**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use
for]{.smallcaps}**

**[Sod Farms]{.smallcaps}**

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

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Nominating      | # The United States of America                  |
| Par                |                                                 |
| ty:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Brief           | Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for      |
| Descriptive Title  | Preplant Soil Use for Sod Farms (Prepared in    |
| of                 | 2005)                                           |
| 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:   Steve Knizner

  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:               \(703\) 305-6903

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

  E-mail:                  [knizner.steve@epa.gov](mailto:levine.tina@epa.gov)

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

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

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

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

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

***Table of Contents***

[Part A: Summary 7](#part-a-summary)

[**1.** Nominating Party 7](#__RefHeading___Toc94586394)

[**2.** Descriptive Title of Nomination 7](#__RefHeading___Toc94586395)

[**3.** Crop and Summary of Crop System 7](#__RefHeading___Toc94586396)

[**4.** Methyl Bromide Nominated 7](#__RefHeading___Toc94586397)

[**5.** Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
7](#__RefHeading___Toc94586398)

[**6.** Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
8](#__RefHeading___Toc94586399)

[**7.** Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
8](#__RefHeading___Toc94586400)

[**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.
8](#__RefHeading___Toc94586401)

[**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?
9](#__RefHeading___Toc94586402)

[**8.** Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
9](#__RefHeading___Toc94586403)

[**9.** Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated 9](#__RefHeading___Toc94586404)

[**10.** Sod---Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
10](#__RefHeading___Toc94586405)

[**11.** Sod---Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
10](#__RefHeading___Toc94586406)

[**11. (*ii*)** Sod---Indicate if any of the above characteristics in
11. (*i*) prevent the uptake of any relevant alternatives?
11](#__RefHeading___Toc94586407)

[**12.** Sod---Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
11](#__RefHeading___Toc94586408)

[Part C: Sod---Technical Validation 12](#part-c-sodtechnical-validation)

[**13.** Sod---Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
12](#__RefHeading___Toc94586410)

[**14.** Sod---List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 12](#__RefHeading___Toc94586411)

[**15.** Sod---List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
13](#__RefHeading___Toc94586412)

[**16.** Sod---State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested 13](#__RefHeading___Toc94586413)

[**17.** Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development
which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
15](#__RefHeading___Toc94586414)

[**18.** Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which
Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide 15](#__RefHeading___Toc94586415)

[Summary of Technical Feasibility 15](#summary-of-technical-feasibility)

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

[**19.** Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl
Bromide Use and Emissions in the Particular Use
16](#__RefHeading___Toc94586418)

[**20.** If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being
Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 16](#__RefHeading___Toc94586419)

[Part E: Economic Assessment 17](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[**21.** Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
Period 17](#__RefHeading___Toc94586421)

[**22.** Gross and Net Revenue 17](#__RefHeading___Toc94586422)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
18](#__RefHeading___Toc94586423)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 18](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[Part F. Future Plans 20](#part-f.-future-plans)

[**23.** What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 20](#__RefHeading___Toc94586426)

[**24.** How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 20](#__RefHeading___Toc94586427)

[**25.** Additional Comments on the Nomination
20](#__RefHeading___Toc94586428)

[**26.** Citations 21](#__RefHeading___Toc94586429)

***List of Tables***

[*Part A: Summary* 6](#part-a-summary)

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 6](#__RefHeading___Toc94586431)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 7](#__RefHeading___Toc94586432)

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

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

[Table 10.1: Sod---Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide
Request 9](#__RefHeading___Toc94586435)

[Table 11.1: Sod---Characteristics of Cropping System
9](#__RefHeading___Toc94586436)

[Table 11.2 Sod---Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
10](#__RefHeading___Toc94586437)

[Table 12.1: Sod---Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
10](#__RefHeading___Toc94586438)

[*Part C: Sod---Technical Validation*
11](#part-c-sodtechnical-validation)

[Table 13.1: Sod---Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
11](#__RefHeading___Toc94586440)

[Table 14.1: Sod---Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
11](#__RefHeading___Toc94586441)

[Table 15.1: Sod---Present Registration Status of Alternatives
12](#__RefHeading___Toc94586442)

[Table 16.1: Sod---Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Nutsedge (*Cyperus*
spp.) in Florida 12](#__RefHeading___Toc94586443)

[Table 16.2: Sod---Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Weedy Grasses in
Florida 13](#__RefHeading___Toc94586444)

[Table C.1: Sod---Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
13](#__RefHeading___Toc94586445)

[*Part D: Emission Control* 15](#part-d-emission-control)

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

[*Part E: Economic Assessment* 16](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 16](#__RefHeading___Toc94586449)

[Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
16](#__RefHeading___Toc94586450)

[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
16](#__RefHeading___Toc94586451)

[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
16](#__RefHeading___Toc94586452)

[Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
17](#__RefHeading___Toc94586453)

[*Part F. Future Plans* 19](#part-f.-future-plans)

[*APPENDIX A. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).*
21](#__RefHeading___Toc94586455)

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586394   |
| .anchor}                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > The United States of America (U.S.)                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[2. Descriptive Title of                                            |
| Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586395 .anchor}      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for    |
| > Sod Farms (Prepared in 2005)                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop
  System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586396 .anchor}

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

The Turfgrass Producers International has requested methyl bromide (MB)
as a critical use.

This nomination includes use of MB in the production of turfgrass sod,
grown primarily in California, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas.
There are at least 1,143 turfgrass sod producers across the U.S. who
farm approximately 132,000 hectares, with a wholesale product value of
U.S. \$670 million. On average, fumigation of the affected soil occurs
once every three years. Sod fields have been flat fumigated with MB when
first establishing new sod fields and as a pre-plant fumigation when
pest pressures become so severe that effective pest management with
alternatives is particularly difficult. Turfgrass yields average between
6,400 and 8,700 square meters per hectare per cutting. From planting to
harvest, a sod crop takes between 9-12 months to reach maturity.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586397 .anchor}

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586431 .anchor}

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

  **2007**                   **78,040**             **254**
  -------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586398 .anchor}

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

The U. S. nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are
not effective against key pests when pressure is moderate to high. The
use of MB is also considered critical only where alternatives are not
suitable because of regulatory, economic, or technical constraints.
Although alternative treatments can be foreseen as long-term solutions
to MB use, transition from MB will depend on the development of
application technologies to better deliver these alternatives to soils
containing target pests. Alternative treatments may require more
frequent applications and increase costs and environmental pesticide
burden. Research is ongoing to develop protocols for likely
alternatives.

A small percentage of total hectares for sod farms currently use MB. The
use is primarily for approximately 1% of sod farm hectares that face
pests that are difficult to manage. The little research that has been
conducted to identify MB alternatives has found that metam-sodium and
dazomet may be acceptable replacements for MB for many farms that
currently use MB. This sector is still developing methods of
applications that can make these alternatives more effective.

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586432 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Turf]{.smallcaps}**            | **[T]{.smallcaps}urfgrass         |
|                                   | Producers**                       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | **International**                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Amount of Request\*            |                                   |
| (kg)]{.smallcaps}**               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[2007]{.smallcaps}**            | **[680,388]{.smallcaps}**         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Amount of Nomination           |                                   |
| (kg)]{.smallcaps}**               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[2007]{.smallcaps}**            | **[76,112]{.smallcaps}**          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

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

\*\*Golfcourse Superintendents Association are part of a supplemental
request. They applied for a CUE in 2002 and 2004 but not 2003.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586399 .anchor}

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

Primary MB alternatives for sod production are metam-sodium and dazomet,
often in combination with chloropicrin and in some cases depending on
pests, 1,3-D. Research results (Unruh and Brecke, 2001; Unruh et al.,
2002) suggest that these alternatives have the potential to be as
effective as MB, although research in application technologies will
continue and will permit development of more effective pest control
methodologies.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586400 .anchor}

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

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

+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Region where       | **[Total crop area - | **[Proportion of      |
| Methyl Bromide use is | 2001-2002 Average    | total crop area       |
| req                   | (ha)]{.smallcaps}**  | treated with methyl   |
| uested]{.smallcaps}** |                      | bromide               |
|                       |                      | (%)]{.smallcaps}**    |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####                  | 1206                 | 1 %                   |
| # Turfgrass Producers |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **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}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586401 .anchor}

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

Approximately 1% of the total land planted for turfgrass is treated with
MB each year; the affected area averages one treatment every three
years. MB is used only in the portion of the turfgrass area where pest
problems cannot be acceptably controlled using alternative methods. For
instance, some broadleaf weeds, such as ragweed, pigweed, and morning
glory, may be controlled through continuous mowing to reduce seed
production. Spot treatment with a nonselective herbicide, such as
glyphosate, may be used to control competitive grasses that can be
easily distinguished from the turfgrass crop. Relatively low pest
pressures in most of the turfgrass sod production area make it possible
for producers to use alternative pesticides (herbicides, fungicides,
nematicides, and insecticides) and cultural practices.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **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}**?[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586402 .anchor}

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

Advances in technologies that will improve efficacy (e.g., application
methods, use of VIF) and may increase the area of production where
alternatives can be used effectively. Research (e.g., Unruh and Brecke,
2001; Unruh et al, 2002) in turfgrass production indicates that fumigant
efficacy (even MB) varies depending on location and pest pressure. It is
likely that farms where nutsedge is a major pest will have the most
difficult task finding an alternative.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586403 .anchor}

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

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

+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}                         | ##### T            |
|                                                 | urfgrass Producers |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}       | **[2               |
|                                                 | 007]{.smallcaps}** |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}       | 680,400            |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed              | Flat fumigation    |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                          |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of methyl | 98:2               |
| bromide/chloropicrin mixture)* [to be used for  |                    |
| the Critical Use Exemption (CUE)]{.smallcaps}   |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl       | 1416               |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin          |                    |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(ha)*                 |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [for | 480                |
| the **active ingredient**]{.smallcaps}          |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of      | 48.0               |
| **active ingredient** used to calculate         |                    |
| requested kilograms of methyl                   |                    |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                            |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc94586404 .anchor}

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

The amount of MB nominated by the U.S. was calculated as follows:

-   Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within one
    year of an application to a crop that also uses MB were subtracted.

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

-   Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares is the area in the
    applicant's request subject to QPS treatments.

-   Only the areas with moderate to heavy key pest pressure were
    included in the nomination.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[10. Sod---Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586405 .anchor}

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

**[Table 10.1: Sod---Key Pests and Reason for Methyl Bromide
Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586435 .anchor}

+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Region | **[Key pests and weed to     | **[Specific reasons why  |
| where     | genus and, if known, to      | methyl bromide is        |
| methyl    | species level]{.smallcaps}** | needed]{.smallcaps}\     |
| bromide   |                              | **                       |
| use is    |                              |                          |
| reques    |                              |                          |
| ted]{.sma |                              |                          |
| llcaps}** |                              |                          |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
| T         | **Weeds:** nutsedge          | Producers of turfgrass   |
| hroughout | (*Cyperus* spp. ); mainly    | need to produce sod that |
| the       | off-type perennial grasses,  | is free of contamination |
| United    | crabgrass (*Digitaria        | with off-type perennial  |
| States    | spp*.); goosegrass           | grasses, other weeds,    |
|           | (*Eleusine indica*); common  | pests, and diseases. For |
|           | bermudagrass (*Cynodon       | approximately 1% of the  |
|           | dactylon*) and turfgrass     | turfgrass sod growing    |
|           | from the previous crop       | area, this degree of     |
|           | cycle.                       | pest control has been    |
|           |                              | achieved through MB      |
|           | **Nematodes:** over 15       | fumigation. However,     |
|           | genera of parasitic          | dazomet and metam sodium |
|           | nematodes, such as lance     | with chloropicrin have   |
|           | nematodes (*Hoplolaimus      | looked as good           |
|           | spp.* ) and sting nematodes  | (statistically) and      |
|           | (*Belonolaimus               | nearly as good           |
|           | longicaudatus*)              | (numerically) in control |
|           |                              | of nutsedge and weedy    |
|           | **Insects:** white grubs     | grasses as MB at the     |
|           | (several species of          | high use rates for turf  |
|           | soil-inhabiting scarabaeid   | (560 kg/ha) (e.g., Unruh |
|           | beetle larvae)               | and Brecke, 2001; Unruh  |
|           |                              | et al., 2002).           |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Sod---Characteristics of Cropping System and
  Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586406 .anchor}

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

**[Table 11.1: Sod---Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586436 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ### [U.S.]{.smallcaps}     |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.     | Turfgrass sod grown from   |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)* | seeds or rhizomes          |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Harvested annually         |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years       |                            |
| between replanting)*                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation]{.smallcaps}** | None                       |
| *(if any)* **[and use of methyl bromide |                            |
| for other crops in the                  |                            |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,   | Varies from clayish-loam   |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                      | to sandy-loam              |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | The area is treated with   |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              | methyl bromide             |
|                                         | approximately once every 3 |
| *(e.g. every two years)*                | years. On average, 1% of   |
|                                         | the total turfgrass crop   |
|                                         | production area in the     |
|                                         | U.S. is fumigated in any   |
|                                         | one year.                  |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | None identified.           |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

**[Table 11.2 Sod---Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586437 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><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"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">Range from temperate to subtropical (USDA Plant
Hardiness Zones 5b through 11)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)</em></span></td>
<td colspan="12" rowspan="3">Variable throughout the United States.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule<sup>1</sup></span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="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></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Market
Window</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="12">Variable</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**[^1^]{.smallcaps}** On average, 1% of the area is fumigated once every
three years.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **11. (*ii*) [Sod---Indicate if any of the above characteristics in
  11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any relevant
  alternatives]{.smallcaps}?**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586407 .anchor}

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

None were identified as being relevant factors.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[12. Sod---Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or Mixtures
  Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586408 .anchor}

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

**[Table 12.1: Sod---Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586438 .anchor}

+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many years | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| as possible as shown | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** | 003** |
| spe                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| cify:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area              | 1,232 | 1,874 | 1,563 | 1,029 | 1382  | 648   |
| Tr                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| eated]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of MB      | 60    | 91    | 76    | 50    | 61    | 31    |
| active ingredient    | 0,619 | 3,557 | 2,021 | 1,568 | 9,255 | 2,077 |
| used]{.smallcaps}**  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kilograms)*  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations of   | Acco  |       |       |       |       |       |
| MB]{.smallcaps}**    | rding |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(MB /chloropicrin)* | to    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | the   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | appli |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | cant, |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | the   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ty    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | pical |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | f     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ormul |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ation |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | used  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | on    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | turf  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | grass |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | sod   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | is    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | 98:2. |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by which   | L     |       |       |       |       |       |
| MB                   | iquid |       |       |       |       |       |
| ap                   | MB is |       |       |       |       |       |
| plied]{.smallcaps}** | shank |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. injected at   | inj   |       |       |       |       |       |
| 25cm depth, hot      | ected |       |       |       |       |       |
| gas)*                | into  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | soil  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | at a  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | depth |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | of    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | 20-80 |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | cm    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | and   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | co    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | vered |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | with  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | po    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | lyeth |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ylene |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | tarpa |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ulin. |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application rate  | 488   | 488   | 488   | 488   | 448   | 482   |
| for the active       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage     | 48.8  | 48.8  | 48.8  | 48.8  | 44.8  | 48.2  |
| rate for the active  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingre                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| dient]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)*           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| **[\*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[13. Sod---Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586410 .anchor}

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

**[Table 13.1: Sod---Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586440 .anchor}

+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **[Name   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons for the  | **[Is   |
| of        | alternative not being feasible or              | the     |
| Alternat  | available]{.smallcaps}**                       | alte    |
| ive]{.sma |                                                | rnative |
| llcaps}** |                                                | con     |
|           |                                                | sidered |
|           |                                                | cost    |
|           |                                                | effe    |
|           |                                                | ctive?] |
|           |                                                | {.small |
|           |                                                | caps}** |
+===========+================================================+=========+
| #         |                                                |         |
|  [Chemica |                                                |         |
| l Alterna |                                                |         |
| tives]{.s |                                                |         |
| mallcaps} |                                                |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| ###       | Research results indicated that most           | P       |
| # Dazomet | treatments (including MB) differed in efficacy | ossibly |
|           | depending on site location and specific weed   |         |
|           | pests that were evaluated (e.g., Unruh et al., |         |
|           | 2002). In research trials, dazomet provided    |         |
|           | poor control of nutsedge in Jay, Florida, 44   |         |
|           | weeks after treatment, compared to MB (89% vs. |         |
|           | 57%, respectively). At the same site, dazomet  |         |
|           | provided equal control of weedy grasses and    |         |
|           | slightly better control of broadleaf weeds     |         |
|           | compared to MB, 44 weeks after treatment and   |         |
|           | 32 weeks after treatment, respectively (Unruh  |         |
|           | et al., 2002). MB fields may be planted within |         |
|           | 48 hours after the plastic cover is removed,   |         |
|           | while, depending on soil temperature, a period |         |
|           | of 14 to 21 days may be required for effective |         |
|           | fumigation when dazomet is used to treat the   |         |
|           | soil.                                          |         |
|           |                                                |         |
|           | In situations of low pest pressure golfcourses |         |
|           | may employ a marginal strategy without major   |         |
|           | economic dislocation if given a reasonable     |         |
|           | time frame for the transition.                 |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **1,3-D   | Might be used if nematodes are a primary pest, | P       |
| and       | or possibly in conjunction with dazomet or     | ossibly |
| 1,3-D +   | metam-sodium. Unruh and Brecke (2001) did not  |         |
| Chlor     | observe sufficient efficacy for managing weed  |         |
| opicrin** | pests.                                         |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Met     | Unruh and Brecke (2001) found that             | P       |
| am-Sodium | metam-sodium with chloropicrin provided        | ossibly |
| /         | comparable control (vs. MB) of weedy grasses   |         |
| Chlor     | and nutsedge at some locations in Florida but  |         |
| opicrin** | not in all. Efficacy varied for all            |         |
|           | treatments, including MB, depending on         |         |
|           | location.                                      |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[14. Sod---List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
  Alternatives to Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}**
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc94586411 .anchor}

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

**[Table 14.1: Sod---Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586441 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Selective Pre- or  | Please refer to Item 13 above.                  |
| Post-Emergent      |                                                 |
| Herbicides         |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **15. [Sod---List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and Possible Future)*
  **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586412 .anchor}

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

**[Table 15.1: Sod---Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586442 .anchor}

+-----------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name   | ##### [Present Regi          | **            | **[Date  |
| of        | stration Status]{.smallcaps} | [Registration | of       |
| Alternat  |                              | being         | possible |
| ive]{.sma |                              | considered by | future   |
| llcaps}** |                              | national      | regi     |
|           |                              | authorities?  | stration |
|           |                              | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|           |                              | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+-----------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Io        | Iodomethane is undergoing    | No            | Unknown  |
| domethane | registration reviews in the  |               |          |
| (Methyl   | U.S., but not for use on     |               |          |
| Iodide)   | turfgrass                    |               |          |
+-----------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Potassium | The manufacturer has not     | No            | Unknown  |
| Azide     | requested registration in    |               |          |
|           | the U.S.                     |               |          |
+-----------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[16. Sod---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___Toc94586413 .anchor}

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

[**Table 16.1: Sod---Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Nutsedge
(***Cyperus* **spp.) in
Florida^1^**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586443 .anchor}

+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| **T        | **Ra  | **Application       | **% |      |     |     |
| reatment** | tes** | Methods**           | N   |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | use |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | dge |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | Con |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | tro |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | l^2 |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | ^** |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
|            |       |                     | **S |      | **S |     |
|            |       |                     | ite |      | ite |     |
|            |       |                     | 1** |      | 2** |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
|            |       |                     | **  | **44 | **3 | *   |
|            |       |                     | 6** | WAT^ | WA  | *15 |
|            |       |                     |     | 3^** | T^3 | WA  |
|            |       |                     | *   |      | ^** | T^3 |
|            |       |                     | *WA |      |     | ^** |
|            |       |                     | T^3 |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | ^** |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Methyl     | 549   | Shank injected      | 1   | 89a  | 1   | 83a |
| Bromide +  | kg    |                     | 00a |      | 00a |     |
| Ch         | /ha + |                     |     |      |     |     |
| loropicrin | 11    |                     |     |      |     |     |
|            | kg/ha |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| 1,3-D +    | 140   | Shank injected +    | 0f  | 86ab | 0c  | 7   |
| oxadiazon  | L     | surface broadcast   |     |      |     | 4ab |
|            | /ha + |                     |     |      |     |     |
|            | 168   |                     |     |      |     |     |
|            | kg/ha |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Dazomet    | 392   | Surface broadcast   | 80  | 57de | 78b | 58  |
|            | kg/ha | followed by         | abc |      |     | bcd |
|            |       | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | by soil seal        |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Dazomet +  | 392   | Surface broadcast   | 8   | 6    | 81b | 4   |
| Ch         | +168  | followed by         | 1ab | 3bcd |     | 8cd |
| loropicrin | kg/ha | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | by soil seal +      |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | shank injected      |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Dazomet +  | 392   | Surface broadcast   | 5   | 31f  | 76b | 41d |
|            | kg    | followed by         | 1de |      |     |     |
| 1,3-D      | /ha + | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            | 140   | by soil seal +      |     |      |     |     |
|            | L/ha  | shank injected      |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Me         | 748   | Surface spray       | 43e | 26f  | 71b | 7   |
| tam-sodium | L/ha  | followed by         |     |      |     | 3ab |
|            |       | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | by soil seal        |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Meta       | 748   | Surface spray       | 55  | 38ef | 72b | 7   |
| m-sodium + | L     | followed by         | cde |      |     | 6ab |
| Ch         | /ha + | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
| loropicrin | 168   | by soil seal +      |     |      |     |     |
|            | kg/ha | shank injected      |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Meta       | 748   | Surface spray       | 64  | 56de | 1   | 7   |
| m-sodium + | L     | followed by         | b-e |      | 00a | 9ab |
| Ch         | /ha + | rototill + shank    |     |      |     |     |
| loropicrin | 168   | injected            |     |      |     |     |
| tarped     | kg/ha |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Meta       | 748 + | Surface spray       | 69  | 5    | 8   | 70  |
| m-sodium + | 140   | followed by         | bcd | 0def | 7ab | abc |
| 1,3-D      | L/ha  | rototill + shank    |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | injected            |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Untreated  |       |                     | 0f  | 0g   | 0c  | 0e  |
| Control    |       |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| LSD (0.05) |       |                     | 25  | 24   | 17  | 23  |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+

**[^1^]{.smallcaps}** Modified from Unruh and Brecke (2001) and Unruh et
al. (2002)

**^2^** Numbers followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly
different.

**^3^** Number of weeks after treatment

**[Table 16.2: Sod---Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Weedy Grasses^1^
in Florida]{.smallcaps} ^2^**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586444 .anchor}

+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| **T        | **Ra  | #####               | **% |      |     |     |
| reatment** | tes** | Application Methods | W   |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | eed |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | Con |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | tro |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | l^3 |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | ^** |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
|            |       |                     | **S |      | **S |     |
|            |       |                     | ite |      | ite |     |
|            |       |                     | 1** |      | 2** |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
|            |       |                     | **  | **44 | **3 | *   |
|            |       |                     | 6** | WAT^ | WA  | *15 |
|            |       |                     |     | 3^** | T^3 | WA  |
|            |       |                     | *   |      | ^** | T^3 |
|            |       |                     | *WA |      |     | ^** |
|            |       |                     | T^3 |      |     |     |
|            |       |                     | ^** |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Methyl     | 549   | Shank injected      | 1   | 98a  | 1   | 7   |
| Bromide +  | kg    |                     | 00a |      | 00a | 4ab |
| Ch         | /ha + |                     |     |      |     |     |
| loropicrin | 11    |                     |     |      |     |     |
|            | kg/ha |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| 1,3-D +    | 140   | Shank injected +    | 0b  | 53b  | 13c | 7   |
| oxadiazon  | L     | surface broadcast   |     |      |     | 1ab |
|            | /ha + |                     |     |      |     |     |
|            | 168   |                     |     |      |     |     |
|            | kg/ha |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Dazomet    | 392   | Surface broadcast   | 98a | 93a  | 83b | 4   |
|            | kg/ha | followed by         |     |      |     | 4cd |
|            |       | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | by soil seal        |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Dazomet +  | 392   | Surface broadcast   | 96a | 93a  | 9   | 38d |
| Ch         | +168  | followed by         |     |      | 1ab |     |
| loropicrin | kg/ha | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | by soil seal +      |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | shank injected      |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Dazomet +  | 392   | Surface broadcast   | 1   | 95a  | 9   | 54  |
|            | kg    | followed by         | 00a |      | 0ab | bcd |
| 1,3-D      | /ha + | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            | 140   | by soil seal +      |     |      |     |     |
|            | L/ha  | shank injected      |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Me         | 748   | Surface spray       | 98a | 88a  | 87b | 65  |
| tam-sodium | L/ha  | followed by         |     |      |     | abc |
|            |       | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | by soil seal        |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Meta       | 748   | Surface spray       | 1   | 89a  | 92a | 69  |
| m-sodium + | L     | followed by         | 00a |      |     | abc |
| Ch         | /ha + | rototill followed   |     |      |     |     |
| loropicrin | 168   | by soil seal +      |     |      |     |     |
|            | kg/ha | shank injected      |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Meta       | 748   | Surface spray       | 1   | 94a  | 1   | 70  |
| m-sodium + | L     | followed by         | 00a |      | 00a | abc |
| Ch         | /ha + | rototill + shank    |     |      |     |     |
| loropicrin | 168   | injected            |     |      |     |     |
| tarped     | kg/ha |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Meta       | 748 + | Surface spray       | 96a | 94a  | 9   | 59  |
| m-sodium + | 140   | followed by         |     |      | 5ab | a-d |
| 1,3-D      | L/ha  | rototill + shank    |     |      |     |     |
|            |       | injected            |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| Untreated  |       |                     | 0b  | 0c   | 0c  | 0d  |
| Control    |       |                     |     |      |     |     |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+
| LSD (0.05) |       |                     | 35  | 13   | 13  | 27  |
+------------+-------+---------------------+-----+------+-----+-----+

**[^1^]{.smallcaps}** Grass species include coastal bermudagrass at Site
1 and alexandergrass, broadleaf signalgrass, and common bermudagrass at
Site 2.

**^2^**Modified from Unruh and Brecke (2001) and Unruh et al. (2002)

**^3^** Numbers followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly
different.

**^4^** Number of weeks after treatment

**[Table C.1: Sod---Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586445 .anchor}

+----------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| ###            | ##### [    | ##### [           | **[Best Estimate  |
| ## [Alternativ | List Type  | Range of Quality  | of Quality        |
| e]{.smallcaps} | of Pest]{. | Loss]{.smallcaps} | Loss^             |
|                | smallcaps} |                   | 1^]{.smallcaps}** |
+----------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| Dazomet, alone | Weeds,     | Unable to         | Unable to         |
| or in          | primarily  | determine since   | determine since   |
| combination    | off-type   | research shows    | research shows    |
| with           | perennial  | variability even  | variability even  |
| chloropicrin   | grasses;   | among MB          | among MB          |
|                | se         | treatments,       | treatments,       |
|                | condarily, | depending on      | depending on      |
|                | nutsedge,  | location of       | location of       |
|                | nematodes  | trials and pest   | trials and pest   |
|                | and        | type              | type              |
|                | insects    |                   |                   |
+----------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| Metam sodium,  |            |                   |                   |
| alone or in    |            |                   |                   |
| combination    |            |                   |                   |
| with           |            |                   |                   |
| chloropicrin   |            |                   |                   |
+----------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| #              |            |                   | Unable to         |
| #### [Overall  |            |                   | determine since   |
| Loss Estimate  |            |                   | research shows    |
| for All Altern |            |                   | variability even  |
| atives to Pest |            |                   | among MB          |
| s]{.smallcaps} |            |                   | treatments,       |
|                |            |                   | depending on      |
|                |            |                   | location of       |
|                |            |                   | trials and pest   |
|                |            |                   | type              |
+----------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+

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.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development
  which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586414 .anchor}

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

Metam-sodium and dazomet, possibly in conjunction with chloropicrin, are
likely effective alternatives to MB for turfgrass sod production.
Covering plots treated with metam sodium + chloropicrin with plastic
tarpaulin increased the nutsedge control effectiveness of this
combination in southern Florida, although not in a western Florida site
(Unruh et al., 2002). However, MB was also variable in its efficacy
depending on the location and specific pests.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which
  Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586415 .anchor}

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

The turfgrass producers claim that the reduction in MB, for 2003, was a
result of increased use of metam-sodium. However, they claim a loss of
quality as a result. Research indicates that metam-sodium and dazomet,
and chloropicrin combinations have the potential to reduce the use of MB
in many situations.

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

Research indicates that metam sodium and dazomet are the best available
alternatives for MB in turfgrass sod production. Metam sodium and
dazomet applied alone, or in conjunction with chloropicrin, can provide
good control of wild and off-type perennial grasses and broad leaf
weeds, but typically, fair to poor control of nutsedge (Unruh and
Brecke, 2001). In research trials (e.g., Unruh and Brecke, 2001; Unruh
et al., 2002) all of the fumigants that were tested, including MB, had
variable efficacy depending on the location of the field trials. These
studies indicated that in some locations metam-sodium + chloropicrin,
under polyvinyl tarp, can be as effective as MB for controlling some
target weeds. For areas with nutsedge infestations, efficacy of MB
varied depending on location, and was superior in one trial in Florida
and comparable to metam-sodium in another (Unruh et al., 2002). Farms
with severe nutsedge infestations are most at risk for pest management
problems when using dazomet or metam-sodium.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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___Toc94586418 .anchor}

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

#### 

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

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

  **[What use/emission      Research to examine    None identified; industry  None identified; industry    For sod farms, used once in
  reduction methods are     tarps is ongoing and   traditionally has had a    traditionally has had a high 3 years.
  presently                 appears to improve     high use rate of MB        use rate of MB               
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**   efficacy (e.g.,                                                                
                            Landschoot and Park,                                                           
                            2004; Park and                                                                 
                            Landschoot, 2003)                                                              

  **[What further           Research to examine    None identified; industry  None identified; industry    For sod farms, used once in
  use/emission reduction    tarps is ongoing and   traditionally has had a    traditionally has had a high 3 years.
  steps will be taken for   appears to improve     high use rate of MB        use rate of MB               
  the methyl bromide used   efficacy (e.g.,                                                                
  for critical              Landschoot and Park,                                                           
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**      2004; Park and                                                                 
                            Landschoot, 2003)                                                              

  **[Other                                                                                                 
  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___Toc94586419 .anchor}

  The requesting consortia identified future plans for examining high
  density polyethylene as a means to minimize MB emissions.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586421 .anchor}

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

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586449 .anchor}

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

  Methyl Bromide                  100%                                \$1,235            \$1,235            \$1,235

  Dazomet                         75%                                 \$2,964            \$2,964            \$2,964
  ------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586422 .anchor}

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

**Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586450 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####                  |                       |                       |
|  [Year 1]{.smallcaps} |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for    |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported         |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**   |
| *(as shown in         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         |
| question 21)*         |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$19,619              | \$10,327              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Dazomet               | \$14,714              | \$3,693               |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586451 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 2]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*        |
| question 21)*         |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$19,619              | \$10,327             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Dazomet               | \$14,714              | \$3,693              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586452 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*        |
| question 21)*         |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$19,619              | \$10,327             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Dazomet               | \$14,714              | \$3,693              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586423 .anchor}

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

**[Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586453 .anchor}

  ----------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------
  **Region A**                  **[Methyl                **[Dazomet]{.smallcaps}**
                                Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   

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

  **[Yield per Hectare (in      1                        Not Available
  ha/ha)]{.smallcaps}**                                  

  **[\* Price per Unit          \$19,619                 Not Available
  (u.s.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                

  **[= Gross Revenue per        \$19,619                 \$14,714
  Hectare                                                
  (u.s.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                

  **[- Operating Costs per      \$9,292                  \$11,021
  Hectare                                                
  (u.s.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare  \$10,327                 \$3,693
  (u.s.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare        \$0                      \$6,634
  (u.s.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of    \$0                      \$13.82
  Methyl Bromide                                         
  (u.s.\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of 0%                       33.81%
  Gross Revenue                                          
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                     

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of 0%                       64.24%
  Net Revenue                                            
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                     
  ----------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------

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

The primary economic loss that would be expected in sod turfgrass is
price reduction associated with the inability to market sod as
certified, which results in up to a 75% reduction in gross revenue. The
small proportion of turf production represented by this nomination is
intended for sod growers producing certified sod.

In addition to price reductions from downgraded quality, there are also
expected to be some losses from off-type grasses rendering some areas
simply unharvestable, either from the presence of off-type grasses, or
the required destruction of all grass in a particular area (to prevent
the spreading of off-types). The losses are much smaller than the impact
of not being able to certify the sod.

The CUE reviewers analyzed crop budgets data for sod turfgrass to
determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were not
available. The four economic measures in Table E.1 were used to quantify
the economic impacts to pre-plant uses for sod turfgrass. The four
economic measures are not independent in such a way that they can be
calculated from the same crop budget data. The measures are, however,
supplementary to each other in evaluating the CUE applicant's economic
viability. These measures represent different ways to assess the
economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide
users.

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.

As stated earlier in the application, the price of non-certified sod is
75% lower than the price of certified sod. For production areas that
would otherwise fumigate with methyl bromide, it is possible that some
areas will be able to continue producing certified seed for a limited
time, as long as they do not attempt to change variety or species. But,
as mentioned earlier in the application, changing variety or species is
one primary reason for needed to control off-types of grass.

To reflect a lower bound on impacts, under the assumption that some
areas covered by the nomination would delay their shift in grass type,
or delay their control of other key pests, the economic analysis used
25% as the yield/price effect. It is important to recognize that in some
areas, the loss could be as high as 75%. Using the lower bound, we
estimate that a representative grower would suffer \$6,634 loss per
hectare per year due to inferior product and a lower proportion of
harvestable acreage, and an increase of fumigation costs with dazomet
(TPI, 2003). The loss as a percentage of gross revenue was estimated at
33.81% and the loss as a percentage of net revenue at 64.24%. These
changes are estimated to have a significant economic impact to the sod
industry. The results suggest that dazomet is not economically viable as
an alternative for methyl bromide.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
  Alternatives for This
  Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586426 .anchor}

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

Metam-sodium and dazomet already are used in the sod turfgrass
production industry. It has not been determined how the 1% of total sod
farm hectares that use MB can further reduce its use.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586427 .anchor}

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

According to the Critical Use Exemption request, studies of high density
polyethylene will be evaluated. The consortium will create a timeline
for a transition from MB to alternatives.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[25. Additional Comments on the
  Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586428 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586429 .anchor}

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

Dunn, R. A. and Crow, W. T. 2001. Soil fumigation before planting turf.
University of Florida IFAS Extension Publication ENY-26.
<http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN095>.

Unruh, J. B. and B. J. Brecke. 2001. *Seeking Alternatives for Methyl
Bromide*. [Golf Course Management]{.underline}. 69(3): 65-72.
http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/2001/mar01/pdfs/03seeking.pdf

Unruh, J. B., B. J. Brecke, J. A. Dusky and J. S. Godbehere. 2002.
*Fumigant Alternatives for Replacement of Methyl Bromide in Turfgrass*.
Weed Technology, 16:379-387, pp 379-387.
http://www.pw.ucr.edu/textfiles/methyl%20bromide-1.pdf

**APPENDIX A. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI***).*[]{#__RefHeading___Toc94586455 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf){width="8.998611111111112in"
height="4.881944444444445in"}

**Footnotes for Appendix A:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

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

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

3.  **[2007 Amount of Request]{.underline}** -- The 2007 amount of
    request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total
    pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl
    bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of
    methyl bromide per acre. U.S. units of measure were used to describe
    the initial request and then were converted to metric units to
    calculate the amount of the US nomination.

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

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

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

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

8.  **[2007 Nomination Options]{.underline}** -- 2007 Nomination Options
    are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust
    the initial applicant request into the nomination figure.

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

10. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request]{.underline}**
    -- Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request is the starting
    point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant
    request in kilograms.

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

12. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE
    Comparison]{.underline}** - Subtractions from Requested Amounts,
    Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the
    estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the
    amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater
    than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the
    difference in the 2007 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE
    application compared with the 2007 request from the applicant's 2003
    CUE application.

13. **[Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS]{.underline}** -
    Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in
    kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction
    estimate is calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting,
    minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the
    percentage subject to QPS treatments. *Subtraction from Requested
    Amounts, QPS = (2007 Request -- Double Counting -- Growth)\*(QPS %)*

14. **[Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate
    Difference]{.underline}** -- Subtractions from requested amounts,
    use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the
    lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The
    subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double
    Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount,
    if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate
    and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares.

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

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

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

18. **[(%) Key Pest Impacts]{.underline}** - Percent (%) of the
    requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are
    those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For
    example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, *Phytophthora* spp.
    infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern
    states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge.

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

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

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

22. **[Combined Impacts (%)]{.underline}** - Total combined impacts are
    the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be
    used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In
    each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is
    impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be
    independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available
    (e.g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if
    50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure
    and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the
    area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the
    alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key
    pests and an additional 25% (50% of 50%) affected by karst
    topography.

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

24. **[Use Rate]{.underline}** - Use rate is the lower of requested use
    rate for 2007 or the historic average use rate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36. **[Change from Prior CUE Request]{.underline}**- This variable takes
    a '+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a
    '0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a
    '-' if the current request is smaller that the previous request.

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

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

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

40. **[Loss per Hectare]{.underline}** -- This measures the total loss
    per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl
    bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss
    (relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional
    costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in
    current US dollars.

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

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

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

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

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