**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Eggplant Grown in Open Fields]{.smallcaps}**

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

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Nominating      | # The United States of America                  |
| Par                |                                                 |
| ty:]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Brief           | Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for      |
| Descriptive Title  | Preplant Soil Use for Eggplant Grown in Open    |
| of                 | Fields                                          |
| 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} 7](#part-a-summary)

[1. Nominating Party 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65584322)

[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65584323)

[3. Crop and Summary of Crop System 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65584324)

[5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65584325)

[6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
10](#__RefHeading___Toc65584326)

[7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
10](#__RefHeading___Toc65584327)

[8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65584328)

[9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region 13](#__RefHeading___Toc65584329)

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

[Florida - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65584331)

[Florida - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65584332)

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

[Florida - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
17](#__RefHeading___Toc65584334)

[Florida - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65584335)

[Florida - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65584336)

[Florida - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested 19](#__RefHeading___Toc65584337)

[Florida - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65584338)

[Florida - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65584339)

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

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

[Georgia - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65584342)

[Georgia - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65584343)

[Region A - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
25](#__RefHeading___Toc65584344)

[[Georgia - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}
26](#georgia---part-c-technical-validation)

[Georgia - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
26](#__RefHeading___Toc65584346)

[Georgia - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 27](#__RefHeading___Toc65584347)

[Georgia - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
28](#__RefHeading___Toc65584348)

[Georgia - 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 29](#__RefHeading___Toc65584349)

[Georgia - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65584350)

[Georgia - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
30](#__RefHeading___Toc65584351)

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

[Michigan - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65584353)

[Michigan - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65584354)

[Michigan - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
33](#__RefHeading___Toc65584355)

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

[Michigan - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65584357)

[Michigan - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)*
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 36](#__RefHeading___Toc65584358)

[Michigan - 15. List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
37](#__RefHeading___Toc65584359)

[Michigan - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested 37](#__RefHeading___Toc65584360)

[Michigan - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
39](#__RefHeading___Toc65584361)

[Michigan - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
39](#__RefHeading___Toc65584362)

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

[[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps} 41](#part-d-emission-control)

[19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide
Use and Emissions in the Particular Use 41](#__RefHeading___Toc65584365)

[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 42](#__RefHeading___Toc65584366)

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

[21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
43](#__RefHeading___Toc65584368)

[22. Gross and Net Revenue 44](#__RefHeading___Toc65584369)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
44](#__RefHeading___Toc65584370)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 46](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

[[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps} 48](#part-f.-future-plans)

[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 48](#__RefHeading___Toc65584373)

[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 49](#__RefHeading___Toc65584374)

[25. Additional Comments on the Nomination
49](#__RefHeading___Toc65584375)

[26. Citations 49](#__RefHeading___Toc65584376)

[Citations Reviewed but Not Applicable 51](#__RefHeading___Toc65584377)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
56](#__RefHeading___Toc65584378)

***List of Tables***

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

[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated 7](#__RefHeading___Toc65584380)

[Table A.1: Executive Summary 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65584381)

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

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

[Georgia - Table 8.2: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
Use 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65584384)

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

[Table A.2: 2005 Sector Request 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65584386)

[Table A.3: 2006 Sector Nomination 14](#__RefHeading___Toc65584387)

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

[Florida - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 15](#__RefHeading___Toc65584389)

[Florida - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65584390)

[Region B - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65584391)

[Florida - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
16](#__RefHeading___Toc65584392)

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

[Florida -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
17](#__RefHeading___Toc65584394)

[Florida -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65584395)

[Florida -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65584396)

[Southeastern USA except Georgia -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss
Data Summary 19](#__RefHeading___Toc65584397)

[Table 5. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato (Locascio et al., 1997
19](#__RefHeading___Toc65584398)

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

[Georgia - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 23](#__RefHeading___Toc65584400)

[Georgia - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
23](#__RefHeading___Toc65584401)

[Region A - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
24](#__RefHeading___Toc65584402)

[Region A - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
25](#__RefHeading___Toc65584403)

[*[Georgia - Part C: Technical Validation]{.smallcaps}*
26](#georgia---part-c-technical-validation)

[Region A -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
26](#__RefHeading___Toc65584405)

[Georgia -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
27](#__RefHeading___Toc65584406)

[Georgia -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
28](#__RefHeading___Toc65584407)

[Southeastern USA except Georgia -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss
Data Summary 29](#__RefHeading___Toc65584408)

[Table 5. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato (Locascio et al., 1997
29](#__RefHeading___Toc65584409)

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

[Michigan - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request 32](#__RefHeading___Toc65584411)

[Michigan - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System
32](#__RefHeading___Toc65584412)

[Region A - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
33](#__RefHeading___Toc65584413)

[Michigan - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
34](#__RefHeading___Toc65584414)

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

[Michigan -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
35](#__RefHeading___Toc65584416)

[Michigan -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
37](#__RefHeading___Toc65584417)

[Michigan -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
37](#__RefHeading___Toc65584418)

[*[Part D: Emission Control]{.smallcaps}* 41](#part-d-emission-control)

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

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

[Table 21.1: Michigan - Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide
Over 3-Year Period 43](#__RefHeading___Toc65584422)

[Table 22.1: Michigan - Year 1, 2, and 3 Gross and Net Revenues
44](#__RefHeading___Toc65584423)

[Georgia Melon - Table E.9: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 44](#__RefHeading___Toc65584424)

[Georgia Cucumber -- Table E.8: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives 45](#__RefHeading___Toc65584425)

[Southeastern U.S.A. except Georgia Cucumber - Table E.5: Economic
Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives 45](#__RefHeading___Toc65584426)

[*[Part F. Future Plans]{.smallcaps}* 48](#part-f.-future-plans)

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
52](#__RefHeading___Toc65584428)

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[1. Nominating Party]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584322
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[2. Descriptive Title of
  Nomination]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584323
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
  Eggplant Grown in Open Fields
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[3. Crop and Summary of Crop
  System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584324
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

This is a request for eggplant grown in the States of Florida, Georgia,
and Michigan. In Florida, eggplant can be grown year-round, and are
often double cropped with pepper or cucumber following eggplant harvest.
The vegetable crop that follows eggplant in a double cropping production
system depends upon prevailing environmental and economic factors.
Growers in Florida often put eggplant in as an extra crop, and grow
okra, squash, or cucumbers after the eggplant has been harvested. A
spring crop of eggplant may follow as a second crop after a fall crop of
pepper or tomato. Eggplant does best on well-drained, fertile,
sandy-loam soils at a pH of 6.0-6.5. Poorly drained soils may result in
slow plant growth, reduced root systems, and low yields. Eggplant
requires a long, warm, frost-free growing season, usually of 14-16
weeks. Cold temperatures below 50^o^C injure this crop. The best
temperatures are 27-32^o^C during the day and 21-32^o^C during the
night. Plant growth is curtailed at temperatures below 16^o^C.
Additionally, soil temperature below 16^o^C restricts germination.
However, most eggplant is started in the field from transplants. Methyl
bromide (MB) is always used in the full-bed mulch process. Until 1999,
the chemical formulation primarily used was 98 percent methyl bromide
and two percent chloropicrin. Since then, growers have shifted to
formulations with lower concentrations of methyl bromide and higher
amounts of chloropicrin due to the phase-out schedule of methyl bromide
(USDA, 2002).

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

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584380 .anchor}

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

  **2005**                                         

  **2006**                 **106,193**             **758**
  ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5[. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584325
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methyl bromide is the only fumigant that consistently provides reliable
control of target weeds, nematodes, and pathogens. There are no
technically or economically feasible alternatives. The best alternatives
(e.g. 1,3-D + chloropicrin, metam sodium) are not as effective in
controlling nutsedge and have a long waiting period for planting that
would disrupt planting schedules and cause growers to miss key market
windows. Furthermore, regulatory restrictions due to concerns over human
exposure and ground water contamination, along with technical
limitations, result in potential economic infeasibility of 1,3-D alone
or in combination as a practical MB alternative. Key among these factors
are a 28 day planting delay due both to label restrictions and low soil
temperatures and a mandatory 30.4 m buffer for treated fields near
inhabited structures.

**5.1 Michigan**

In Michigan eggplant, no currently available methyl bromide (MB)
alternative exists that is technically feasible for the control of the
key target pathogen, *Phytophthora capsici* except 1,3-D + chloropicrin.
These soil fungi can easily destroy the entire harvest from affected
areas if left uncontrolled. While 1,3-D + chloropicrin provided some
control in small plot trials with peppers and cucurbits in Michigan
(Hausbeck and Cortright 2003), the level of control was lower than that
afforded by MB. It is also noteworthy that at least one of the pests in
question, *P. capsici*, has recently been shown to occur in irrigation
water in Michigan (Gevens and Hausbeck 2003). This will increase the
likelihood of spread of this pathogen. It is also not yet clear whether
these small-scale results accurately reflect efficacy of MB alternatives
in commercial fresh vegetable (peppers, eggplant, cucurbit) production.
Furthermore, regulatory restrictions (e.g., mandatory 30 m buffer zone
for treated fields near inhabited structures) due to concerns over human
exposure and ground water contamination, along with technical and
economic limitations, result in potential infeasibility of this
formulation as a practical MB alternative. Also, planting delays
restrictions (21 to 30 days) or variations in soil temperatures or
rainfall could cause delays in fumigation events, since all fumigations
must be completed by the first week of May.

Based on a small-plot trial conducted on Michigan peppers cited above,
the best-case yield loss estimate for Michigan using the best available
MB alternative (1,3-D + chloropicrin) is estimated to be 6%. In
untreated buffer areas, losses could approach 100 % in the worst case
scenario. There may also be unpredictable but potentially significant
economic effects created by the planting delays (described above), which
will disrupt the schedule of delivery of fresh pepper harvest to
wholesale buyers.

**Florida and Georgia**

Nutsedges, when present at moderate to severe infestations, are key
pests which require MB for control in the Southeastern United States,
including Florida and Georgia. Phytophthora is also a key pest. Of MB
alternatives, only 1,3-D + chloropicrin has some efficacy against
*Phytophthora.* However, 1,3-D cannot be applied in areas overlying
karst geology which is common throughout the Southeast.

Growers in this region also face root-knot nematodes and the fungal
pathogens described above as key pests. Left uncontrolled, any of these
pests could completely destroy the harvests from affected areas.
Halosulfuron, which is effective against nutsedges, can be applied only
in row middles, but cannot be applied in raised beds, where nutsedge
competition is critical (Florida CUE #03-0054).

Metam-sodium offers erratic, inconsistent control of nutsedges and
nematodes, while 1,3-D + chloropicrin provides adequate control of
nematodes (Eger 2000, Noling et al. 2000). However, metam-sodium has
yield losses of up to 44 percent compared to MB where weed infestations
are moderate to severe (Locascio et al. 1997). Metam-sodium also creates
a planting delay as long as 28 days to avoid risk of phytotoxic injury o
crops compared to a 14-day delay for MB. Further, due to regulatory
restrictions resulting from groundwater contamination concerns, 1,3-D +
chloropicrin cannot be used in large portions of the southeastern United
States due to the presence of karst geology. There is a 21-day planting
delay (vs. 14 days for MB) due to regulatory restrictions for 1,3-D +
chloropicrin also. Any apparent technical feasibility of metam-sodium
and 1,3 D + chloropicrin (and various combinations thereof) are based on
small plot research trials that done on crops other than eggplant. For
fungi and nutsedge pests at least, no on-farm, large scale trials have
yet been done. Some researchers have also reported that these MB
alternatives are degraded more rapidly in areas where they are applied
repeatedly due to enhanced metabolism by soil microorganisms. This
phenomenon may compromise long-term efficacy of these compounds and
appears to need further scientific scrutiny.

In sum, neither of these MB alternatives is presently adequate for
control of key pests, and MB remains a critical use for eggplant in the
Southeastern United States.

**Implications of MB loss for individual growers**

If MB were to be removed as a pest control option for U.S. eggplant, the
particular growers in each region cited in this nomination would have to
stop crop production or suffer substantial losses. These growers would
either leave agriculture entirely or switch to other crops that do not
rely on pre-plant fumigation for soil pest control. The extent of this
impact on the affected growers is debatable, but given the current
embryonic state of commercial deployment of MB alternatives, it is
possible that growers who currently treat their land routinely with MB
would face this outcome.

**[Table A.1: Executive Summary for
eggplant]{.smallcaps}**[^1][]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584381 .anchor}

+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ### Region                  | ***        | ***        | ***M       |
|                             | Florida*** | Georgia*** | ichigan*** |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ##### [Amount               |            |            |            |
|  of Nomination]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms        | 73,716     | 27,769     | 3,951      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Application Rate (kg/ha)    | 150        | 150        | 48         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Area (ha)                   | 491        | 185        | 82         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ##### [Amount of App        |            |            |            |
| licant Request]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ####  2005 Kilograms        | 97,250     | 48,868     | 4,027      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Application Rate (kg/ha)    | 150        | 150        | 120        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Area (ha)                   | 647        | 325        | 36         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms        | 97,250     | 48,868     | 3,951      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Application Rate (kg/ha)    | 150        | 150        | 48         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Area (ha)                   | 647        | 325        | 82         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| #### [Economics For Next Be |            |            |            |
| st Alternative]{.smallcaps} |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Marginal Strategy           | 1,3-D +    | 1,3-D +    | #### 1     |
|                             | Pic        | Pic        | ,3-D + Pic |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| ####  Yield Loss (%)        | 29 %       | 29 %       | 6%         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Loss per hectare (US\$/ha)  | \$5,252    | \$7,593    | \$4,076    |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Loss per kg Methyl Bromide  | \$35       | \$51       | \$84       |
| (US\$/kg)                   |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Loss as % of Gross Revenue  | 24%        | 18%        | 12%        |
| (%)                         |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Loss as % of Net Revenue    | 82%        | 72%        | 44%        |
| (%)                         |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **6. [Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584326 .anchor}:

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

In Florida and Georgia, where weeds, especially nutsedge, are the main
methyl bromide target pests neither 1,3-D nor metam sodium, alone or in
combination with chloropicrin, adequately control moderate to high
nutsedge populations. In Florida and, to a lesser extent in Georgia, the
use of 1,3-D is prohibited in areas overlying karst geology because of
groundwater contamination concerns. It is estimated that 40% of the
Florida's production area overlies karst geology. The 1,3-D label
prohibits its use in Dade County, Florida. Moreover, for Florida and
Georgia farmers, using products containing 1,3-D and metam sodium in the
fall may be impractical because of the required longer waiting periods
for planting following application, 28 days for 1,3-D and 21 days for
metam sodium, compared to 14 days for methyl bromide. Such delays could
cause Florida and Georgia growers to miss part of the key market
windows.

In Michigan, where soil-borne pathogens are the key methyl bromide
target pests, neither 1,3-D nor metam sodium is effective against
soil-borne fungi. Furthermore, the 28 and 21 day planting delays for
1,3-D and metam sodium, respectively, might disrupt this state's
carefully-timed planting and harvesting schedules, causing growers to
miss part of the market windows. The 1,3-D + chloropicrin combination
may be as effective as methyl bromide against soil-borne pathogens.
However, the 21-day planting delay would hinder grower adoption of this
alternative.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584327 .anchor}

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

#### 

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

+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **[Region where   | **[Total crop     | **[Proportion of total crop  |
| Methyl Bromide    | area 2001-2002    | area treated with methyl     |
| use is            | Average           | bromide (%)]{.smallcaps}**   |
| request           | (h                |                              |
| ed]{.smallcaps}** | a)]{.smallcaps}** |                              |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| ##### Florida     | 647               | 100                          |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **Georgia**       | 497               | 64%                          |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **Michigan**      | Not available     | Not available                |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------------------------+
| **[National       | 2197              | 51                           |
| Tota              |                   |                              |
| l:]{.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}**

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

In Georgia, areas not treated **with MB** do not have nutsedges or
nematodes naturally present in eggplant fields. Simple absence of all
pests is the only reason these areas are not presently treated with MB.
In Michigan, areas not treated apparently do not have any infestation
(i.e., zero oospores or chlamydospores per unit soil) of the key fungal
pests. The applicant states that soil infestation is spreading in the
region annually.

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

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

Growers have the option to use halosulfuron only in row middles.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584328 .anchor}

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

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

+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}                     | ##### [Fl |            |
|                                             | orida]{.s |            |
|                                             | mallcaps} |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}   | **[2      | **         |
|                                             | 005]{.sma | [2006]{.sm |
|                                             | llcaps}** | allcaps}** |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}   | 97,250    | 97,250     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed          | Strip Bed |            |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                      |           |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of    | 67:33 or  |            |
| methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixture)* [to   | 98:2      |            |
| be used for the CUE]{.smallcaps}            |           |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl   | 647 ha    | 647ha      |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin      |           |            |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(m^2^ or ha)*     |           |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  |           |            |
| [for the **formulation**]{.smallcaps}       |           |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | 150       | 150        |
| [for the **active ingredient**]{.smallcaps} |           |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of  | 224       | 224        |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested |           |            |
| kilograms of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}    |           |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of  | 15        | 15         |
| **active ingredient** used to calculate     |           |            |
| requested kilograms of methyl               |           |            |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                        |           |            |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+------------+

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

**[Georgia - Table 8.2: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584384 .anchor}

+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}                     | ##### [Ge |           |
|                                             | orgia]{.s |           |
|                                             | mallcaps} |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}   | **[2      | **[2      |
|                                             | 005]{.sma | 006]{.sma |
|                                             | llcaps}** | llcaps}** |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}   | 48,868    | 48,868    |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed          | Pred      |           |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                      | ominantly |           |
|                                             | Strip Bed |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of    | 67:33     |           |
| methyl bromide/Chloropicrin mixture)* [to   |           |           |
| be used for the CUE]{.smallcaps}            |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl   | 325       | 325       |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin      |           |           |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(m^2^ or ha)*     |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | 224       | 224       |
| [for the **formulation**]{.smallcaps}       |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | 150       | 150       |
| [for the **active ingredient**]{.smallcaps} |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of  | 22        | 22        |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested |           |           |
| kg of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}           |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of  | 15        | 15        |
| **active ingredient** used to calculate     |           |           |
| requested kilograms of methyl               |           |           |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                        |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+

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

#### 

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

+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}                     | #         |           |
|                                             | #### [Mic |           |
|                                             | higan]{.s |           |
|                                             | mallcaps} |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}   | **[2      | **[2      |
|                                             | 005]{.sma | 006]{.sma |
|                                             | llcaps}** | llcaps}** |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}   | 4,027     | 3,951     |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed          | Pred      |           |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                      | ominantly |           |
|                                             | Strip Bed |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of    | 67:33 or  |           |
| methyl bromide/Chloropicrin mixture)* [to   | 50:50     |           |
| be used for the CUE]{.smallcaps}            |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl   | 83        | 82        |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin      |           |           |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(m^2^ or ha)*     |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | []{.mark} | []{.mark} |
| [for the **formulation**]{.smallcaps}       |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)*  | 48        | 48        |
| [for the **active ingredient**]{.smallcaps} |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of  | 17.9      | 17.9      |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested |           |           |
| kg of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}           |           |           |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of  | 32.2      | 32.2      |
| **active ingredient** used to calculate     |           |           |
| requested kilograms of methyl               | Strip     | Strip     |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                        | treatment | treatment |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------+-----------+

*\* 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___Toc65584329                   |
| .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the US was calculated as    |
| follows:                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   The percent of regional hectares in the applicant's request was   |
|     divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region      |
|     covered by the request. Values greater than 100 percent are due   |
|     to the inclusion of additional varieties in the applicant's       |
|     request that were not included in the USDA National Agricultural  |
|     Statistics Service surveys of the crop.                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within   |
|     one year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl        |
|     bromide were subtracted. There was no double counting in this     |
|     sector.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Growth or increasing production (the amount of area requested by  |
|     the applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was |
|     subtracted. The applicant that included growth in their request   |
|     had the growth amount removed.                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares is the area in the     |
|     applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. Not applicable in  |
|     this sector.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following        |
|     impacts were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy  |
|     key pest pressure, regulatory impacts, karst topography, buffer   |
|     zones, unsuitable terrain, and cold soil temperatures.            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**[Table A.2: 2005 Sector Request \--
Eggplant]{.smallcaps}**[^2][]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584386 .anchor}

+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| #####   |                       | **        | **        | **M       |
| 2005 Eg |                       | Florida** | Georgia** | ichigan** |
| gplant  |                       |           |           |           |
| Sector  |                       |           |           |           |
| Request |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Ap    | Requested Hectares    | 647       | 325       | 83        |
| plicant | (ha)                  |           |           |           |
| Request |                       |           |           |           |
| for     |                       |           |           |           |
| 2005**  |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Requested Application | 150       | 150       | 48        |
|         | Rate (kg/ha)          |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Requested Kilograms   | 97,250    | 48,868    | 4,027     |
|         | (kg)                  |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**[Table A.3: 2006 Sector Nomination \--
eggplant]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584387 .anchor}

+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ##      |                       | **        | **        | **M       |
| ### 200 |                       | Florida** | Georgia** | ichigan** |
| 6 Eggpl |                       |           |           |           |
| ant Sec |                       |           |           |           |
| tor Nom |                       |           |           |           |
| ination |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Ap    | Requested Hectares    | 647       | 325       | 82        |
| plicant | (ha)                  |           |           |           |
| Request |                       |           |           |           |
| for     |                       |           |           |           |
| 2006**  |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Requested Application | 150       | 150       | 48        |
|         | Rate (kg/ha)          |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Requested Kilograms   | 97,250    | 48,868    | 3,951     |
|         | (kg)                  |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **CUE   | Nominated Hectares    | 491       | 185       | 82        |
| No      | (ha)                  |           |           |           |
| minated |                       |           |           |           |
| for     |                       |           |           |           |
| 2006**  |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Nominated Application | 150       | 150       | 48        |
|         | Rate (kg/ha)          |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | Nominated Kilograms   | 73,716    | 27,769    | 3,951     |
|         | (kg)                  |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2006  | Overall Reduction (%) | 29        |           |           |
| Sector  |                       |           |           |           |
| Nom     |                       |           |           |           |
| ination |                       |           |           |           |
| T       |                       |           |           |           |
| otals** |                       |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | **2006 U.S. CUE       | **        |           |           |
|         | Nomination (kg)**     | 106,193** |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | **Research Amount     | **433**   |           |           |
|         | (kg)**                |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|         | **Total 2006 U.S.     | **        |           |           |
|         | Sector Nominated      | 106,626** |           |           |
|         | Kilograms (kg)**      |           |           |           |
+---------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

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

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

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

**[Florida - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584389 .anchor}

+-----------+---------------------+------------------------------------+
| **[Region | **[Target pests     | **[Specific reasons why methyl     |
| where     | (weeds,             | bromide is needed]{.smallcaps}\    |
| methyl    | plant-parasitic     | **                                 |
| bromide   | nematodes) and      |                                    |
| use is    | patho               |                                    |
| reques    | gens]{.smallcaps}** |                                    |
| ted]{.sma |                     |                                    |
| llcaps}** |                     |                                    |
+-----------+---------------------+------------------------------------+
| Florida   | Purple and Yellow   | Methyl bromide is the only         |
|           | Nutsedge (*Cyperus  | fumigant that consistently         |
|           | rotundus* & *C.     | controls key target weeds          |
|           | esculentus*),       | affecting eggplant in Florida.     |
|           | Root-knot nematodes | Neither 1,3-D nor metam sodium is  |
|           | (*Meloidogyne*      | effective under high nutsedge      |
|           | spp.), Nightshade   | population pressures. 1,3-D cannot |
|           | (*Solanum* spp.),   | be applied in areas overlying      |
|           | Morningglory        | karst geology (about 40% of the    |
|           |                     | production area in Florida).       |
|           | (*Ipomoea* spp.),   |                                    |
|           | Southern blight     |                                    |
|           | (*Sclerotium        |                                    |
|           | rolfsii*)           |                                    |
+-----------+---------------------+------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping System
  and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584331 .anchor}

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

**[Florida - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584390 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}          | ###                   |
|                                              | [Florida]{.smallcaps} |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.          | Vegetable crop for    |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)*      | fresh market          |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial Crop:]{.smallcaps}**  | Annual                |
| *(# of years between replanting)*            |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if | Peppers, cucurbits    |
| any)* **[and use of methyl bromide for other |                       |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if   |                       |
| any)*                                        |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand, loam,  | Sandy and sandy-loam  |
| clay, etc.)*                                 | soils                 |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide               | Annually              |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g. every two  |                       |
| years)*                                      |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Other relevant factors:]{.smallcaps}**    | Double-cropped with   |
|                                              | cucurbit; may be      |
|                                              | preceded by pepper.   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

Table 11.2: Characteristics of Climate and Eggplant Crop Schedule: Not
Double-cropped

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-e.g.-temperate-tropical"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>(e.g. temperate, tropical)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">Zones: 9a, 10a, 10b - In 1997, 80% of the state’s
eggplant production was in the southeast; remainder of about 20%
distributed in the rest of the state, mostly in the central and northern
regions.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>72.5</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>175.8</td>
<td>193.3</td>
<td>152.7</td>
<td>65.0</td>
<td>42.7</td>
<td>158.8</td>
<td>62.0</td>
<td>66.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside
Temp.</strong><em>(C)</em></span></td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>22.1</td>
<td>25.3</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>24.1</td>
<td>19.2</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>16.0</td>
<td>16.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule;<sup>A</sup></span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting
Schedule<sup>B</sup></span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Harvest
Window;<sup>C</sup></span></strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^A^Non-double cropped.: earliest start date: June 15; shaded cells
represent variation in fumigation initiation amongst eggplant growers.

^C^ For Non-Double cropped eggplant production, planting eggplants is
usually initiated around July 1; shaded cells represent variation in
transplanting dates

^E^For Non-Double Cropped Eggplants; Harvest Period usually begins as
early as Nov. 1, may continue until July 31, depending on when planted
and weather conditions.

**[Table 11.3: Characteristics of Climate and Eggplant Crop Schedule;
Double-cropped]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584391 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-1"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-e.g.-temperate-tropical-1"><span
class="smallcaps">Climatic Zone<br />
</span><em>(e.g. temperate, tropical)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">Zones 9a, 10a, 10b - In 1997, 80% of the state’s
eggplant production was in the southeast; remainder of about 20%
distributed in the rest of the state, mostly in the central and northern
regions.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>72.5</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>175.8</td>
<td>193.3</td>
<td>152.7</td>
<td>65.0</td>
<td>42.7</td>
<td>158.8</td>
<td>62.0</td>
<td>66.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside
Temp.</strong><em>(C)</em></span></td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>22.1</td>
<td>25.3</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>28.2</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>24.1</td>
<td>19.2</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>16.0</td>
<td>16.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule<sup>A</sup></span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting
Schedule<sup>B</sup></span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key harvest
Window<sup>F</sup></span></strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td><strong>2C</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><h5 id="e">E</h5></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
<td><strong>E</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^A^ Double-cropped; assumed to be with cucurbits; earliest start date is
June 15; shaded cells represent variation in fumigation initiation among
eggplant growers who double-crop.

^B^ For Double-Cropped eggplant production, planting (**E**) is
typically initiated on July 1; variance can be until October 1, as
represented by the shaded cells. The second crop of cucurbits
transplants would typically be initiated around Feb 1, and may vary
until end of Feb, or 1^st^ part of March.

^C^ For Double Cropped Eggplants, Harvest Period usually begins as early
as Nov. 15 **(E**), may continue until April 15, depending on when
planted and weather conditions; Harvesting of second crop (**2C**) may
start around May 1 and continue until mid-July

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

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

The karst geology prevalent in Florida and, to a lesser extent, Georgia
severely limits the use of I,3-D in those States. There are no atypical
characteristics identified in the nomination which might prevent the
utility of Devrinol (napromide) and trifluralin for nutsedge control and
for control of broad-leaved weed species, such as morningglory.
Halosulfuron, however has several label limitations (e.g., reduced
effectiveness if rain events follow within 4 hours of application), and
plant-back restrictions (0 to 36 months) (U.S. EPA, CUN 2003/050).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584332 .anchor}

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

**[Florida - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584392 .anchor}

+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[For as many years as     | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  | **  |
| possible as shown           | 199 | 199 | 199 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| specify:]{.smallcaps}**     | 7** | 8** | 9** | 0** | 1** | 2** |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[Area                     | 971 | 890 | 809 | 728 | 728 | 728 |
| Treated]{.smallcaps}**      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| *(hectares)*                |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[Amount of methyl bromide | 63, | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   |
| active ingredient           | 335 | 49, | 27, | 14, | 14, | 14, |
| used]{.smallcaps}** *(total |     | 723 | 384 | 646 | 623 | 623 |
| kilograms)*                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[formulations of methyl   | 9   | 9   | 67  | 67  | 67  | 67  |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}**      | 8:2 | 8:2 | :33 | :33 | :33 | :33 |
|                             |     |     | or  | or  | or  | or  |
| *MB /chloropicrin)*         |     |     | 9   | 9   | 9   | 9   |
|                             |     |     | 8:2 | 8:2 | 8:2 | 8:2 |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[Method by which methyl   | Swe |     |     |     |     |     |
| bromide                     | ptb |     |     |     |     |     |
| applied]{.smallcaps}**      | ack |     |     |     |     |     |
| *(e.g. injected at 25cm     | c   |     |     |     |     |     |
| depth, hot gas)*            | his |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | el- |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | sha |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | nk, |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | 2   |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | 5-3 |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | 0.5 |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | cm  |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | d   |     |     |     |     |     |
|                             | eep |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[Application rate of      | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   |
| formulations                | 59- | 59- | 59- | 59- | 59- | 59- |
| in]{.smallcaps} kg/ha\***   | 182 | 182 | 182 | 182 | 182 | 182 |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| [**Dosage                   | 251 | 251 | 235 | 235 | 235 | 235 |
| rate\*(g/m**^2^**) of       |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| formulation used to         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| calculate requested         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| kilograms of methyl         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| bromide**]{.smallcaps}      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[Application rate for the | 168 | 168 | 157 | 157 | 157 | 157 |
| active ingredient           |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| in]{.smallcaps} kg/ha\***   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[Actual dosage rate for   | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   | 1   |
| the active                  | 6.8 | 6.8 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 |
| ingredient]{.smallcaps}**   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| *(g                         |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| /m^2^)***[\*]{.smallcaps}** |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **[Application rate of      |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| Strip/ bed]{.smallcaps}**   |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| *(g/m^2^)*                  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584334 .anchor}

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

**[Florida -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584394 .anchor}

+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| **[Name of  | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons   | **[Is the    |
| Alte        | for the alternative not being feasible  | alternative  |
| rnative]{.s | or available]{.smallcaps}**             | considered   |
| mallcaps}** |                                         | cost         |
|             |                                         | e            |
|             |                                         | ffective?]{. |
|             |                                         | smallcaps}** |
+=============+=========================================+==============+
| # [C        |                                         |              |
| hemical Alt |                                         |              |
| ernatives]{ |                                         |              |
| .smallcaps} |                                         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3 --D     | Limestone solution channels potentially | No           |
| (Telone)    | leading to groundwater ("karst geology) |              |
|             | underlies a portion of FL production    |              |
|             | area; estimated to be about 40% in 2002 |              |
|             | for eggplant area; Telone is not        |              |
|             | labeled for use in Dade County.         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| H           | Registered for use on eggplant (Dec.    | No           |
| alosulfuron | 2002, US EPA, Aug. 2003); use           |              |
|             | restricted to the middle row only;      |              |
|             | potential crop injury; severe plant     |              |
|             | back restrictions from 3 to 36 months   |              |
|             | for most vegetables; severe             |              |
|             | restrictions when used in pest          |              |
|             | management strategy that includes       |              |
|             | soil-applied organophosphates.          |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| M           | Does not work under high pest pressure. | No           |
| etam-sodium | Limited niche as a complementary        |              |
| (Vapam)     | treatment with other fumigants and      |              |
|             | herbicides, never stand alone (Noling,  |              |
|             | 2003). Considered as best available     |              |
|             | alternative for Dade County only        |              |
|             | (Aerts, 2003)                           |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Napromide   | Weak in terms of nutsedge efficacy;     | No           |
| (Devrinol)  | does not control established weeds (CUE |              |
|             | 03-0017); waste of money (Noling, 2003) |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Trifluralin | Aids in control of annual grasses; does | No           |
|             | not manage broadleaf weeds. May cause   |              |
|             | excessive crop stress leading to        |              |
|             | reductions in stands and yields.        |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| #### [Non C |                                         |              |
| hemical Alt |                                         |              |
| ernatives]{ |                                         |              |
| .smallcaps} |                                         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| S           | Weed density (yellow and purple         | No           |
| olarization | nutsedge was greater in the solarized   |              |
|             | treatments compared to the methyl       |              |
|             | bromide treatment. Worked for the 1^st^ |              |
|             | year in FL peppers; if pest threshold   |              |
|             | is low (Chellemi, et al., 1997)         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| *           | Biological nematicide; registered on    | No           |
| Myrothecium | broad range of crops, field efficacy is |              |
| verrucar    | untested                                |              |
| ia*(Ditera) |                                         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| ###         |                                         |              |
| # [Combinat |                                         |              |
| ions of Alt |                                         |              |
| ernatives]{ |                                         |              |
| .smallcaps} |                                         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1,3-D +     | Strategy involves applying 1,3-D Flat   | Yes, except  |
| c           | Fumigation, followed by chloropicrin    | for areas    |
| hloropicrin | 3-4 wks post fumigation + both          | with         |
| (Telone II  | herbicides before laying plastic.       | underlying   |
| or Telone   | Chloropicrin may not be efficacious in  | karst        |
| C-35) +     | managing white mold (*Sclerotium        | geology.     |
| Devrinol +  | rolfsii*). Producers in Dade County are |              |
| trifluralin | prohibited from using Telone products.  |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Sol         | May work in areas with low weed, pest   | No           |
| arization + | or disease pressure. Eliminated root    |              |
| 1,3-D       | galling and high density of root-knot   |              |
|             | nematodes.                              |              |
|             |                                         |              |
|             | (Chellemi, D.O., et al. 1997.           |              |
|             | Application of soil solarization to     |              |
|             | Fall Production of cucurbits and        |              |
|             | pepper. Proc. Fla. State Hort.          |              |
|             | 110:333-336.)                           |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| Sol         | Ristaino, J.B., Perry, K.B. and R. D.   | No           |
| arization + | Lumsden. 1996. Soil solarization and    |              |
| biocontrol  | Gliocladium virens reduce the incidence |              |
| fungus,     | of southern blight (*Sclerotium         |              |
| *           | rolfsii*) in bell pepper in the field.  |              |
| Gliocladium | Biocon.Sci. and Tech. 6:583-593.        |              |
| virens*     |                                         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
  as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584335 .anchor}

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

**[Florida -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584395 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| None               | Other than options discussed elsewhere, no      |
|                    | alternatives exist for the control of the key   |
|                    | pests when they are present in the soil and/ or |
|                    | afflict the below ground portions of eggplants. |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584336
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Florida -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584396 .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          | Pre-plant soil fumigant. Not | Yes           | Unknown  |
| odomethane | registered yet.              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Triflo     | Herbicide. Registration      | Yes           | Unknown  |
| xysulfuron | pending ONLY in tomato, FL   |               |          |
| sodium     | only. Crop Injury issues     |               |          |
|            | exist.                       |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| F          | OP nematicide. Not           | Yes           | Unknown  |
| osthiazate | registered.                  |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Furfural   | Not registered.              | Yes           | Unknown  |
| (          |                              |               |          |
| Multigard) |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium     | Not registered. Registration | No            | Unknown  |
| azide      | application not yet          |               |          |
|            | submitted.                   |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl  | Not registered. Registration | No            | Unknown  |
| bromide    | application not yet          |               |          |
|            | submitted.                   |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+
| *Pa        | Biological nematicide.       | Yes           | Unknown  |
| ecilomyces | Registration pending.        |               |          |
| lilacinus* |                              |               |          |
+------------+------------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
  Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
  for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584337
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[florida -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584397 .anchor}

+--------------+-------------+-----------------------+----------------+
| ##### [      | ####        | ##### [Range of Yi    | **[Best        |
| Alternative] | # [List Typ | eld Loss]{.smallcaps} | Estimate of    |
| {.smallcaps} | e of Pest]{ |                       | Yield          |
|              | .smallcaps} |                       | Loss]          |
|              |             |                       | {.smallcaps}** |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------------+----------------+
| 1,3 D +      | Nutsedges,  | 0-40 %                | 29 % (Locascio |
| chloropicrin | fungal      |                       | et al., 1997)  |
|              | pathogens   | (0 % would be         |                |
|              |             | possible only in      |                |
|              |             | lightly infested      |                |
|              |             | areas; these areas    |                |
|              |             | are not included in   |                |
|              |             | this request for MB)  |                |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------------+----------------+
| Metam-sodium | Nutsedges,  | 0-66 %                | 44 % (Locascio |
| (with or     | fungal      |                       | et al., 1997)  |
| without      | pathogens   | (0 % would be         |                |
| c            |             | possible only in      |                |
| hloropicrin) |             | lightly infested      |                |
|              |             | areas; these areas    |                |
|              |             | are not included in   |                |
|              |             | this request for MB)  |                |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------------+----------------+
| ##### [Over  |             |                       | **29 % where   |
| all Loss Est |             |                       | 1,3 D can be   |
| imate for Al |             |                       | used; 44 %     |
| l Alternativ |             |                       | where only     |
| es to Pests] |             |                       | metam sodium   |
| {.smallcaps} |             |                       | can be used**  |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------------+----------------+

Data (narrative only) and information are bridged for eggplants from the
best available information (Locascio et al. 1997).

Locascio et al. (1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in
small plots at two Florida locations. Various treatments were tested on
plots that had multiple pests. At the Bradenton site there was moderate
to heavy *Fusarium* infestation; heavy purple nutsedge infestation and
light root-knot nematode pressure. At Gainesville there was heavy
infestation of yellow and purple nutsedge and moderate infestation of
root-knot nematode. The treatments at both locations included MB (67%) +
chloropicrin (33%) chisel-injected at 390 kg/ha; metam-sodium
(chisel-injected) at 300L/ha; metam-sodium drip-irrigated at 300L/ha;
and 1,3-D + 17% chloropicrin chisel-injected at 327L/ha. In pairwise
statistical comparisons, the yield was significantly lower in
metam-sodium treatments compared to MB at both sites. At Bradenton, the
average yield from both metam-sodium treatments was 33% of the MB
yields, suggesting a 67% yield loss from not using MB. At Gainesville,
the average yield of the two metam-sodium treatments was 56% of the MB
yield, suggesting a 44% yield loss from not using MB. The yield of the
1,3-D treatment at Gainesville was 71% of the MB standard suggesting a
29% loss by not using MB (yield data for 1,3-D were not reported for
Bradenton). In considering 1,3 D results, one must keep in mind that
this MB alternative cannot be used in areas where karst geology exists.

**[Table 16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato (Locascio et al.
1997]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584398 .anchor})

+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **Chemicals**         | **R | **Average  | **Average  | **% Yield  |
|                       | ate | Nutsedge   | Marketable | Loss       |
|                       | (   | Density    | Yield**    | (compared  |
|                       | /ha | (#/m^2^)** |            | to MB)**   |
|                       | )** |            | **         |            |
|                       |     |            | (ton/ha)** |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| #                     | \-  | 300 ^ab^   | 20.1 ^a^   | 59.1       |
| # Untreated (control) |     |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **MB + Pic (67-33),   | 390 | 90 ^c^     | 49.1 ^b^   | \-\--      |
| chisel-injected**     | kg  |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **1,3 D + Pic         | 327 | 340 ^a^    | 34.6 ^c^   | 29.5       |
| (83-17),              | l   |            |            |            |
| chisel-injected**     |     |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na, Flat      | 300 | 320 ^a^    | 22.6 ^a^   | 54.0       |
| Fumigation**          | l   |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na, drip      | 300 | 220 ^b^    | 32.3 ^c^   | 34.2       |
| irrigated**           | l   |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+

***Notes*:** (1) Numbers followed by the same letter (within a column)
are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability, using
Duncan's multiple range test.

> \(2\) Data shown are from the Gainesville/Horticultural Unit site,
> 1994 season (this was one of three sites included in this study). This
> site had relatively high nutsedge pressure, and data for both pest
> pressure and marketable yields for all treatments shown.

Yield loss estimates could likely be lower for growers who can legally
use 1,3-D products. For example, evidence from one tomato and bell
pepper grower using Telone II on 30 percent of his total area suggests
that average yields declined 6.16 % across all fields, while average
yield declines were 15.77 % in side-by-side plantings (FFVA, 2002). The
standard deviation on these yields did not change, which resulted in an
increase in the coefficient of variation from 32.7 percent on fields
planted to methyl bromide to 38.3 percent on fields planted to Telone
II. These results suggest that alternatives to methyl bromide reduce
yields by as much as 15.7 % and that risk associated with yield
variability would likewise increase.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584338
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

Iodomethane is under consideration for potential methyl bromide
replacement. Although it is currently being considered for registration
by regulatory authorities, it is unknown when it will be registered.
Please refer to Table 15.1 for detailed information.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Florida - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
  which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584339 .anchor}

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

The U. S. Government is presently unaware of large scale, commercial
greenhouse operations for eggplants. It might be expected, however that
there are local (or small community) operations of organic eggplant
production that target fresh market and/or temporal (seasonal) sectors.

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

In Florida neither 1,3-D nor metam sodium, alone or in combination with
chloropicrin, adequately control moderate to high nutsedge populations.
In addition, 1,3-D cannot be applied in areas overlying karst geology,
estimated to be 40% of the production area in the State. Furthermore,
using products containing 1,3-D and metam sodium in the fall would mean
longer waiting periods for planting following application, 28 days for
1,3-D and 21 days for metam sodium, compared to 14 days for methyl
bromide. Such delays may cause Florida growers to miss part of the key
market windows.

The top priority of control associated with each major segment of pest
management across Florida eggplant production regions remained weeds,
especially the nutsedges, because of the lack of registered herbicides
that do not cause crop injury, or have severe plant-back restrictions.
When nutsedge pressure is moderate to severe, the 1,3-D + chloropicrin
combination is not technically feasible because it needs to be coupled
with an effective herbicide to provide control for the entire growing
season (U.S. EPA, 2002). There are no herbicides which control nutsedge
in the crop row. Paraquat and glyphosate will [suppress]{.underline}
emerged nutsedge, but cannot be used in the crop row because of
potential crop injury (SE Pepper Consortium CUE 02-0041).

In the study reported in Item 16 (Table 16.1 ), 1,3-D + chloropicrin
treatments did not adequately control moderate to high nutsedge
populations, and yield losses occurred when compared to MB plus
chloropicrin treatments. Additional research on this alternative to
improve efficacy against nutsedge is needed in areas with moderate to
high nutsedge pressure. Lack of an effective, registered herbicide
impairs adoption in crops such as eggplant (Banks, 2002).

Diseases caused by soil-borne plant pathogenic fungi, (e.g.,
*Phytophthora* spp., *Verticillium* spp., *Pythium* spp. and
*Rhizoctonia solani*) may be curtailed if weather conditions are
detrimental for disease development. These pathogens commonly reside in
many production areas, since many eggplant production areas are old
tomato production fields. Fungicides such as chlorothalonil, and
azoxystrobilurin are considered to be only prophylactic, and may not
offer sufficient pest management. Resistance of *Phytophthora* spp. to
metalaxyl and mefanoxem (Ridomil and Ridomil Gold, respectively) has
been reported in tomato crop areas, and most recently pepper (Lamour and
Hausbeck, 2003).

Nematode pests, such as the root knot nematode species of *Meloidogyne*,
were third to weed pests in terms of priority of pest management
strategies in Florida eggplant production. Pre-plant control of
nematodes is critical since nematode root feeding and damage may
predispose plant tissues to invasion by fungal pathogens, potentially
leading to wilt, loss of plant vigor, and significant yield losses.
Fumigant alternatives such as metam-sodium have proven inconsistent
(Noling, 2003; FFVA, 2002).

Approximately 40 percent of the eggplant production area in Florida has
karst geology. Because it is illegal for producers to use 1,3-D products
(Telone II, Telone C-35) on these soils, growers would likely use a
combination of metam-sodium + a herbicide, such as halosulfuron or
napropamide.

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584342 .anchor}

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

**[Georgia - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584400 .anchor}

+---------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **      | **[Target pests (weeds,   | **[Specific reasons why       |
| [Region | plant-parasitic           | methyl bromide                |
| where   | nematodes) and            | needed]{.smallcaps}\          |
| methyl  | pathogens]{.smallcaps}**  | **                            |
| bromide |                           |                               |
| use is  |                           |                               |
| req     |                           |                               |
| uested] |                           |                               |
| {.small |                           |                               |
| caps}** |                           |                               |
+---------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Georgia | 1\. Yellow and Purple     | Registered alternatives are   |
|         | Nutsedge (*Cyperus        | not as effective as methyl    |
|         | esculentus, C. rotundus*) | bromide. Methyl bromide is    |
|         | \[100%\]                  | needed for timely management  |
|         |                           | of targeted pests and         |
|         | 2\. Crown and Root rot    | pathogens. Using products     |
|         | (*Phytophthora capsici*)  | containing 1,3-D and metam    |
|         | \[40%\]                   | sodium in the fall is         |
|         |                           | impractical because of the    |
|         | 3\. Plant-parasitic       | long waiting periods for      |
|         | nematodes (*Meloidogyne   | planting following            |
|         | incognita; Pratylenchus   | application under plastic     |
|         | sp*) \[70%\]              | mulch. For 1,3-D there is a   |
|         |                           | 28 day waiting period; for    |
|         | 4\. Southern Blight       | metam sodium, there is a      |
|         | (*Sclerotium rolfsii*)    | 21-day waiting period. Such   |
|         | \[70%\]                   | delays could cause growers to |
|         |                           | miss part of the higher       |
|         | 5\. Pythium root and      | market windows.               |
|         | collar rots (*P.          |                               |
|         | irregulare, P.            |                               |
|         | myriotylum, P. ultimum,   |                               |
|         | P. aphanidermatum*)       |                               |
|         | \[100%\]                  |                               |
+---------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping System
  and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584343 .anchor}

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

**[Georgia - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584401 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}    | ### [Georgia]{.smallcaps}   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.    | Vegetable crop for the      |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or           | fresh market                |
| cuttings)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                 | Annual; generally 1 year    |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years      |                             |
| between replanting)*                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                        | Eggplants, followed by a    |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     | cucurbit crop (cucumbers,   |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for other | or squash) or pepper.       |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**  |                             |
| *(if any)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,  | Sandy loam; clay loam       |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide         | 1 time per year; (either in |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.      | spring or fall)             |
| every two years)*                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                      | The grower may complete     |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                | two, three or even four     |
|                                        | crops in one fumigation     |
|                                        | cycle.                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**[Georgia - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop
Schedule]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584402 .anchor}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-2"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4>
<h4 id="plant-hardiness-zone-e.g.-temperate-tropical"><span
class="smallcaps">“plant hardiness zone”<br />
</span><em>(e.g. temperate, tropical)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="15"><p>Climate zones 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b noted in the
application.</p>
<p>Zone 7a: -15.0 to –17.7 C (0 to 5 F): Oklahoma City, OK; South
Boston, VA</p>
<p>Zone 7b: -12.3 to 14.9 C (5 to 10 F); Griffin, GA</p>
<p>Zone 8a: -9.5 to -12.2 C (10 to 15 F); Tifton, GA</p>
<p>Zone 8b: -6.7 to –9.4 C (15 to 20 F); Austin, TX; Gainesville, FL</p>
<p>Portions of GA fall into all four of these zones.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong> <em>(C)
</em></span></td>
<td>64.1</td>
<td>72.5</td>
<td colspan="2">80.8</td>
<td colspan="2">85.9</td>
<td>87.8</td>
<td>86.8</td>
<td>82.2</td>
<td>73.9</td>
<td>34.0</td>
<td>54.0</td>
<td colspan="2">51.1</td>
<td>55.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td colspan="2">3.5</td>
<td colspan="2">4.5</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td colspan="2">4.5</td>
<td>4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>ambient Temp.</strong> <em>(C) )
</em></span></td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td>77.7</td>
<td colspan="2">84.7</td>
<td colspan="2">89.4</td>
<td>90.7</td>
<td>90.5</td>
<td>87.3</td>
<td>79.3</td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td>63.1</td>
<td colspan="2">61.5</td>
<td>64.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule<sup>A</sup></span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span
class="smallcaps">Schedule<sup>A,B</sup></span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Key harvest (Market)
Window</strong><sup>A,B</sup></span></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# Shaded areas represent typical duration of activity . Darker shaded areas represent duration of activities for the second crop.

^A^Fumigation, a fall application only. Methyl bromide applied either in
the spring or fall allows the grower to economically produce at least
two crops (sometimes 3 or 4), the second crop usually cucumbers, from
one fumigation event.

^B^Two crops are represented from one fumigation event.

= initiation of planting and/or harvest of first crop; = termination of
planting and/or harvest of first crop. = initiation of planting and/or
harvest of second crop; = termination of planting and/or harvest of
second crop.

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

  Nearly all of the vegetable production occurs on Coastal Plain Soils
  are subject to high temperatures and excess heat. In addition to weed
  pests, soil-borne fungal pathogens and plant-parasitic nematodes are
  endemic to the region and nearly all production areas have severe
  infestations, thereby necessitating annual treatment with a soil
  fumigant.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide on
  Eggplants, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an
  Exemption Is Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584344
  .anchor}

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

#######  

**[Georgia - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide on
Eggplants]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584403 .anchor}

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many   | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as         | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| possible as      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| :]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area          | 284   | 168   | 251   | 333   | 315   | 321   |
| Treate           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of     | 70312 | 4     | 4     | 5     | 4     | 4     |
| methyl bromide   |       | 1,407 | 7,723 | 0,023 | 7,288 | 8,139 |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| d]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms)*      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 98:2  | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 |
| of methyl        |       |       | (15%  |       |       |       |
| bromid           |       |       | of    |       |       |       |
| e]{.smallcaps}** |       |       | area  |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       | )     |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. methyl    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide 98:2;    |       |       | 67:33 |       |       |       |
| methyl bromide   |       |       | (85%  |       |       |       |
| /chloropicrin    |       |       | of    |       |       |       |
| 70:30)*          |       |       | area) |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Methods by    | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  | Inje  |
| which methyl     | cted, | cted, | cted, | cted, | cted, | cted, |
| bromide          | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  | 20.3  |
| applie           | to    | to    | to    | to    | to    | to    |
| d]{.smallcaps}** | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  | 30.5  |
|                  | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   | cm,   |
| *(e.g. injected  | under | under | under | under | under | under |
| at 25cm depth,   | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  | tarp  |
| hot gas)*        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 252   | 252   | 19    | 224   | 224   | 224   |
| rate (kg/ha)for  |       |       | 4/283 |       |       |       |
| the              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulatio       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| n]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application   | 247   | 247   | 191   | 150   | 150   | 150   |
| rate\* (kg/ha)   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| for the active   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredien        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| t]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| [**Dosage        | 25.2  | 25.2  | 19.4  | 22.4  | 22.4  | 22.4  |
| ra               |       |       | /28.3 |       |       |       |
| te\*(g/m**^2^**) |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| of formulation   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| used to          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| calculate        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| requested        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kilograms of     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromid           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| e**]{.smallcaps} |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage | 24.7  | 24.7  | 19.1  | 15.0  | 15.0  | 15.0  |
| rate for the     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| active           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredien        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| t]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| [**Application   | App   |       |       |       |       |       |
| rate of Strip/   | roxim |       |       |       |       |       |
| bed,** g         | ately |       |       |       |       |       |
| MB/m             | 58%   |       |       |       |       |       |
| ^2^]{.smallcaps} | of    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | the   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | total |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | area  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | is    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | co    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | vered |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | with  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | pl    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | astic |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | mulch |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | and   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | tr    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | eated |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | with  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | m     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | ethyl |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | br    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | omide |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | in    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | each  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  | acre. |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584346 .anchor}

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

**[Georgia -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584405 .anchor}

+--------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| **[Name of         | **[Technical and regulatory\*   | **[Is the     |
| Alternat           | reasons for the alternative not | alternative   |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** | being feasible or available +   | considered    |
|                    | citations\*\*]{.smallcaps}**    | cost          |
|                    |                                 | effective?]{  |
|                    |                                 | .smallcaps}** |
+====================+=================================+===============+
| #                  |                                 |               |
|  [Chemical Alterna |                                 |               |
| tives]{.smallcaps} |                                 |               |
+--------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 1,3-D products     | Products will not adequately    | No            |
| (includes Telone   | control nutsedge. Label         |               |
| II, Telone EC, &   | restriction states that these   |               |
| Telone C-35)       | products cannot be used where   |               |
|                    | karst geology exists (\~8% of   |               |
|                    | the production area). Up to 2   |               |
|                    | applications of Telone II,      |               |
|                    | in-line, or EC formulations may |               |
|                    | be needed to manage moderate to |               |
|                    | severe pest population levels.  |               |
|                    | Also, there is a 28-day waiting |               |
|                    | period at the time of           |               |
|                    | application until planting,     |               |
|                    | which could cause loss of over  |               |
|                    | half of the harvest season and  |               |
|                    | the higher-end market windows   |               |
|                    | to be missed. These are         |               |
|                    | plantings made in July and      |               |
|                    | harvested in the fall (Georgia  |               |
|                    | CUE \# 03-0049; Kelley, 2003).  |               |
|                    | This only applies to light to   |               |
|                    | moderate infestations and only  |               |
|                    | with Telone C-35.               |               |
+--------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Metam-sodium       | Product does not adequately     | No            |
|                    | control nutsedge. Also, there   |               |
|                    | is a 21-day waiting period at   |               |
|                    | the time of application until   |               |
|                    | planting (40% of harvest season |               |
|                    | missed), which may cause part   |               |
|                    | of the higher-end market        |               |
|                    | windows to be missed. These are |               |
|                    | plantings made in July and      |               |
|                    | harvested in the fall.          |               |
|                    | Beginning the application cycle |               |
|                    | earlier is not an option, since |               |
|                    | crops from the previous         |               |
|                    | fumigation cycle must be        |               |
|                    | terminated and cleaned up prior |               |
|                    | to metam application (Georgia   |               |
|                    | CUE \# 03-0049; Kelley, 2003).  |               |
|                    | Repeated applications of MITC   |               |
|                    | (the breakdown product of metam |               |
|                    | sodium) are known to enhance    |               |
|                    | its biodegradation as a result  |               |
|                    | of adapted microorganisms       |               |
|                    | (Duncan and Yates, 2003).       |               |
+--------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Halosulfuron       | Registered for specific uses in | No            |
|                    | eggplant (Dec. 2002, US EPA,    |               |
|                    | Aug. 2003); application for     |               |
|                    | eggplant is for ROW MIDDLE      |               |
|                    | application and would not       |               |
|                    | provide control of nutsedge in  |               |
|                    | the eggplant bed; potential     |               |
|                    | crop injury; severe plant back  |               |
|                    | restrictions from 3 to 36       |               |
|                    | months for most vegetables.     |               |
+--------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| #### [Combination  |                                 |               |
| s of Alternatives  |                                 |               |
| \-\--]{.smallcaps} |                                 |               |
+--------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| **1**. 1,3-D       | Currently, there are no data to | No            |
| products and a     | substantiate transition toward  |               |
| herbicide, e.g.    | a suitable alternative to       |               |
| napropamide        | annual methyl bromide           |               |
|                    | fumigation. Alternative         |               |
| **2**.             | chemicals and cultural          |               |
| Metam-sodium and a | practices that are under        |               |
| herbicide, e.g.    | consideration include various   |               |
| napropamide        | combinations of currently       |               |
|                    | registered and unregistered     |               |
| **3**. Iodomethane | fumigants and/or herbicides.    |               |
| and a herbicide,   |                                 |               |
| e.g. napropamide   | Iodomethane is not registered   |               |
|                    | in the U.S. Please refer to     |               |
| **4**. Glyphosate  | question 15 for detailed and    |               |
| treatment of plots | specific information regarding  |               |
| between the first  | the alternatives.               |               |
| and second crops   |                                 |               |
| (Webster, et al.   |                                 |               |
| 2001)              |                                 |               |
|                    |                                 |               |
| **5.**             |                                 |               |
| Pest-resistant     |                                 |               |
| cultivars combined |                                 |               |
| with alternative   |                                 |               |
| fumigant           |                                 |               |
| strategies 1, 2,   |                                 |               |
| and 3              |                                 |               |
+--------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
  as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584347 .anchor}

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

**[Georgia -- Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584406 .anchor}

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **[Name of         | ##### [Discussion]{.smallcaps}                  |
| Alternat           |                                                 |
| ive]{.smallcaps}** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| none               | Other than options discussed elsewhere, no      |
|                    | alternatives exist for the control of the key   |
|                    | pests when they are present in the soil and/ or |
|                    | afflict the below ground portions of eggplants. |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

The U.S. EPA only considered those technically feasible registered
alternatives which are relevant for managing severe pathogen and pest
pressures. Therefore research or data presented in the CUN2003/050 --
Eggplant Grown Outdoors on Plastic Mulch are not included in the present
eggplant sector analysis are irrelevant. For example, Table 2 (page 4)
represented data extracted from a field study conducted under low
nutsedge pressure.

Paraquat and glyphosate will [suppress]{.underline} emerged nutsedge,
but cannot be used in the crop row because of potential crop injury (SE
Pepper Consortium CUE 02-0041).

Fumigation of products containing 1,3-D and metam sodium (Vapam and/or
K-pam) in the summer or fall is practically impossible because of the
waiting periods for planting following application under plastic mulch.
For 1,3-D there is a 28-day waiting period; for metam sodium, there is a
21-day waiting period. Such delays may cause reduction in yields and
market windows missed. Thus, since the fall crop is dependent upon
timely planting, a long waiting period (e.g., 28 days) would cost
growers at least half of the harvest season, thereby missing the higher
market windows (Kelley, 2003).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584348
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Georgia -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584407 .anchor}

+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| **[Name of  | ##### [Present Regis        | **[          | **[Date  |
| Alte        | tration Status]{.smallcaps} | Registration | of       |
| rnative]{.s |                             | being        | possible |
| mallcaps}** |                             | considered   | future   |
|             |                             | by national  | regi     |
|             |                             | authorities? | stration |
|             |                             | (Y/N)]{.     | :]{.smal |
|             |                             | smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Iodomethane | Not registered              | Yes          | Unknown  |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Fosthiazate | Not registered.             | Yes          | Unknown  |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Furfural    | Not registered              | Yes          | Unknown  |
| (Multigard) |                             |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Sodium      | Not registered.             | No           | Unknown  |
| azide       | Registration application    |              |          |
|             | not yet submitted.          |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| Propargyl   | Not registered.             | No           | Unknown  |
| bromide     | Registration application    |              |          |
|             | not yet submitted.          |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+
| *P          | Not registered.             | Yes          | Unknown  |
| aecilomyces | Registration pending.       |              |          |
| lilacinus*  |                             |              |          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 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___Toc65584349
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}** *(Use same groups as in Question 10 and
  provide a separate table for each target group for which methyl bromide
  is considered essential. Omit pathogen and/or weed tables if these are
  not the reason why critical use is requested.)*

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

**[Georgia -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584408 .anchor}

+----------------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| ###            | ##### [    | ##### [Range of Yi    | **[Best       |
| ## [Alternativ | List Type  | eld Loss]{.smallcaps} | Estimate of   |
| e]{.smallcaps} | of Pest]{. |                       | Yield         |
|                | smallcaps} |                       | Loss]{        |
|                |            |                       | .smallcaps}** |
+----------------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| 1,3 D +        | Nutsedges  | 0-40 %                | 29 %          |
| chloropicrin   |            |                       | (Locascio et  |
|                |            | (0 % would be         | al., 1997)    |
|                |            | possible only in      |               |
|                |            | lightly infested      |               |
|                |            | areas; these areas    |               |
|                |            | are not included in   |               |
|                |            | this request for MB)  |               |
+----------------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Metam-sodium   | Nutsedges  | 0-66 %                | 44 %          |
| (with or       |            |                       | (Locascio et  |
| without        |            | (0 % would be         | al., 1997)    |
| chloropicrin)  |            | possible only in      |               |
|                |            | lightly infested      |               |
|                |            | areas; these areas    |               |
|                |            | are not included in   |               |
|                |            | this request for MB)  |               |
+----------------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| #              |            |                       | **29 % where  |
| #### [Overall  |            |                       | 1,3 D can be  |
| Loss Estimate  |            |                       | used; 44 %    |
| for All Altern |            |                       | where only    |
| atives to Pest |            |                       | metam sodium  |
| s]{.smallcaps} |            |                       | can be used** |
+----------------+------------+-----------------------+---------------+

Data (narrative only) and information are bridged for eggplants from the
best available information.

Locascio et al. (1997) studied MB alternatives on tomatoes grown in
small plots at two Florida locations. Various treatments were tested on
plots that had multiple pests (Table 16.1). At the Bradenton site there
was moderate to heavy *Fusarium* infestation; heavy purple nutsedge
infestation and light root-knot nematode pressure. At Gainesville there
was heavy infestation of yellow and purple nutsedge and moderate
infestation of root-knot nematode. The treatments at both locations
included MB (67%) + chloropicrin (33%) chisel-injected at 390 kg/ha;
metam-sodium (chisel-injected) at 300L/ha; metam-sodium drip-irrigated
at 300L/ha; and 1,3-D + 17% chloropicrin chisel-injected at 327L/ha. In
pairwise statistical comparisons, the yield was significantly lower in
metam-sodium treatments compared to MB at both sites. At Bradenton, the
average yield from both metam-sodium treatments was 33% of the MB
yields, suggesting a 67% yield loss from not using MB. At Gainesville,
the average yield of the two metam-sodium treatments was 56% of the MB
yield, suggesting a 44% yield loss from not using MB. The yield of the
1,3-D treatment at Gainesville was 71% of the MB standard suggesting a
29% loss by not using MB (yield data for 1,3-D were not reported for
Bradenton). In considering 1,3 D results, one must keep in mind that
this MB alternative cannot be used in areas where karst geology exists.

**[Table 16.1. Fumigant Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for
Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato (Locascio et al.
1997]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584409 .anchor})

+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **Chemicals**         | **R | **Average  | **Average  | **% Yield  |
|                       | ate | Nutsedge   | Marketable | Loss       |
|                       | (   | Density**  | Yield**    | (compared  |
|                       | /ha |            |            | to MB)**   |
|                       | )** | **         | **         |            |
|                       |     | (#/m^2^)** | (ton/ha)** |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| #                     | \-  | 300 ^ab^   | 20.1 ^a^   | 59.1       |
| # Untreated (control) |     |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **MB + Pic (67-33),   | 390 | 90 ^c^     | 49.1 ^b^   | \-\--      |
| chisel-injected**     | kg  |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **1,3 D + Pic         | 327 | 340 ^a^    | 34.6 ^c^   | 29.5       |
| (83-17),              | l   |            |            |            |
| chisel-injected**     |     |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na, Flat      | 300 | 320 ^a^    | 22.6 ^a^   | 54.0       |
| Fumigation**          | l   |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+
| **Metam Na, drip      | 300 | 220 ^b^    | 32.3 ^c^   | 34.2       |
| irrigated**           | l   |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-----+------------+------------+------------+

***Notes*:** (1) Numbers followed by the same letter (within a column)
are not significantly different at the 0.05

level of probability, using Duncan's multiple range test.

\(2\) Data shown are from the Gainesville/Horticultural Unit site, 1994
season (this was one of three

sites included in this study). This site had relatively high nutsedge
pressure, and data for both

pest pressure and marketable yields for all treatments shown.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584350
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}** *(If so, please specify.)*

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

Iodomethane is under consideration for potential methyl bromide
replacement. Although it is currently being considered for registration
by regulatory authorities, it is currently unknown when it will be
registered. Please refer to Table 15.1 for detailed information.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Georgia - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop
  which Avoid the Need for Methyl
  Bromide?:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584351 .anchor}

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

No. Any organic production of eggplants is presumed insignificant and
probably not cost-effective because of the intensive management of pests
(for organic production) and the long growing season.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Georgia - Summary of Technical Feasibility                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Neither 1,3-D nor metam sodium, alone or in combination with
chloropicrin, adequately control moderate to high nutsedge populations
in Georgia. In addition, 1,3-D cannot be applied in areas overlying
karst geology (\~ 8 % of the eggplant area; CUE #03-0050). Furthermore,
using products containing 1,3-D and metam sodium in the fall is
impractical because of the required long waiting periods for planting
following application, 28 days for 1,3-D and 21 days for metam sodium.
Such delays would cost Georgia farmers at least half of the harvest
season, thereby missing key market windows.

In studies on peppers (Csinos et al. 1999, Noling et al. 2000), 1,3-D +
chloropicrin treatments did not adequately control moderate to high
nutsedge populations, and yield losses occurred when compared to MB plus
chloropicrin treatments. Additional research on this alternative to
demonstrate efficacy against nutsedge is needed in areas with moderate
to high nutsedge pressure, considered to be approximately 58% of the
current eggplant production area (Culpepper, 2004). Lack of an
effective, registered herbicide impairs adoption in crops such as pepper
(Banks, 2002), and probably other high value vegetable crops for the
fresh market (Monks, Southeast Peppers Consortium, CUE 03-0041).

Nematode pests, such as the root knot nematode species of *Meloidogyne*,
were third to nutsedge in terms of priority of pest management
strategies in Georgia eggplant production. Pre-plant control of
nematodes is critical since nematode root feeding and damage may
predispose plant tissues to invasion by fungal pathogens, potentially
leading to wilt, loss of plant vigor, and significant yield losses.
Fumigant alternatives such as metam-sodium have proven inconsistent
(Noling, 2003; FFVA, 2002).

Diseases caused by soil-borne plant pathogenic fungi, (e.g.,
*Phytophthora* spp., *Pythium* spp. and *Sclerotium rolfsii*) may be
curtailed if weather conditions are detrimental for disease development.
These pathogens are endemic in many vegetable production areas in
Georgia. Fungicides such as chlorothalonil, and azoxystrobilurin are
considered to be only prophylactic, and may not offer sufficient pest
management. Resistance of *Phytophthora* spp to metalaxyl and mefanoxem
(Ridomil and Ridomil Gold, respectively) has been reported in tomato
crop areas, and most recently pepper (Lamour and Hausbeck, 2003)

The use of products containing 1,3-D and metam sodium in the fall is
impractical because of the long waiting periods for planting following
application under plastic mulch. For 1,3-D there is a 28 day waiting
period; for metam sodium, there is a 21-day waiting period. Such delays
would cost growers at least half of the harvest season, thereby missing
the higher market windows. Thus, since the fall crop is dependent upon
timely planting, the required waiting period would cost growers at least
half of the harvest season, thereby missing the higher market windows
(Kelley, 2003).

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
  Requested and Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584353 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584411 .anchor}

+-------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **[Region   | **[Target pests       | **[Specific reasons why methyl |
| where       | (weeds,               | bromide needed]{.smallcaps}\   |
| methyl      | plant-parasitic       | **                             |
| bromide use | nematodes) and        |                                |
| is          | pat                   |                                |
| re          | hogens]{.smallcaps}** |                                |
| quested]{.s |                       |                                |
| mallcaps}** |                       |                                |
+-------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Michigan    | Crown and root rots   | Methyl bromide alone allows    |
|             | caused by Soil-borne  | growers to fumigate and plant  |
|             | Fungus -              | early in order to capture the  |
|             | *Phytophthora         | key market window (July -      |
|             | capsici*.             | September) and have their      |
|             |                       | product available for premium  |
|             | Wilts caused by       | prices, as well as ensuring    |
|             | Soil-borne Fungi -    | demand for their crop during   |
|             | *Verticillium* spp.   | the entire growing season,     |
|             |                       | especially during the mid and  |
|             |                       | late season.                   |
|             |                       |                                |
|             |                       | The fumigation and planting    |
|             |                       | schedule allow growers to      |
|             |                       | maintain market diversity, as  |
|             |                       | well.                          |
+-------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping
  System and Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584354
  .anchor}

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

**[Michigan - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584412 .anchor}

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}    | ### [Michigan]{.smallcaps}  |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.    | Vegetable crop for the      |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or           | fresh market                |
| cuttings)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                 | Annual \-- generally 1 year |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years      |                             |
| between replanting)*                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop                        | Rotation sequence commonly  |
| Rotation]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     | followed by a pepper or     |
| **[and use of methyl bromide for other | cucurbit crop               |
| crops in the rotation:]{.smallcaps}**  |                             |
| *(if any)*                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,  | Sandy loam, clayish loam    |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide         | 1 time every 2 years        |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.      |                             |
| every two years)*                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                      | Michigan's diversified      |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                | vegetable crop production   |
|                                        | is designed to meet key     |
|                                        | late spring and summer      |
|                                        | market demands in           |
|                                        | Midwestern states.          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**[Michigan - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
for Eggplants]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584413 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul-3"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone-1"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4>
<h4 id="plant-hardiness-zone-e.g.-temperate-tropical-1"><span
class="smallcaps">“plant hardiness zone”<br />
</span><em>(e.g. temperate, tropical)</em></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">Generally characterized as 5b according to the USDA
Hardiness Zone Map, with annual minimum temperature ranges (average) as
–23.4 to –26.1 C (-15 to –10 F). Example cities: Columbia, Missouri and
Mansfield, Pennsylvania.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)</em></span></td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td>10 - 15</td>
<td>15-20</td>
<td>20-25</td>
<td>20-25</td>
<td>20-25</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>10-15</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
<td>&lt;10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
<td>40</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)</em></span></td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>17.5</td>
<td>20.6</td>
<td>20.9</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule</span></strong></td>
<td></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="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>-</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key harvest (Market)
Window</span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# Shaded areas represent typical duration of activity; = typical initiation of activity, = typical termination of activity

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Michigan --]{.smallcaps} 11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above  |
| characteristics in 11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any  |
| relevant alternatives?]{.smallcaps}**                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michigan experiences heavy rainfall events across the entire state at |
| any given moment of the growing season. Heavy rain events (over 25    |
| mm) can trigger rapid root and crown rot development, and promote     |
| dissemination of *Phytophthora capsici* via irrigation sources.       |
| Generally, there is no difference in the amount of infection          |
| depending on soil type or production area. The pathogen is widespread |
| and indigenous on almost all soil types in Michigan (Cortwright,      |
| 2003; Gevens and Hausbeck, 2003).                                     |
|                                                                       |
| All fumigation practices need to be completed by the first week of    |
| May to allow growers to plant early and capture the early market      |
| (July-September).                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Significant rainfall events (\>25.4 mm) or cold soil temperatures     |
| (\<4.4 C) could delay fumigation and planting.                        |
|                                                                       |
| Lighter soil types may make drip application difficult (Cortwright,   |
| 2003).                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
  Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584355 .anchor}

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

Michigan's use of methyl bromide for vegetable production has declined
steadily since the mid-1990s, when growers switched to different
application methods (i.e. from Flat Fumigation to tarped beds) and
formulations, from 98:2 to 67:33 (methyl bromide:chloropicrin). Since
1997, all methyl bromide is applied to tarped beds, with 100% of low
density polyethylene sheeting and 95% of the area was treated with the
67:33 formulation. Since 2000, about 5% of the area used the 50:50
methyl bromide:chloropicrin formulation. Growers are using anti-drip
valves to eliminate loss of MB at the end of rows when the machinery is
removed from the ground.

####### 

####### Please see Table 12.1 for further information.

**[Michigan - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584414 .anchor}

+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many  | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| years as        | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| possible as     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| shown           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| specify:        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area         | 22    | 24    | 25    | 29    | 33    | 34    |
| Treated         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of    | 2,625 | 2,870 | 2,937 | 3,500 | 3,905 | 4,057 |
| methyl bromide  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| active          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| used            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kg)*    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 | 67:33 |
| of methyl       |       |       |       | or    | or    | or    |
| bromide         |       |       |       | 50:50 | 50:50 | 50:50 |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. methyl   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromide 98:2;   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| methyl          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| bromi           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| de/Chloropicrin |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 70:30)*         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by    | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   | Inj   |
| which methyl    | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected | ected |
| bromide         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| applied         | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 | 20-25 |
| ]{.smallcaps}** | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    | cm    |
| *(e.g. injected |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| at 25cm depth,  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| hot gas)*       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application  | 180   | 180   | 180   | 180   | 180   | 180   |
| rate of         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps} |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual       | 17.9  | 17.9  | 17.9  | 17.9  | 17.9  | 17.9  |
| dosage rate of  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formulations    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\* |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application  | 120   | 120   | 120   | 120   | 120   | 120   |
| rate\* (kg/ha)  |       |       |       | or 90 | or 90 | or 90 |
| for the active  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual       | 12    | 12    | 12    | 12 or | 12 or | 12 or |
| dosage rate for |       |       |       | 9     | 9     | 9     |
| the active      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)***[\* |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| [**Application  | 32.2  | 32.2  | 32.2  | 32.2  | 32.2  | 32.2  |
| rate of Strip/  |       |       |       | or    | or    | or    |
| bed,** g MB/    |       |       |       | 27.0  | 27.0  | 27.0  |
| m^              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 2^]{.smallcaps} |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584357 .anchor}

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

**[Michigan -- Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584416 .anchor}

+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **[Name of  | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons    | **[Is the   |
| Alte        | for the alternative not being feasible   | alternative |
| rnative]{.s | or available +                           | considered  |
| mallcaps}** | citations\*\*]{.smallcaps}**             | cost        |
|             |                                          | eff         |
|             |                                          | ective?]{.s |
|             |                                          | mallcaps}** |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| # [C        |                                          |             |
| hemical Alt |                                          |             |
| ernatives]{ |                                          |             |
| .smallcaps} |                                          |             |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1,3-Dich    | Not effective against soil-borne fungi.  | No          |
| loropropene | Several bacteria genera appear to be     |             |
| (1,3-D)     | capable of degrading 1,3-D (Duncan and   |             |
|             | Yates, 2003). There is a Federal label   |             |
|             | restriction of a 30.4 m buffer zone      |             |
|             | between treated fields and inhabited     |             |
|             | structures. 28-day waiting period for    |             |
|             | planting may be disruptive to timely     |             |
|             | eggplant production and marketing.       |             |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| C           | Does not distribute evenly throughout    | No          |
| hloropicrin | the soil profile when used by itself,    |             |
|             | resulting in poor efficacy. Does not     |             |
|             | control *Phytophthora capsici* when used |             |
|             | at maximum label rates. (California      |             |
|             | Pepper Commission, CUE 02-0017;          |             |
|             | CUE03-0017)                              |             |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam       | Poor fumigant with erratic results and   | No          |
| Sodium      | inconsistent distribution in soil        |             |
|             | profiles; does not control *Phytophthora |             |
|             | capsici* nor *Verticillium* spp.         |             |
|             | (California Pepper Commission, CUE       |             |
|             | 02-0017; CUE03-0017). Repeated           |             |
|             | applications of MITC (the breakdown      |             |
|             | product of metam sodium) are known to    |             |
|             | enhance its biodegradation as a result   |             |
|             | of adapted microorganisms (Duncan and    |             |
|             | Yates, 2003). Phytotoxicity has been     |             |
|             | reported with this fumigant. 21-day day  |             |
|             | waiting period for planting may be       |             |
|             | disruptive to timely eggplant production |             |
|             | and marketing.                           |             |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| ###         |                                          |             |
| # [Combinat |                                          |             |
| ions of Alt |                                          |             |
| ernatives]{ |                                          |             |
| .smallcaps} |                                          |             |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1,3-D +     | The 28-day waiting period for planting   | No          |
| c           | could disrupt the eggplant production    |             |
| hloropicrin | and marketing timing. Regulatory         |             |
| (Telone     | restrictions due to concerns over human  |             |
| C-35)       | exposure and ground water contamination, |             |
|             | along with technical limitations, result |             |
|             | in potential economic infeasibility of   |             |
|             | this formulation as a practical MB       |             |
|             | alternative.                             |             |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam       | Metam sodium is a poor fumigant that     | No          |
| Sodium/Crop | provides erratic control. Repeated       |             |
| Rotation    | applications of MITC (the breakdown      |             |
|             | product of metam sodium) are known to    |             |
|             | enhance its biodegradation as a result   |             |
|             | of adapted microorganisms (Duncan and    |             |
|             | Yates, 2003). Because of high land       |             |
|             | costs, very few crops are of high enough |             |
|             | economic value to be rotated with        |             |
|             | eggplants. A 4-5 year rotation is        |             |
|             | necessary to reduce inoculum levels. The |             |
|             | economic threshold of *Phytophthora      |             |
|             | capsici* is presumed to be 1             |             |
|             | oospore/ft^2^ (Michigan CUE 03-0061).    |             |
|             | 21-day day waiting period for planting   |             |
|             | may be disruptive to timely eggplant     |             |
|             | production and marketing.                |             |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Metam       | Results of a 2003 small plot field study | I           |
| Sodi        | demonstrated practically equivalent soil | nsufficient |
| um/Furfural | pest control of targeted pests (plot     | data and    |
| (Multigard) | vigor) and slightly lesser yields than   | trials to   |
|             | methyl bromide. (Cortwright and          | estimate    |
|             | Hausbeck, 2003). Please refer to Table   | cost-ef     |
|             | 16.2 (??). Although furfural is not yet  | fectiveness |
|             | registered by the U.S.EPA, it is under   | at this     |
|             | consideration by federal authorities.    | time.       |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+-------------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and
  Potential)* **[Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
  as Technical Alternatives to Methyl
  Bromide:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584358 .anchor}

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

Potential yield losses to *Phytophthora capsici* could be up to 10% of
the production area, especially if the plants are affected early in the
growing season. This is explained by the widespread occurrence of
indigenous populations of *P. capsici*, (Michigan CUE #03-0061; Gevens
and Hausbeck., 2003), significant rainfall events (greater than 254 mm)
which trigger rapid disease development (Cortwright, 2003), metalaxyl
and mefanoxem-insensitivity reported among *Phytophthora* spp.
populations in several vegetable production areas (Lamour and Hausebeck,
2003; Parra and Ristaino, 1998), and planting restrictions of registered
alternative fumigants (e.g. 1,3-D + chloropicrin and metam-sodium).

Wilts caused by species of soil-borne fungi such as *Verticillium* are
endemic to many vegetable-producing areas of Michigan. These fungi have
an extensive plant host range, typically forming survival structures
(microsclerotia) which are resistant to fungicides and periods of
drought, overwintering in colonized plant tissue.

Planting restrictions on 1,3-D and metam-sodium labels, rather than lack
of effectiveness, curtail Michigan grower use of these fumigants.
Potential yield losses associated with regulatory restrictions could be
higher because fumigation needs to be completed by the first week of May
to allow growers to plant early and capture the early market (July -
September) and have their product available for premium prices, as well
as ensuring demand for their crop during the entire growing season
(especially during the mid and late season). According to the applicant,
Michigan's diversified vegetable crop industry, designed to meet market
demands in the late spring and through the summer for Midwestern
markets, require carefully-timed planting and harvesting schedules. The
fumigation with methyl bromide and planting schedule allow growers to
maintain market diversity, as well. Fumigation with 1,3-D + chloropicrin
might be an effective alternative, except in certain years when climatic
conditions (e.g., wet soils) may delay planting schedules.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan -]{.smallcaps} 15. [List Present ]{.smallcaps}***(and
  Possible Future)* **[Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
  Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584359
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Michigan -- Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584417 .anchor}

+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| **[Name of   | ##### [Present Registr    | **            | **[Date  |
| Al           | ation Status]{.smallcaps} | [Registration | of       |
| ternative]{. |                           | being         | possible |
| smallcaps}** |                           | considered by | future   |
|              |                           | national      | regi     |
|              |                           | authorities?  | stration |
|              |                           | (Y/N)]{       | :]{.smal |
|              |                           | .smallcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Iodomethane  | Not registered.           | Yes           | unknown  |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Fosthiazate  | OP nematicide. Under      | Yes           | Unknown  |
|              | review.                   |               |          |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Furfural     | Not registered.           | Yes           | Unknown  |
| (Multigard)  |                           |               |          |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Sodium azide | Not registered.           | Yes           | Unknown  |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Diallyl      | Registered to control     | Uses may be   | Unknown  |
| sulfide      | *Sclerotinia* spp.        | expanded      |          |
|              | (plant-pathogenic fungi). |               |          |
|              | Very limited and narrow   |               |          |
|              | spectrum of uses.         |               |          |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Metam sodium | Registered                | Yes           | Reregi   |
|              |                           |               | stration |
|              |                           |               | s        |
|              |                           |               | cheduled |
|              |                           |               | for      |
|              |                           |               | 2005-06  |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| Propargyl    | Not registered.           | Yes           | Unknown  |
| bromide      |                           |               |          |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+
| *            | Not registered.           | Yes           | Unknown  |
| Paecilomyces | Registration pending.     |               |          |
| lilacinus*   |                           |               |          |
+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+----------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
  Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
  for which It Is Being
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584360
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**[Michigan -- Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584418 .anchor}

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | ##### [List   | ##### [Rang    | **[Best         |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |  Type of Pest | e of Yield Los | Estimate of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} | s]{.smallcaps} | Yield           |
|                  |               |                | Loss            |
|                  |               |                | ]{.smallcaps}** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3 D +          | Soil borne    | 5-95 % PLUS    | 6 % PLUS loss   |
| Chloropicrin     | fungal        | loss of        | of revenue due  |
|                  | diseases      | revenue due to | to planting     |
|                  |               | planting       | delays          |
|                  |               | delays         | (Hausbeck and   |
|                  |               |                | Cortwright,     |
|                  |               |                | 2003)           |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [          |               |                | **6 % likely    |
| Overall Loss Est |               |                | with the best   |
| imate for All Al |               |                | alternative     |
| ternatives to Pe |               |                | (1,3 D +        |
| sts]{.smallcaps} |               |                | chloropicrin)** |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

Small plot field trial conducted in summer, 2003: Evaluation of
fumigants for managing *Phytophthora* crown and fruit rot of solanaceous
and cucurbit crops. The following are the results of the eggplant trials
(Cortrwright and Hausbeck, 2003).

[]{.mark}

In a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates per treatment,
no significant differences were noted for eggplant yields for plots
treated with metam sodium (Vapam), methyl bromide + chloropicrin,
1,3-D + chloropicrin or Iodomethane (Midas)+ chloropicrin. Eggplant
yields obtained from plots treated with the 50% formulation of
iodomethane + chloropicrin were practically equivalent, whereas eggplant
yields from plots treated with the 33% formulation of iodomethane + pic
were appreciably higher than yields from plots treated with MB. The
vegetable plots (portion of relevant results in Table 16.2) were
constructed on a sandy loam soil (72.4% sand, 14.2% silt, 13.4% clay)
with a known history of *Phytophthora,* and pumpkin planting in 2002,
followed by a rye cover crop. Fumigant treatments were injected at 80
psi; all treatment beds were covered with 1.25-mil black-plastic
embossed mulch. Beds were 6 in. high and spaced 5 ft apart. Two drip
tubes were installed just under the plastic during bed formation and
mulch laying, dividing the bed into thirds. During the first week of
August, 2003, several heavy rain events saturated the soil (101-262 mm
during a span of 3 days, Oceana, MI). There was a quick disease epidemic
which spread rapidly and uniformly across the replicates with
significant differences in plant death noted for the tested
Curcurbitacae. There was no plant death, and no difference in plant
vigor for the eggplant plots. There were no significant weed rating
differences for the tested treatments. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**Table 16.2 Summary of field trials conducted by Cortrwright and
Hausbeck (2003)**

+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| ##### [Alternat  | #####         | ##### [Ta      | ##### [Yi       |
| ive]{.smallcaps} |               | rget Pest(s)^A | elds of Eggplan |
|                  | #####         | ^]{.smallcaps} | ts]{.smallcaps} |
|                  |  [Application |                |                 |
|                  |  rate, method |                | (numbers of     |
|                  | ]{.smallcaps} |                | fruit)          |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Untreated        | ########      | ########       | 14.3            |
|                  |               |                |                 |
|                  |               | ########       |                 |
|                  |               |                |                 |
|                  |               | ########       |                 |
|                  |               |                |                 |
|                  |               | ########       |                 |
|                  |               |                |                 |
|                  |               | ########       |                 |
|                  |               |                |                 |
|                  |               | ###            |                 |
|                  |               | ##### *Phytoph |                 |
|                  |               | thora capsici* |                 |
|                  |               |                |                 |
|                  |               | *Verticillium* |                 |
|                  |               | spp.           |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Multigard        | 37 gal + 20   |                | 14.4            |
| Protect +        | gal Preplant  |                |                 |
| metam-sodium HL  | Drip          |                |                 |
|                  |               |                |                 |
| Multigard        | 5.8 gal       |                |                 |
|                  | Postplant     |                |                 |
|                  | Drip          |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Multigard        | 56 gal + 30   |                | 13.1            |
| Protect + metam  | gal           |                |                 |
| sodium HL        |               |                |                 |
|                  | Preplant Drip |                |                 |
| Multigard        |               |                |                 |
|                  | 5.8 gal       |                |                 |
|                  | Postplant     |                |                 |
|                  | Drip          |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Metam-sodium HL  | 75 gal;       |                | 10.5            |
|                  | Preplant Drip |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| MB +             | 350 lb;       |                | 16.2            |
| chloropicrin     | Preplant      |                |                 |
| (67:33)          | Shank         |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| 1,3-D +          | 35 gal;       |                | 17.0            |
| chloropicrin C35 | Preplant      |                |                 |
|                  | Shank         |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Iodometh         | 250 lb;       |                | 13.3            |
| ane/chloropicrin | Preplant      |                |                 |
| (50:50)          | Shank         |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Iodometh         | 200 lb;       |                | 23.9            |
| ane/chloropicrin | Preplant      |                |                 |
| (33/67)          | Shank         |                |                 |
+------------------+---------------+----------------+-----------------+

^A^Other pests (e.g., weeds and nematodes) were most likely present;
however population densities were not determined in this study. Ratings
of plant health and severe disease pressure were based on typical
symptoms of Phytopthora crown and fruit rots on peppers

From these small plot studies, the yield results indicate that 1,3-D +
chloropicrin (65:35 formulation) and methyl bromide (67:33) were very
effective in managing pest populations for eggplants. Yields of
eggplants were appreciably higher in the plots treated with the 33/67
iodomethane/chloropicrin (\~66 lbs iodomethane formulation, however
eggplant yields were practically equivalent in the higher rate of
iodomethane (50:50 formulation; 125 lbs iodomethane)**.** However,
yields of eggplants from the metam-sodium-treated plots were somewhat
lower than for the plots treated with methyl-bromide, demonstrating the
inconsistency of metam-sodium in pesticidal efficacy. Multigard
(furfural) applied post-plant seemed to slightly improve eggplant yield
compared to metam-sodium alone. Yields were lower than those obtained
with methyl bromide, however. Soils treated with repeated applications
of metam-sodium (or metam-potassium) are known to enhance its
biodegradation through adapted microorganisms. Preliminary evidence
suggests that the microorganisms responsible for enhanced degradation of
MITC specifically target the isothiocyanate functional group (Duncan and
Yates, 2003). Other field researchers have alluded to metam-sodium's
limited niche as a complementary treatment with other fumigants and
herbicides, indicating that this chemical should not be used as a
stand-alone treatment (Noling, 2003).

At present, no data directly attribute yield losses to alternative
management of pest pressures. Results of the above small study also
suggest that yield losses can be mitigated if careful attention is given
to pre-plant fumigation methods and bed preparation. Efficacy depends on
proper application and can vary from site to site. In a similar trial,
conducted in another Michigan location, with a lighter soil type, lower
disease pressure was reported. However the lighter soil type reportedly
made drip application difficult. (Cortwright, 2003).

Expert opinion in the production area, U.S. EPA analyses (August, 2003),
and nomination packages (CUE#s 02-0017-California & 03-0017-Florida)
provide a yield loss range of 8 to 15%, depending on the extent of
pathogen infestation, location of the fields and weather or climatic
conditions that favor disease development. In some years, yield losses
can be much greater.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Michigan - 17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under
  Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl
  Bromide?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584361
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

An upper bound of 6% yield loss (for high pest pressures only) is
estimated because of 100% field infestation with the soil-borne fungus,
*Phytophthora capsici*. Chloropicrin does not provide control of
*Phytophthora capsici* or other soil pathogens, such as *Verticillium*
spp. Since metalaxyl-resistant strains of *Phytophthora capsici* have
been documented on solanaceous crops (Lamour and Hausbeck, 2003; Parra
and Ristaino, 1998), growers do not rely on Ridomil, Ridomil Gold, or
Quadric.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Michigan - 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the    |
| Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl                                  |
| Bromide?:]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584362 .anchor}       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Agency is presently unaware of large scale, commercial greenhouse |
| operations for eggplants. It might be expected, however that there    |
| are local (or small community) operations of both organic and         |
| hothouse eggplant production that target fresh market, and/or         |
| temporal (seasonal) sectors, e.g., farmers' markets. Large scale      |
| production is probably not cost-effective, because of the intensive   |
| management of pests and the long growing season for eggplants.        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Michigan - Summary of Technical Feasibility]{.smallcaps}           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Results depicted in Table 16.1 suggest practically equivalent pest
management at the pre-plant stage (plant vigor ratings) and harvestable
eggplant yields from plots treated with 1,3-D + chloropicrin. However,
yields of eggplants from the metam-sodium-treated plots were somewhat
lower than for the plots treated with methyl-bromide, demonstrating the
inconsistency of metam-sodium in pesticidal efficacy. Multigard
(furfural) applied post-plant seemed to slightly improve eggplant yield,
than with metam-sodium alone. Yields were lower than those obtained with
methyl bromide, however. Soils treated with repeated applications of
metam-sodium (or metam-potassium) are known to enhance their
biodegradation as a result of adapted microorganisms. Preliminary
evidence suggests that the microorganisms responsible for enhanced
degradation of MITC specifically target the isothiocyanate functional
group (Duncan and Yates, 2003). Other field researchers have alluded to
metam-sodium's limited niche as a complementary treatment with other
fumigants and herbicides, and this chemical should never be used as a
stand-alone treatment (Noling, 2003).

It should be noted that, these plots were carefully monitored and
managed; post-plant prophylactic foliar fungicide (chlorothalonil,
myclobutanil, Cabrio) and herbicide treatments were necessary to manage
and prevent seasonal fluctuations of pest pressures.

Diseases caused by soil-borne plant pathogenic fungi, (e.g.,
*Phytophthora* spp., *Verticillium* spp., *Pythium* spp. and
*Rhizoctonia solani* ) may be curtailed if weather conditions are
detrimental for disease development. These pathogens are indigenous in
many vegetable production areas in Michigan. Fungicides such as
chlorothalonil, and azoxystrobilurin are considered to be only
prophylactic, and may not offer sufficient pest management. Resistance
of *Phytophthora* spp to metalaxyl and mefanoxem (Ridomil and Ridomil
Gold, respectively) has been reported in tomato crop areas, and most
recently pepper (Lamour and Hausbeck, 2003).

Rather than lack of effective alternative fumigants, planting
restrictions on the labels of 1,3-D and metam-sodium prevent their
adoption by Michigan growers. Michigan's diversified vegetable crop
production practices are designed to meet key late spring and summer
market demands in Midwestern states in a timely fashion. Fumigation
practices need to be completed by the first week of May to allow growers
to plant early and capture the early market (July - September) and have
their product available for premium prices, as well as ensuring demand
for their crop during the entire growing season (especially during the
mid and late season). The fumigation with methyl bromide and planting
schedule allow growers to maintain market diversity, as well. Fumigation
with 1,3-D + chloropicrin might be an effective alternative, except in
certain years or climatic conditions (e.g., wet soils) which may delay
planting schedules.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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___Toc65584365
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

#### [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 Growers have switched from From 2 % to 33 %             No
  reduction methods are     use HDPE tarps.        a 98% MB formulation to a                               
  presently                                        67 % formulation. Between                               
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                          1997 and 2001, the US has                               
                                                   achieved a 36 % reduction                               
                                                   in use rates.                                           

  **[What further           Research is underway   Research is underway to    Research is underway to      The US anticipates that the
  use/emission reduction    to develop use in      develop use of a 50 % MB   develop use of a 50 % MB     decreasing supply of methyl
  steps will be taken for   commercial production  formulation in Michigan    formulation in Michigan      bromide will motivate
  the methyl bromide used   systems                commercial production      commercial production        growers to try less frequent
  for critical                                     systems. Not known if      systems. Not known if other  applications.
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**                             other regions are planning regions are planning similar 
                                                   similar work.              work.                        

  **[Other                  Examination of         Measures adopted in        Measures adopted in Michigan Unknown
  measures]{.smallcaps}**   promising but          Michigan will likely be    will likely be used in the   
  *(please describe)*       presently unregistered used in the other regions  other regions when fungi are 
                            alternative fumigants  when fungi are the only    the only key pests involved  
                            and herbicides, alone  key pests involved                                      
                            or in combination with                                                         
                            non-chemical methods,                                                          
                            is planned in all                                                              
                            regions (Please see                                                            
                            Section 17 for each                                                            
                            region for details)                                                            
  ------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being  |
| Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination,     |
| State Reasons]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584366            |
| .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| In 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 cucurbit nurseries in the United States is minimized in    |
| several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide has, for |
| the last 40 years, been regulated as a restricted use pesticide in    |
| the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used  |
| by certified applicators who are trained at handling these hazardous  |
| pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by |
| a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge   |
| and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to      |
| achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements   |
| to avoid "drift" of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as   |
| to preserve methyl bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest   |
| level possible, methyl bromide application for cucurbits is most      |
| often machine injected into soil to specific depths.                  |
|                                                                       |
| As methyl bromide has become more scarce, users in the United States  |
| have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl     |
| bromide and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl    |
| bromide was typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made   |
| up of 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. In addition, cultural practices are  |
| utilized by cucurbit growers.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, cultural           |
| practices, and the extensive use of tarpaulins to cover land treated  |
| with methyl bromide has resulted in reduced emissions and an          |
| application rate that we believe is among the lowest in the world for |
| the uses described in this nomination.                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [Part E: Economic Assessment]{.smallcaps}                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **21. [Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
  Period]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584368
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 21.1: Eggplants - Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl
Bromide Over 3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584422 .anchor}

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

  Florida                                                                               

  Methyl Bromide              100%                    \$3,010          \$3,010          \$3,010

  1,3-D + Chloropicrin        71%                     \$3,719          \$3,719          \$3,719

  Metam-Sodium                56%                     \$3,519          \$3,519          \$3,519

  Georgia                                                                               

  Methyl Bromide              100%                    \$3,642          \$3,642          \$3,642

  1,3-D + Chloropicrin        71%                     \$3,242          \$3,242          \$3,242

  Metam-Sodium                56%                     \$3,027          \$3,027          \$3,027

  Michigan                                                                              

  Methyl Bromide              100%                    \$1,475          \$1,475          \$1,475

  1,3-D + Chloropicrin        94%                     \$1,772          \$1,772          \$1,772
  --------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **22. [Gross and Net
  Revenue]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584369
  .anchor}**[:]{.smallcaps}**

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

**Table 22.1: [Eggplant -- Year 1, 2, and 3 Gross and Net
Revenues]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc65584423 .anchor}

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| #### [Year 1,         |                       |                      |
| 2, and 3]{.smallcaps} |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **[Altern             | **[Gross revenue for  | **[Net Revenue for   |
| atives]{.smallcaps}** | last reported         | last reported        |
|                       | year]{.smallcaps}**   | year]{.smallcaps}**  |
| *(as shown in         |                       |                      |
| question 21)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*         | *(U.S.\$/ha)*        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Florida               |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$21,730              | \$6,408              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-D + Chloropicrin  | \$15,428              | \$1,156              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam-Sodium          | \$12,169              | **-** \$1,388        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Georgia               |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$42,857              | \$10,491             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-D + Chloropicrin  | \$30,428              | \$2,899              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Metam-Sodium          | \$24,000              | **-** \$493          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Michigan              |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Methyl Bromide        | \$34,074              | \$9,344              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1,3-D + Chloropicrin  | \$29,627              | \$5,268              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

Note: Year 1 equals year 2 and 3.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584370
  .anchor}

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

**[Florida Eggplant - Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584424 .anchor}

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

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}** 0%                       29%                           44%

  **[Yield per                     1,893                    1,344                         1,060
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                                  

  **[\* Price per Unit             \$11                     \$11                          \$11
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare   \$21,730                 \$15,428                      \$12,169
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare \$15,322                 \$14,272                      \$13,557
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare     \$6,408                  \$1,156                       **-** \$1,388
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare           \$0                      \$5,252                       \$7,796
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of       \$0                      \$35                          \$52
  Methyl Bromide                                                                          
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       24%                           36%
  Gross Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                        

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       82%                           122%
  Net Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                          
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------

**[Georgia Eggplant - Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584425 .anchor}

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

  **[Yield Loss (%)]{.smallcaps}** 0%                       29%                           44%

  **[Yield per                     6,326                    4,491                         3,542
  Hectare]{.smallcaps}**                                                                  

  **[\* Price per Unit             \$7                      \$7                           \$7
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare   \$42,857                 \$30,428                      \$24,000
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare \$32,365                 \$27,530                      \$24,493
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare     \$10,491                 \$2,899                       **-** \$493
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare           \$0                      \$7,593                       \$10,985
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of       \$0                      \$51                          \$73
  Methyl Bromide                                                                          
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                                                   

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       18%                           26%
  Gross Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                        

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of    0%                       72%                           105%
  Net Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                          
  -------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- --------------------------------

**[Michigan Eggplant- Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584426 .anchor}

  ----------------------------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------
  **michigan eggplant**                     **[Methyl                **[1,3-D +
                                            Bromide]{.smallcaps}**   Chloropicrin]{.smallcaps}**

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

  **[Yield per Hectare]{.smallcaps}**       3,665                    3,445

  **[\* Price per Unit                      \$9.30                   \$8.60
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[= Gross Revenue per Hectare            \$34,074                 \$29,627
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[- Operating Costs per Hectare          \$24,730                 \$24,359
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[= Net Revenue per Hectare              \$9,344                  \$5,268
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

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

  **[1. Loss per Hectare                    \$0                      \$4,076
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide \$0                      \$84
  (us\$)]{.smallcaps}**                                              

  **[3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross       0%                       12%
  Revenue (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                         

  **[4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue 0%                       44%
  (%)]{.smallcaps}**                                                 
  ----------------------------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ######### Summary of Economic Feasibility                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There are currently few alternatives to methyl bromide for use in     |
| eggplant. Furthermore, there are factors that limit existing          |
| alternatives' usability and efficacy from place to place. These       |
| include pest complex, climate, and regulatory restrictions. As        |
| described above, the two most promising alternatives to methyl        |
| bromide in Florida and Georgia for control of nutsedge in eggplant    |
| (1,3-D + chloropicrin and metam-sodium) are considered not            |
| technically feasible. This derives from regulatory restrictions and   |
| the magnitude of expected yield losses when they are used. Economic   |
| data representing the Florida and Georgia eggplant growing conditions |
| are thus included in this section as a supplement to the biological   |
| review to illustrate the impacts of using MB alternatives, not to     |
| gauge them with respect to economic feasibility. However, in Michigan |
| 1,3-D + chloropicrin is considered technically feasible.              |
|                                                                       |
| # Florida                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| No technically (and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MB    |
| are presently available to the affected eggplant growers. As such,    |
| the U.S. concludes that use of MB is critical in Florida eggplant     |
| production.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| #                                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| [Analytical Notes]{.underline}                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Florida's application for MB critical use indicated that more than    |
| one crop is typically grown per growing season but did not provide    |
| specific production and sales data for this crop. As and result of    |
| this gap in data, economic assessment of Florida eggplant production  |
| was based on a single crop production system. This characterization   |
| of growing conditions could result in the critical need for MB        |
| appearing smaller than it actually is, because the value the second   |
| crop derives from methyl bromide is not included in the analysis.     |
|                                                                       |
| Other potentially significant economic factors, such as price         |
| reductions due to missed market windows, were not analyzed for this   |
| region, as the case for critical use of MB is sufficiently strong     |
| based solely on yield loss.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| # Georgia                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| No technically (and thus economically) feasible alternatives to MB    |
| are presently available to the effected eggplant growers. As such,    |
| the U.S. concludes that use of MB is critical in Georgia eggplant     |
| production.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| [Analytical Notes]{.underline}                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Other potentially significant economic factors, such as price         |
| reductions due to missed market windows, were not analyzed for this   |
| region, as the case for critical use of MB is sufficiently strong     |
| based solely on yield loss.                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# Michigan

The U.S. concludes that, at present, no economically feasible
alternatives to MB exist for use in Michigan eggplant production. Two
factors have proven most important in this conclusion. These are yield
loss and missed market windows, which are discussed individually below.

## 1. Yield Loss

The U.S. anticipates yield losses of 6% throughout Michigan eggplant
production.

### 2. Missed Market Windows

The U.S. agrees with Michigan's assertion that growers will likely
receive significantly lower prices for their produce if they switch to
1,3-D + chloropicrin. This is due to changes in the harvest schedule
caused by the above described soil temperature complications and
extended plant back intervals when using 1,3-D + chloropicrin.

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

Specific data representing these market fluctuations are not available
for Michigan eggplant. However, because of the similar production system
and growing conditions, Michigan pepper price data were used to
represent price fluctuations in Michigan eggplant and their impact on
growers' gross revenues. Though data availability is limiting, it was
assumed that if eggplant growers adjust the timing of their production
system, as required when using 1,3-D + chloropicrin, they will, over the
course of the growing season, receive gross revenues reduced by
approximately 7.5%. The season average price was reduced by 7.5% in
analysis of the alternatives to reflect this. Based on currently
available information, the U.S. believes this reduction in gross
revenues serves as a reasonable indicator of the typical effect of
planting delays resulting when MB alternatives are used in Michigan
eggplant production.

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy       |
| Alternatives for This                                                 |
| Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584373 .anchor}           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of        |
| alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because  |
| the EPA currently has more applications pending in its registration   |
| review queue than the resources to evaluate them, EPA prioritizes the |
| applications. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl  |
| bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U.S. |
| EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting  |
| in turn for the EPA to initiate its review.                           |
|                                                                       |
| As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives   |
| to methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on     |
| data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the |
| Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety     |
| standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency |
| has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application,  |
| allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the |
| methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, Agency scientists routinely  |
| meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants,          |
| counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the   |
| probability that the data is done right the first time and rework     |
| delays are minimized                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| The U.S. EPA has also co-chaired the U.S.DA/EPA Methyl Bromide        |
| Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research,       |
| development and the registration of viable alternatives. This         |
| coordination has resulted in key registration issues (such as worker  |
| and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and      |
| drinking water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's      |
| Agricultural Research Service's U.S.\$15 million per year research    |
| program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across  |
| the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research   |
| grant proposals each year for USDA's U.S.\$2.5 million per year       |
| methyl bromide alternatives research has further ensured close        |
| coordination between the U.S. government and the research community.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The amount of methyl bromide requested for research purposes is
considered critical for the development of effective alternatives.
Without methyl bromide for use as a standard treatment, the research
studies can never address the comparative performance of alternatives.
This would be a serious impediment to the development of alternative
strategies. The U.S. government estimates that eggplant research will
require 433 kg per year of methyl bromide for 2005 and 2006. This amount
of methyl bromide is necessary to conduct research on alternatives and
is in addition to the amounts requested in the submitted CUE
applications. One example of the research is a field study testing the
comparative performance of methyl bromide, host resistance, cultural
practices, pest management approaches for control of root-knot
nematodes. Another example is a five year field study comparing methyl
bromide to 1,3-D combined with biologically based materials including
transplant treatments for control of weeds, root-knot nematodes and soil
borne fungal pathogens.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584374 .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___Toc65584375 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584376 .anchor}

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

Aerts, M. 2003. Asst. Director, Environmental and Pest Management
Division, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. Personal
Communication with G. Tomimatsu, December 2, 2003.

Banks, H. J. 2002. [2002 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee, 2002 Assessment.]{.underline} Pg 46.

Chellemi, D.O., R. C. Hochmuth, T. Winsberg, W. Guetler, K. D. Shuler,
L. E. Datnoff, D. T.

Kaplan, R. McSorley, R. A. Dunn, and S. M. Olson. 1997. Application of
soil

solarization to fall production of cucurbits and pepper. Proc. Fla.
State Hort. Soc. 10:333- 336.

Cortwright, B. 2003. Field Research Associate University of Michigan.
Personal Communication with G. Tomimatsu, November 24, 2003.

Cortwright, B.D. and M.K. Hausbeck. 2003. Evaluation of fumigants for
managing Phytophthora crown and fruit rot of solanaceous and cucurbit
crops, plot two, 2003. Unpublished study (MI CUE \# 03-0061).

Csinos, A.S., D.R. Sumner, R.M. McPherson, C. Dowler, C.W. Johnson, and
A.W. Johnson. 1999. Alternatives for methyl bromide fumigation of
tobacco seed beds, pepper, and tomato seedlings. Proc. Georgia Veg.
Conf. Available on the Web at
http://www.tifton.uga.edu/veg/Publications/Gfvga99.pdf

Duncan, R. S. and S. R. Yates. 2003. Degradation of fumigant pesticides:
1,3-Dichloropropene, Methyl isothiocyanate, chloropicrin, and methyl
bromide. Vadose Zone Journal 2:279- 286.

Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (FFVA). 2002. Application for
the Methyl Bromide

Critical Use Exemption on Solanaceous Crops (other than tomato).
September 9, 2002.

Frank, J.R., P. H. Schwartz and W.E. Potts. 1992. Modeling the effects
of weed interference periods and insects on bell peppers (*Capsicum
annuum*). Weed Sci. 40:308-312.

Gevens, A.J. and M.K. Hausbeck. 2003. A first report of *Phytophthora
capsici* in irrigating water near cucurbit fields in Michigan (Abstr).

Kelley, W. T. 2003, Professor, University of Georgia. Personal
communication with G. Tomimatsu, November 24, 2003.

Lamour, K. H. and M. Hausbeck. 2003. Effect of Crop Rotation on the
survival of Phytophthora capsici in Michigan. Plant Dis. 87:841-845.

Lewis, C. 2003 (President, Hy-Yield Bromine). Personal communication
through S.A. Toth (<steve_toth@ncsu.edu>) , Extension Entomologist &
Pest Management Information Specialist, North Carolina State University;
message forwarded electronically to G. Tomimatsu, December 29, 2003.

Melban, K. 2003. California Pepper Commission. Personal Communication
with G. Tomimatsu. <Kenny@tabcomp.com>. 11/26/2003.

Noling, J. W. 2003. University of Florida-Lake Alfred. Personal
Communication with G. Tomimatsu. <Jwn@lal.ufl.edu>. 11/25/2003.

Noling, J.W., E. Rosskopf, and D.L. Chellemi. 2000. Impacts of
alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Proc.
Annual Int. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. Available on the web at
[*http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro00.html*](http://www.mbao.org/mbrpro98.html).

Stall, W.M. and J. Morales-Payan. 2000. The critical period of nutsedge
interference in tomato.

S.W. Florida Research & Education Center.
[www.imok.ufl.edu/liv/groups/IPM/weed_con/nutsedge.htm](http://www.imok.ufl.edu/liv/groups/IPM/weed_con/nutsedge.htm)

USDA. 2002. Crop Profiles: Florida Eggplant.
http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/FLeggplant\_.html

U.S. EPA. 2002. Peppers-Field. Peppers Grown Outdoors on Plastic Mulch.
CUN2003/058

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Citations reviewed but not
  applicable]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584377 .anchor}

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

## 

## Jones, J. 2003. Regulatory Status of Soil Fumigants. Plenary Session 1. Presentation at the ***200***3 

##  ***Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and***

##  ***Emissions Reductions***, San Diego, CA.

Webster, T. M., A.S. Csinos, A.W. Johnson, C. C. Dowler, D. R. Sumner,
R. L. Fery. 2001.

Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper-squash rotation. Crop
Protection 20:605-14.

**APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65584428 .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**
  -------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------

[^1]: ^\*^ See Appendix A for a complete description of how the
    nominated amount was calculated.

[^2]: ^\*^ See Appendix A for a complete description of how the
    nominated amount was calculated.