mic | Methyl Bromide |                   |                    |
| higan]{.s |                |                   |                    |
| mallcaps} |                |                   |                    |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
|           | 1,3--D +       | \$ 32,880         | \$ 3,325           |
|           | Chloropicrin   |                   |                    |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
|           | Metam Sodium   | \$ 34,931         | \$ 5,192           |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
|           | Chloropicrin   | \$ 32,880         | \$ 3,325           |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| ##### [S  | #####          | **\$ 40,914**     | **\$ 14,533**      |
| outheaste | Methyl Bromide |                   |                    |
| rn US]{.s |                |                   |                    |
| mallcaps} |                |                   |                    |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
|           | 1,3--D +       | \$ 33,772         | \$ 8,825           |
|           | Chloropicrin   |                   |                    |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+

**Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796282 .anchor}

+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| #        |                |                    |                    |
| ### [Yea |                |                    |                    |
| r 2]{.sm |                |                    |                    |
| allcaps} |                |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| #####    | **             | **[Gross revenue   | **[Net Revenue for |
| [Region] | [Alternatives] | for last reported  | last reported      |
| {.smallc | {.smallcaps}** | y                  | y                  |
| aps} {#r |                | ear]{.smallcaps}** | ear]{.smallcaps}** |
| egion-5} | *(as shown in  | *(US\$/ha)*        | *(US\$/ha)*        |
|          | question 21)*  |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| ####     | #####          | **\$ 39,996**      | **\$ 9,438**       |
| # [Michi | Methyl Bromide |                    |                    |
| gan]{.sm |                |                    |                    |
| allcaps} |                |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | 1,3--D +       | \$ 32,880          | \$ 3,325           |
|          | Chloropicrin   |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | Metam Sodium   | \$ 34,931          | \$ 5,192           |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | Chloropicrin   | \$ 32,880          | \$ 3,325           |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| ###      | #####          | **\$ 40,914**      | **\$ 14,533**      |
| ## [Sout | Methyl Bromide |                    |                    |
| heastern |                |                    |                    |
|  US]{.sm |                |                    |                    |
| allcaps} |                |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | 1,3--D +       | \$ 33,772          | \$ 8,825           |
|          | Chloropicrin   |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+

**Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796283 .anchor}

+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| #        |                |                    |                    |
| ### [Yea |                |                    |                    |
| r 3]{.sm |                |                    |                    |
| allcaps} |                |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| #####    | **             | **[Gross revenue   | **[Net Revenue for |
| [Region] | [Alternatives] | for last reported  | last reported      |
| {.smallc | {.smallcaps}** | y                  | y                  |
| aps} {#r |                | ear]{.smallcaps}** | ear]{.smallcaps}** |
| egion-6} | *(as shown in  | *(US\$/ha)*        | *(US\$/ha)*        |
|          | question 21)*  |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| ####     | #####          | **\$ 39,996**      | **\$ 9,438**       |
| # [Michi | Methyl Bromide |                    |                    |
| gan]{.sm |                |                    |                    |
| allcaps} |                |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | 1,3--D +       | \$ 32,880          | \$ 3,325           |
|          | Chloropicrin   |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | Metam Sodium   | \$ 34,931          | \$ 5,192           |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | Chloropicrin   | \$ 32,880          | \$ 3,325           |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| ###      | #####          | **\$ 40,914**      | **\$ 14,533**      |
| ## [Sout | Methyl Bromide |                    |                    |
| heastern |                |                    |                    |
|  US]{.sm |                |                    |                    |
| allcaps} |                |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
|          | 1,3--D +       | \$ 33,772          | \$ 8,825           |
|          | Chloropicrin   |                    |                    |
+----------+----------------+--------------------+--------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796907 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc125796284 .anchor}

  ----------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------------
  **Michigan**                  **[Methyl                **[1,3-D +           **[Metam                **[Chloropicrin]{.smallcaps}**
                                Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Pic]{.smallcaps}**   Sodium]{.smallcaps}**   

  **[Production Loss            **0%**                   **6%**               **13%**                 **6%**
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[Production per             **4,414**                **4,132**            **3,845**               **4,132**
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                                              

  **[\* Price per Unit          **\$ 9.44**              **\$ 9.44**          **\$ 9.44**             **\$ 9.448**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                               

  **[= Gross Revenue per        **\$ 41,652**            **\$ 38986**         **\$ 36,279**           **\$ 38986**
  Hectare (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                       

  **[- Operating Costs per      **\$ 37,055**            **\$ 32453**         **\$ 31,170**           **\$ 32,453**
  Hectare                                                                                             
  (us\$)\*\*]{.smallcaps}**                                                                           

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare  **\$ 4596**              **\$ 6,533**         **\$ 5,109**            **\$ 6,533**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                               

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare        **\$ -**                 **\$ 1,937**         **\$ 512**              **\$ 1,937**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                               

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of    **\$ -**                 **\$ 16**            **\$ 4**                **\$ 16**
  Methyl Bromide                                                                                      
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                               

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of **0%**                   **5%**               **1%**                  **5%**
  Gross Revenue                                                                                       
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of **0%**                   **42%**              **11%**                 **42%**
  Net Operating Revenue                                                                               
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

  **[5. Operating Profit Margin **11%**                  **17%**              **14%**                 **17%**
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  
  ----------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------------

\*\*Note that the measures in the tables below must be interpreted
carefully. Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue
equals gross revenue minus operating costs.

**[Southeastern US - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796285 .anchor}

  ----------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------
  **Southeastern US**                       **[Methyl                **[1,3-D +
                                            Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Pic]{.smallcaps}**

  **[Production Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}**     **0%**                   **6%**

  **[Production per Hectare]{.smallcaps}**  **4,551**                **4,269**

  **[\* Price per Unit                      **\$ 10**                **\$ 10**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare            **\$ 46,986**            **\$ 44,073**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare          **\$ 26,660**            **\$ 29,860**
  (us\$)\*\*]{.smallcaps}**                                          

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare              **\$ 20,326**            **14,212**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare                    **\$ -**                 **\$ 6,113**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide **\$ -**                 **\$ 36**
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross       **0%**                   **13%**
  Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                         

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of Net         **0%**                   **30%**
  Operating Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                               

  **[5. Operating Profit Margin             **43%**                  **32%**
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                 
  ----------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------

\*\*Note that the measures in the tables below must be interpreted
carefully. Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue
equals gross revenue minus operating costs.

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

The economic analysis of the tomato application compared data on yields,
crop prices, revenues and costs using methyl bromide and using
alternative pest control regimens in order to estimate the loss of
methyl bromide availability. The alternatives identified as technically
feasible - in cases of low pest infestation - by the U.S. are: (a)
1,3-Dichloropropene and Chloropicrin; (b) Metam sodium; and (c)
Chloropicrin. Changes in pest control costs for tomatoes are less than 4
percent of total variable costs therefore they would have little impact
on any of the economic measures used in the analysis.

The economic factors that really drives the feasibility analysis for
fresh market tomato uses of methyl bromide are: (1) yield losses,
referring to reductions in the quantity produced, (2) increased
production costs, which may be due to the higher-cost of using an
alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or resulting
shifts in other production or harvesting practices (3) quality losses,
which generally affect the quantity and price received for the goods,
and (4) missed market windows due to plant back time restrictions, which
also affect the quantity and price received for the goods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# Michigan

We conclude that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to
MeBr exist for use in Michigan tomato production. Three factors have
proven most important in our conclusion. These are yield loss, quality
loss, and missed market windows.

Our analysis of this effect is based on the fact that prices farmers
receive for their tomatoes vary widely over the course of the growing
season. Driving these fluctuations are the forces of supply and demand.
Early in the growing season, when relatively few tomatoes are harvested,
the supply is at is lowest and the market price is at its highest. As
harvested quantities increase, the price declines. In order to maximize
their revenues, tomato growers manage their production systems with the
goal of harvesting the largest possible quantity of tomatoes when the
prices are at their highs. The ability to sell produce at these higher
prices makes a significant contribution toward the profitability of
tomato operations.

To describe these conditions in Michigan tomato production, we used
daily tomato sales data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the
previous year to gauge the impact of early season price fluctuations on
gross revenues. Though data availability is limiting, we assume that if
tomato growers adjust the timing of their production system, as required
when using 1,3-D + Chloropicrin or Metam-Sodium or Chloropicrin, that
they will, over the course of the growing season, accumulate gross
revenues reduced by approximately 4\~11%. We reduced the season average
price by 4\~11% in our analysis of the alternatives to reflect this.
Based on currently available information, we believe this reduction in
gross revenues serves as a reasonable indicator of the typical effect of
planting delays resulting when MeBr alternatives are used in Michigan.

# Southeastern US

We conclude that, at present, no economically feasible alternatives to
MeBr exist for use in Southeastern US tomato production. Two factors
have proven most important in our conclusion. These are yield loss and
missed market windows.

Our analysis of this effect is based on the fact that prices farmers
receive for their tomatoes vary widely over the course of the growing
season. Driving these fluctuations are the forces of supply and demand.
Early in the growing season, when relatively few tomatoes are harvested,
the supply is at is lowest and the market price is at its highest. As
harvested quantities increase, the price declines. In order to maximize
their revenues, tomato growers manage their production systems with the
goal of harvesting the largest possible quantity of tomatoes when the
prices are at their highs. The ability to sell produce at these higher
prices makes a significant contribution toward the profitability of
tomato operations.

To describe these conditions in Southeastern US tomato production, we
used weekly tomato sales data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
for the previous three years to gauge the impact of early season price
fluctuations on gross revenues. Though data availability is limiting, we
assume that if tomato growers adjust the timing of their production
system, as required when using 1,3-D + Chloropicrin, that they will,
over the course of the growing season, accumulate gross revenues reduced
by approximately 12%. We reduced the season average price by 12% in our
analysis of the alternatives to reflect this. Based on currently
available information, we believe this reduction in gross revenues
serves as a reasonable indicator of the typical effect of planting
delays resulting when MeBr alternatives are used in Southeastern US.

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

**[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This
Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796910 .anchor}

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

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

The U.S. EPA has also co-chaired the USDA/EPA Methyl Bromide
Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research,
development and the registration of viable alternatives. This
coordination has resulted in key registration issues (such as worker and
bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking
water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural
Research Service's U.S.\$15 million per year research program conducted
at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also
EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals each
year for USDA's U.S.\$2.5 million per year methyl bromide alternatives
research has further ensured close coordination between the U.S.
government and the research community.

As per Culpepper (2004), over 50 vegetable trials, focusing on weed
management, were conducted by the University of Georgia. Four of these
trials compared methyl bromide alternatives and another 30 trials
searched for the development and labeling of new herbicides for
vegetables. During 2004, these experiments will be continued to find
methyl bromide alternatives.

The amount of methyl bromide requested for research purposes is
considered critical for the development of effective alternatives.
Without methyl bromide for use as a standard treatment, the research
studies can never address the comparative performance of alternatives.
This would be a serious impediment to the development of alternative
strategies. The U.S. government estimates that tomatoes research will
require 5501 kg per year of methyl bromide for 2005 and 2007. This
research request also includes the amounts for asparagus, cabbage,
ginseng, and nutsedge for 74 kg per year. This amount of methyl bromide
is necessary to conduct research on alternatives and is in addition to
the amounts requested in the submitted CUE applications. One example of
the research is a field study testing the comparative performance of
methyl bromide, host resistance, cultural practices, pest management
approaches for control of root-knot nematodes. Another example is a five
year field study comparing methyl bromide to 1,3-D combined with
biologically based materials including transplant treatments for control
of weeds, root-knot nematodes and soil borne fungal pathogens.

For further details regarding the transition plans for this sector
please consult the national management strategy.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796911 .anchor}

  Georgia experts (Culpepper, 2004) claims that the ability to reduce the
  use of methyl bromide will rely on the interaction of fumigant
  alternatives, plastic mulches and herbicide systems under specific
  growing conditions. More time is needed to develop these systems.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[25. Additional Comments on the
  Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796912 .anchor}*)*

  Research efforts began in the early 1990's to find out methyl bromide
  alternatives in various crops including tomato. With each year of
  experimentation the researchers became more familiar and efficient with
  methyl bromide fumigant alternatives for nutsedge management. The
  researchers learned strengths and weakness of each fumigant system,
  plastic film types, herbicide system, and various production
  environments. The researchers need a few more years to evaluate and
  refine these systems in large scale trials prior to large scale
  implementation at growers' field level.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796913 .anchor}

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

Chellemi, D., Botts, D.A. and Noling, J.W. 2001. Field scale
demonstration/validation studies of methyl bromide in plastic mulch
culture in Florida, USDA ARS specific co-operative agreement SCA \#
58-6617-6-013, Executive Summary (1996-2001) submitted to the US-EPA.

Baldwin, R.E. & C.M. Waldenmaier. 1991. Trellis Tomato Fumigation Trial
1991. Eastern Shore Agricultural Experiment Station. VA

Burnette, G. 2003. Personal communication, November 25, 2003.

Culpepper, Stanley. 2004. Faculty, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Comments on methyl bromide Critical use nomination for preplant soil use
for tomato grown in open fields.

Driver , J.G.,& F.J. Louws. 2000. Fumigants and varieties to manage
southern bacterial wilt of tomato. North Carolina State University.

Florida. 2000. Florida soil temperatures. Web address:
[www.imok.ufl/edu/weather/archive/200/clim00](http://www.imok.ufl/edu/weather/archive/200/clim00)

Gilreath, J.P., J.P. Jones, T.N. Motis, B.M. Santos, J.W. Noling, and
E.R. Rosskopp. 2003. Evaluation of various chemical treatment for
potential as methyl bromide replacemnts for disinfetation of soilborne
pests in polyethylene-mulched tomato. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 116:
151-158.

Gilreath, J.P., T.N. Motis, and B.M. Santos. 2005. *Cyperus spp*.
Control with reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin doeses under
virtually impermeable films in pepper. Crop Prot. 24: 285-287.

Gilreath, J.P. B.M. Santos, T.M. Motis, J.W. Noling, and J.M. Mirusso.
(2005) Methyl bromide alternatives for nematode and *Cyperus* control in
bell pepper (*Capsicum annuum*). Crop Prot. 24: in press.

Hausbeck, M. and Cortright, B. 2003. Soil temperature data submitted to
BEAD (OPP, US-EPA) in support of methyl bromide critical use exemption
application.

Hausbeck, M.K. & B.D. Cortright. 2003. Alternatives for methyl bromide
on cucurbit and Solanaceous crops. Unpublished.

Hausbeck, M.K. & B.D. Cortright. 2004. Evaluation of Fumigants for
Managing Phytophthora Crown and Fruit Rot of Solanaceous and Cucurbit
Crops; 2004. . Unpublished.

IR-4. 2003. IR-4 Project Annual Report 2003. Available online at
http://ir4.rutgers.edu/annreport/report2003.pdf

Jacob, W. C. 1977. Range of mean outside temperature and rainfall in
South-Eastern United States. Climatic Atlas of the United States.
Published by the US Department of Commerce.

Lamour, H.H. and Hausbeck, M. 2003. Effect of crop rotation on the
survival of *Phytophthora capsici* in Michigan. Plant Disease 87:
841-845.

Locasio, S.J., Gilreath, J.P., Dickson, D.W., Kucharek, T.A., Jones,
J.P. and Noling, J.W. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for
polyethylene-mulched tomato. HortScience 32(7) 1208-1211.

Louws, F.J., L.M. Ferguson, K. Ivors, J. Driver, K. Jennings, D. Milks,
P.B. Shoemaker & D.W. Monks. 2004. Efficacy of methyl bromide
alternatives for Verticillium and weed management in tomatoes. North
Carolina State University.

Louws, F.J., L.M. Ferguson, N.P. Lynch, & P. B. Shoemaker. 2002. Methyl
bromide alternatives in tomato production systems in North Carolina.
North Carolina State University.

Morales, J.P., Santos, B.M., Stall, W.M. and Bewick. T.A. 1997. Effects
of purple nutsedge (*Cyprus* *rotundus*) on tomato and bell pepper
vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Science Technology 11: 672-676.

Nelson, K.A. and Renner, K.A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (*Cyprus
esculentus*) control and tuber production with glyphosate and
ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technology 16(3): 512-519.

Norton, J., Nelson, R.D., Nelson, M.D., Olson, B.O., Mey, B.V. and
Lepez, G. 2000. Field evaluation of alternatives to methyl bromide for
pre-plant soil fumigant in California tomatoes. USDA IR-4 methyl bromide
alternatives program for minor crop. Report submitted to the US-EPA
during 2003 in support of methyl bromide critical use exemption.

Stall, W.M. and Morales-Payan, J.P. 2003. The critical period of
nutsedge interference in tomato, Florida. Web address:
<http://www.imok.ufl.edu/liv/groups/ipm/weed_con/nutsedge.htm>

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Re-registration Eligibility
Decision (RED) 1,3 dichloroprppene. Available at
<http://www.epa.gov/REDs/0328red.pdf>

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Feasibility of using gas
permeable tarps to reduce methyl bromide emissions associated with soil
fumigation in the United States.

**APPENDIX A. 2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index
(BUNNI).**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796287 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="6.428472222222222in"}

**Footnotes for Appendix A:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

1.  **[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.

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

3.  **[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.

4.  **[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.

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

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

7.  **[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.

8.  **[Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Removed?]{.underline}** -- This
    indicates whether the Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares
    subject to QPS treatments were removed from the nomination.

9.  **[Most Likely Combined Impacts (%)]{.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.

10. **[(%) Karst geology]{.underline}** -- Percent karst geology 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 geology.

11. **[(%) 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.

12. **[(%) 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.

13. **[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.

14. **[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.

15. **[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.

16. **[Total 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
    geology, 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 geology.

17. **[Most Likely Baseline Transition]{.underline}** -- Most Likely
    Baseline Transition amount was determined by the DELPHI process and
    was calculated by determining the maximum share of industry that can
    transition to existing alternatives.

18. **[(%) Able to Transition]{.underline}** -- Maximum share of
    industry that can transition

19. **[Minimum \# of Years Required]{.underline}** -- The minimum number
    of years required to achieve maximum transition.

20. **[(%) Able to Transition per Year]{.underline}** -- The Percent
    Able to Transition per Year is the percent able to transition
    divided by the number of years to achieve maximum transition.

21. **[EPA Adjusted Use Rate]{.underline}** - Use rate is the lower of
    requested use rate for 2008 or the historic average use rate or is
    determined by MBTOC recommended use rate reductions.

22. **[EPA Adjusted Strip Dosage Rate]{.underline}** -- The dosage rate
    is the use rate within the strips for strip / bed fumigation.

23. **[2008 Amount of Request]{.underline}** -- The 2008 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.

24. **[EPA Preliminary Value]{.underline}** -- The EPA Preliminary Value
    is the lowest of the requested amount from 2005 through 2008 with
    MBTOC accepted adjustments (where necessary) included in the
    preliminary value.

25. **[EPA Baseline Adjusted Value]{.underline}** -- The EPA Baseline
    Adjusted Value has been adjusted for MBTOC adjustments, QPS, Double
    Counting, Growth, Use Rate/ Strip Treatment, Miscellaneous
    adjustments, MBTOC recommended Low Permeability Film Transition
    adjustment, and Combined Impacts.

26. **[EPA Transition Amount]{.underline}** -- The EPA Transition Amount
    is calculated by removing previous transition amounts since
    transition was introduced in 2007 and removing the amount of the
    percent (%) Able to Transition per Year multiplied by the EPA
    Baseline Adjusted Value.

27. **[Most Likely Impact Value]{.underline}** -- The qualified amount
    of the initial request after all adjustments have been made given in
    total kilograms of nomination, total hectares of nomination, and
    final use rate of nomination.

28. **[Sector Research Amount]{.underline}** -- The total U.S. amount of
    methyl bromide needed for research purposes in each sector.

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

**APPENDIX B. List of Treatments in MBTOC Final
Databases***.*[]{#__RefHeading___Toc125796914 .anchor}

E-Mail Message from Ian Porter dated December 23, 2005

As discussed during the bilaterals in Senegal, we undertook to provide
you with a list of treatments that MBTOC would like some evaluation on
as possible alternatives to replace methyl bromide in future CUN\'s.
Allthough the list appears extensive often treatments are very similar
and could be discussed this way if necessary although the more detail we
get on individual treatments the better!! The treatments in bold are the
highest priority (ie have shown good results in international studies)
but I have indicated against the crop type other treatments for which we
are aware of studies that shows their performance relative to MB.

+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | **Treatment       | * | **Comments**                     |
| * | *Trea | Description**     | * |                                  |
| \ | tment |                   | T |                                  |
| # | C     |                   | o |                                  |
| * | ode** |                   | m |                                  |
| * |       |                   | a |                                  |
|   |       |                   | t |                                  |
|   |       |                   | o |                                  |
|   |       |                   | e |                                  |
|   |       |                   | s |                                  |
|   |       |                   | * |                                  |
|   |       |                   | * |                                  |
+===+=======+===================+===+==================================+
| 1 | Cad   | Cadusafos 2 + 1   | Y | Not registered in the United     |
|   |       |                   | e | States.                          |
|   |       |                   | s |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 2 | D     | Dazomet;          |   | Combinations containing dazomet  |
|   | azNap | Napropamide       |   | are not functionally possible    |
|   |       |                   |   | due to the 30 -- 50 day planting |
|   |       |                   |   | restrictions into plastic mulch, |
|   |       |                   |   | plus the 7 day off-gassing,      |
|   |       |                   |   | followed by the 2-3 week *in     |
|   |       |                   |   | situ* bioassay label             |
|   |       |                   |   | requirements in the United       |
|   |       |                   |   | States.                          |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 3 | D     | Dazomet;          |   | Solarization is not considered a |
|   | azSol | Solarization      |   | viable alternative because of    |
|   |       |                   |   | the loss of a crop while         |
|   |       |                   |   | solarizing the soil (economic    |
|   |       |                   |   | feasibility). Also see #2.       |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 4 | DMDS  | Dimethyl          | Y | Not registered in the United     |
|   |       | Disulfide         | e | States.                          |
|   |       |                   | s |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 5 | Fen   | Fenamiphos        | Y | Voluntary cancellation of all    |
|   |       |                   | e | product registrations for        |
|   |       |                   | s | fenamiphos, effective as of May  |
|   |       |                   |   | 31, 2007                         |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 6 | Fos   | Fosthiazate 900   | Y | Registered in March 2004 on      |
|   |       | EC                | e | Tomatoes Only. The U.S. has not  |
|   |       |                   | s | found data from replicated       |
|   |       |                   |   | trials under heavy pest pressure |
|   |       |                   |   | to evaluate.                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 7 | MI    | MI (100)          | Y | MI 100 - Chemical not yet        |
|   |       |                   | e | identified by MBTOC.             |
|   |       |                   | s |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 8 | MNa   | Metam Sodium      | Y | Referred to in Tomato and        |
|   |       |                   | e | Strawberry CUN as chemical       |
|   |       |                   | s | alternative.                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##    | Metam Sodium;     | Y | Refer to #1                      |
| # | ### M | Cadusafos         | e |                                  |
| # | NaCad |                   | s |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 9 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##    | Fosthiazate 500   | Y | Refer to #6                      |
| # | ### M | EC; Metam Sodium  | e |                                  |
| # | NaFos |                   | s |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 1 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 0 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 1 | M     | Metam Sodium;     |   | Harpin protein (Messenger ™); is |
| 1 | NaMes | Harpin protein    |   | registered but the U.S. has not  |
|   |       | (Messenger ™)     |   | found data from replicated       |
|   |       |                   |   | trials under heavy pest pressure |
|   |       |                   |   | to evaluate.                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##    | Metam Sodium;     |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| # | ### M | Napropamide       |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| # | NaNap | (Devrinol™)       |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| # |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| # |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 1 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 2 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 1 | MNaPP | Metam Sodium;     | Y | IR-4 "Minor crops registration   |
| 3 |       | PlantPro 45       | e | group" dropped research on       |
|   |       |                   | s | PlantPro 45, and PlantPro EC     |
|   |       |                   |   | because of excessive crop injury |
|   |       |                   |   | and/or poor efficacy after 2003  |
|   |       |                   |   | (IR-4. 2003).                    |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 1 | MNa   | Metam Sodium;     |   | Refer to #13.                    |
| 4 | PPFos | PlantPro 45;      |   |                                  |
|   |       | PlantPro 45;      |   |                                  |
|   |       | Fosthiazate 500   |   |                                  |
|   |       | EC                |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 1 | M     | Metam Sodium; PPO |   | PPO - Chemical not yet           |
| 5 | NaPPO |                   |   | identified by MBTOC.             |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 1 | M     | Metam Sodium;     |   | Registered on vegetable crops.   |
| 6 | NaRoo | fungus            |   | The U.S. has not found data from |
|   | tshld | Trichoderma       |   | replicated trials under heavy    |
|   |       | harzianum strain  |   | pest pressure to evaluate.       |
|   |       | T-22              |   |                                  |
|   |       | (Rootshield™)     |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 1 | M     | Metam Sodium,     |   | Refer to #3.                     |
| 7 | NaSol | Solarization      |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 1 | M     | Metam Sodium;     | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| 8 | NaTel | 1,                | e | components of multiple chemical  |
|   |       | 3-dichloropropene | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
|   |       | (Telone™)         |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
|   |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##### | Metam Sodium;     |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| # |  MNaT | Telone;           |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| # | elNap | Napropamide       |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| # |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| # |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 1 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 9 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 2 | MNaT  | Metam Sodium;     |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| 0 | elSol | 1,                |   | Non-chemical control             |
|   |       | 3-dichloropropene |   | (South-Eastern United States --  |
|   |       | (Telone™),        |   | Part C Technical Validation).    |
|   |       | Solarization      |   | Also see #3.                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 2 | M     | Mycorrhizal,      |   | The U.S. has not found data from |
| 1 | ycCom | compost           |   | replicated trials under heavy    |
|   |       |                   |   | pest pressure to evaluate.       |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##### | Sodium Azide      | Y | Not registered in the United     |
| # |  NaN3 |                   | e | States                           |
| # |       |                   | s |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 2 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 2 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 2 | Oxa   | Oxamyl (Vydate ™  | Y | As a nematicide this may be an   |
| 3 |       | n-methyl          | e | effective alternative to         |
|   |       | carbamate         | s | 1,3-dichloropropene in           |
|   |       | insecticide,      |   | multichemical combinations.      |
|   |       | nematicide)       |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 2 | Pic   | Chloropicrin      | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN in     |
| 4 |       |                   | e | chemical alternative (Part C     |
|   |       |                   | s | Technical Validation).           |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 2 | PicD  | Dazomet; Dazomet; |   | Sodium tetrathiocarbonate        |
| 5 | azEnz | Sodium            |   | (Enzone ™) is registered but the |
|   |       | t                 |   | U.S. has not found data from     |
|   |       | etrathiocarbonate |   | replicated trials under heavy    |
|   |       | (Enzone ™);       |   | pest pressure to evaluate. Also  |
|   |       | Chloropicrin      |   | see #2.                          |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 2 | Pi    | DMDS;             |   | Refer to \# 4.                   |
| 6 | cDMDS | Chloropicrin      |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | #     | Chloropicrin EC   | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN in     |
| # | ####  |                   | e | chemical alternative (Part C     |
| # | PicEC |                   | s | Technical Validation).           |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 2 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 7 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ####  | Chloropicrin EC,  |   | Combinations containing dazomet  |
| # | # Pic | Dazomet           |   | are not functionally possible    |
| # | ECDaz |                   |   | due to the 30 -- 50 day planting |
| # |       |                   |   | restrictions into plastic mulch, |
| # |       |                   |   | plus the 7 day off-gassing,      |
|   |       |                   |   | followed by the 2-3 week *in     |
| 2 |       |                   |   | situ* bioassay label             |
| 8 |       |                   |   | requirements in the United       |
|   |       |                   |   | States.                          |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **Pic | Dazomet; Dazomet; |   | Refer to #2.                     |
| * | ECDaz | Chloropicrin EC,  |   |                                  |
| 2 | Enz** | Sodium            |   |                                  |
| 9 |       | t                 |   |                                  |
| * |       | etrathiocarbonate |   |                                  |
| * |       | (Enzone ™);       |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **    | Chloropicrin EC;  |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | PicEC | Metam Sodium      |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 3 | MNa** |                   |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 0 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **Pic | Metam Sodium;     |   | *Myrothecium verrucaria (*DITera |
| * | ECMNa | Chloropicrin EC;  |   | DF ™) is registered but the U.S. |
| 3 | DiT   | *Myrothecium      |   | has not found data from          |
| 1 | era** | verrucaria        |   | replicated trials under heavy    |
| * |       | (*DITera ES ™)    |   | pest pressure to evaluate.       |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **Pic | Metam Sodium;     |   | Refer to \# 29.                  |
| * | ECMNa | Chloropicrin EC;  |   |                                  |
| 3 | Enz** | Sodium            |   |                                  |
| 2 |       | t                 |   |                                  |
| * |       | etrathiocarbonate |   |                                  |
| * |       | (Enzone ™)        |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **Pic | Metam Sodium;     |   | Refer to #6                      |
| * | ECMNa | Chloropicrin EC;  |   |                                  |
| 3 | Fos** | Fosthiazate 500   |   |                                  |
| 3 |       | EC                |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##### | Devrinol 50WG;    |   | Refer to #6                      |
| # |  PicF | Chloropicrin;     |   |                                  |
| # | osDev | Fosthiazate 500   |   |                                  |
| # |       | EC                |   |                                  |
| # |       |                   |   |                                  |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 3 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 4 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##    | Metam Sodium;     | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| # | ### P | Chloropicrin      | e | components of multiple chemical  |
| # | icMNa |                   | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| # |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| # |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 3 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 5 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | Metam Sodium;     |   | *Myrothecium verrucaria (*DITera |
| * | *PicM | Chloropicrin;     |   | DF ™) is registered but the U.S. |
| 3 | NaDiT | *Myrothecium      |   | has not found data from          |
| 6 | era** | verrucaria        |   | replicated trials under heavy    |
| * |       | (*DITera DF ™)    |   | pest pressure to evaluate.       |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **P   | Metam Sodium,     | Y | Refer to \# 25.                  |
| * | icMNa | Chloropicrin;     | e |                                  |
| 3 | Enz** | Sodium            | s |                                  |
| 7 |       | t                 |   |                                  |
| * |       | etrathiocarbonate |   |                                  |
| * |       | (Enzone ™);       |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **P   | Fosthiazate 500   | Y | Refer to #6                      |
| * | icMNa | EC; Chloropicrin; | e |                                  |
| 3 | Fos** | Metam Sodium      | s |                                  |
| 8 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **P   | Metam Sodium;     |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | icMNa | Chloropicrin;     |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 3 | Nap** | Napropamide       |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 9 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **P   | Chloropicrin,     |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | icMNa | Metam Sodium;     |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 4 | Sol** | Solarization      |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 0 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation). Also see #3.        |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **Pic | Chloropicrin;     |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | Nap** | Napropamide       |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 4 |       |                   |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 1 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **Pic | Chloropicrin      | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | Tel** | ,Telone           | e | components of multiple chemical  |
| 4 |       |                   | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 2 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **P   | Telone;           |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | icTel | Chloropicrin;     |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 4 | Dev** | Napropamide       |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 3 |       | (Devrinol™)       |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 4 | PPDev | PlantPro 45B EC;  |   | Refer to \# 13.                  |
| 4 |       | PlantPro 45B EC   |   |                                  |
|   |       | (3% iodine        |   |                                  |
|   |       | compound),        |   |                                  |
|   |       | Napropamide       |   |                                  |
|   |       | (Devrinol™ 50WG)  |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 4 | PPF   | PlantPro 45B;     |   | Refer to \# 13.                  |
| 5 | osDev | PlantPro 45B;     |   |                                  |
|   |       | Fosthiazate 500   |   |                                  |
|   |       | EC, Napropamide   |   |                                  |
|   |       | (Devrinol™ 50WG)  |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 4 | TC17  | 1,                | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| 6 |       | 3-dichloropropene | e | components of multiple chemical  |
|   |       | (Telone™) plus    | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
|   |       | Chloropicrin      |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
|   |       | (17%)             |   | Validation).                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 4 | TC    | 1,                | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| 7 | 17MNa | 3-dichloropropene | e | components of multiple chemical  |
|   |       | (Telone™); Metam  | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
|   |       | Sodium            |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
|   |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 4 | TC    | 1,                |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| 8 | 17Nap | 3-dichloropropene |   | components of multiple chemical  |
|   |       | (Telone™);        |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
|   |       | Napropamide       |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
|   |       | (Devrinol™ 50WG)  |   | Validation).                     |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 4 | TC17P | 1,                |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| 9 | icDev | 3-dichloropropene |   | components of multiple chemical  |
|   |       | (Telone™) plus    |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
|   |       | Chloropicrin      |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
|   |       | (17%);            |   | Validation).                     |
|   |       | Napropamide       |   |                                  |
|   |       | (Devrinol™ 50WG)  |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| # | ##### | 1,                | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| # |  TC35 | 3-dichloropropene | e | components of multiple chemical  |
| # |       | (Telone™) plus    | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| # |       | Chloropicrin      |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| # |       | (35%)             |   | Validation).                     |
|   |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 5 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| 0 |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | TC35, Dazomet     | Y | Refer to #2.                     |
| * | *TC35 |                   | e |                                  |
| 5 | Daz** |                   | s |                                  |
| 1 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | TC35; Napropamide |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | *TC35 | (Devrinol™)       |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 5 | Dev** |                   |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 2 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **TC3 | TC35 EC           | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | 5EC** |                   | e | components of multiple chemical  |
| 5 |       |                   | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 3 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **T   | Dazomet; TC35 EC  | Y | Refer to #2.                     |
| * | C35EC |                   | e |                                  |
| 5 | Daz** |                   | s |                                  |
| 4 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **T   | Metam Sodium;     |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | C35EC | TC35 EC           |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 5 | MNa** |                   |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 5 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **T   | TC35 EC;          |   | Refer to #2.                     |
| * | C35EC | Chloropicrin EC,  |   |                                  |
| 5 | PicEC | Dazomet           |   |                                  |
| 6 | Daz** |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **    | TC35 EC;          | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | TC35E | Trifluralin       | e | components of multiple chemical  |
| 5 | CTref | (Treflan™),       | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 7 | Dev** | Napropamide       |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       | (Devrinol™)       |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **TC3 | TC35; Harpin      | Y | Refer to \# 11.                  |
| * | 5MesT | protein           | e |                                  |
| 5 | ref** | (Messenger ™);    | s |                                  |
| 8 |       | Trifluralin       |   |                                  |
| * |       | (Treflan™)        |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | TC35, Metam       |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | *TC35 | Sodium            |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 5 | MNa** |                   |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 9 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | TC35; Napropamide |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | *TC35 | (Devrinol™)       |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 6 | Nap** |                   |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 0 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | TC35;             |   | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | *TC35 | Chloropicrin      |   | components of multiple chemical  |
| 6 | Pic** |                   |   | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 1 |       |                   |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | **T   | TC35; Treflan;    | Y | Referred to in Tomato CUN as     |
| * | C35Pi | Napropamide       | e | components of multiple chemical  |
| 6 | cTref | (Devrinol™);      | s | mixtures (South-Eastern United   |
| 2 | Dev** | Chloropicrin      |   | States -- Part C Technical       |
| * |       |                   |   | Validation).                     |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| * | *     | Solarization;     |   | See #3.                          |
| * | *TC35 | TC35              |   |                                  |
| 6 | Sol** |                   |   |                                  |
| 3 |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
| * |       |                   |   |                                  |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+
| 6 | Vrlx  | Vorlex CP         |   | Registered cancelled in the      |
| 4 |       |                   |   | United States.                   |
+---+-------+-------------------+---+----------------------------------+

Footnote: TC17 and TC17 are considered to be Telone™
(1,3-dichloropicrin) with 17% chloropicrin or Telone™ with 35%
chloropicrin.