COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE (7/1/2006)
Pendimethalin: amend tolerances for alfalfa, February 2014

EPA Registration Division contact: [Kable Bo Davis at<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.]

TEMPLATE:

[BASF Corporation]

[Insert petition number, PP-xxxxxx]

	21 U.S.C. 346 EPA has received a pesticide petition ([Insert petition
number, PP-xxxxxx]) from [BASF Corporation], [26 Davis Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.361 by amending the established tolerances for the
combined residues of [the herbicide pendimethalin,
N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6dinitrobenzenamine, and its 3,
5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (CL 202347)] in or on the raw
agricultural commodities of [alfalfa, forage] at [80] parts per million
(ppm) and [alfalfa, hay] at [150] parts per million (ppm).  EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [The qualitative nature of the residues of
pendimethalin in plants is understood based on adequate studies
conducted with 14 C pendimethalin on various crops.  Pendimethalin and
its 3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (CL202347) are the residues of
concern.]

	2. Analytical method. [Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires
EPA to determine that there is a practical method for detecting and
measuring levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and
that the tolerance be set at a level at or above of the limit of
detection of the designated method.  In plants the method is aqueous
organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by GC.
The method has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for
pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Field trials in major growing areas were
conducted in order to determine the magnitude of residues in the alfalfa
commodities. Field trials were carried out using the maximum number of
applications, the maximum label rate and shortest pre-harvest interval
(PHI) in alfalfa at 14 days. EPA has determined that the petition
contains data or information regarding the above aforementioned crops.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [Pendimethalin technical demonstrates low acute
toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure.  The
acute toxicity studies place technical pendimethalin in toxicity
category III for the acute oral, category IV for acute dermal, and
category IV for acute inhalation.  Technical pendimethalin is category
IV for skin irritation and category III for eye irritation.
Pendimethalin did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.  Two
formulated end use products are registered for use on crops, an
Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC) and an Encapsulated Suspension (CS).  The
EC has an acute oral category of III, acute dermal category of III, an
acute inhalation category of III, eye and skin irritation of III, and is
not a dermal sensitizer.  The CS has an acute oral category of IV, an
acute dermal category of IV, an acute inhalation category of IV, eye and
skin irritation category of IV, and is not a dermal sensitizer.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Extensive mutagenicity studies conducted to
investigate point and gene mutations, DNA damage and chromosomal
aberration, both using in vitro and in vivo test systems demonstrate
pendimethalin to be non-genotoxic.

Pendimethalin has been classified as a Group C "possible human
carcinogen," based on a statistically significantly increased incidence
of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in male and
female rats at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (highest concentration
tested).  For risk assessment, OPP recommends using the RfD (non-linear)
approach for quantification of human risk.  The Agency Committee has
determined that the hypothesis, that benign thyroid tumors associated
with pendimethalin are due to a thyroid-pituitary imbalance, can be
supported.  Finally, pendimethalin's mechanism of threshold oncogenic
activity only occurs at high doses in rats, a mammalian species that is
expected to be much more sensitive than humans to the induction of
thyroid tumors via conditions which result in hypothyroidism.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Pendimethalin is not a
selective developmental toxicant.  There is no indication of increased
susceptibility following prenatal/postnatal exposure to pendimethalin.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rat, the results
demonstrated that the NOAELs for both maternal toxicity and fetal
(prenatal)/developmental toxicity were 500 mg/kg b.w./day (highest dose
tested) (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any
teratogenic effects in the rat fetuses at 500 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).
Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental
toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rat.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rabbit, the
results demonstrated the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/kg
b.w./day, based on increased clinical signs of toxicity and decreased
body weight gain during the treatment period at 60 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).
 The NOAEL for fetal (prenatal)/developmental toxicity was 60 mg/kg
b.w./day (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any
teratogenic effects in the rabbit fetuses at 60 mg/kg b.w./day.
Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental
toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rabbit.

A two-generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat demonstrated an
absence of increased sensitivity for the developing offspring to
pendimethalin.  The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 500 ppm
(approximately 38.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reduced food consumption
and decreased body weight/weight gain at 2500 ppm (mid-dietary
concentration).  The NOAEL for pup/offspring toxicity was also 500 ppm,
based on decreased pup body weight gain at 2500 ppm.  Lastly, the NOAEL
for reproductive toxicity was 2500 ppm (approximately 194 mg/kg
b.w./day), based on reduced mean live litter size at 5000 ppm (highest
concentration tested) (HCT).  These reductions in mean live litter size
and pup body weight gain were only observed at dietary concentrations
that were parentally toxic.  As such, there is no evidence that prenatal
or postnatal exposure to pendimethalin results in an increased
sensitivity to developing offspring.]

	4. Sub-chronic toxicity. [Sub-chronic (90-day) feeding studies were
conducted in rats and dogs.  For the rat, the NOAEL for systemic
toxicity was 500 ppm (41 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased
body weight, increased absolute and relative liver weights, and liver
histopathology (hepatocellular hypertrophy) in males and females at 5000
ppm (HCT).  For the dog, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 2500 ppm
(62.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight at 10000 ppm (250
mg/kg b.w./day).]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [The chronic Reference Dose (RfD) was established
based on the results of sub-chronic special studies demonstrating the
thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats.  The NOAEL of 10 mg/kg
b.w./day was established from the collective results of the sub-chronic
oral 92-day thyroid function study, the sub-chronic oral 56-day thyroid
function study, and the 14-day intrathyroidal metabolism study.  A LOAEL
of 31 mg/kg b.w./day was based on hormonal and histopathological changes
in the thyroid gland.  The chronic RfD was calculated to be 0.3 mg/kg
b.w./day using an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 30X (3X for interspecies
extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability).  EPA/HED currently
recommends a FQPA Safety Factor of 1X.  Therefore, the chronic
Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) is 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day.

Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs.  For
the 2-year rat feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500
ppm (25 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight gain
(approximately 20-30%), increased clinical signs of toxicity, increased
relative liver weights, and slight but statistical increase in the
incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in
males and females at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  For the
18-month mouse feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500
ppm (75 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased mean body weights
and reduced survival at 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  There were
no oncogenic effects up to 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  Lastly,
for the 1-year oral (via gelatin capsules) chronic dog study, the NOAEL
for systemic toxicity was 200 mg/kg b.w./day, the highest dose tested.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [Adequate goat and poultry metabolism studies are
available for pendimethalin. In the rat, pendimethalin is metabolized
mainly through oxidation of the 4-methyl group attached to the benzene
ring as well as oxidation of the alkyl side chain of the N-substituted
dinitroaniline compound.  When C14-pendimethalin is administered to
rates, about 70% of the radioactivity is excreted in feces and 20% is in
the urine within 24 hours.  Within 96 hours, the radioactivity found in
the tissues was 0.3 ppm or less, except fat which is 0.9 ppm.  The major
portion of the radioactivity that was excreted in the feces was
identified as the parent compound.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The main pendimethalin plant metabolite, CL
202347, has been tested for toxicity.  The acute oral toxicity in mice
was determined to be 2140 mg/kg bw.  An Ames assay showed the metabolite
to be non-mutagenic.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [It is known that pendimethalin affects the
hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis.  However, as the chronic RfD (0.3
mg/kg b.w./day) is based on the thyroid hormone related endpoint in
rats, as noted in the sub-chronic special studies in Section 5 above,
which additionally demonstrated reversibility of the thyroid effects in
the oral 56-day thyroid function study, these effects are already taken
into consideration in the characterization of potential risks to
humans.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Pendimethalin is a pre-emergent herbicide used to
control broadleaf and grass weeds in food and non-food crops, as well as
non-agricultural use sites including residential lawns. In examining
aggregate exposure, FQPA directs EPA to consider available information
concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and water
(dietary) and all other non-occupational exposures. The primary non-food
sources of exposure are through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor uses). The potential for
aggregate exposure from all registered and proposed uses is discussed
below.]

	i. Food. [An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk
due to chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues of
pendimethalin.  The current tolerance values are listed in the U.S. 40
CFR § 180.361.

This analysis included all the crops with established tolerance values
as of January 2014, the proposed tolerances for hops, dried cones at 1.0
ppm (pending EPA review, submitted October 2013), the proposed crop
group expansion tolerances to replace current existing pendimethalin
tolerances including onion-bulb subgroup 3-07A = 0.10 ppm, onion-green
subgroup 3-07B = 0.20 ppm, low growing berry subgroup 13-07G = 0.10 ppm,
vegetable-fruiting group 8-10 = 0.10 ppm, fruit-citrus group 10-10,
fruit-pome group 11-10 = 0.10 ppm, fruit-stone group 12-12 = 0.10 ppm,
sunflower subgroup = 0.1 ppm (pending EPA review, submitted October
2013), and the proposed newly amended tolerances alfalfa.

Acute Dietary (food + drinking water) Exposure Assessment

An acute dietary risk assessment for females age 13 – 49 years old is
not required by EPA because there is no relevant toxicological endpoints
for population sub-group.  EPA has determined that an acute dietary
assessment is required for all other populations. The acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) is 1 mg ai/kg bw/day based on a NOAEL = 100 mg/kg
bw/day and a total safety factor of 100.  The acute dietary exposure to
pendimethalin residues was low for all populations.  The most highly
exposure sub-populations was infants (< 1 year old) and utilized only
1.8% aPAD.

Chronic Dietary (food + water) Exposure Assessment

The chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on established and
proposed tolerance values, and 100% CT values. Default process factors
were used with consumption data from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998).  The EPA Food Commodity
Ingredient Database (FCID) was also used in Exponent's Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the chronic Population
Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day for all populations
subgroups. Results of the chronic dietary assessments are listed in
Table 1 below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from crops and
animals (both established and proposed tolerances) was less than 2.0% of
the cPAD for all subpopulations. Additional refinements such as the use
of anticipated residues and percent crop treated values for the
established crop uses would further reduce the estimated chronic dietary
exposure. The results in Table 1 below demonstrate there are no safety
concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and
that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty
of no harm.

Table 1. Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure (food + drinking water)
Assessment considering crops with established and proposed
tolerances for pendimethalin.

Population

Subgroups	Exposure Estimate

(mg/kg b.w./day)	%cPAD

US Population	0.001984	0.6

All infants (< 1 year)	0.003665	1.1

Children 1-2	0.006786	2.0

Children 3-5	0.005115	1.5

Children 6-12	0.002989	0.9

Youth 13-19	0.001679	0.5

Adults 20-49	0.001535	0.5

Adults 50+ yrs	0.001438	0.4

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.001502	0.5

%cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose

Exposure estimates based on tolerance values and 100 % CT values

]

	ii. Drinking Water. [The drinking water exposure values used in this
assessment were obtained from the most recent pendimethalin assessment
conducted by EPA published on February 23, 2012. The estimated acute and
chronic surface water concentrations were 80.5µg/L and 6.2µg/L,
respectively. The estimated groundwater concentration was 0.036µg/L.
The estimated drinking water exposure was included in the dietary
assessment.

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

The acute dietary assessment was conducted including food and drinking
water exposure.  Residential exposure is not included in the acute
aggregate assessment.    The results showed that the acute aggregate
exposure from pendimethalin residues does not exceed the level of
concern for any population.

Short- and Intermediate-Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food, water,
and residential)

Short-term aggregate risk from pendimethalin takes into account
exposures from dietary consumption (food and water) and residential
exposure from turf use.  Post application exposure from the turf use is
considered short-term.  The residential exposure used in this assessment
is from the most recent EPA human health risk assessment published July
25, 2012.  The residential assessment was conducted using the updated
Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure
Assessment.  The post-application residential exposure was determined
for the use on residential turf, residential gardens, and golf course
turf.  The highest post-application exposure from adults was from the
garden use and residential turf use for children 1-2 years old.  The
children exposure included dermal and hand-to-mouth exposure.  The
aggregate MOE from food, water, and residential exposure for children
1-2 years old was 92 and for adults was 125.  These MOEs are greater
than the target MOE of 30, which indicates there is no safety concern
from the aggregate exposure from pendimethalin.  The results of the
analysis are shown in Tables 2.

Table 2. 	Estimated short/intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk
of pendimethalin.

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food + Drinking Water Exposure
             (mg/kg/day)

	Residential Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	MOE2

Adult	10	30	0.001984	0.078	0.079984	125

Child

1-2 yr old	10	30	0.006786	0.102	0.108786	92

1 Target MOE is 30.

2 Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of pendimethalin from food
and water (Table 1). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.  ]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The post-application short-term dermal and
incidental oral exposure and risk assessment was determined for
pendimethalin use on residential turf, residential gardens, and golf
course turf. The residential exposure shown in the Table 3 reflects the
most recent EPA human health risk assessment published on July 25, 2012.
 The residential assessment was conducted using the updated Standard
Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment.  The
calculated MOEs are all greater than the MOE level of concern.

Table 3.	Pendimethalin Residential Exposure after the use on Residential
Turf, Residential Gardens, and Golf Course Turf.

Population	Scenario-	Route	Exposure  	MOE

Adult	Turf-residential	Dermal	0.032	313

Child 1-2 	Turf-residential	Dermal	0.06	167

 	 	Hand to mouth	0.042	238

 	 	Object to mouth	0.0013	7692

 	 	soil ingestion	0.000065	153846

 	 	Granular injestion	0.071	141

Adult	Turf-golf	Dermal	0.0037	2703

Children 11-16	Turf-Golf	Dermal	0.0043	2326

Children 6-11	Turf-Golf	Dermal	0.0051	1961

Adult	Gardening	Dermal	0.078	128

Children 6-11	Gardening 	Dermal	0.053	189

]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[Exposure to Substances with Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  The Agency
has not yet published guidelines to determine whether pendimethalin has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include
this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.  Unlike other pesticides
for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, pendimethalin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that pendimethalin does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Based on these risk assessments, there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
or any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.]

	2. Infants and children. [Based on these risk assessments, there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children, or
any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There is no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican International Maximum Residue
Levels (MRL's) established for residues of pendimethalin in these crops
at this time.]

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


REGION D  WEYERHAEUSER SOUTH  TABLE E. 4: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES REGION D  WEYERHAEUSER SOUTH Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3% Yield ( seedling) per Hectare 574,612 545,882 557,374 557,374 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 = Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 26,719 $ 25,383 $ 25,918 $ 25,918  Operating Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 16,960 $ 17,758 $ 17,736 $ 17,656 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 9,759 $ 7,626 $ 8,182 $ 8,262 LOSS MEASURES 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 2,134 $ 1,578 $ 1,497 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 25.38 $ 18.77 $ 17.81 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 8% 6% 6% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 22% 16% 15% Page 60 REGION E  WEYERHAEUSER WEST  TABLE E. 5: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES REGION E  WEYERHAEUSER WEST Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3% Yield ( seedling) per Hectare 60,610 57,579 58,792 58,792 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 = Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 18,759 $ 17,821 $ 18,196 $ 18,196  Operating Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 10,187 $ 11,748 $ 11,748 $ 10,342 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 8,571 $ 6,073 $ 6,448 $ 7,854 LOSS MEASURES 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 2,499 $ 2,124 $ 718 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 28.52 $ 24.24 $ 8.19 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 13% 11% 4% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 29% 25% 8% Page 61 REGION F  NORTHEASTERN FOREST & CONSERVATION NURSERY ASSOCIATION  TABLE E. 6: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES Region F  Northeastern Forest & Conservation Nursery Association Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3% Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedling 1 0 247,105 234,750 239,692 239,692 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 8%) $ 4,349 $ 4,132 $ 4,219 $ 4,219 Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedling 2 0 247,105 234,750 239,692 239,692 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 4%) $ 2,175 $ 2,066 $ 2,109 $ 2,109 Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedling 3 0 135,908 129,112 131,831 131,831 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 14%) $ 5,898 $ 5,603 $ 5,721 $ 5,721 Yield per Hectare Deciduous Tree Seedling 1 0 185,329 176,062 179,769 179,769 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.28 $ 0.28 $ 0.28 $ 0.28 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 55%) $ 28,541 $ 27,114 $ 27,684 $ 27,684 Yield per Hectare Deciduous Tree Seedling 2 0 123,553 117,375 119,846 119,846 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.34 $ 0.34 $ 0.34 $ 0.34 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 9%) $ 3,781 $ 3,592 $ 3,667 $ 3,667 Yield per Hectare Deciduous. Shrub Seedling 1 0 154,441 146,719 149,808 149,808 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 $ 0.26 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 10%) $ 4,015 $ 3,815 $ 3,895 $ 3,895 = Aggregate Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 48,759 $ 46,321 $ 47,296 $ 47,296  Operating Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 32,718 $ 38,747 $ 37,994 $ 37,994 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 16,041 $ 7,574 $ 9,302 $ 9,302 Loss Measures 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 8,467 $ 6,738 $ 6,738 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 49.38 $ 39.30 $ 39.30 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 17% 14% 14% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 53% 42% 42% Page 62 REGION G  MICHIGAN SEEDLING ASSOCIATION  TABLE E. 7: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES Region G  Michigan Seedling Association Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3% Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedlings 1,070,789 1,017,250 1,038,665 1,038,665 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 60%) $ 89,946 $ 85,449 $ 87,248 $ 87,248 Yield per Hectare Conifer Transplants 74,132 70,425 71,908 71,908 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ transplants) $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 10%) $ 4,448 $ 4,225 $ 4,314 $ 4,314 Yield per Hectare Deciduous Transplants 329,474 313,000 319,589 319,589 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ transplants) $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 30%) $ 49,421 $ 46,950 $ 47,938 $ 47,938 = Aggregate Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 143,815 $ 136,624 $ 139,501 $ 139,501  Operating Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 94,908 $ 96,186 $ 96,394 $ 95,959 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 48,907 $ 40,438 $ 43,107 $ 43,542 Loss Measures 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 8,469 $ 5,800 $ 5,365 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 95.26 $ 65.24 $ 60.35 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 6% 4% 4% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 17% 12% 11%

R EGION H  MICHIGAN HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS  TABLE E. 8: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES Region H  Michigan Herbaceous Perennials Methyl Bromide Various Alternatives** Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedlings 144,920 137,674 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.97 $ 0.97 = Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 60%) $ 140,956 $ 133,908  Operating Cost per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 37,311 $ 58,414 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 103,645 $ 75,494 Loss Measures 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 28,151 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 143.52 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 21% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 37% ** The category Various Alternatives includes physical removal and sanitation, the use of artificial media, and soil treatment with 1,3 D + chloropicrin.

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY An economic assessment was made for three technically feasible in kind ( chemical) alternatives for the forest seedlings sector: dazomet, 1 3 D + chloropicrin, and metam sodium + chloropicrin. The economic assessment of feasibility for pre plant uses of MB included an evaluation of economic losses from three basic sources: ( 1) yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity Page 63 produced, ( 2) quality losses, which generally affect the price received for the goods, and ( 3) increased production costs, which may be due to the higher cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/ or resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices.

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

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

( 2) Absolute losses per hectare. For crops, this measure is closely tied to income. It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to interpret in isolation.

( 3) Losses per kilogram of MB requested. This measure indicates the value of MB to crop production but is also useful for structural and post harvest uses.

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

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

Economic reviewers analyzed potential economic losses from using dazomet, 1 3 D + chloropicrin, and metam sodium + chloropicrin because they are currently considered technically feasible alternatives for nursery seedlings production.

Total losses are similar for both 1 3 D + chloropicrin and metam sodium + chloropicrin. Quantifiable losses originate from yield losses and cost increases. Dazomet has slightly higher yield losses than 1 3 D + chloropicrin, and metam sodium + chloropicrin, but similar treatment costs. Indirect yield losses occurred due to lengthening of the production cycle, which resulted in less land in production and more in fallow or longer time for seedlings to reach appropriate size. Additional losses may also arise due to a shift from high quality Grade # 1 seedlings to lower quality Grade # 2, which causes a loss of about 30% of value, and more seedlings that must be culled. Unfortunately, data were lacking to measure this shift. Thus, total losses are underestimated.

Tables E. 1  E. 8 provides a summary of the estimated economic losses. A measure of net revenue loss may not be completely accurate partly because many nurseries are publicly owned and seedling prices or production costs are subsidized. Although attempts were made to Page 64 appropriately value the seedlings at a true market price, losses as a percentage of gross revenues and of net revenue should be viewed with caution. Direct yield losses are similar across the regions, mainly because the same studies were used to predict impacts. The range of losses in the studies is rather large because both dazomet and metam sodium provide inconsistent pest control. Indirect losses arising from shifts in the production cycle were not quantified. In the Northern region this impact is expected to be more pronounced due to cooler temperatures and longer time required for production of a seedling crop. Changes in production costs arise due to differences between the costs of methyl bromide and the alternatives, shifts in the production cycle ( increasing the frequency of fumigation or lengthening the fallow period) and additional expenses such as supplementary irrigation. These costs vary across regions and within the Western region, which is highly diverse, because of differences in pests, production systems and regional differences in costs of water and labor. Costs are higher in the South, in part because warmer temperatures increase pest pressure.

Michigan Herbaceous Perennials Michigan herbaceous perennials, labeled Region H above, comprise three categories of production systems with numerous plant varieties grown within each category. These categories are 2 year seeded ( 6% of plants), 2 year transplanted ( 29% of plants), and 3 year transplanted ( 65% of plants). To represent growing conditions on a typical hectare of production, and to account for the fact that each category has different revenues and costs of production, the above measures were calculated using representative revenues and costs for each category; these were weighted by the proportion of total production. In addition, various combinations of alternative pest control measures would need to be employed to accomplish the most effective and lowest cost pest control without MB. These various alternative pest control measures include physical removal and sanitation, the use of artificial media, and soil treatment with 1,3 D + chloropicrin.

If growers switch to MB alternatives, their losses, in terms of MB per kilogram no longer used, would be the largest of the forest seedlings. Based on the economic impact of switching to MB alternatives, the U. S. believes that current alternatives to MB are not economically feasible and growers of herbaceous perennials have a critical need for MB. Page 65 PART F. FUTURE PLANS 23. WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS CROP?

Because of high costs associated with forest seedlings considerable resources have been spent examining methods to reduce costs and improve efficiency in seedling production. The Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative has spent $ 1.2 million on MB alternatives since 1992. This is significant, since several of the nurseries are publicly owned and have limited resources for independent research. Research has included trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and non chemical alternatives ( two year cover crops   see International Paper request CUE 03 0007) to MB, including some potential alternatives that are not currently listed by MBTOC, including combinations of chemicals such as 1,3 D, chloropicrin, metamsodium and methyl iodide ( not currently registered in the U. S.). Development of technologies to improve efficacy of alternatives are underway and include work with deep injection application methods, soil moisture management by improving drip technologies, and trials with VIF to increase efficacy and decrease emissions while allowing reasonable cost effectiveness. Even where MB is considered critical, an improvement in efficient delivery techniques will result in reduction of MB use requirements. The Michigan Field Grown Herbaceous Perennial Growers Association is currently assisting in field trials with Michigan State University in research supported in part by the USDA MB Alternatives Grant Program. For 2002 2004, $ 68,979 has been allocated for weed and nematode studies and $ 370,701 has been granted for a study that runs from 2003 2006. This work is a large investment in identifying alternatives for Michigan growers.

One difficulty in identifying alternatives to MB is that information obtained from research plots must be transferred to large scale commercial production requirements. Fumigants applied to small plots may not exhibit similar effects when applied to commercial seedling beds. Overall, especially for nurseries with high pest pressure, protocols for alternative chemicals have not been sufficiently developed to provide consistent and effective production results. Continued research on alternatives that will be adaptable to large scale applications will shift the industry to MB alternatives.

Weyerhaeuser Corporation, one of the largest growers of forest seedlings, suggested their preference for MB alternatives ( in descending order): 1) chloropicrin, 340 kg/ ha; 2) 1,3 D at 260 kg/ ha + chloropicrin at 140 kg/ ha; 3) metam sodium, ( 485 kg/ ha) and chloropicrin ( 115 kg/ ha); 4) dazomet, 400 kg/ ha; 5) non chemical treatments such as steam; 6) biological control agents. Page 66 24. ARE THERE PLANS TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE CRITICAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

Plans to reduce MB in formulations to 50% mixed with chloropicrin are already underway, even though nurseries currently use MB only once in three to four years on a particular bed. Reduction in MB may be achieved with use of VIF if technological and cost issues can be resolved ( Carey and Godbehere, 2004). Weed management is the issue of most concern by most nurseries and work is ongoing to study the strategic use of herbicides ( e. g., $ 370,701 USDA grant for MB alternatives research by Michigan State University that will test numerous herbicides and other weed control methods). Also cultural practices are being examined to increase mechanical cultivation and/ or soil amendments and fertilizers to maximize productivity and reduce reliance on MB. Development of predictive models to strategically determine when fumigation is appropriate can reduce overall use of fumigants ( e. g., Fraedrich and Dwinell, 1998). As stated in Section 23, minimizing use of MB can be achieved through the development of technologies to improve efficacy of alternatives such as deep injection methods, soil moisture management by improving drip technologies, experience with virtually impermeable films to increase efficacy and decrease emissions, and still have reasonable cost effectiveness. Even where MB is considered critical, an improvement in efficient delivery techniques will result in reduction of MB use requirements.

25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION?

The MB critical use exemption nomination for Forest Seedlings has been reviewed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U. S. Department of Agriculture and meets the guidelines of The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. This nomination includes requests for MB only for those nurseries where sufficient pest control can not be achieved otherwise. This use is considered critical because there are conditions in some nurseries within this sector with high pest pressure where no feasible alternatives are currently effective. High production nurseries require a consistent and reliable pre plant fumigation treatment that will allow production goals to be met. Currently MB is the only consistent provider of this requirement for nurseries with severe pest infestations and where other treatments are not effective. The loss of MB, therefore, would result in a significant market disruption. The effort to avoid market disruption provides the basis for nomination of this sector for critical use exemption of MB.

26. CITATIONS Barnett, J. P. and McGilvrary, J. M. 1997. Practical guidelines for producing longleaf pine seedlings in containers. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS 14. Asheville, NC. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 28 p. http:// www. bugwood. org/ container/ guidelines. html Campbell, S. J. and Kelpsas, B. R. 1988. Comparison of three soil fumigants in a bareroot conifer nursery. Tree Planters' Notes 39 ( 4): 16 22.

Carey, W. A. 2000. Fumigation with chloropicrin, metham sodium, and EPTC as replacements for methyl bromide in southern pine nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 24: 135 139. Page 67 Carey, W. A. 1996. Testing alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation at the Winona Nursery. Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative Research Report 96 2.

Carey, W. A. 1994. Chemical alternatives to methyl bromide. In: Landis, T. D., Dumroese, R. K., tech. cords. National Proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 257. Fort Collins, CO. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 4 11.

Carey, W. A. and Godbehere, S. 2004. Effects of VIF and solvent carrier on control of nutsedge and on populations of Trichoderma at two nurseries in 2003. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2004). http:// mbao. org/

Charron, C. S. and Sams, C. E. Macerated Brassica leaves suppress Pythium ultimum and Rhizoctonia solani mycelial growth. see CUE 0066 request Michigan Field Grown Herbaceous Perennial Growers consortium in 2003 submission.

Cram, M. M., Enebak, S. A., Fraedrich, S. W., and Dwinell, L. D. 2002. Chloropicrin, EPTC, and plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria for managing soilborne pests in pine nurseries. National Proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS P   24. Fort Collins, CO. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp 69 74.

Cram, M. M. and Fraedrich, S. W. 1997. Survey of southern forest nurseries: fumigation practices and pest management concerns. www. epa. gov/ spdpublic/ mbr/ airc/ 1997/ 096cram. pdf Darrow, K. 2002. Personal communication ( see Appendix A)

Elmore, C. L., Stapleton, J. J., Bell, C. E., DeVay, J. E. 1997. Soil Solarization. Univ. California, Div. Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publ. 21377. Oakland, CA. pp. 13.

Enebak, S. A., Palmer, M. A., and Blanchette, R. A. 1990. Managing soilborne pathogens of white pine in a forest nursery. Plant Disease 74: 195 198.

Federal Register, February 5, 1998, 40 CFR, part 82. Control of methyl bromide emissions through use of tarps. http:// frwebgate5. access. gpo. gov/ cgibin waisgate. cgi? WAISdocID= 826484320000+ 6+ 0+ 0& WAISaction= retrieve.

Fraedrich, S. W. and Dwinell, L. D. 2003a. The effects of soil fumigation on pine seedling production, weeds, foliar and soil nutrients, and soilborne microorganisms at a south Georgia ( U. S. A.) forest tree nursery. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 1698 1708.

Fraedrich, S. W. and Dwinell, L. D. 2003b. An evaluation of dazomet incorporation methods on soilborne organisms and pine seedling production in southern nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27: 41 51. Page 68 Fraedrich, S. W. and Dwinell, L. D. 2003c. Broadcast applications of glyphosate control [ of] nutsedge at a South Georgia forest tree nursery. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27: 176 179.

Fraedrich, S. W. and Dwinell, L. D. 1998. Evaluation of fumigants for pest management and seedling production in southern pine nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1998). http:// mbao. org/

Gan, J. and Yates, S. R. 1998. Ammonium thiosulfate fertilizer reduces methyl bromide emissions from soil. Methyl Bromide Alternatives, USDA, ARS. vol 4 ( 3), July, 1998. http:// www. ars. usda. gov/ is/ np/ mba/ july98/ ammonium. htm Hardie I. W. and Parks, P. J. 1991. Individual choice and regional acreage response to costsharing in the South, 1971 1981. Forest Science 37( 1) 175 190.

Iver, J. G. ( undated). Nursery fertility and related problems   yellowing of white pine. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources State Nursery Managers ( cooperators). in CUE 03 0032 application.

James, R. L., Stone, J. K., Hildebrand, D. M., Frankel, S. M., and Gemandt, D. S. 1997. Alternatives to chemical soil fumigation in western federal bareroot conifer nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1997). http:// mbao. org/

James, R. L., Stone, J. K., Hildebrand, D. M., Frankel, S. M., and Harris, J. L. 2001. Alternatives to pre plant soil fumigation in western bareroot forest nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2001). http:// mbao. org/

Landis, T. D. and Campbell, S. J. 1989. Soil fumigation in bareroot tree nurseries. In: Landis, T. D., ( tech. coord.), Proc. Intermountain Forest Nursery Association, Bismarck, ND. USDA, Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO. http:// www. fcnanet. org/ proceedings/ 1989/ landis. pdf Lantz, C. W. 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide in southern forest tree nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1997). http:// mbao. org/

Lowerts, G. 2003. Personal communication.

Mc Nabb, K. and VanderSchaaf, C. 2003. A survey of forest tree seedling production in the South for the 2003 2003 planting season. Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative Technical Note 03 02.

Moulton, R. J. and Hernandez, G. 2000. Tree planting in the United States, 1998. Tree Planters Notes V49( 2). USDA Forest Service. pp 1 36.

Rimini, R. and Wigley, S. 2004. VIF: A supplier's view. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2004). http:// mbao. org/

Royer, J. P. 1987. Determinants of reforestation behavior among southern landowners. Forest Science 33( 3) 654 667. Page 69 Stone, J. K., Hildebrand, D. M., James, R. L., Frankel, S. M. 1998. Alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation for control of soil borne diseases in bareroot forest nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1998). http:// mbao. org/

USDA APHIS ( Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), Plant Protection and Quarantine. 2002. Sudden Oak Death. http:// www. aphis. usda. gov/ ppq/ ispm/ sod/

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 2 ( Bonanza Nursery, Molin, Oregon). 1980. MBchloropicrin ( spring and fall), Vorlex ( MITC+) and Vapam ( metam sodium) trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 3 ( Mima Nursery, Olympia, Washington). 1984 1987. MB chloropicrin, Basamid ( dazomet) trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 4 ( Mima Nursery, Olympia, Washington). 1985 1987. MB chloropicrin, Basamid ( dazomet), soil preparation trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 5 ( Mima Nursery, Olympia, Washington). 1985 1987. MB chloropicrin, Basamid ( dazomet) rate trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 6 ( Aiken Nursery, Aiken, South Carolina). 1992. MBchloropicrin Basamid ( dazomet), Busan ( metam sodium) trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 7 ( Fort Towson Nursery, Ft. Towson, Oklahoma). 1994 1996. MB chloropicrin alternatives trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 8 ( Magnolia Nursery, Magnolia, Arkansas). 1992 1995. MB chloropicrin alternatives trial. 2002 CUE request package and Appendices A and C, 2003 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 9 ( G. H. W. Nursery, Washington, North Carolina). 1994 1995. Basamid ( dazomet) trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 10 ( G. H. W. Nursery, Washington, North Carolina). 1994 1996. Alternative fumigant trial. 2002 CUE request package. Page 70 APPENDIX A. Estimated Costs Of Converting A Loblolly Forest Tree Seedling Nursery From Soil Based To Containerized Soilless Culture1 The costs below are based on the conversion of a 10 million bareroot seedling, soil based, nursery [ typical nurseries in the southern U. S. can produce 20 60 million bareroot seedlings] to a container, soilless, nursery for the raising of Loblolly pine seedlings in the southern USA. The cost estimates include estimates of additional expenditures ( over and above $. 04 per seedling cost for soil based system) for:

A. Capital Infrastructure B. Operating Costs Limitations of analysis: There are also expected to be additional shipping costs, due to the larger size and weight of containerized plants, but estimating these costs were beyond the scope of this analysis. Economy of scale can be significant and regional costs vary, making it difficult to provide a precise cost.

Additional note: The capital costs associated with conversion from a soil based to a soilless nursery are much less than the capital costs of establishing a new soilless nursery. All of the basic infrastructure and much of the equipment would already be in place with a soil based nursery.

A. Capital Infrastructure: Many of the facilities required for the operation of a soil based seedling nursery are required for a soilless nursery, so conversion costs and the conversion costs are Conversion cost: Water supply $ 0 Power $ 0 Buildings $ 0 Landscaping/ leveling/ roads $ 0 Equipment  assuming no trade ins $ 100,000 Nursery structures + irrigation $ 130,000 B. Operating costs: Working capital requirements are greater in a soilless nursery than a soil based nursery as more labor is used. The cost of conversion from a soil based nursery to a soilless nursery should include the need for additional working capital.

Working capital: Additional container system cost $ 150,000 ( Over and above ~$ 50,000 cost for soil based system) Containers $ 410,000 Page 71 C. Land The soil based nursery requires 13.3 hectares exclusive of buildings, storage and administrative area. The soilless nursery requires 4 hectares for the same production.

Assuming the soil based nursery owner is able to sell or exchange the surplus land, the change from soil based to soilless will be a source of revenue. A review of land prices in the southern USA, in localities where forest tree nurseries are situated reveals an average of $ 12,350 per hectare.

Land Savings: Land ( 9.3 hectares at $ 12,350 per hectare) ($ 114,855)

D. Analysis of Net Costs: Converting 10 million Seedling Nursery from Bareroot to Containerized, Soilless Culture Capital Cost Years of Use* Annual Cost Cost per Seedling EQUIPMENT $ 100,000 10 $ 11,723 $ 0.0012 Nursery Structures $ 130,000 10 $ 15,240 $ 0.0015 Running Container System $ 150,000 $ 0.015 Containers $ 410,000 $ 0.041 Total Additional Cost** $ 586,963 $ 0.059 Land rent savings*** ($ 3,450) ($ 0.0003)

Net additional cost $ 0.0583 Base production cost ( for bareroot and soilless system) $ 0.04 Total Cost per Seedling $ 0.0983 * Incorporates real interest cost at 3% per year. ** Does not include additional cost of shipping due to larger and heavier containers. *** Using land capitalization rate of 3%.

Conclusion: Converting to a soilless containerized system would increase the cost of production by approximately 250%, and could be higher when the increased cost of shipping containerized seedlings is included.

1 Based on communication with Kevin Darrow, Sept. 2002 Page 72 APPENDIX B. 2007 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 51,506 2%

2001 & 2002 Average % of Request Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

83,143 238 350 22,279 107 208 1,911 7 263 11,226 33 336 9,637 43 224 13,279 39 343 6,908 26 267 4,246 12 350 152,629 506 302 57% 52% 10%

Low EPA High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 375 350 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

208 208 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

263 263 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

336 336 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

224 224 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

343 343 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

267 267 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

392 350 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 100%

Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MB Use /

State Frequency of Treatment (# of Times per Year) Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MB (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ 4years 3,449 $ 37 $ 10% 22%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 1x/ 4years 3,536 $ 68 $ 11% 25%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ 1year 7,776 $ 30 $ 4% 6%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ 4years 1,578 $ 19 $ 6% 16%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 1x/ 3years 2,124 $ 24 $ 11% 25%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 1x/ 1 3years 6,738 $ 39 $ 14% 42%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 1x/ 3 4years 5,365 $ 60 $ 4% 11%

No Yes Yes Tarp 0 0 No 1x/ 2 3years 28,151 $ 144 $ 21% 37%

Notes:

1 Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms 1 Acre = 0.404686 Hectare High 24% Low 77%

metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic metam/ Pic 1,3 D/ Pic metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic 1,3 D/ Pic metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic 3% Yield Loss 3% Yield Loss 3% Yield Loss 5% Yield Loss 0 3% Yield Loss 3% Yield Loss 3% Yield Loss * International Paper and Weyerhaeuser ( SE) were included in the Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative, therefore they were removed from the Southern Forest Cooperative application as double counting.

0.453592 EPA believes that Michigan Seedling Association and Michigan Herbaceous Perennials have already subtracted their QPS amounts from their application and their application reflects methyl bromide critical use for crops that do not fall under QPS requirements. All other applications are adjusted for EPA QPS estimates. Most Likely Impact Value:

Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop.

International Paper Illinois Department of Natural Resources Weyerhaeuser ( SE)

Weyerhaeuser ( NW)

NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc.

Michigan Seedling Association Michigan Herbaceous Perennials REGION Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc.

Michigan Seedling Association Michigan Herbaceous Perennials International Paper Illinois Department of Natural Resources Weyerhaeuser ( SE)

Weyerhaeuser ( NW) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop.

REGION (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%)

(%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 25% 57% 57% 57%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 19% 21% 268,049 152,629 152,629 152,629 Nomination Amount 355,166 287,473 280,618 517  4,246 4,246 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,763     6,908 6,908 Michigan Seedling Association 6,908    13,279 13,279 13,279 NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc. 31,922  5,363  6,250 9,637 9,637 Weyerhaeuser ( NW) 16,935  1,049  6,736 11,226 11,226 Weyerhaeuser ( SE) 17,962    1,911 1,911 1,911 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 4,264  442  4,101 22,279 22,279 International Paper 26,380   12,052 83,143 83,143 83,143 Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop. 246,032 67,693  () Use Rate Adjustment () QPS HIGH LOW REGION 2007 Request () Double Counting () Growth 2007 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE 50,723 129 392 0%

412,167 1,148 359 30%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 355,166 1,059 335 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,763 12 392 35 269 0%

Michigan Seedling Association 6,908 26 267 9,417 NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc. 31,922 93 343 26,558 76 349 50%

15,886 67 236 39%

Weyerhaeuser ( NW) 16,935 76 224 Weyerhaeuser ( SE) 17,962 53 336 22,970 63 367 38%

3,822 15 263 50%

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 4,264 16 263 International Paper 26,380 127 208 36,759 108 341 16%

246,032 656 375 50%

Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop. 246,032 656 375 2007 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment1 REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 1/ 28/ 2005 Average Hectares in the US:

2007 Methyl Bromine Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: FOREST SEEDLINGS % of Average Hectares Requested:

Combined Impacts (%)

Regional Hectares**

Not Available Research Amount ( kgs)

0 Page 73 Footnotes for Appendix B: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Hectares in the US   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  Percent (%) of Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 3. 2007 Amount of Request   The 2007 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   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   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   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 %  Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 8. 2007 Nomination Options   2007 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2007 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  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  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2007 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2007 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is Page 74 calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2007 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2007 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   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   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   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  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 (%)  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 (%)   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   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 (%)  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  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 24. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2007 or the historic average use rate. 25. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 26. Percent Reduction  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  Self explanatory. 28. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 29. Dichotomous Variables   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   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. Page 75 31. Currently Use Alternatives   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   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   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  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 35. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 36. Change from Prior CUE Request 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 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   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   provides summary economic information for the applications. 40. Loss per Hectare   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   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   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  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 (%)   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  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33145-33146]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11724]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER20-2574-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., American Electric Power
Service Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: American Electric Power Service
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35: AEP West Operating Companies
Compliance Filing Pursuant to Order Issued to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1807-003.
    Applicants: Hill Top Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Refund Report: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1439-001.
    Applicants: EdSan 1B Group 1 Edwards, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition for Market-
Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1440-001.
    Applicants: EdSan 1B Group 1 Sanborn, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition for Market-
Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.

    Accession Number: 20220525-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1441-001.
    Applicants: EdSan 1B Group 2, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Petition for Market-
Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1948-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TRANSFER OF OPERATIONAL
CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT to be effective 5/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220524-5153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1949-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6103; Queue Nos. AC1-091/AC1-092 et al to be effective 6/
10/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1950-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Update the
Transmission Owner Selection Process to be effective 7/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1951-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: American Transmission
Systems, Incorporated submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: ATSI
AMPT Revised IA No. 5196 to be effective 5/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1952-000.
    Applicants: Priogen Power LLC.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market Based Rate Tariff of
Priogen Power LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1953-000.
    Applicants: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Interim Distribution Wheeling
Agreement of Unitil Energy Systems, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220524-5200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1954-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 7/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5161.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1955-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-05-25_Att FF Upgrades
related to Competitive Transmission Process to be effective 7/25/2022.

    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH22-15-000.
    Applicants: Unison Energy, LLC, AIM Universal Holdings, LLC, Hunt
Companies, Inc.
    Description: Unison Energy, LLC, et al., submits FERC-65A Notice of
Change in Fact to Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 5/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220525-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 25, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11724 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P