**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Tobacco Transplant Seed Beds]{.smallcaps}**

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

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Nominating      | # The United States of America (U.S.)           |
| Par                |                                                 |
| ty:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Brief           | Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for      |
| Descriptive Title  | Preplant Soil Use for Tobacco Transplant Seed   |
| of                 | Beds                                            |
| Nominati           |                                                 |
| on:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

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

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

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

  Title:                   Division Director

  Address:                 Biological and Economic Analysis Division

                           Office of Pesticide Programs

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                           Mail Code 7503C

                           Washington, DC 20460

                           U.S.A.

  Telephone:               \(703\) 308-3099

  Fax:                     \(703\) 308-8090

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Table of Contents***

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

[1. Nominating Party 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65635774)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65635775)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65635776)

[4. Methyl Bromide Nominated 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65635777)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
6](#__RefHeading___Toc65635778)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
7](#__RefHeading___Toc65635779)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
7](#__RefHeading___Toc65635780)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65635781)

[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region 9](#__RefHeading___Toc65635782)

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

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl
Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
11](#__RefHeading___Toc65635784)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and
Climate 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65635785)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an
Exemption Is Requested 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65635786)

[[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
14](#tobacco-transplant-beds---part-c-technical-validation)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65635788)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and
Potential)* Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as
Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65635789)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)*
Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65635790)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant
Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target
Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65635791)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 17. Are There Any Other Potential
Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace
Methyl Bromide? 17](#__RefHeading___Toc65635792)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Summary of Technical Feasibility
17](#tobacco-transplant-beds---summary-of-technical-feasibility)

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 18](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65635795)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65635796)

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

[21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
20](#__RefHeading___Toc65635798)

[22. Gross and Net Revenue 20](#__RefHeading___Toc65635799)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65635800)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 21](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 24](#part-f.-future-plans)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 24](#__RefHeading___Toc65635803)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
25](#__RefHeading___Toc65635804)

[26. Citations 26](#__RefHeading___Toc65635805)

[Citations Reviewed but Not Applicable 26](#__RefHeading___Toc65635806)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65635807)

***List of Tables***

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

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 5](#__RefHeading___Toc65635809)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65635810)

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

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested
for Critical Use
9](#tobacco-transplant-beds---table-8.1-amount-of-methyl-bromide-requested-for-critical-use)

[Table A.3: 2005 Sector Nomination 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65635813)

[Table A.3: 2006 Sector Nomination 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65635814)

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

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason
for Methyl Bromide Request 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65635816)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65635817)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and
Crop Schedule 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65635818)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65635819)

[*[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
14](#tobacco-transplant-beds---part-c-technical-validation)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not
Being Feasible 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65635821)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible
Alternatives Discussion 15](#__RefHeading___Toc65635822)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives 16](#__RefHeading___Toc65635823)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives --
*Phytophthora parasitica nicotianae* 16](#__RefHeading___Toc65635824)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary 17](#__RefHeading___Toc65635825)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 18](#part-d-emission-control)

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

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

[Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period 20](#__RefHeading___Toc65635829)

[Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
20](#__RefHeading___Toc65635830)

[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
20](#__RefHeading___Toc65635831)

[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
20](#__RefHeading___Toc65635832)

[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65635833)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 24](#part-f.-future-plans)

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
28](#__RefHeading___Toc65635835)

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635774
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

  The United States of America
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635775
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
  Tobacco Transplant Seed Beds
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop                                        |
| System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635776 .anchor}          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Tobacco is seeded into soil beds or cold frames and later           |
| > transplanted to the production field when plants reach a height of  |
| > five to seven inches. Seedling beds are located on well-drained     |
| > sites that have been well cleared of weeds and trash. Sloping beds  |
| > on southern exposure produce the strongest transplants. The         |
| > seedling bed should be manured the previous fall, shallow-tilled,   |
| > and planted to a cover crop if possible. This cover crop should be  |
| > incorporated in early spring, well in advance of seeding.           |
| >                                                                     |
| > Most farms have moved to floating transplant tray seedling          |
| > production, however, not all farms have adopted transplant tray     |
| > seedling production and others have returned to soil bed production |
| > after encountering serious disease losses in the float system. Fall |
| > seed bed fumigation with methyl bromide is recommended for better   |
| > disease control, but is impractical due to the serious problem of   |
| > recontamination of the beds with the long period between fumigation |
| > and seeding.                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[4. Methyl Bromide
  Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635777 .anchor}

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635809 .anchor}

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

  **2006**                 **16,431**              **27**
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635778 .anchor}

  Methyl bromide is still important for tobacco transplant seedbeds to
  ensure pathogen free crop production. Registered alternative fungicides
  are not effective against the full range of pathogens common for
  tobacco production. In addition, use of alternative fungicides during
  transplant production could potentially limit usefulness in field
  production due to fungicide resistance issues. Loss of methyl bromide
  would undermine integrated pest management strategies aimed at
  resistance management. The registered alternative soil fumigants have
  constraints that could jeopardize production. If used late season,
  after harvest, soil borne pathogens have very high potential to
  re-infect the treated area through the uncontrollable actions of wind,
  rain, and wildlife. Use of the same soil fumigants immediately prior to
  seeding is compromised by cold soil temperature. Due to the long
  aeration period required when using the alternative soil fumigants,
  early transplant dates are not possible (a critical tool in yield and
  disease management). Even under the best of conditions, spring use of
  alternatives will delay seeding date compared with methyl bromide by
  three weeks and almost insures a June transplanting date rather than a
  May transplanting date. Delayed seeding and transplanting results in
  crop exposure to higher disease pressure and drought conditions.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635810 .anchor}

+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| ### Region                               | ***Tobacco Transplant     |
|                                          | Beds***                   |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Amount of Nomination**                 |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms                     | 16,431                    |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**             | 611                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                            | 27                        |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Amount of Applicant Request**          |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| ####  2005 Kilograms                     | 16,431                    |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**             | 611                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                            | 27                        |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms                     | 16,431                    |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**             | 611                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                            | 27                        |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Economics**                            |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Marginal Strategy**                    | Metam Sodium              |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| ####  Yield Loss (%)                     | 46                        |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Loss per hectare (US\$/ha)**           | 4,612                     |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Loss per kg Methyl Bromide (US\$/kg)** | \$1,371.62                |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%)**       | 45%                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Loss as % of Net Revenue (%)**         | 71%                       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not                          |
| Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635779 .anchor}:       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Most of these are small farms without other economically, sustainable |
| cropping options.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Spring applications of dazomet and metam sodium are not acceptable    |
| for early transplanting dates due to long aeration periods. If spring |
| applications of alternative fumigants are made, the seeding date may  |
| be shifted as far as April in most growing regions and as far as June |
| in Kentucky. The later the crop is transplanted the greater risk from |
| drought and diseases. Fall fumigation with most products gives better |
| control of some pests, and would be desirable if not for the          |
| recontamination issue with pathogens that have rapid rates of         |
| reproduction (eg. black shank pathogen). Consequently, growers need   |
| to fumigate using methyl bromide within a week of seeding the bed to  |
| reduce the chance of recontamination. Spring weather in much of the   |
| production area during many seasons provides only short windows for   |
| soil conditions to favor fumigation and seeding. Therefore, the short |
| interval between fumigation opportunity and seeding opportunity (2    |
| days to a week) requires materials with a short fumigation-aeration   |
| period to fit into practical farming operations.                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635780 .anchor} *(if
  particular agricultural or political regions only use methyl bromide,
  provide local data as well as national figures):*

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

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

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **7. (*ii*) [If only part of the crop area is treated with methyl     |
| bromide, indicate the reason why methyl bromide is not used in the    |
| other area, and identify what alternative strategies are used to      |
| control the target pathogens and weeds without methyl bromide         |
| there.]{.smallcaps}**                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Methyl bromide is only used to eliminate pathogens in transplant      |
| seedbeds. A typical farm is 4 acres in size with only 0.06 acres of   |
| transplant beds treated with methyl bromide. Only seedbeds are        |
| fumigated to ensure healthy seedlings for transplant into production  |
| fields.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Since 1990 the burley and dark tobacco industry has been              |
| transitioning transplant production from traditional ground beds to   |
| containerized production in a float system.                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **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}**

  Even if there were no restrictions on methyl bromide use, traditional
  plant beds use would have already completely disappeared and been
  replaced with containerized transplants if the increased disease
  potentials were not already a serious threat to the sustainability of
  that method of transplant production. Some growers that abandoned plant
  beds for the float system are returning to ground beds for all or a
  portion of the crop. The industry is still trying to sort this issue
  out, while under going serious economic pressures unrelated to the
  issue of fumigation and transplants. Therefore, if acceptable methods
  are developed to greatly reduce the greater disease potential of
  containerized transplants produced in the float system while
  maintaining the feasibility of the float system, the traditional ground
  beds should disappear as a production method.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635781 .anchor}

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

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

+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}                     | ##        |           |
|                                             | ### Tobac |           |
|                                             | co Transp |           |
|                                             | lant Beds |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}   | **[2      | **[2      |
|                                             | 005]{.sma | 006]{.sma |
|                                             | llcaps}** | llcaps}** |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}   | 16,431    | 16,431    |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed          | Bed       | Bed       |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                      |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of    | 98/2      | 98/2      |
| methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixture)* [to   |           |           |
| be used for the CUE]{.smallcaps}            |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl   | 27 ha     | 27 ha     |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin      |           |           |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(m^2^ or ha)*     |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | 623       | 623       |
| [for the **formulation**]{.smallcaps}       |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of  | 62.3      | 62.3      |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested |           |           |
| kilograms of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}    |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application Rate (KG/HA) for the **active  | 611       | 611       |
| ingredient**]{.smallcaps}                   |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\* *(g/m2)* of **active         | 61.1      | 61.1      |
| ingredient** used to calculate requested    |           |           |
| kilograms of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}    |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity |
| Nominated for Each                                                    |
| Region]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635782                   |
| .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the U.S. was calculated as  |
| follows:                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following        |
|     impacts were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy  |
|     key pest pressure and cold soil temperatures in limited           |
|     production regions.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   All other adjustments to the methyl bromide nominated amount      |
|     (e.g., growth, regulatory impacts, etc.) did not apply to this    |
|     sector.                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**[Table A.2: 2005 Sector Nomination\*]{.smallcaps}**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635813 .anchor}

+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| #####        |                                    | **Tobacco        |
| 2005 (Sector |                                    | Transplant       |
| ) Nomination |                                    | Beds**           |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Applicant  | Requested Hectares (ha)            | 27               |
| Request for  |                                    |                  |
| 2005**       |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Application Rate (kg/ha) | 611              |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Kilograms (kg)           | 16,431           |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+

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

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635814 .anchor}

+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| #####        |                                    | **Tobacco        |
| 2006 (Sector |                                    | Transplant       |
| ) Nomination |                                    | Beds**           |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Applicant  | Requested Hectares (ha)            | 27               |
| Request for  |                                    |                  |
| 2006**       |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Application Rate (kg/ha) | 611              |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Kilograms (kg)           | 16,431           |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **CUE        | Nominated Hectares (ha)            | 27               |
| Nominated    |                                    |                  |
| for 2006**   |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Nominated Application Rate (kg/ha) | 611              |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Nominated Kilograms (kg)           | 16,431           |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **2006       | Overall Reduction (%)              | 0%               |
| Sector       |                                    |                  |
| Nomination   |                                    |                  |
| Totals**     |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | **Total 2006 U.S. Sector Nominated | 16,431           |
|              | Kilograms (kg)**                   |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which
  Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635784 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and
Reason for Methyl Bromide
Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635816 .anchor}

+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **[Region  | **[Key disease(s) and | **[Specific reasons why methyl |
| where      | weed(s) to genus and, | bromide is                     |
| methyl     | if known, to species  | needed]{.smallcaps}\           |
| bromide    | level]{.smallcaps}**  | **                             |
| use is     |                       |                                |
| requ       |                       |                                |
| ested]{.sm |                       |                                |
| allcaps}** |                       |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Tobacco    | *Phytophthora         | No effective fungicides        |
| Transplant | parasitica            | registered\*                   |
| Beds       | nicotianae*           |                                |
|            |                       |                                |
|            | *Pythium spp.*        |                                |
|            |                       |                                |
|            | *Rhizoctonia spp.*    |                                |
+------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+

\*Mefenoxam-containing fungicides which were used in seedbeds for many
years to aid in *Phytophthora* and *Pythium* control were removed from
the labels in recent years due to resistance issues.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of
  Cropping System and
  Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635785 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635817 .anchor}

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| #                                  | ### [Tobac                      |
| #### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps} | co Transplant Beds]{.smallcaps} |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}**       | Transplant production           |
| *(e.g. transplants, bulbs, trees   |                                 |
| or cuttings)*                      |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial             | Annual (1 year)                 |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years  |                                 |
| between replanting)*               |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                    | Not Applicable                  |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)* |                                 |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for   |                                 |
| other crops in the                 |                                 |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if      |                                 |
| any)*                              |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}**      | Medium organic sandy loam       |
| *(Sand, loam, clay, etc.)*         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide     | Yearly                          |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**         |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| *(e.g. every two years)*           |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                  | Growers normally prepare the    |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**            | bed site only a few days prior  |
|                                    | to fumigating, plant within a   |
|                                    | week, and harvest transplants   |
|                                    | 6-12 weeks later, depending     |
|                                    | upon growing conditions. This   |
|                                    | is done to reduce the risk of   |
|                                    | contaminating the seedbed due   |
|                                    | to a relatively long interval   |
|                                    | between fumigation and seeding. |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and
Crop Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635818 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jun"><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></strong></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>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">USDA plant hardiness zone 5a-8b.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>60.7</td>
<td>34.8</td>
<td>192.5</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>109.0</td>
<td>68.7</td>
<td>44.7</td>
<td>74.2</td>
<td>138.2</td>
<td>165.6</td>
<td>126.7</td>
<td>103.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(°C)</em></span></td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>14.3</td>
<td>16.2</td>
<td>23.6</td>
<td>26.2</td>
<td>25.6</td>
<td>22.3</td>
<td>13.3</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\*Kentucky data provided as representative of the growing region

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

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

The cold temperatures during February through April constrain the use of
metam sodium and dazomet as soil fumigants. Cold soil temperature
prevents early transplanting dates due to the long aeration period
required for full activity and to avoid major phytotoxicity issues with
residual fumigant. Spring application of metam sodium and dazomet shifts
seeding date from February to April. The later the crop is transplanted,
the greater the risk from drought and diseases.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
  Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an
  Exemption Is Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635786
  .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of
Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635819 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 427   | 204   | 122   | 52    | 37    | 30    |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[ratio of Flat | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| Fumigation       | Bed   | Bed   | Bed   | Bed   | Bed   | Bed   |
| methyl bromide   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use to strip/bed |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use if strip     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| treatment is     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 26    | 12    | 7     | 3     | 2     | 1     |
| methyl bromide   | 0,815 | 4,738 | 4,843 | 1,751 | 2,680 | 8,144 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  |
| of methyl        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromid           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(methyl bromide |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin)*  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by     | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   | Gas   |
| which methyl     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| applie           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. injected  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| at 25cm depth,   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| hot gas)*        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 623   | 623   | 626   | 623   | 626   | 617   |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 62.3  | 62.3  | 62.6  | 62.3  | 62.6  | 61.7  |
| rate of          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulation      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| s]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| [Application     | 611   | 611   | 611   | 612   | 611   | 610   |
| Rate (KG/HA) for |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| the **active     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredien        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| t**]{.smallcaps} |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 61.1  | 61.1  | 61.1  | 61.2  | 61.1  | 61    |
| rate of Active   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredien        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| t]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635788 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not
Being Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635821 .anchor}

+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| **[Name of   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons  | **[Is the    |
| Al           | for the alternative not being feasible | alternative  |
| ternative]{. | or available]{.smallcaps}**            | considered   |
| smallcaps}** |                                        | cost         |
|              |                                        | e            |
|              |                                        | ffective?]{. |
|              |                                        | smallcaps}** |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #            |                                        |              |
|  [Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3 D        | Effective against nematodes but not    | No           |
| Chloropicrin | pathogens associated with U.S. tobacco |              |
|              | production. Only effective when used   |              |
|              | in combination.                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Dazomet      | Fall use allows for recontamination    | No           |
| (Basamid)    | before the following spring. Spring    |              |
|              | application delays seeding due to the  |              |
|              | extended aeration period. Delayed      |              |
|              | planting can result in greater disease |              |
|              | and drought conditions.                |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Chloropicrin | Chloropicrin would control the fungal  | No           |
|              | pathogens involved, and in             |              |
|              | combinations with methyl bromide give  |              |
|              | superior control. However,             |              |
|              | chloropicrin also has a long           |              |
|              | fumigation and waiting interval equal  |              |
|              | to Basamid and metam sodium and        |              |
|              | therefore the same limitations.        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Metam sodium | Fall use allows for recontamination    | No           |
|              | before the following spring. Spring    |              |
|              | application delays seeding due to the  |              |
|              | extended aeration period. Delayed      |              |
|              | planting can result in greater disease |              |
|              | and drought conditions.                |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Dithane      | No feasible as only provides mild      | No           |
|              | suppression of *Rhyzocontia spp.*      |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [No     |                                        |              |
| n Chemical A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| B            | Not applicable as still experimental.  | No           |
| iofumigation |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Solarization | No consistent effectiveness as is      | No           |
| of soil      | dependent upon meteorological          |              |
|              | conditions. There is inadequate        |              |
|              | sunlight during the period immediately |              |
|              | preceding seedbed establishment, so    |              |
|              | solarization must be done the previous |              |
|              | summer/fall and recontamination issue  |              |
|              | are equal or worse than those with     |              |
|              | fall fumigation.                       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Steam        | Not readily available for farm use and | No           |
| s            | the equipment is expensive.            |              |
| terilization |                                        |              |
| of soil      |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Biological   | Not applicable as still experimental.  | No           |
| Control      |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Cover crops  | Not applicable due to the soil borne   | No           |
| and Mulching | nature of the pathogens                |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Crop         | Is strongly recommended and usually    | No           |
| rot          | practiced, which is why the list of    |              |
| ation/fallow | soil-borne pathogens is not larger.    |              |
|              | However, it alone is not adequate to   |              |
|              | control *Pythium* and *Rhizoctonia*    |              |
|              | *spp*. as rotated sites also become    |              |
|              | recontaminated. The population of      |              |
|              | these pathogens must still be reduced  |              |
|              | to near zero immediately ahead of      |              |
|              | seeding.                               |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Endophytes   | Not applicable.                        | No           |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Organic      | Not applicable due to the soil borne   | No           |
| amendm       | nature of the pathogens.               |              |
| ents/Compost |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Physical     | Not applicable as completely disease   | No           |
| remova       | free beds are required for crop        |              |
| l/sanitation | production.                            |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Resistant    | Already used but not sufficient        | No           |
| cultivars    | disease control by themselves against  |              |
|              | any of the key pathogens in a seed     |              |
|              | situation. In fact, using resistant    |              |
|              | varieties for this purpose could       |              |
|              | result in widespread field development |              |
|              | of the disease by harboring the        |              |
|              | pathogens at low levels in a hidden    |              |
|              | state. It is more desirable for black  |              |
|              | shank to appear prior to transplanting |              |
|              | so that infected plants will not be    |              |
|              | transferred into the production        |              |
|              | fields.                                |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Non-soil     | Already used but methyl bromide is     | No           |
| culture      | still needed to sterilize trays.       |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Sub          | Already used but methyl bromide is     | No           |
| strates/Plug | still needed to sterilize trays.       |              |
| plants       |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [Combi  |                                        |              |
| nations of A |                                        |              |
| lternatives] |                                        |              |
| {.smallcaps} |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3 D, Brush | Not applicable.                        | No           |
| burning      |                                        |              |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+--------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 14. List and Discuss Why
  Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and Potential)* **[Pesticides and
  Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to
  Methyl Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635789 .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible
Alternatives Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635822
.anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|                    | There are no available alternatives for the     |
|                    | control of fungal pathogens.                    |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present
  ]{.smallcaps}***(and Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any
  Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635790
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635823 .anchor}

+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of | ##### [Present Regi          | **            | **[Date  |
| Altern     | stration Status]{.smallcaps} | [Registration | of       |
| ative]{.sm |                              | being         | possible |
| allcaps}** |                              | considered by | future   |
|            |                              | national      | regi     |
|            |                              | authorities?  | stration |
|            |                              | (Y/N)\*]{     | :]{.smal |
|            |                              | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| I          | Not-registered               | Y             | Unknown  |
| odomethane |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| F          | Not-registered               | Y             | Unknown  |
| osthiazate |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Furfural   | Not-registered               | Y             | Unknown  |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Not-registered, no request   | N             | Unknown  |
| azide      | submitted to US              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Not-registered, no request   | N             | Unknown  |
| bromide    | submitted to US              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Diallyl    | Registered to control        | N             | Unknown  |
| sulfide    | *Sclerotinia* fungus, but    |               |          |
|            | not on tobacco seed beds.    |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

\* Pesticide companies are not interested in labeling pesticides on
tobacco for disease control due to economic and image issues.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of
  Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key
  Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635791 .anchor}

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

**[Dithane is recommended for Rhizoctonia control in plant beds (U
KY)]{.smallcaps}**

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table 16.1: Effectiveness of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps} -- *Phytophthora parasitica nicotianae
***[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635824 .anchor}

+-----------------------+---+-------+---+-------------+---------------+
| **[Key                | # |       |   |             |               |
| Pest:]{.smallcaps}**  | # |       |   |             |               |
| *Phytophthora         | # |       |   |             |               |
| parasitica            | # |       |   |             |               |
| nicotianae*           | # |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | [ |       |   |             |               |
|                       | A |       |   |             |               |
|                       | v |       |   |             |               |
|                       | e |       |   |             |               |
|                       | r |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | g |       |   |             |               |
|                       | e |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | d |       |   |             |               |
|                       | i |       |   |             |               |
|                       | s |       |   |             |               |
|                       | e |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | s |       |   |             |               |
|                       | e |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | % |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | o |       |   |             |               |
|                       | r |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | r |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | t |       |   |             |               |
|                       | i |       |   |             |               |
|                       | n |       |   |             |               |
|                       | g |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | n |       |   |             |               |
|                       | d |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | y |       |   |             |               |
|                       | i |       |   |             |               |
|                       | e |       |   |             |               |
|                       | l |       |   |             |               |
|                       | d |       |   |             |               |
|                       | s |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | i |       |   |             |               |
|                       | n |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | p |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | s |       |   |             |               |
|                       | t |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | 3 |       |   |             |               |
|                       | \ |       |   |             |               |
|                       | ~ |       |   |             |               |
|                       | 5 |       |   |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | y |       |   |             |               |
|                       | e |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | r |       |   |             |               |
|                       | s |       |   |             |               |
|                       | ] |       |   |             |               |
|                       | { |       |   |             |               |
|                       | . |       |   |             |               |
|                       | s |       |   |             |               |
|                       | m |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | l |       |   |             |               |
|                       | l |       |   |             |               |
|                       | c |       |   |             |               |
|                       | a |       |   |             |               |
|                       | p |       |   |             |               |
|                       | s |       |   |             |               |
|                       | } |       |   |             |               |
+-----------------------+---+-------+---+-------------+---------------+
| **[Methyl Bromide     | > | **[Di | > | **[Actual   | >             |
| formulations and      |   | sease |   | Yields      | **[Citation]{ |
| Altern                | * | (% or | * | (t/ha)]{.s  | .smallcaps}** |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | * | ra    | * | mallcaps}** |               |
|                       | [ | ting) | [ |             |               |
| *(include dosage      | \ | ]{.sm | \ |             |               |
| rates and application | # | allca | # |             |               |
| method)*              | > | ps}** | > |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | o |       | o |             |               |
|                       | f |       | f |             |               |
|                       | > |       | > |             |               |
|                       |   |       |   |             |               |
|                       | T |       | T |             |               |
|                       | r |       | r |             |               |
|                       | i |       | i |             |               |
|                       | a |       | a |             |               |
|                       | l |       | l |             |               |
|                       | s |       | s |             |               |
|                       | ] |       | ] |             |               |
|                       | { |       | { |             |               |
|                       | . |       | . |             |               |
|                       | s |       | s |             |               |
|                       | m |       | m |             |               |
|                       | a |       | a |             |               |
|                       | l |       | l |             |               |
|                       | l |       | l |             |               |
|                       | c |       | c |             |               |
|                       | a |       | a |             |               |
|                       | p |       | p |             |               |
|                       | s |       | s |             |               |
|                       | } |       | } |             |               |
|                       | * |       | * |             |               |
|                       | * |       | * |             |               |
+-----------------------+---+-------+---+-------------+---------------+
| Methyl bromide        |   | 100   | 1 |             | Nesmith\*     |
+-----------------------+---+-------+---+-------------+---------------+
| Vapam (Metam sodium)  |   | 54    | 1 |             |               |
| fumigation            |   |       |   |             |               |
+-----------------------+---+-------+---+-------------+---------------+

\*Nesmith, W. 1992/93. On Farm Test in Powell County, Ky. Not published.

+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **[Key                | ##### [Average disease % or ratin            |
| Pest:]{.smallcaps}**  | g and yields in past 3\~5 years]{.smallcaps} |
| *Pythium spp.*        |                                              |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635825 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Metam Sodium     | pathogens     | 46             | 46              |
| (Vapam)          |               |                |                 |
| Fumigation       |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **46**          |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                |                 |
| imate for All Al |               |                |                 |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                |                 |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 17. Are There Any Other Potential
  Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace
  Methyl Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635792 .anchor}

  No. The tobacco market is not sufficiently large to support labeling
  products and liability is high. Further, minor crop funding is not
  allowed for tobacco. Pesticide companies are not interested in labeling
  pesticides on tobacco for disease control due to economic and public
  perception issues.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Tobacco Transplant Beds - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to
  Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**

  No. While most of the larger operations have moved to soil-less media
  float bed transplant production, methyl bromide is still essential to
  ensure healthy transplants.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [[Tobacco Transpl                                                   |
| ant Beds - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.underline}]{.smallcaps} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Methyl bromide is still essential to ensure healthy transplants for   |
| field production of tobacco. While there are other fumigants          |
| registered, dazomet and metam sodium, their use is compromised by     |
| field conditions whether applied in the fall or spring. Until float   |
| tray production of seedlings in small farm operations can be          |
| guaranteed to produce pathogen free seedlings or acceptable           |
| alternative fumigants are registered for use on tobacco, methyl       |
| bromide is essential to field tobacco transplant production.          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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___Toc65635795
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}** *(State % adoption or describe change)*

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

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

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

  **[What use/emission      Currently some growers No                         No                           No
  reduction methods are     use HDPE tarps.                                                                
  presently                                                                                                
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                  

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

  **[Other                  Not available.         Examination of promising   Not available.               Research is underway to
  measures]{.smallcaps}**                          but presently unregistered                              develop float bed transplant
  *(please describe)*                              alternative fumigants,                                  production systems which
                                                   alone or in combination                                 will ensure pathogen free
                                                   with non-chemical methods,                              seedlings
                                                   is planned                                              
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being  |
| Used]{.smallcaps}**                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **[or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the                    |
| Nomination]{.smallcaps}**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **[State Reasons]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635796         |
| .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

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

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635798
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635829 .anchor}

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

  Methyl Bromide                  100%                        \$84               \$84               \$84

  Floating Trays                  100%                        \$14               \$14               \$14

  Metam Sodium                    54%                         \$84               \$84               \$84
  ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635799
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635830 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| ####                  |                       |                      |
|  [Year 1]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 10,210                | 6,477                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Floating Trays        | 10,210                | 6,568                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 5,514                 | 1,865                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635831 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 2]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 10,210                | 6,477                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Floating Trays        | 10,210                | 6,568                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 5,514                 | 1,865                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

**[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635832 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #####                 |                       |                      |
|  [Year 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       | *(US\$/ha)*           | *(US\$/ha)*          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | 10,210                | 6,477                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Floating Trays        | 10,210                | 6,568                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam Sodium          | 5,514                 | 1,865                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635800
  .anchor}

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

**[Tobacco Transplant Beds - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635833
.anchor}

+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **Tobacco Transplant Beds**    | *        | *          | **[Metam   |
|                                | *[Methyl | *[Floating | S          |
|                                | Bromid   | Trays]{.sm | odium]{.sm |
|                                | e]{.smal | allcaps}** | allcaps}** |
|                                | lcaps}** |            |            |
|                                |          |            | **[(V      |
|                                |          |            | apam)]{.sm |
|                                |          |            | allcaps}** |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[Yield Loss                  | 0%       | 0%         | 46%        |
| (%)]{.smallcaps}**             |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[Yield per                   | 2,316    | 2,316      | 1,250      |
| Hectare]{.smallcaps}**         |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[\* Price per Unit           | 4.41     | 4.41       | 4.41       |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**          |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare | 10,210   | 10,210     | 5,514      |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**          |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[- Operating Costs per       | 3,733    | 3,642      | 3,649      |
| Hectare (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**  |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[= Net Revenue per Hectare   | 6,477    | 6,568      | 1,865      |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**          |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **Loss Measures**              |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[1. Loss per Hectare         | \$0      | +\$91      | 4,612      |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**          |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[2. Loss per Kilogram of     | \$0      | +\$27.12   | \$1,371.62 |
| Methyl Bromide                 |          |            |            |
| (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**          |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[3. Loss as a Percentage of  | 0%       | +1%        | 45%        |
| Gross Revenue                  |          |            |            |
| (%)]{.smallcaps}**             |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+
| **[4. Loss as a Percentage of  | 0%       | +1%        | 71%        |
| Net Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}** |          |            |            |
+--------------------------------+----------+------------+------------+

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

The economic analysis compared the costs of two alternative control
scenarios to the baseline costs for controlling tobacco pests with
methyl bromide to determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide
were unavailable. The two alternatives are floating trays and Vapam or
metam sodium. Various measures were used to quantify the impacts,
including the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the issues tobacco beds growers are facing is whether or not it
will be financially prudent to convert from a bed system that requires
fumigation of the soil to a floating tray system. A floating tray system
uses trays floating in shallow pools to grow seedlings. After the
seedlings are removed the trays are fumigated, stored and reused again.
Although it is seen as an alternative, seedling producers using the
floating tray system are starting to move back to soil beds for a couple
of reasons. For starters, if the water becomes contaminated the entire
stock of seedlings is lost as pathogens spread unabated. Secondly, there
is virtually no insurance crop available as growers cannot keep
seedlings floating in trays beyond transplant maturity whereas with a
bed system growers can maintain insurance or back up stock. In fact,
some seedling producers are now converting from floating trays back to
beds even though the management costs are higher. This analysis
considers the floating tray system and fumigation with Vapam as
alternatives to fumigation with methyl bromide.

The costs for the first alternative are based on using a floating tray
system to minimize pathogen transfer while the costs for the second
alternative is based on the cost of applying and metam sodium (Vapam) in
place of methyl bromide. The baseline costs were based on the average
number of applications to treat tobacco beds with methyl bromide per
year (one) with 3 pounds methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet.

The loss per hectare measures the value of methyl bromide based on
changes in operating costs and/or changes in yield. The loss as a
percentage of the gross revenue is based on the ratio of the loss to the
gross revenue. Likewise for the loss as a percentage of net revenue. The
profit margin percentage is the ratio of net revenue to gross revenue
per hectare.

The differences in the cost of production were primarily from the cost
of the capital investments and/materials costs for the floating tray
system when compared to a bed system using methyl bromide. The basis for
the fumigation alternative costs and differences in net revenue are from
the estimated yield loss if metam sodium is used in place of methyl
bromide. Labor was assumed to cost \$6.50 per hour. Yield losses ranged
from 0% to 46%.

Under Alternative 1 (floating tray system), yield losses were estimated
to be 0% compared to methyl bromide. Operating costs in U.S. dollars per
hectare were estimated to be \$3,643 per year. The estimated net revenue
was \$6,568 per hectare. The gain per hectare is estimated to be \$91
due to the estimated reduced cost of a tray system compared to soil
fumigation with methyl bromide. The gain per kilogram of methyl bromide
in U.S. dollars is estimated to be \$27.12 per kilogram. If growers are
going from floating tray systems back to seedbeds because of performance
problems, the economic consequence of using a system that doesn't work
is that revenue falls to zero in some cases for seedling growers that
experience pathogen problems as their entire stock is lost. The
probability of this loss is not known but converting to a different
production technology is an indication that the risk of loss is too
great. It is understood that in some cases floating trays do work, but
the economic consequences of float tray failure impacts and the
financial risk avoidance can be measured by the cost of converting back
to seedbeds. Conversion costs were not available for this analysis.

Under alternative 2 Vapam (metam sodium), yield losses were estimated to
be 46% compared to methyl bromide. Operating costs in U.S. dollars per
hectare were estimated to be \$3,649 per year. The estimated net revenue
was \$1,865 per hectare. The loss per hectare is estimated to be
\$4,612. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in U.S. dollars is
estimated to be \$1,371.62 per kilogram.

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy       |
| Alternatives for This Crop?]{.smallcaps}**                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of        |
| alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because  |
| the U.S. EPA currently has more applications pending in its           |
| registration review queue than the resources to evaluate them, U.S.   |
| EPA prioritizes the applications. By virtue of being a top            |
| registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science  |
| review process as soon as U.S. EPA receives the application and       |
| supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the U.S. EPA to       |
| initiate its review.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives   |
| to methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on     |
| data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the |
| Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety     |
| standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency |
| has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application,  |
| allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the |
| methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, Agency scientists routinely  |
| meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants,          |
| counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the   |
| probability that the data is done right the first time and rework     |
| delays are minimized                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| The U.S. EPA has also co-chaired the USDA/EPA Methyl Bromide          |
| Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research,       |
| development and the registration of viable alternatives. This         |
| coordination has resulted in key registration issues (such as worker  |
| and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and      |
| drinking water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's      |
| Agricultural Research Service's US\$15 million per year research      |
| program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across  |
| the country. Also U.S. EPA's participation in the evaluation of       |
| research grant proposals each year for USDA's US\$2.5 million per     |
| year methyl bromide alternatives research has further ensured close   |
| coordination between the U.S. government and the research community.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635803 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[25. Additional Comments on the
  Nomination?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635804 .anchor}

  While most tobacco producers have moved to the float tray system for
  seedling transplant production, methyl bromide is still critical to
  ensure pathogen free seedlings. In recent years, a number of producers
  have abandoned the float tray system and returned to small plot field
  production of tobacco transplants. This move has occurred due to the
  greater potential for disease production in the greenhouse float tray
  system. This indicates that float tray systems still have problems
  which must be eliminated before they can be considered a viable
  alternative for seedling production in the United States.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635805 .anchor}

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

Nesmith, W. 1992/93. On Farm Test in Powell County, Ky. Not published.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Citations reviewed but not
  applicable]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635806 .anchor}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hensley, DD. Disease Management in Transplant Production.

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

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

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

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

**APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65635835 .anchor}

![](media/image1.wmf)

**Footnotes for Appendix A:**

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  California Cut Flower Commission         400,000

  National Country Ham Association         1,172

  Wayco Ham Company                        39

  California Date Commission               5,319

  National Pest Management Association     319,369

  Michigan Pepper Growers                  20,904

  Michigan Eggplant Growers                6,968

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

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

  Virginia Tobacco Growers - Transplant    941
  Trays                                    

  Michigan Herbaceous Perennials           4,200

  Ozark Country Hams                       240

  Nahunta Pork Center                      248

  American Association of Meat             296,800
  Processors                               

  Total lbs                                **1,087,434**

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