**[Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Turfgrass Sod 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 Turfgrass 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 6](#part-a-summary)

[**1.** Nominating Party 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591836)

[**2.** Descriptive Title of Nomination 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591837)

[**3.** Crop and Summary of Crop System 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591838)

[**4.** Methyl Bromide Nominated 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591839)

[**5.** Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use
7](#__RefHeading___Toc65591840)

[**6.** Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65591841)

[**7.** Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide
8](#__RefHeading___Toc65591842)

[**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.
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65591843)

[**7. (*iii*)** Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods
to cover at least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl
bromide? What changes would be necessary to enable this?
9](#__RefHeading___Toc65591844)

[**8.** Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use
10](#__RefHeading___Toc65591845)

[**9.** Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated 10](#__RefHeading___Toc65591846)

[Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use
12](#part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[**10.** Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested
and Specific Reasons for this Request 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65591848)

[**11.** Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65591849)

[**11. (*ii*)** Indicate if any of the above characteristics in 11.
(*i*) prevent the uptake of any relevant alternatives?
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65591850)

[**12.** Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or Mixtures
Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65591851)

[Part C: Technical Validation 14](#part-c-technical-validation)

[**13.** Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65591853)

[**14.** List and Discuss Why Registered *(and Potential)* Pesticides
and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide: 15](#__RefHeading___Toc65591854)

[**15.** List Present *(and Possible Future)* Registration Status of Any
Current and Potential Alternatives 15](#__RefHeading___Toc65591855)

[**16.** State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives Compared
to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds for which
It Is Being Requested 16](#__RefHeading___Toc65591856)

[**17.** Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development
which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?
18](#__RefHeading___Toc65591857)

[18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid
the Need for Methyl Bromide 18](#__RefHeading___Toc65591858)

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

[Part D: Emission Control 19](#part-d-emission-control)

[**19.** Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl
Bromide Use and Emissions in the Particular Use
19](#__RefHeading___Toc65591861)

[**20.** If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being
Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons 20](#__RefHeading___Toc65591862)

[Part E: Economic Assessment 21](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[**21.** Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
Period 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65591864)

[**22.** Gross and Net Revenue 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65591865)

[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
22](#__RefHeading___Toc65591866)

[Summary of Economic Feasibility 22](#summary-of-economic-feasibility)

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

[**23.** What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop? 24](#__RefHeading___Toc65591869)

[**24.** How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future? 24](#__RefHeading___Toc65591870)

[**25.** Additional Comments on the Nomination
25](#__RefHeading___Toc65591871)

[**26.** Citations 26](#__RefHeading___Toc65591872)

[Examples of Turfgrass Sod Certification Requirements in the U.S.:
26](#__RefHeading___Toc65591873)

[[APPENDIX B. Summary of New Applicants]{.smallcaps}
31](#__RefHeading___Toc65591874)

***List of Tables***

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

[**Table 4.1:** Methyl Bromide Nominated 6](#__RefHeading___Toc65591876)

[**Table A.1:** Executive Summary 8](#__RefHeading___Toc65591877)

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

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

[**Table A.2: 2005** Sector Nomination 11](#__RefHeading___Toc65591881)

[**[Table A.2: 2005 and 2006 Sector Nomination]{.smallcaps}**
11](#__RefHeading___Toc65591881)

[*Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use*
12](#part-b-crop-characteristics-and-methyl-bromide-use)

[**Table 10.1:** Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide
Request 12](#__RefHeading___Toc65591883)

[**Table 11.1:** Characteristics of Cropping System
12](#__RefHeading___Toc65591884)

[Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65591885)

[**Table 12.1:** Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide
13](#__RefHeading___Toc65591886)

[*Part C: Technical Validation* 14](#part-c-technical-validation)

[**Table 13.1:** Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
14](#__RefHeading___Toc65591888)

[**Table 14.1:** Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65591889)

[**Table 15.1:** Present Registration Status of Alternatives
15](#__RefHeading___Toc65591890)

[**Table 16.1:** Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Nutsedge (*Cyperus*
spp.) in Florida1 16](#__RefHeading___Toc65591891)

[**Table 16.2:** Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Weedy Grasses in
Florida1 17](#__RefHeading___Toc65591892)

[**Table C.1:** Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary
17](#__RefHeading___Toc65591893)

[*Part D: Emission Control* 19](#part-d-emission-control)

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

[*Part E: Economic Assessment* 21](#part-e-economic-assessment)

[**Table** **21.1:** Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide
Over 3-Year Period 21](#__RefHeading___Toc65591897)

[**Table 22.1:** Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65591898)

[**Table 22.2:** Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65591899)

[**Table 22.3:** Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue
21](#__RefHeading___Toc65591900)

[**Table E.1:** Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives
22](#__RefHeading___Toc65591901)

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

[APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index (BUNI).
27](#__RefHeading___Toc65591903)

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

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

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[2. Descriptive Title of Nomination]{.smallcaps}**                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for    |
| > Turfgrass Grown in Open Fields                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

This is a request for turfgrass sod grown primarily in California,
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. There are at least 1,143 turfgrass
sod producers across the U.S. who farm approximately 132,000 hectares,
with a wholesale product value of U.S. \$670 million. Methyl bromide is
used on approximately 1 percent of the total certified sod area in a
single year. Methyl bromide fumigation is primarily needed for areas on
which certified turf is produced, particularly when a producer is
shifting the species or variety of turf to response to market
conditions, disease or pest cycles, or other reason. In such cases, the
ability to produce certified sod depends on removing all remnants of
off-type grasses. On average, fumigation of the affected soil occurs
once every three years. Sod fields are flat fumigated with methyl
bromide when first establishing a new sod field; as a pre-plant
fumigation when pest pressures become so severe that sod free of pests
and off-type perennial grasses cannot be produced; and to eliminate
pests of quarantine importance to meet the official requirement of the
destination area. Wholesale buyers for most certified sod producers are
landscape maintenance contractors, garden centers, building contractors,
homeowners, and golf course and athletic field superintendents.
Turfgrass sod yields average between 6,400 and 8,700 square meters per
hectare per cutting. From planting to harvest, a sod crop takes between
9-12 months to reach maturity.

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

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

**[Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591876 .anchor}

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

                                                   

  **2006**                 **129,672**             **432**

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

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

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

The U.S. nomination is only for those areas where the alternatives are
not suitable. In U.S. turf production there are several factors that
make the potential alternatives to methyl bromide unsuitable. The
efficacy of alternatives is not comparable to methyl bromide in some
areas, making these alternatives technically and economically infeasible
for use in turfgrass sod production.

Methyl bromide (MB) is the only treatment that consistently provides
effective control of off-type perennial grasses, as well as nutsedge and
other weeds, nematodes, and insect pests. Preplant fumigation with MB is
often required when sod farms are first established on land previously
used for row crop farming to reduce perennial weeds and other soil-borne
pests. It is used when sod producers shift to new sod varieties or
species, in order to produce a uniform turf product. MB is especially
useful to remove off-type perennial grass varieties that are
phenotypically indistinguishable from the sod crop, but possess
different pest resistance traits, rooting characteristics, leaf
textures, or different temperature and humidity requirements. Off-type
perennial grass varieties infesting the soil from the previous planting
cannot be targeted for spot treatment with a herbicides by visually
inspecting the crop. Research trials have shown that there is a great
variability in efficacy of chemical alternatives (Unruh et al., 2002).

Most "warm season" certified turfgrass sod production utilizes MB when a
new sod field is being established or when a change of species and /or
variety is desired on an existing sod field. Any turfgrass, particularly
"warm-season" species, may become an "off-type" grass when the
establishment of a different species is desirable. With some aggressive
grasses, a single off-type grass plant can spread rapidly through a
field, resulting in a revocation of certification for the affected
field. The standards for purity are so strict that even a very small
proportion of "off-type" blades of grass will lead to rejection of the
sod. Thus, industry certification programs for sod guarantee that the
grasses are genetically pure. Uncertified sod can only be sold as
"common" or "field" sod used for soil stabilization at 25% of its value
as certified sod (a price reduction of 75%). In the United States, sod
certification programs operate on a state or regional level, some of
which specifically require methyl bromide fumigation as a condition for
certification.

Potential alternatives, such as dazomet and metam-sodium, are unreliable
and do not provide the degree of consistent pest control needed by the
industry to meet market demands. In addition to providing higher rates
of efficacy and more consistent results than the other alternatives
tested, methyl bromide also allows for quick planting after treatment.

**[Table A.1: Executive
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591877 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ### TURF                                | ***Turfgrass Producers     |
|                                         | International***           |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| #                                       |                            |
| ## [Amount of Nomination\*]{.smallcaps} |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ####                                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms                    | 129,272                    |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**            | 300                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                           | 432                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ###                                     |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ###                                     |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ### [A                                  |                            |
| mount of Applicant Request]{.smallcaps} |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ####                                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
|                                         |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ####  2006 Kilograms                    | 680,388                    |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Application Rate (kg/ha)**            | 480                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Area (ha)**                           | 1,416                      |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ### [Economics                          |                            |
|  For Next Best Alternative]{.smallcaps} |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Next Best Alternative (According to   | **Dazomet**                |
| CUE Application)**                      |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ####  Yield/Quality Loss (%)            | 25%                        |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Loss per hectare (US\$/ha)**          | \$6,634                    |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Loss per kg Methyl Bromide            | \$13.82                    |
| (US\$/kg)**                             |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%)**      | 33.81%                     |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Loss as % of Net Revenue (%)**        | 64.23%                     |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

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

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

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

Registered alternatives, dazomet and metam sodium, are unreliable and do
not provide the degree of pest control efficacy needed by the industry.
The U.S. consumer market generally demands turfgrass consisting of pure
varieties that are uniform, vigorous, densely growing, and free of the
pests and pathogens that would reduce its vigor, impede its ability to
control erosion. According to the applicant, Turfgrass Producers
International, the standards for purity are so strict that even a very
small proportion of "off-type" blades of grass will lead to rejection of
the sod. Producers of certified turfgrass sod, or vegetative propagules,
operate under zero-tolerance standards for pests or off-type perennial
grasses. Certified sod produced on methyl bromide fumigated plots
receives a higher price than similarly treated sod. The loss in revenue
due to loss of certification, yield reduction, and unharvestable fields
in the absence of MB can range from approximately 25% to 75% per acre
per year (TPI, 2003). Because of the differential susceptibilities of
turfgrass varieties to drought, temperature extremes, and pathogens,
consumers are very particular about the turfgrass variety that they buy.
Off-typing is of particular importance in growing bermudagrass sod where
the product is genetically pure. Contamination with off-type perennial
grasses can even lead to legal action against the turfgrass producer.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*i*) [Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl
  Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591842 .anchor}

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

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

+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **[Region where       | **[Total crop area   | **[Proportion of      |
| Methyl Bromide use is | -]{.smallcaps}**     | total crop area       |
| req                   | **[2001-2002         | treated with methyl   |
| uested]{.smallcaps}** | Av                   | b                     |
|                       | erage]{.smallcaps}** | romide]{.smallcaps}** |
|                       | **                   | **[(%)]{.smallcaps}** |
|                       | [(ha)]{.smallcaps}** |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####                  | Not Available        | Not Available         |
| # Turfgrass Producers |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **National            | 131,971              | \<1                   |
| T                     |                      |                       |
| otal[:]{.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}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591843 .anchor}

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

Approximately 1.1% of turfgrass sod is treated with MB each year, the
affected area averaging one treatment every three years. MB is used only
in the portion of the turfgrass sod area where pest problems cannot be
readily controlled using conventional pesticides. For instance, some
broadleaf weeds, such as ragweed, pigweed, and morningglory, may be
effectively controlled through continuous mowing previous to seed
production (McCarty, undated). Spot treatment with a nonselective
herbicide, such as glyphosate, may be used to control competitive
grasses that can be easily distinguished from the turfgrass crop.
Relatively low pest pressures in most of the turfgrass sod production
area make it possible for producers to use alternative pesticides
(herbicides, fungicides, nematicides, and insecticides) and cultural
practices.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. (*iii*) [Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods
  to cover at least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl
  bromide? What changes would be necessary to enable
  this]{.smallcaps}**?[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591844 .anchor}

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

Probably not, since MB is already being used only in crop areas that
require MB fumigation to achieve certification, either because the
certification program actually requires MB use or because alternatives
are not expected to provide the degree of pest control needed by growers
to produce high quality, certifiable sod.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. [Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
  Use]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591845 .anchor}

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

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

+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| # [Region:]{.smallcaps}                         |   | ##### U.S.         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| # [Year of Exemption Request]{.smallcaps}       | * |                    |
|                                                 | * |                    |
|                                                 | [ |                    |
|                                                 | 2 |                    |
|                                                 | 0 |                    |
|                                                 | 0 |                    |
|                                                 | 6 |                    |
|                                                 | ] |                    |
|                                                 | { |                    |
|                                                 | . |                    |
|                                                 | s |                    |
|                                                 | m |                    |
|                                                 | a |                    |
|                                                 | l |                    |
|                                                 | l |                    |
|                                                 | c |                    |
|                                                 | a |                    |
|                                                 | p |                    |
|                                                 | s |                    |
|                                                 | } |                    |
|                                                 | * |                    |
|                                                 | * |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| [Kilograms of Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}       | 6 |                    |
|                                                 | 8 |                    |
|                                                 | 0 |                    |
|                                                 | , |                    |
|                                                 | 3 |                    |
|                                                 | 8 |                    |
|                                                 | 8 |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| [Use: Flat Fumigation or Strip/Bed              |   | Flat Fumigation    |
| Treatment]{.smallcaps}                          |   |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| **[Formulation]{.smallcaps}** *(ratio of methyl |   | Variable           |
| bromide/chloropicrin mixture)* [to be used for  |   |                    |
| the CUE]{.smallcaps}                            |   |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| [Total Area to be treated with the methyl       | 1 |                    |
| bromide or methyl bromide/Chloropicrin          | , |                    |
| formulation]{.smallcaps} *(m^2^ or ha)*         | 4 |                    |
|                                                 | 1 |                    |
|                                                 | 6 |                    |
|                                                 | h |                    |
|                                                 | a |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [for | N |                    |
| the **formulation**]{.smallcaps}                | o |                    |
|                                                 | t |                    |
|                                                 | A |                    |
|                                                 | v |                    |
|                                                 | a |                    |
|                                                 | i |                    |
|                                                 | l |                    |
|                                                 | a |                    |
|                                                 | b |                    |
|                                                 | l |                    |
|                                                 | e |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| [Application rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(kg/ha)* [for | 4 |                    |
| the **active ingredient**]{.smallcaps}          | 8 |                    |
|                                                 | 0 |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of      | N |                    |
| **formulation** used to calculate requested     | o |                    |
| kilograms of methyl bromide]{.smallcaps}        | t |                    |
|                                                 | A |                    |
|                                                 | v |                    |
|                                                 | a |                    |
|                                                 | i |                    |
|                                                 | l |                    |
|                                                 | a |                    |
|                                                 | b |                    |
|                                                 | l |                    |
|                                                 | e |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| [Dosage rate\*]{.smallcaps} *(g/m^2^)* [of      | 4 |                    |
| **active ingredient** used to calculate         | 8 |                    |
| requested kilograms of methyl                   |   |                    |
| bromide]{.smallcaps}                            |   |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---+--------------------+

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

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

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

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

-   Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within one
    year of an application to a crop that also uses 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 included growth in the request and the
    growth amount was removed.

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

-   Only the acreage experiencing moderate to heavy key pest pressure
    was included in the nominated.

**[Table A.2:]{.smallcaps}** **[2006 Sector
Nomination\*]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591881 .anchor}

+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| #####        |                                    | **2006**         |
|  [Turfgrass  |                                    |                  |
| Producers In |                                    |                  |
| ternational] |                                    |                  |
| {.smallcaps} |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **Applicant  | Requested Hectares (ha)            | **1,416**        |
| Request**    |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Application Rate (kg/ha) | **480**          |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Requested Kilograms (kg)           | **680,388**      |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **CUE        | Nominated Hectares (ha)            | 432              |
| Nominated**  |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Nominated Application Rate (kg/ha) | 300              |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Nominated Kilograms (kg)           | 129,672          |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| #####        |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
| **2006**     | Overall Reduction (%)              | 81%              |
| **Sector     |                                    |                  |
| Nomination   |                                    |                  |
| Totals**     |                                    |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | 2006 U.S. CUE Nomination (kg)      | 129,672          |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Research Amount (kg)               | 1928             |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+
|              | Total U.S. Sector Nominated        | **131,600**      |
|              | Kilograms (kg)                     |                  |
+--------------+------------------------------------+------------------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and
  Specific Reasons for this
  Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591848 .anchor}

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

**[Table 10.1: Key Pests and Reason for Methyl Bromide
Request]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591883 .anchor}

+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Region | **[Key pests and weed to     | **[Specific reasons why  |
| where     | genus and, if known, to      | methyl bromide is        |
| methyl    | species level]{.smallcaps}** | needed]{.smallcaps}\     |
| bromide   |                              | **                       |
| use is    |                              |                          |
| reques    |                              |                          |
| ted]{.sma |                              |                          |
| llcaps}** |                              |                          |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+
| T         | **Weeds:** mainly off-type   | Producers of certified   |
| hroughout | perennial grasses, nutsedge  | turfgrass sod operate    |
| the       | (*Cyperus* spp. ); crabgrass | under zero-tolerance     |
| United    | (*Digitaria spp*.);          | standards for            |
| States    | goosegrass (*Eleusine        | contamination with       |
|           | indica*); common             | off-type perennial       |
|           | bermudagrass (*Cynodon       | grasses, other weeds,    |
|           | dactylon*) and turfgrass     | pests, and diseases. For |
|           | from the previous crop       | approximately 1% of the  |
|           | cycle.                       | turfgrass sod growing    |
|           |                              | area, this degree of     |
|           | **Nematodes:** over 15       | pest control can only be |
|           | genera of parasitic          | achieved through MB      |
|           | nematodes, such as lance     | fumigation. The best     |
|           | nematodes (*Hoplolaimus      | registered alternatives, |
|           | spp.* ) and sting nematodes  | dazomet and metam        |
|           | (*Belonolaimus               | sodium, are unreliable   |
|           | longicaudatus*)              | and do not provide the   |
|           |                              | degree of consistent     |
|           | **Insects:** white grubs     | pest control needed by   |
|           | (several species of          | the industry.            |
|           | soil-inhabiting scarabaeid   |                          |
|           | beetle larvae)               |                          |
+-----------+------------------------------+--------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[11. (]{.smallcaps}*i*[) Characteristics of Cropping System and
  Climate]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591849 .anchor}

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

**[Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping
System]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591884 .anchor}

+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| ##### [Characteristics]{.smallcaps}     | ### [U.S.]{.smallcaps}     |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Crop Type:]{.smallcaps}** *(e.g.     | Turfgrass sod grown from   |
| transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)* | seeds or rhizomes          |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Annual or Perennial                  | Annual                     |
| Crop:]{.smallcaps}** *(# of years       |                            |
| between replanting)*                    |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Typical Crop Rotation]{.smallcaps}** | None                       |
| *(if any)* **[and use of methyl bromide |                            |
| for other crops in the                  |                            |
| rotation:]{.smallcaps}** *(if any)*     |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Soil Types:]{.smallcaps}** *(Sand,   | Varies from clayish-loam   |
| loam, clay, etc.)*                      | to sandy-loam              |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Frequency of methyl bromide          | The affected turfgrass sod |
| Fumigation:]{.smallcaps}**              | area is treated with       |
|                                         | methyl bromide             |
| *(e.g. every two years)*                | approximately once every 3 |
|                                         | years. On average, 1.1% of |
|                                         | the total turfgrass sod    |
|                                         | crop production area in    |
|                                         | the U.S. is fumigated in   |
|                                         | any one year.              |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| **[Other relevant                       | None identified.           |
| factors:]{.smallcaps}**                 |                            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591885 .anchor}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Mar</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Apr</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">May</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jun</span></strong></td>
<td><h6 id="jul"><span class="smallcaps">Jul</span></h6></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Aug</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Sept</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Oct</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Nov</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Dec</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Jan</span></strong></td>
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Feb</span></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h4 id="climatic-zone"><span class="smallcaps">Climatic
Zone</span></h4></td>
<td colspan="12">Range from temperate to subtropical (USDA Plant
Hardiness Zones 5b through 11)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Soil Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)</em></span></td>
<td colspan="12" rowspan="3">Variable, since turfgrass sod is grown
throughout the United States.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Rainfall</strong>
<em>(</em></span><em>mm<span class="smallcaps">)</span></em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><span class="smallcaps"><strong>Outside Temp.</strong>
<em>(C)</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Fumigation
Schedule<sup>1</sup></span></strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Planting</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="smallcaps">Schedule</span></strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong><span class="smallcaps">Key Market
Window</span></strong></td>
<td colspan="12">Variable</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **11. (*ii*) [Indicate if any of the above characteristics in
  11]{.smallcaps}. (*i*) [prevent the uptake of any relevant
  alternatives]{.smallcaps}?**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591850 .anchor}

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

None were identified as being relevant factors.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or Mixtures
  Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is
  Requested]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591851 .anchor}

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

**[Table 12.1: Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl
Bromide]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591886 .anchor}

+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[For as many years | **1   | **1   | **1   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
| as possible as shown | 997** | 998** | 999** | 000** | 001** | 002** |
| spe                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| cify:]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Area              | 1,221 | 1,232 | 1,874 | 1,563 | 1,029 | 612   |
| Tr                   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| eated]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(hectares)*         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Amount of MB      | 59    | 60    | 91    | 76    | 50    | 27    |
| active ingredient    | 5,489 | 0,619 | 3,557 | 2,021 | 1,568 | 4,514 |
| used]{.smallcaps}**  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(total kilograms)*  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[formulations of   | Acco  |       |       |       |       |       |
| MB]{.smallcaps}**    | rding |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(MB /chloropicrin)* | to    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | the   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | appli |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | cant, |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | the   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ty    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | pical |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | f     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ormul |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ation |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | used  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | on    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | turf  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | grass |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | sod   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | is    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | 98:2. |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Method by which   | L     |       |       |       |       |       |
| MB                   | iquid |       |       |       |       |       |
| ap                   | MB is |       |       |       |       |       |
| plied]{.smallcaps}** | shank |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(e.g. injected at   | inj   |       |       |       |       |       |
| 25cm depth, hot      | ected |       |       |       |       |       |
| gas)*                | into  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | soil  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | at a  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | depth |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | of    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | 20-80 |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | cm    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | and   |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | co    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | vered |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | with  |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | po    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | lyeth |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ylene |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | tarpa |       |       |       |       |       |
|                      | ulin. |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application rate  | 498   | 498   | 497   | 498   | 497   | 458   |
| of formulations      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Application rate  | 488   | 488   | 488   | 488   | 488   | 448   |
| for the active       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingredient           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| in]{.smallcaps}      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| kg/ha\***            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage     | 49.8  | 49.8  | 49.7  | 49.8  | 49.7  | 45.8  |
| rate of              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| formula              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| tions]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)*           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| **[\*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[Actual dosage     | 48.8  | 48.8  | 48.8  | 48.8  | 48.8  | 44.8  |
| rate for the active  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ingre                |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| dient]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| *(g/m^2^)*           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| **[\*]{.smallcaps}** |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being
  Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591853 .anchor}

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

**[Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being
Feasible]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591888 .anchor}

+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **[Name   | **[Technical and regulatory\* reasons for the  | **[Is   |
| of        | alternative not being feasible or              | the     |
| Alternat  | available]{.smallcaps}**                       | alte    |
| ive]{.sma |                                                | rnative |
| llcaps}** |                                                | con     |
|           |                                                | sidered |
|           |                                                | cost    |
|           |                                                | effe    |
|           |                                                | ctive?] |
|           |                                                | {.small |
|           |                                                | caps}** |
+===========+================================================+=========+
| #         |                                                |         |
|  [Chemica |                                                |         |
| l Alterna |                                                |         |
| tives]{.s |                                                |         |
| mallcaps} |                                                |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| ###       | Dazomet is not a technically feasible          | No      |
| # Dazomet | alternative because it does not provide        |         |
|           | consistent control of the target pests listed  |         |
|           | in Table 10.1. While dazomet may at times      |         |
|           | control some diseases and weeds, research data |         |
|           | suggest that the effectiveness of this         |         |
|           | chemical is inconsistent (Csinos et al., 1997; |         |
|           | Unruh and Brecke, 2001; Unruh et al., 2002).   |         |
|           | Specifically, dazomet does not consistently    |         |
|           | provide acceptable control of off-type         |         |
|           | perennial grasses; other weeds, such as        |         |
|           | nutsedge; or nematodes. Another disadvantage   |         |
|           | of the methyl-isothiocyanate generators, such  |         |
|           | as dazomet, is that they have long residue     |         |
|           | times in the soil, and this has resulted in    |         |
|           | phytotoxicity (Banks, 2002).                   |         |
|           |                                                |         |
|           | In addition to providing higher rates of       |         |
|           | efficacy and more consistent results than      |         |
|           | other alternatives tested, methyl bromide also |         |
|           | allows for quick planting after treatment. A   |         |
|           | methyl bromide treated field can be planted    |         |
|           | within 48 hours after the plastic cover is     |         |
|           | removed, while, depending on soil temperature, |         |
|           | a minimum period of 14 to 21 days is required  |         |
|           | for effective fumigation when dazomet is used  |         |
|           | to treat the soil.                             |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **1,3-D   | 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) is not a           | No      |
| and       | technically feasible alternative because       |         |
| 1,3-D +   | although it has good activity against          |         |
| Chlor     | plant-parasitic nematodes, it does not control |         |
| opicrin** | target weeds, such as off-type perennial       |         |
|           | grasses.                                       |         |
|           |                                                |         |
|           | 1,3-D + chloropicrin has added efficacy        |         |
|           | against many soil-borne fungi resulting from   |         |
|           | the activity of chloropicrin, but this         |         |
|           | combination does not control off-type          |         |
|           | perennial grasses and other key weeds          |         |
|           | affecting turfgrass production in the limited  |         |
|           | circumstances where MB is necessary for        |         |
|           | certification (approximately 1% of the         |         |
|           | turfgrass production area in any one year).    |         |
|           |                                                |         |
|           | In research conducted with tomatoes comparing  |         |
|           | methyl bromide with 1,3-D and chloropicrin     |         |
|           | there was a 3.7 fold increase in nutsedge      |         |
|           | plants (90 to 340 plants/m^2^) between the two |         |
|           | treatments (Johnson and Mullinix, 1999),       |         |
|           | suggesting that similar results might be       |         |
|           | obtained with turf.                            |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Met     | The metam-sodium + chloropicrin combination is | No      |
| am-Sodium | not a feasible methyl bromide alternative      |         |
| /         | because it does not provide consistent control |         |
| Chlor     | of target weeds, off-type perennial grasses or |         |
| opicrin** | nematodes (Csinos et al., 1997, Unruh and      |         |
|           | Brecke, 2001, Unruh et al., 2002).             |         |
|           | Furthermore, a minimum waiting period of 14 to |         |
|           | 21 days is required before planting when       |         |
|           | metam-sodium is used to treat the soil.        |         |
|           | Chloropicrin is effective against soil         |         |
|           | pathogens, but ineffective against most weeds, |         |
|           | while metam-sodium does not always provide     |         |
|           | acceptable levels of nutsedge control (Unruh,  |         |
|           | et al., 2002).                                 |         |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[14. List and Discuss Why Registered]{.smallcaps}** *(and Potential)*
  **[Pesticides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to
  Methyl Bromide]{.smallcaps}** []{#__RefHeading___Toc65591854 .anchor}

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

**[Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591889 .anchor}

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

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

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

**[Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591890 .anchor}

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[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}**

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

[**Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Nutsedge (***Cyperus*
**spp.) in Florida^1^**]{.smallcaps}[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591891
.anchor}

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

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

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

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

**[Table 16.2: Effectiveness of Alternatives -- Weedy Grasses^1^ in
Florida]{.smallcaps} ^2^**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591892 .anchor}

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

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

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

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

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

**[Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591893 .anchor}

+---------------------+----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ##### [Alter        | ##### [List Type     | #####     | **[Best     |
| native]{.smallcaps} | of Pest]{.smallcaps} |  [Range o | Estimate of |
|                     |                      | f Quality | Quality     |
|                     |                      |  Loss]{.s | Loss^1^]{.s |
|                     |                      | mallcaps} | mallcaps}** |
+---------------------+----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Dazomet, alone or   | Weeds, primarily     |           | Turfgrass   |
| in combination with | off-type perennial   |           | sod not     |
| chloropicrin        | grasses; secondary   |           | fumigated   |
|                     | target pests include |           | with MB     |
|                     | nutsedge, nematodes  |           | would       |
|                     | and insects          |           | likely not  |
|                     |                      |           | be          |
|                     |                      |           | certified.  |
|                     |                      |           | The market  |
|                     |                      |           | value of    |
|                     |                      |           | uncertified |
|                     |                      |           | sod is      |
|                     |                      |           | ap          |
|                     |                      |           | proximately |
|                     |                      |           | 25% that of |
|                     |                      |           | certified   |
|                     |                      |           | sod.        |
+---------------------+----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| Metam sodium, alone |                      |           |             |
| or in combination   |                      |           |             |
| with chloropicrin   |                      |           |             |
+---------------------+----------------------+-----------+-------------+
| ##### [Overall      |                      |           | **25 %**    |
|  Loss Estimate for  |                      |           |             |
| All Alternatives to |                      |           |             |
|  Pests]{.smallcaps} |                      |           |             |
+---------------------+----------------------+-----------+-------------+

**[^1^]{.smallcaps}** Based on quality and yield loss estimates provided
by the applicant. Certified sod produced on methyl bromide fumigated
plots receives a higher price than similarly treated sod. The loss in
revenue due to loss of certification, yield reduction, and unharvestable
fields in the absence of MB is approximately 25% per acre per year (TPI,
2003).

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

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

Covering plots treated with metam sodium + chloropicrin with plastic
tarpaulin increased the nutsedge control effectiveness of this
combination in southern Florida, but not in a western Florida site
(Unruh et al., 2002).

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

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

No such technologies are available at present for turfgrass
sod[.]{.smallcaps}

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

At present, none of the registered alternatives, dazomet and metam
sodium, is as effective as MB as pre-plant soil fumigants for control of
off-type perennial grasses and other target weeds on certified turfgrass
in approximately 1% of the turfgrass sod area each year. Dazomet and
metam-sodium, applied alone or in combination with chloropicrin, may
provide fair control of wild and off-type perennial grasses and broad
leaf weeds and fair to poor control of nutsedge, but their effectiveness
is inconsistent, and sporadic failures have been observed with both
chemicals (Unruh and Brecke, 2001). Hence, the turfgrass sod industry
cannot rely on their use to satisfy certification program requirements
that demand zero tolerance for weeds, diseases, and pests. A recent
study in a southern Florida site has shown that using metam-sodium +
chloropicrin under polyvinyl tarp can be as effective as MB for
controlling target weeds. However, these results were not duplicated in
a northern Florida site, where this combination did poorly relative to
MB (Unruh et al., 2002). Thus, neither chemical is a suitable MB
alternative on a crop that must be declared pest-free to be certified.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # [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}**

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

#### 

#### [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       MB applied under       Unidentified               Unidentified                 No
  reduction methods are      polyethylene film.                                                             
  presently                                                                                                 
  adopted?]{.smallcaps}**                                                                                   

  **[What further            Research is underway   The U.S. anticipates that  The U.S. anticipates that    The U.S. anticipates that
  use/emission reduction     to develop use in      the decreasing supply of   the decreasing supply of     the decreasing supply of
  steps will be taken for    commercial production  methyl bromide will        methyl bromide will motivate methyl bromide will motivate
  the methyl bromide used    systems                motivate growers to try    growers to try increasing    growers to try less frequent
  for critical                                      lower application rates.   the percentage of            applications.
  uses?]{.smallcaps}**                                                         chloropicrin.                

  **[Other                   MB applied under       Unidentified               Unidentified                 Only fumigated once every
  measures]{.smallcaps}**    polyethylene film.                                                             three years
  *(please describe)*                                                                                       
  -------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being  |
| Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination,     |
| State Reasons]{.smallcaps}**                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 turfgrass in the United States is minimized in several     |
| ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide has, for the     |
| last 40 years, been regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the    |
| United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used by   |
| certified applicators that are trained at handling these hazardous    |
| pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by |
| a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge   |
| and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to      |
| achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements   |
| to avoid "drift" of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as   |
| to preserve methyl bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest   |
| level possible, methyl bromide application for turfgrass is most      |
| often machine injected into soil to specific depths under tarps.      |
|                                                                       |
| 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 turf 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}                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

**Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over
3-Year Period**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591897 .anchor}

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net
Revenue**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591898 .anchor}

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

**[Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591899 .anchor}

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

**[Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net
Revenue]{.underline}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591900 .anchor}

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

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[[Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
  Alternatives]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591866
  .anchor}

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

**[Table E.1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide
Alternatives]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591901 .anchor}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
  Alternatives for This
  Crop?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591869 .anchor}

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

Iodomethane, a soil fumigant not registered in the U.S., has shown to be
as effective as MB for controlling target weeds in turfgrass sod and is,
therefore, a promising alternative. Although iodomethane is currently
undergoing registration reviews in the U.S., it is still too early to
anticipate the outcome of this process.

Research into MB alternatives began in 1998. Dr. Bryan Unruh, Extension
Turfgrass Specialist at the University of Florida has conducted several
field trials comparing methyl bromide to several U.S. registered and
non-registered fumigants, alone and in combination, for efficacy against
target weeds, including off-type perennial grasses. The results indicate
that all alternatives tested to date are inferior to MB. This line of
research continues.

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 turf research will
require 1928 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. This research will compare the comparative
performance of methyl bromide to alternative fumigants.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
  Critical Use in the
  Future?]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591870 .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___Toc65591871 .anchor}

  MB is currently used by the turfgrass sod industry in approximately 1%
  of the crop area each year for preplant control of off-type perennial
  grasses and other target weeds on certified turfgrass sod. Because the
  market demands high quality turfgrass sod, certification programs
  maintain a zero tolerance policy for these contaminants, and producers
  cannot afford to rely on alternatives that provide inconsistent
  results.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[26. Citations]{.smallcaps}**[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591872 .anchor}

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

Banks, H. J. 2002. 2002 *Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee, 2002 Assessment*. Pg 46.

Csinos, A.S., W.C. Johnson, A.W. Johnson, D.R. Sumner, R.M. McPherson,
and R.D. Gitaitis. 1997. *Alternative Fumigants for Methyl Bromide in
Tobacco and Pepper Transplant Production*. [Crop Prot]{.underline}.
16:585-594.

Johnson, W.C., III and B.G. Mullinix, Jr. 1999. *Cyperus esculentus*
interference in *Cucumis sativus*. [Weed Sci]{.underline}. 47:
327-331*.*

McCarty, L.B. undated. Sod Production in Florida. University of Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, 29 pp. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/LH066>

Turfgrass Producers International (TPI). 2003. Methyl Bromide Critical
Use Exemption application for Turfgrass Sod, August 5, 2003.

Unruh, J.B. 1998. Methyl bromide is coming soon. Golf Course Management.
http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/1998/nov98/11methylban.html

Unruh, J. B. and B. J. Brecke. 2001. *Seeking Alternatives for Methyl
Bromide*. [Golf Course Management]{.underline}. 69(3): 65_72.

Unruh, J. B., B. J. Brecke, J. A. Dusky and J. S. Godbehere. 2002.
*Fumigant Alternatives for Replacement of Methyl Bromide in Turfgrass*.
[Weed Technology]{.underline}, 16:379-387, pp 379-387.

**[[Examples of Turfgrass Sod Certification Requirements in the
U.S]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**.:[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591873 .anchor}

> Turfgrass sod certification, Georgia:
> http://www.pikecreekturf.com/turfcert.php
>
> Turfgrass sod certification, New Jersey:
> http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/pdfs/fs738.pdf
>
> Turfgrass sod certification, Tennessee:
> http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/0080/0080_06/0080_06_04.pdf
>
> Turfgrass sod certification, Virginia:
> <http://www.virginiacrop.org/vcia.sodstd.html>

**APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index
(BUNI**).[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591903 .anchor}

**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**
  -------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc65591874 .anchor}