Page 1 2003 NOMINATION FOR A CRITICAL USE EXEMPTION FOR ORCHARD NURSERIES FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1. Introduction In consultation with the co chair of Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC), the United States ( U. S.) has organized this version of its critical use exemption nomination in a manner that would enable a comprehensive review of relevant information by each individual sector team reviewing the nomination for a specific crop or use. As a consequence, this nomination for orchard nurseries, like the nomination for all other crops included in the U. S. request, includes general background information that the U. S. believes is critical to enabling review of our nomination in a manner that meets the requirements of the Parties' critical use decisions. With that understanding, the fully integrated U. S. nomination for orchard nurseries follows.

2. Background In 1997, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adjusted Article 2H of the Protocol, and agreed to accelerate the reduction in the controlled production and consumption of methyl bromide. This adjustment included a provision calling for a phaseout of methyl bromide by the year 2005 " save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses." At the same time, the Parties adopted decision IX/ 6, the critical use exemption decision, which laid out the terms under which critical use exemptions under Article 2H would be granted.

3. Criteria for Critical Uses Under the Montreal Protocol In crafting Decision IX/ 6 outlining the criteria for a critical use exemption, the Parties recognized the significant differences between methyl bromide uses and uses of other ozone depleting chemicals previously given scrutiny under the Protocol's distinct and separate Essential Use exemption process. The United States believes that it is vitally important for the MBTOC to take into account the significant differences between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption in the review of all methyl bromide critical use nominations.

During the debate leading up to the adoption of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6, an underlying theme voiced by many countries was that the Parties wanted to phase out methyl bromide, and not agriculture. This theme was given life in various provisions of the critical use exemption, and in the differences in approach taken between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption. Those differences are outlined below.

The Protocol's negotiated criteria for the critical use exemptions for methyl bromide are Page 2 much different from the criteria negotiated for " essential uses" for other chemicals.

Under the Essential Use provisions, in order to even be considered for an exemption, it was necessary for each proposed use to be " critical for health, safety or the functioning of society." This high threshold differs significantly from the criteria established for the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption. Indeed, for methyl bromide, the Parties left it solely to the nominating governments to find that the absence of methyl bromide would create a significant market disruption.

For the U. S. nomination for orchard nurseries, following detailed technical and economic review, the U. S. has determined that the level of methyl bromide being requested is critical to ensuring that there is no significant market disruption. The detailed analysis of technical and economic viability of the alternatives listed by MBTOC for use in growing orchard nurseries is discussed later in this nomination.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized many agricultural fumigants were inherently toxic, and therefore there was a strong desire not to replace one environmentally problematic chemical with another even more damaging.

The critical use exemption language explicitly requires that an alternative should not only be technically and economically feasible, it must also be acceptable from the standpoint of health and environment. This is particularly important given the fact that most chemical alternatives to methyl bromide are extremely toxic, and can involve threats to human health or the environment that are even greater than the threats posed by methyl bromide.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized that evaluating, commercializing and securing national approval of alternatives and substitutes is a lengthy process:

In fact, even after an alternative is tested and found to work against some pests in a controlled setting, adequate testing in large scale commercial operations can take many cropping seasons before the viability of the alternative can be adequately assessed from the standpoint of the climate and soil for various potential users. In addition, the process of securing national and sub national approval of alternatives may require extensive analysis of environmental consequences and toxicology. The average time for the national review of scientific information in support of a new pesticide, starting from the date of submission to registration, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the company submitting the information has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the epidemiological and other environmental data necessary to support the registration request.

The Parties to the Protocol recognized that unlike other chemicals controlled under the Montreal Protocol, the use of methyl bromide and available alternatives could be site specific and must take into account the particular needs of the user. Page 3 The Essential Use exemption largely assumed that an alternative used in one place could, if approved by the government, be used everywhere. Parties clearly understood that this was not the case with methyl bromide because of the large number of variables involved, such as crop type, soil types, pest pressure and local climate. That is why the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption calls for an examination of the feasibility of the alternative from the standpoint of the user, and in the context of the specific circumstances of the nomination, including use and geographic location. In order to effectively implement this last, very important provision, we believe it is critical for MBTOC reviewers to understand the unique nature of U. S. agriculture, as well as U. S. efforts to minimize the use of methyl bromide, to research alternatives, and to register alternatives for methyl bromide.

4. U. S. Consideration/ Preparation of the Critical Use Exemption for Orchard Nurseries Work on the U. S. critical use exemption process began in early 2001. At that time, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) initiated open meetings with stakeholders both to inform them of the Protocol requirements, and to understand the issues being faced in researching alternatives to methyl bromide. During those meetings, which were attended by State and associated officials representing thousands of methyl bromide users, the provisions of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6 were reviewed in detail, and questions were taken. The feedback from these initial meetings led to efforts by the U. S. to have the Protocol Parties establish international norms for the details to be in submissions and to facilitate standardization for a fair and adequate review. These efforts culminated in decision XIII/ 11, which calls for specific information to be presented in the nomination.

Upon return from the Sri Lanka meeting of the Parties, the U. S. took a multi track approach to the critical use process. First, we worked to develop a national application form that would ensure that we had the information necessary to answer all of the questions posed in decision XIII/ 11. At the same time, we initiated sector specific meetings. This included meetings with representatives of orchard nurseries from across the U. S. to discuss their specific issues, and to enable them to understand the newly detailed requirements of the critical use application. These sector meetings allowed us to fine tune the application so we could submit the required information to the MBTOC in a meaningful fashion.

Finally, and concurrent with our preparation phase, we developed a plan to ensure a robust and timely review of any and all critical use applications we might receive. This involved the assembly of more than 45 PhDs and other qualified reviewers with expertise in both biological and economic issues. These experts were divided into interdisciplinary teams to enable primary and secondary reviewers for each application/ crop. As a consequence, each nomination received by the U. S. was reviewed by two separate teams. In addition, the review of these interdisciplinary teams was put to a broader review of experts on all other sector teams to enable a third look at the information, and to ensure consistency in review between teams. The result was a thorough evaluation of the merits of each request. A substantial portion of requests did not meet the criteria of decision IX/ 6, and a strong case for those that did meet the criteria has been included. Page 4 Following our technical review, discussions were held with senior risk management personnel of the U. S. government to go over the recommendations and put together a draft package for submission to the parties. As a consequence of all of this work, it is safe to say that each of the sector specific nominations being submitted is the work of well over 150 experts both in and outside of the U. S. government.

5. Overview of Agricultural Production 5a. U. S. Agriculture The U. S. is fortunate to have a large land expanse, productive soils and a variety of favorable agricultural climates for producing crops. These factors contribute to and enable the U. S. to be a uniquely large and productive agricultural producer. Indeed, the size and scope of farming in the U. S. is different than in most countries. Specifically, in 2001, U. S. farmland totaled 381 million hectares, a land mass larger than the entire size of many entire countries. There were 2.16 million farms, with average farm size across all farms of 176 hectares ( approximately 10 times larger than average farm sizes in the European Union). The availability of land and the fact that so many U. S. regions are conducive to outdoor cultivation of fruits and vegetables has had an important impact on the way agriculture has developed in the U. S. Specifically, these factors have meant that greenhouse production has generally proven to be very costly ( in relative terms) and has as a consequence, been limited.

Other factors also affected the general development of farming in the U. S. While land for farming is widely available, labor is generally more expensive and less plentiful. As a result, the U. S. developed a unique brand of highly mechanized farming practices that are highly reliant on pesticides such as methyl bromide and other non labor inputs. The extent of mechanization and reliance on non labor inputs can be best demonstrated by noting the very low levels of labor inputs on U. S. farms: in 2001, only 2.05 million workers operated the 2.16 million U. S. farms, with help from fewer than 1 million hired workers.

Farming in the U. S. is also unique in terms of the broad range of crops produced. For example, the fruit and vegetable sector, the agricultural sector most reliant on methyl bromide, is diverse, and includes production of 107 separate fruit and vegetable commodities or groups of commodities. However, this diversity also entails a large number of pest problems that methyl bromide has proven uniquely able to address.

Finally, the above factors have contributed to a harvest of commodities that has enabled the U. S. to meet not only its needs, but also the needs of many other countries. The U. S. produced 88.3 million metric tonnes of fruits and vegetables in 2001, up 10 percent from 1990. At the same time, the land planted in fruits and vegetables has remained stable, and individual farm size increased as the number of farms has fallen. The related yield increases per land area are almost exclusively related to non labor inputs, like the adoption of new varieties, and the application of new production practices, including plastic mulches, row covers, high density planting, more Page 5 effective pesticide sprays, and drip irrigation, as well as increased water irrigation practices. Optimization of yields through these and other scientific and mechanized practices make U. S. agricultural output very sensitive to changes in inputs. Therefore, as evidenced by the U. S. nomination for critical uses of methyl bromide, the phaseout of methyl bromide can have a very significant impact on both the technical and economic viability of production of certain crops in certain areas.

5b. Orchard Nurseries The orchard nursery sector ( Appendix A), like many agricultural sectors in the U. S., is varied and complex. The fruit tree nurseries ( including citrus, peaches, prunes, nectarines, cherries, plums, apples, avocados, pears, and ornamental fruit trees) in California, and the raspberry nurseries in California and Washington produce the majority of the tree seedlings for the industry. California generates 95 percent of sales. The majority of the sales go to commercial fruit growers and the remaining trees are flowering varieties sold primarily to landscapers. Under California regulatory laws, nursery crops must be " free of especially injurious pests and disease symptoms" and " commercially clean with respect to established pests of general distribution" in order to qualify for a California nursery stock certificate for interstate and intrastate shipments. Also, according to the California code of regulations, nursery stock for commercial farm planting must be nematode free. If a nursery producer uses methyl bromide, and in certain cases if 1,3 dichloropropene ( manufactured as Telone ® ) is used, the crop is assumed to be " free of especially injurious pests and disease symptoms". However, if a grower fumigates with an alternative or does not fumigate at all, the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) will impose nematode sampling requirements at a cost to the grower.

Practices used in various segments of the industry differ significantly. A description of those practices follows:

Citrus and Avocado Tree Nursery Practices. Citrus nursery trees for commercial production include seedling rootstock, which is budded to a fruiting scion variety. The citrus seedling production consists of two phases seedling production until transplanting and field growing. Each nursery has approximately 12 hectares of seedling production annually.

Seeds are harvested from orchard trees of a known lineage grown specifically for seed production. Once the seeds are harvested, they are sown into flats, seedbeds, or other seedling containers in the greenhouse, or are sown into other protected areas during the spring. As seedlings emerge, they are inspected for off types and unhealthy individuals, which are discarded. The remaining selected seedlings are grown to the desired size. In some cases the seedlings are transplanted into larger interim containers, which do not exceed 20 cm diameter and 80 cm height. During this stage the seedlings are usually grown in a soilless substrate. Routine inspections are performed to detect pests or diseases. Once the seedlings have reached the desired size they are transplanted to the field. Page 6 During the field growing phase, the selected seedlings are transplanted into larger field plots or into larger pots. In either case, the growing area is outdoors and exposed to full sunlight. The substrate generally consists of a mixture of topsoil, sand and organic material in pots. These materials are brought to the nursery from outside sources and held, sometimes for sever years. For the in ground production, organic amendments may be worked into the soil. The CDFA mandates that the substrate be commercially clean of pests and diseases, of particular concern are nematodes. In order to comply with the mandate, and the nursery's covenant with its customers to supply pest free materials, the substrates are fumigated with methyl bromide on a yearly basis prior to planting. The soil substrate is blended to the desired makeup, and spread and fumigated in compliance with CDFA regulations. Pots are then filled with the fumigated potting substrate. For in field production, the soil is worked and irrigated to the proper moisture levels, and then fumigated.

Seedlings are grown in the field until appropriate size, a process that takes 12 to 28 months. Other factors that influence the production process include the vigor of the tree and bud varieties, and weather and temperature in a given growing period.

Deciduous Tree Nursery Practices. Deciduous tree nurseries range from 15 to 600 hectares in size. The median size of a California operation ranges from 80 to 120 hectares. While some nurseries grow specific tree crops, most grow and sell a wide number of trees types. Nursery stock is grown in a system that includes crop rotation or cover cropping between tree production cycles; therefore, not all of a nursery is in tree production in a given year.

The tree production cycle can be anywhere from one to several years depending on the type of tree. Trees stay in nurseries from one to four years in the ground. For example, almonds typically are grown for one year while walnuts grow for two years.

A typical nursery cycle starts by digging the current tree crop then planting a cover crop, for one or two years, followed by replanting with a new tree crop. In order to prepare the ground for planting, the fields are disked, deep ripped, leveled, and then fumigated to meet certification standards set by CDFA. Generally, the fumigation work is contracted to a pesticide application specialist. A shank is used to apply a broadcast fumigation of 75 percent methyl bromide with 25 percent chloropicrin at rate of 340 kg/ ha. At the same time the majority of the nursery growers cover the treated area with a high barrier tarp. The fumigations are carried out in September, and planting begins in October, and may continue through January.

As with citrus and avocado nurseries, the deciduous tree nurseries come under the same mandates set forth by the CDFA, i. e., trees must be pest free to be sold and shipped. Nurseries use methyl bromide to meet certification requirements because it is the only method acceptable by CDFA, with a possible exception of 1,3 dichloropropene, which is allowed in limited situations; however, due to restrictions on total 1,3 dichloropropene use in designated areas (" townships"), this chemical may be unavailable to growers, even if it effectively manages their pest problems. Page 7 Raspberry Nursery Practices. The raspberry nursery industry uses flat fumigation techniques similar to the strawberry nurseries. Raspberry nursery stock is grown on a two year production cycle beginning with tissue culture followed in the first year by foundation planting. Winter dormant plants are replanted in commercial nurseries and harvested after one year.

6. Results of Review   Determined Need for Methyl Bromide in Orchard Nurseries The U. S. orchard nursery industry is varied and production exemplifies many of the characteristics of U. S. agriculture. The sector is large and diverse, and orchard nurseries are situated in a number of areas with diverse soils, climates, and production systems. The sector also faces significant pest problems and local pesticide regulatory restrictions that may limit the use of some MBTOC alternatives. Sections 6a e below, address production and pest management considerations for the orchard nursery sector, and describe the critical need for methyl bromide in this industry.

6a. Target Pests Controlled with Methyl Bromide Nematodes of concern in the nursery industry in Washington and California are Meloidogyne spp., Pratylenchus spp., Trichodorus spp., Xiphinema spp., and Criconemella spp., Tylenchulus semipenetrans, and Radopholus similes.

While nematodes are of greatest concern to the nursery industry, methyl bromide successfully manages other pests. Weeds ( nutsedges, common purslane, lambsquarter, little mallo, watergrass, field bindweed, and ragweed) and fungal pathogens ( Phytophthora citrophthora, P. parasitica, P. cinnamomi, Verticillium spp., and Armillaria mellea) are important pests that can limit tree health and yield.

6b. Overview of Technical and Economic Assessments of Alternatives Intensive seedling production relies on the ability of nursery managers to meet yield and quality goals. The nematicide 1,3 dichloropropene can be an effective tool in managing nematode problems in orchards when combined with metam sodium or chloropicrin, or both, but there are three important caveats. First, these products generally are effective only in light, sandy soils ( about 35 percent of orchards in California). Second, there are legal restrictions, called " township caps", in the use of 1,3 dichloropropene. Third, nursery stock must be certified as nematode free, and methyl bromide treatment meets the legal standard for this certification that is only partially applicable to alternatives such as 1,3 dichloropropene. Details of these issues are described in the following sections.

Because of the importance placed on tree quality ( due to the high correlation of nursery tree quality with subsequent orchard health and value), failure to achieve consistently healthy nursery trees, in even a portion of nursery production areas, can have a devastating effect on this sector's ability to provide acceptable trees for orchard establishment. These strategies can result in Page 8 reduced tree production. Furthermore, legal requirements for certification of stock as nematodefree introduces additional constraints on the use of alternative pest management measures. In addition, as the analysis below demonstrates, these potential alternatives when compared with methyl bromide are not economically feasible.

MBTOC identified several alternatives for use in nursery orchards that are considered below ( Table 1). Page 9 Table 1. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by MBTOC for Orchard Nurseries ( Deciduous Trees, Raspberry Stock, and Citrus and Avocado Trees). Methyl Bromide Alternatives Deciduous Nursery Trees Raspberry Nursery Stock Citrus and Avocado Nursery Trees Technical Feasiblity Economic Feasibility 1 Technical Feasiblity Economic Feasiblity Technical Feasiblity Economic Feasiblity 1,3 Dichloropropene 2 No No No No No No 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin RLU 3 RLU RLU RLU RLU RLU 1,3 Dichloropropene + Metam sodium RLU RLU RLU RLU RLU RLU 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin + Metamsodium RLU RLU RLU RLU RLU RLU Dazomet ( Basamid ® ) No No No No No No Chloropicrin No No No No No No Metam sodium No No No No No No Biofumigation No No No No No No Solarization No No No No No No Steam No No No No No No Cover crops/ Mulch No No No No No No Crop residue compost No No No No No No Crop rotation/ Fallow No No No No No No Flooding/ Water management No No No No No No Integrated Pest Management No No No No No No Grafting/ Resistant rootstocks/ cultivars No No No No No No Organic amendments No No No No No No Organic production No No No No No No Physical removal/ Sanitation No No No No No No Plowing and Tillage No No No No No No Resistant rootstock and Solarization No No No No No No Soilless culture No No No No No No Plug Plants No No No No No No Biological Control No No No No No No 1 Alternatives not found technically feasible were not assessed for economic feasibility. 2 1,3 dichloropropene is manufactured in the U. S. as Telone ® . 3 There is a regulatory limit on use ( RLU) of 1,3 dichloropropene in the U. S.

6c. Technical Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives Page 10 The technical and economic assessments describe the three in kind ( chemical) alternatives ( Table 1) of those identified by MBTOC that in some situations are technically feasible for orchard nursery pest management. These are 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin, 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium, and 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin + metam sodium. The alternatives identified by MBTOC were regarded by reviewers, as technically and economically infeasible for acceptable management of nematodes where certification requirements are mandated by law. They were generally effective in orchards with light, sandy soils and where legal use restrictions make them available. As a result, the nomination being put forward reflects the potential use of alternatives to methyl bromide in certain situations.

1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin; 1,3 Dichloropropene + Metam sodium; and 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin + Metam sodium.

The alternatives to methyl bromide with the most promise for orchard nurseries are combinations of chemicals that include 1,3 dichloropropene. The two major constraints for use of these chemicals are the inconsistency in pest control that is soil type dependent, and legal restrictions on use of 1,3 dichloropropene.

Studies indicate that 1,3 dichloropropene in conjunction with chloropicrin or metam sodium, may, in some circumstances, be feasible. Used alone, 1,3 dichloropropene does not appear to be technically feasible because it is not acceptably effective against weeds and pathogens. Chemicals in combination with 1,3 dichloropropene are currently used in some situations, and the specific situations in which it could be used were factored into a final decision on the level of the U. S. nomination in this area. However, the efficacy or potential of 1,3 dichloropropene use as an alternative is limited by several technical and regulatory factors. Specifically, 1,3 dichloropropene alternatives are not technically feasible alternatives for orchard nurseries with heavy, clay soils. Research done on almond and peach rootstocks indicates the typical rate of 333 liters/ ha would not provide adequate control of nematode problems in the heavier soils. Researchers suggest that there may not be a quality loss using this regimen, but there probably would be a yield loss.

Due to the length of time it takes to generate data about crop yield and quality in orchard nurseries there are no definitive data at this time, although field trials of methyl bromide alternatives are on going.

Inadequate soil diffusion of 1,3 dichloropropene and metam sodium, except in optimal soil conditions, such as light, sandy type soils, reduces the area that can be effectively treated with alternative products. More tillage and supplemental irrigations are required for these alternatives, compared to methyl bromide, to provide proper tilth and soil moisture necessary for acceptable efficacy. These additional activities prolong preparation time causing the grower to miss the fumigation window prior to the onset of the rainy season. This can result in a year's delay in establishing the orchards, except for walnuts where harvest comes too late for replanting even with methyl bromide. Page 11 California regulations limit how much 1,3 dichloropropene can be used in specific locations called " townships" during a year. California restricts the amount of 1,3 dichloropropene that can be used in certain locations because it is a hazardous air pollutant and a ground water contaminant. As a result, the growers in these specific " townships" cannot unilaterally shift to 1,3 dichloropropene instead of methyl bromide because of the risk of not being able to obtain the alternative. Within these specific townships, all the growers of various crops, such as carrots, sweet potatoes, grapes, almonds and walnuts, compete for the limited quantity of 1,3 dichloropropene ( under the cap) that can be used in a year. Once the cap is reached, the growers in the township will need to have another option for their soil fumigation production practices. If the township cap is exceeded early in the year, when most of the crops are planted, there will not be any 1,3 dichloropropene available for growers to use later in the year. The California township caps for 1,3 dichloropropene are relatively new and the lack of historical information makes it difficult to predict if growers will reach the limit on 1,3 dichloropropene within specific townships.

As a result, the U. S. views a portion of the nomination for California for a methyl bromide critical use exemption as a " contingent nomination." In situations where 1,3 dichloropropene is technically feasible, if the situation is such that the California 1,3 dichloropropene township cap limits access to 1,3 dichloropropene for orchard nurseries, the U. S. believes there would be a critical need for methyl bromide for the production of orchard nursery crops for that portion of California townships not able to use 1,3 dichloropropene. If the 1,3 dichloropropene township cap is not reached, in areas where 1,3 dichloropropene is effective, the orchard nurseries would not need methyl bromide. If a quantity of methyl bromide is nominated and approved for an exemption, but some amount is not used, the un used portion of the exemption would not adversely impact the ozone layer. Instead, the approval of the exemption would be a crucial safety valve for a critical methyl bromide need.

Finally, in California tree nursery production must meet a 99.9 percent nematode free standard in order for a nursery to be certified under CDFA regulations. Other states, including Washington, have similar regulations for nursery stock. In sandy soils 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin, metam sodium, or both, can be effective as long as township caps have not been exceeded. In heavier clay soils, 1,3 dichloropropene combinations are not technically feasible due to the failure provide consistently high quality nursery stock that would be allowed for sale and shipping.

Dazomet ( Basamid ® ) . Dazomet is not technically feasible for orchard nurseries because it does not effectively manage nursery pest problems, especially nematodes.

Metam Sodium ( Vapam ® , Busan ® ) . Metam sodium alone is not technically feasible for orchard nurseries because it does not effectively manage nursery pest problems, especially nematodes.

Chloropicrin. Chloropicrin has some activity against weeds, nematodes, and pathogens, but it does not effectively manage nursery pest problems, especially nematodes. It is used successfully Page 12 in combination with methyl bromide and allows lower rates of methyl bromide.

6d. Economic Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives An economic assessment was made for 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin, 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium, and 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin + metam sodium, which were alternatives that were assessed as conditionally technically feasible ( see Table 1).

The economic assessment of feasibility for pre plant uses of methyl bromide, such as used by orchard nurseries, included an evaluation of economic losses from three basic sources: ( 1) yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity 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 methyl bromide requested. This measure indicates the value of methyl bromide to crop production but is also useful for structural and post harvest uses.

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

( 5) Changes in profit margins. We define profit margin to be profits as a percentage of gross revenues, where profits are gross revenues minus all fixed and operating costs. This measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of the loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide use by orchard nurseries. Because producers ( suppliers) Page 13 represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we interpret the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide. The economic measures provide the basis for making that determination.

Economic reviewers analyzed potential economic losses from using 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin, 1,3 dichloropropene + metam sodium, and 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin + metam sodium because they are currently considered technically feasible alternatives for nursery orchards, although only with light, sandy soils and where 1,3 dichloropropene may be available under " township cap" restrictions.

The alternatives 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin and/ or metam sodium were not economically feasible, in general, because of the requirement that the nursery stock be certified as pest free. If an approved fumigation chemical is not used in the nursery, a costly nematode sampling procedure is imposed by CDFA. If nematodes are found, all nursery stock in an area must be destroyed, resulting in the loss of one or two years work and income. As discussed above, if soils are amenable to 1,3 dichloropropene and legal restrictions do not apply, the use of 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin or metam sodium may serve as a methyl bromide alternative. The U. S. has taken these very limited cases into account in compiling the nomination for a methyl bromide critical use for orchard nurseries. A general cost analysis was done for the alternatives and is reported in Appendix B.

6e. Technical Feasibility of " Not In Kind" MBTOC Alternatives This section summarizes the analysis of the " not in kind" ( non chemical) alternatives identified by MBTOC for orchard nurseries. Table 1 contains a summary of the technical assessment, which shows that none of the" not in kind" alternatives were found to be technically feasible, and therefore no economic assessment was conducted.

Each of the " not in kind" ( non chemical) alternatives for orchard nurseries, listed in Table 1, was deemed technically infeasible as a substitute for methyl bromide. These alternatives do not effectively manage the pests associated with orchard nurseries, especially nematode problems, and are not approved as measures that would allow state certification for nematode free stock. However, many of these alternatives are currently being employed with current orchard nursery practices in addition to methyl bromide, and serves as a useful measure to optimize and even reduce the use of methyl bromide. Some of the listed alternatives, such as biofumigation and solarization are not feasible due to planting times or the lack of practicality for biofumigation to work ( in terms of the amount of biomass needed to provide control). In general the effective soil depth of these alternatives is insufficient relative to where the pests, especially nematodes, are found. Biological control may have a role in the future as part of an Integrated Pest Management ( IPM) program. The University of California has made progress in the area of biological control but research is still in the early stages. The other above listed alternatives work well in conjunction with other practices, but can not act alone alternatives to methyl bromide. Page 14 The following is a description of the technical feasibility of not in kind alternatives for orchard nurseries:

Biological Control. Biological control is already being used in certain regions of the U. S. as a part of integrated pest management programs, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. There are a limited number of biological organisms that are effectively used to manage soil borne diseases and pests. Biological control agents are usually very specific in regards to the organisms they control and their successful establishment is highly dependent on environmental conditions. California growers use biological control organisms primarily for insect management. Any choice of alternative fumigants must be evaluated for compatibility with this important component of their existing integrated pest management system.

Cover crops/ mulching. Cover crops/ mulching is already being used many nurseries to reduce weed populations and as a part of IPM programs, but it does not offer adequate pest control by itself.

Flooding and water management. Flooding and water management is not being used and it is not technically feasible. In California, use of flooding is not practical because of limited water resources and the uneven topographic features of many production areas prevent complete flooding of the higher areas.

General IPM ( Integrated Pest Management). General IPM is being used, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. IPM practices include monitoring, field sanitation to limit inoculum buildup, crop rotation to provide non host periods, and breeding for resistance to pathogens. IPM practices do not offer adequate pest control alone.

Organic amendments/ compost. Organic amendments/ compost is already being used in orchard nurseries, but it is not technically feasible as a stand alone replacement for methyl bromide. Composting is management intensive and it does not offer adequate pest control by itself.

Steam. Steam for soil sterilization is impractical in large scale, open field production areas characteristic of large orchard nurseries ( up to 600 hectares in size). A 1998 United Nations assessment indicates that this alternative is only practical in small scale production areas.

Biofumigation. Biofumigation is not technically feasible because of difficulty in obtaining sufficient biomass to produce effective amounts of MITC to manage diseases and weeds under nursery conditions. Furthermore, MITC is not particularly effective against nematodes, a major pest of orchard nurseries. In some nurseries, trials have grown mustard species ( Brassica spp.) for disking into the soil to generate the bioactive breakdown product MITC. Eleven metric tons per hectare of Brassica plants   an amount that is considered high production   is equivalent to approximately 68 kg of dazomet, which is significantly less than effective dazomet fumigation rates. Page 15 Solarization. Solarization is not technically feasible because it would require several months of covered beds to heat soil to a sufficient depth ( 25 30 cm) in order to affect soil borne pathogens. Large scale commercial nursery production is not amenable to this technique.

Crop rotation/ Fallow. Cover crops and mulching are not technically feasible alternatives because there are no data to suggest acceptable pest management, especially to the extent required for nematode free certification. However, the use of cover crops is a common practice to improve soil structure and suppress an array of soilborne pathogens. Cover crops and mulches have been integrated to orchard nursery practices.

Physical removal/ Sanitation. Physical removal and sanitation are not technically feasible because it is not available for nematode control. Appropriate sanitation is already practiced by nurseries as this improves productivity.

Plowing/ Tillage. Plowing and tillage are not technically feasible because nematode and other pests are not effectively controlled. Plowing/ tillage is currently being used but by itself is not sufficient to adequately control the target pests.

7. Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Orchard Nurseries This nomination is for a critical use exemption for methyl bromide ( Table 2) for orchard nurseries for field and nursery pot fumigation. The nomination for orchard nurseries in California and Washington is a " contingent nomination". This is based on growers' need for methyl bromide, if the area in which orchard nursery crops are grown has reached the legal limit of 1,3 dichloropropene use, or where 1,3 dichloropropene used in conjunction with other chemicals, are ineffective due to heavy, clay soil types. Because nurseries occur in areas with intensive agricultural production, 1,3 dichloropropene " township caps" may be reached early in the season. Therefore, methyl bromide will be critical for use in nursery orchards in these situations. Similarly, orchards with heavy, clay soils do not have alternatives to methyl bromide to meet legal certification requirements. Table 2 provides information on methyl bromide historical usage, including area treated, and actual amount requested for orchard nurseries.

Table 2. Methyl Bromide Usage and Request for Orchard Nurseries ( Western Raspberry Consortium, Deciduous Fruit and Nut Tree Nurseries, and Citrus and Avocado Nurseries). 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 kilograms 258,132 239,190 266,315 250,171 246,976 290,088 293,458 296,995 hectares 792 754 843 793 773 895 908 922 rate ( kg/ ha) 336 332 331 310 293 346 346 346 The U. S. nomination has been determined based first on consideration of the requests we received and an evaluation of the supporting material. This evaluation, which resulted in a reduction in the amount being nominated, included careful examination of issues including the area infested with the key target ( economically significant) pests for which methyl bromide is required, the extent of Page 16 regulatory constraints on the use of registered alternatives ( buffer zones, township caps), environmental concerns such as soil based restrictions due to potential groundwater contamination, and historic use rates, among other factors.

Table 3. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Orchard Nurseries Year Total Request by Applicants ( kilograms) U. S. Sector Nomination ( kilograms)

2005 290,088 45,789 8. Availability of Methyl Bromide from Recycled or Stockpiled Sources In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, Parties must discuss the potential that the continued need for methyl bromide can be met from recycled or stockpiled sources. With regard to recycling of methyl bromide, it is fair to say that the U. S. concurs with earlier TEAP conclusions that recycling of methyl bromide used in soil fumigation is not currently feasible. The U. S. has been investigating the level of the existing stockpile, and we believe that whatever stock pile may now exist will likely be fully depleted by 2005 when the need for the critical use exemption will start.

9. Minimizing Use/ Emissions of Methyl Bromide in the United States In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, we will now describe ways in which we strive to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. While each sector based nomination includes information on this topic, we thought it would be useful to provide some general information that is applicable to most methyl bromide uses in the country The use of methyl bromide in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide is regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used by certified applicators who are trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements to avoid " drift" of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as to preserve methyl bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest level possible, methyl bromide is machine injected into soil to specific depths. In addition, 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 98% methyl bromide and 2% 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 Page 17 reductions in the level of methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown. Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, more mechanized soil injection techniques, and the extensive use of tarps 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.

In terms of compliance, in general, the United States has used a combination of tight production and import controls, and the related market impacts to ensure compliance with the Protocol requirements on methyl bromide. Indeed, over the last   years, the price of methyl bromide has increased substantially. As Chart 1 in Appendix D demonstrates, the application of these policies has led to a more rapid U. S. phasedown in methyl bromide consumption than required under the Protocol. This accelerated phasedown on the consumption side may also have enabled methyl bromide production to be stockpiled to some extent to help mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with the Protocol's 2003 and 2004 70% reduction. We are currently uncertain as to the exact quantity of existing stocks going into the 2003 season that may be stockpiled in the U. S. We currently believe that the limited existing stocks are likely to be depleted during 2003 and 2004. This factor is reflected in our requests for 2005 and beyond.

At the same time we have made efforts to reduce emissions and use of methyl bromide, we have also made strong efforts to find alternatives to methyl bromide. The section that follows discusses those efforts.

10. U. S. Efforts to Find, Register and Commercialize Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Over the past ten years, the United States has committed significant financial and technical resources to the goal of seeking alternatives to methyl bromide that are technically and economically feasible to provide pest protection for a wide variety of crops, soils, and pests, while also being acceptable in terms of human health and environmental impacts. The U. S. pesticide registration program has established a rigorous process to ensure that pesticides registered for use in the United States do no present an unreasonable risk of health or environmental harm. Within the program, we have given the highest priority to rapidly reviewing methyl bromide alternatives, while maintaining our high domestic standard of environmental protection. A number of alternatives have already been registered for use, and several additional promising alternatives are under review at this time. Our research efforts to find new alternatives to methyl bromide and move them quickly toward registration and commercialization have allowed us to make great progress over the last decade in phasing out many uses of methyl bromide. However, these efforts have not provided effective alternatives for all crops, soil types and pest pressures, and we have accordingly submitted a critical use nomination to address these limited additional needs.

Research Program When the United Nations, in 1992, identified methyl bromide as a chemical that contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and the Clean Air Act committed the U. S. to phase out the use of Page 18 methyl bromide, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) initiated a research program to find viable alternatives. Finding alternatives for agricultural uses is extremely complicated compared to replacements for other, industrially used ozone depleting substances because many factors affect the efficacy such as: crop type, climate, soil type, and target pests, which change from region to region and among localities within a region.

Through 2002, the USDA Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) alone has spent US$ 135.5 million to implement an aggressive research program to find alternatives to methyl bromide ( see Table 1 below). Through the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA has provided an additional $ 11.4m since 1993 to state universities for alternatives research and outreach. This federally supported research is a supplement to extensive sector specific private sector efforts, and that all of this research is very well considered. Specifically, the phaseout challenges brought together agricultural and forestry leaders from private industry, academia, state governments, and the federal government to assess the problem, formulate priorities, and implement research directed at providing solutions under the USDA's Methyl Bromide Alternatives program. The ARS within USDA has 22 national programs, one of which is the Methyl Bromide Alternatives program ( Select Methyl Bromide Alternatives at this web site: http:// www. nps. ars. usda. gov ). The resulting research program has taken into account these inputs, as well as the extensive private sector research and trial demonstrations of alternatives to methyl bromide. While research has been undertaken in all sectors, federal government efforts have been based on the input of experts as well as the fact that nearly 80 percent of preplant methyl bromide soil fumigation is used in a limited number of crops. Accordingly, much of the federal government pre plant efforts have focused on strawberries, tomatoes, ornamentals, peppers and nursery crops, ( forest, ornamental, strawberry, pepper, tree, and vine), with special emphasis on tomatoes in Florida and strawberries in California as model crops.

Table 1: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Funding History Year Expenditures by the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( US$ Million)

1993 $ 7.255 1994 $ 8.453 1995 $ 13.139 1996 $ 13.702 1997 $ 14.580 1998 $ 14.571 1999 $ 14.380 2000 $ 14.855 Page 19 2001 $ 16.681 2002 $ 17.880 The USDA/ ARS strategy for evaluating possible alternatives is to first test the approaches in controlled experiments to determine efficacy, then testing those that are effective in field plots. The impact of the variables that affect efficacy is addressed by conducting field trials at multiple locations with different crops and against various diseases and pests. Alternatives that are effective in field plots are then tested in field scale validations, frequently by growers in their own fields. University scientists are also participants in this research. Research teams that include ARS and university scientists, extension personnel, and grower representatives meet periodically to evaluate research results and plan future trials.

Research results submitted with the CUE request packages ( including published, peer reviewed studies by ( primarily) university researchers, university extension reports, and unpublished studies) include trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and nonchemical alternatives to methyl bromide, including some potential alternatives that are not currently included in the MBTOC list.

As demonstrated by the table above, U. S. efforts to research alternatives for methyl bromide have been substantial, and they have been growing in size as the phaseout has approached. The United States is committed to sustaining these research efforts in the future to continue to aggressively search for technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. We are also committed to continuing to share our research, and enable a global sharing of experience. Toward that end, for the past several years, key U. S. government agencies have collaborated with industry to host an annual conference on alternatives to methyl bromide. This conference, the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach ( MBAO), has become the premier forum for researchers and others to discuss scientific findings and progress in this field.

Research conducted by, and on behalf of, the deciduous tree, and citrus and avocado nurseries has been actively seeking methyl bromide alternatives. Studies include alternatives to methyl bromide in stone fruit and walnut; plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria in walnut and Prunus nurseries and orchards; epidemiology and control of crown gall on walnuts; evaluation of alternatives for fumigation in commercial fruit and nut tree nurseries; evaluation of broccoli residue for nematode control on nursery fruit and nut tree rootstocks and grapevines; propagation and retesting of walnut rootstock genotypes putatively resistant to Phytophthora spp., crown gall, and nematodes; development of molecular assay for identification of plant parasitic nematode species in soil samples; tarped metam sodium as a replacement for methyl bromide for nematode control on nursery fruit and nut tree rootstocks and grapevines under northern California nursery conditions; and four approaches to treatment of finer textured nursery soils after 2005. In addition, the citrus and avocado industry will continue to study 1,3 dichloropropene. The Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium has tested fumigation alternatives in nurseries in Washington and California for several years. 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin and metam Page 20 sodium combinations are currently being assessed for efficacy. Raspberry breeding programs have screened stock for resistance to Phytophthora spp. and Verticillium spp.

Government funded studies related to U. S. orchard nurseries that are currently on going include the following:

1. Etiology, Epidemiology, and Management of Diseases of Deciduous Tree Fruits and Nuts, and Small Fruit ( Nov., 1999   July, 2004) The objective of the research is to determine the etiology and epidemiology of Phytophthora root and crown rots, bacterial, virus and virus like diseases of tree fruits and nuts, grapevines and strawberries. Other objectives are to develop improved reliable methods to detect and identify the pathogens associated with these diseases. In addition, research attempts to develop safe, effective, environmentally sound disease management strategies, including alternatives to methyl bromide pre plant soil fumigation.

2. Sustainable Systems for Control of Soilborne Diseases in Tree Fruit Agro Ecosystems ( Nov 2002  Nov 2007) The fundamental goal of this research program is the development of sustainable methods for the control of soilborne diseases of fruit trees. Thus, the objectives are to examine the plant genotype specific induction of disease suppressive soils with attention to the operative soil microbial communities and host factors contributing to this phenomenon, investigate the role of soil microbial communities in disease suppression attained through incorporation of Brassicaceae plant residues, evaluate clonal rootstocks, evaluate Malus germplasm and resistance to Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium spp., support plant beneficial microbial communities, and develop and field validate biologically sustainable management strategies for control of soilborne diseases, with emphasis on apple replant disease, in conventional and organic production systems.

3. Biology and Management of Soilborne Diseases and Beneficial Soil and Root Inhabiting Microorganisms ( March, 1998   March, 2003) The objective is to develop and evaluate biologically based strategies for the management of soilborne disease and parasitic nematodes of small fruit and nursery crops. An additional objective is to characterize mechanisms of biological control of soilborne plant diseases, and evaluate the etiology and epidemiology of soilborne disease of small fruit and nursery crops and the biology of causal pathogens. Work will also attempt to develop management practices that optimize mineral nutrient use and root development and function of grapevines.

4. Soil Solarization Component of Integrated Program to Control Phytophthora Root Rot of Red Raspberry ( July, 2001   July, 2006) This research will evaluate soil solarization and in combination with raised beds and gypsum soil amendments in an integrated plan for controlling root rot on red raspberry.

5. Factors Affecting the Production and Processing of Small Fruit Or Nursery Crops in the Pacific Northwest ( U. S.) ( Sept., 1999 to Sept., 2003) Page 21 The objective of this cooperative research project is to determine factors that can improve the production and processing practices used for horticultural crops ( especially nursery crops and small fruit crops) grown in the Pacific Northwest, including cultural practices, propagation methods, environmental stresses, diseases, insects ( and mites), soil fertility and fertilization, organic amendments, irrigation, pruning, and irrigation.

6. Development of an IPM Framework for Implementation of Methyl Bromide Alternatives into Orchard and Vineyard Replant Settings ( UC Riverside/ CSREES Oct., 2000 to Sept., 2005) This work will evaluate newly developed strategies and tactics that will replace methyl bromide use in commercial vineyards, orchards and nurseries.

While the U. S. government's role to find alternatives is primarily in the research arena, we know that research is only one step in the process. As a consequence, we have also invested significantly in efforts to register alternatives, as well as efforts to support technology transfer and education activities with the private sector.

Registration Program The United States has one of the most rigorous programs in the world for safeguarding human health and the environment from the risks posed by pesticides. While we are proud of our efforts in this regard, related safeguards do not come without a cost in terms of both money and time. Because the registration process is so rigorous, it can take a new pesticide several years ( 3 5) to get registered by EPA. It also takes a large number of years to perform, draft results and deliver the large number of health and safety studies that are required for registration.

The U. S. EPA regulates the use of pesticides under two major federal statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), both significantly amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). Under FIFRA, EPA registers pesticides provided its use does not pose unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. Under FFDCA, the U. S. EPA is responsible for setting tolerances ( maximum permissible residue levels) for any pesticide used on food or animal feed. With the passage of FQPA, the EPA is required to establish a single, health based standard for pesticides used on food crops and to determine that establishment of a tolerance will result in a " reasonable certainty of no harm" from aggregate exposure to the pesticide.

The process by which U. S. EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide to determine if they are safe is called the registration process. The U. S. EPA evaluates the pesticide to ensure that it will not have any unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and non target species. Applicants seeking pesticide registration are required to submit a wide range of health and ecological effects toxicity data, environmental fate, residue chemistry and worker/ bystander exposure data and product chemistry data. A pesticide cannot be legally used in the U. S. if it has not been registered by EPA, unless it has an exemption from regulation under FIFRA. Page 22 Since 1997, the EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a high priority. Because the EPA currently has more applications pending in its review than the resources to evaluate them, EPA prioritizes the applications in its registration queue. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the EPA to initiate its review. The average processing time for a new active ingredient, from date of submission to issuance of a registration decision, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the registrant ( the pesticide applicant) has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the data necessary to support registration.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the EPA has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the U. S. EPA's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the EPA has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application, allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, U. S. EPA scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are minimized.

The EPA has also co chaired the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. The work group conducted six workshops in Florida and California ( states with the highest use of methyl bromide) with growers and researchers to identify potential alternatives, critical issues, and grower needs covering the major methyl bromide dependent crops and post harvest uses.

This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and groundwater concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's $ 13.5 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals submitted to the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service methyl bromide alternatives research program of US$ 2.5 million per year has further ensured that critical registration issues are being addressed by the research community.

Since 1997, EPA has registered the following chemical/ use combinations as part of its commitment to expedite the review of methyl bromide alternatives:

1999: Pebulate to control weeds in tomatoes 2000: Phosphine to control insects in stored commodities 2001: Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus to control Indian meal moth in stored grains 2001: Terrazole to control pathogens in tobacco float beds 2001: Telone applied through drip irrigation  all crops 2002: Halosulfuron methyl to control weeds in melons and tomatoes Page 23 EPA is currently reviewing several additional applications for registration as methyl bromide alternatives, with several registration eligibility decisions expected within the next year, including:

  Iodomethane as a pre plant soil fumigant for various crops   Fosthiazate as a pre plant nematocide for tomatoes   Sulfuryl fluoride as a post harvest fumigant for stored commodities   Trifloxysulfuron sodium as a pre plant herbicide for tomatoes   Dazomet as a pre plant soil fumigant for strawberries and tomatoes Again, while these activities appear promising, it must be noted that issues related to toxicity, ground water contamination, and the release of air pollutants may pose significant problems with respect to some alternatives that may lead to use restrictions since many of the growing regions are in sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to schools and homes. Ongoing research on alternate fumigants is evaluating ways to reduce emission under various application regimes and examining whether commonly used agrochemicals, such as fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors, could be used to rapidly degrade soil fumigants. For example, if registration of iodomethane or another alternative occurs in the near future, commercial availability and costs will be factors that must be taken into consideration.

It must be emphasized, however, that finding potential alternatives, and registering those alternatives is not the end of the story. Those alternatives must be trialed by users and must be finally adopted, which takes time. Allowing for users to trial alternatives, so farmers can adopt them, also involves time. As noted by TEAP, a specific alternative, once available may take two or three cropping seasons of use before efficacy can be determined in the specific circumstance of the user. In an effort to reduce related time frames, the United States government has also been involved in these steps by promoting technology transfer, experience transfer, and private sector training.

11. Conclusion and Policy Issues Associated with the Nomination In summary, a review of the critical use exemption criteria in Decision IX/ 6 demonstrates that the Parties clearly understood the many issues that make methyl bromide distinctly different from the industrial chemicals previously addressed by the Parties under the essential use process. It is now the challenge of the MBTOC, TEAP and the Parties to consider the national submission of critical use nominations in the context of those criteria, and the information requirements established under Decision XIII/ 11.

In accordance with those Decisions, we believe that the U. S. nomination contained in this document provides all of the information that has been requested by the Parties. On the basis of an exhaustive review by a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that the potential alternatives identified by MBTOC for orchard nurseries are not technically or economically feasible as covered by this exemption nomination for the orchard nursery sector. Certain MBTOC alternatives ( 1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin, with Page 24 metam sodium, or with both chloropicrin and metam sodium) were only effective against major pests of orchard nurseries within limited situations. For instance, these chemicals are only effective against nematodes and plant pathogens when orchards have light, sandy soils. In the orchards with heavier, clay soils these chemicals are not effective because of low diffusion into soils. Furthermore, because of certification restrictions for nematode free nursery stock, only methyl bromide provides overall consistent results in heavy, clay soils. Finally, there are restrictions in the use of 1,3 dichloropropene due to " township caps" that limit the total amount of 1,3 dichloropropene allowed in a certain area. Once the limit has been reached no further use of 1,3 dichloropropene is legal. Therefore, even when alternatives containing 1,3 dichloropropene are effective, township limitations may make them unavailable. As a result, methyl bromide is being supported for use by the orchard nursery sector for those nurseries that have no effective alternatives to methyl bromide, or in cases where alternatives are not available due to legal restrictions.

The U. S. expends significant efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and potential alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for orchard nurseries. However, the registration process, which is designed to ensure that new pesticides do not pose unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, is a long and rigorous one. The U. S. need for methyl bromide for orchard nurseries will be maintained for the period being requested.

In reviewing this nomination, we believe that it is important for the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to understand some of the policy issues associated with our request. A discussion of those follows:

a. Request for Aggregate Exemption for All Covered Methyl Bromide Uses: As mandated by Decision XIII/ 11, the nomination information that is being submitted with this package includes information requested on historic use and estimated need in individual sectors. That said, we note our agreement with past MBTOC and TEAP statements which stress the dynamic nature of agricultural markets, uncertainty of specific production of any one crop in any specific year, the difficulty of projecting several years in advance what pest pressures might prevail on a certain crop, and, the difficulty of estimating what a particular market for a specific crop might look like in a future year. We also concur with the MBTOC's fear that countries that have taken significant efforts to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions through dilution with chloropicrin may be experiencing only short term efficacy in addressing pest problems. On the basis of those factors, we urge the MBTOC and the TEAP to follow the precedent established under the essential use exemption process for Metered Dose Inhalers ( MDIs) in two key areas.

First, because of uncertainties in both markets and the future need for individual active moieties of drugs, the TEAP has never provided a tonnage limit for each of the large number of active moieties found in national requests for a CFC essential use exemption for MDIs, but has instead recommended an aggregate tonnage exemption for national use. This has been done with an understanding that the related country will ensure that the tonnage approved for an exemption will be used solely for the group of active moieties/ MDIs that have been granted the exemption. We Page 25 believe that the factors of agricultural uncertainty surrounding both pest pressures in future year crops, and efficacy of reduced methyl bromide application provide an even stronger impetus for using a similar approach here. The level of unpredictability in need leads to a second area of similarity with MDIs, the essential need for a review of the level of the request which takes into account the need for a margin of safety.

b. Recognition of Uncertainty in Allowing Margin for Safety: With MDIs, it was essential to address the possible change in patient needs over time, and in agriculture, this is essential to address the potential that the year being requested for could be a particularly bad year in terms of weather and pest pressure. In that regard, the TEAP's Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates the manner in which this need for a margin of safety was addressed in the MDI area. Specifically, Chart 2 in Appendix D tracks national CFC requests for MDIs compared with actual use of CFC for MDIs over a number of years.

Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates several things. First, despite the best efforts of many countries to predict future conditions, it shows that due to the acknowledged uncertainty of outyear need for MDIs, Parties had the tendency to request, the TEAP recommended, and the Parties approved national requests that turned out to include an appreciable margin of safety. In fact, this margin of safety was higher at the beginning   about 40% above usage   and then went down to 30% range after 4 years. Only after 5 years of experience did the request come down to about 10% above usage. While our experience with the Essential Use process has aided the U. S. in developing its Critical Use nomination, we ask the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to recognize that the complexities of agriculture make it difficult to match our request exactly with expected usage when the nomination is made two to three years in advance of the time of actual use.

Chart 2 in Appendix D also demonstrates that, even though MDI requests included a significant margin of safety, the nominations were approved and the countries receiving the exemption for MDIs did not produce the full amount authorized when there was not a patient need. As a result, there was little or no environmental consequence of approving requests that included a margin of safety, and the practice can be seen as being normalized over time. In light of the similar significant uncertainty surrounding agriculture and the out year production of crops which use methyl bromide, we wish to urge the MBTOC and TEAP to take a similar, understanding approach for methyl bromide and uses found to otherwise meet the critical use criteria. We believe that this too would have no environmental consequence, and would be consistent with the Parties aim to phaseout methyl bromide while ensuring that agriculture itself is not phased out.

c. Duration of Nomination: It is important to note that while the request included for the use above appears to be for a single year, the entire U. S. request is actually for two years   2005 and 2006. This multi year request is consistent with the TEAP recognition that the calendar year does not, in most cases, correspond with the cropping year. This request takes into account the facts that registration and acceptance of new, efficacious alternatives can take a long time, and that alternatives must be tested in multiple cropping cycles in different geographic locations to Page 26 determine efficacy and consistency before they can be considered to be widely available for use. Finally, the request for multiple years is consistent with the expectation of the Parties and the TEAP as evidenced in the Parties and MBTOC request for information on the duration of the requested exemption. As noted in the Executive Summary of the overall U. S. request, we are requesting that the exemption be granted in a lump sum of 9,920,965 kilograms for 2005 and 9,445,360 kilograms for 2006. While it is our hope that the registration and demonstration of new, cost effective alternatives will result in even speedier reductions on later years, the decrease in our request for 2006 is a demonstration of our commitment to work toward further reductions in our consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses. At this time, however, we have not believed it possible to provide a realistic assessment of exactly which uses would be reduced to account for the overall decrease.

12. Contact Information:

For further general information or clarifications on material contained in the U. S. nomination for critical uses, please contact:

John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Office of Environmental Policy US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Rm 4325 Washington, DC 20520 tel: 202 647 9799 fax: 202 647 5947 e mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Alternate Contact: Denise Keehner, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticides Programs US Environmental Protection Agency, 7503C Washington, DC 20460 tel: 703 308 8200 fax: 703 308 8090 e mail: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov 13. References Browne, G., L. Bulluck, J. Connell, T. Trout and S. Schneider. 2001. Determining unknown causes of replant disorder on Prunus species in California, Conference proceedings of the 2001 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, at http:// mbao. org/ 2002proc/ mbrpro01. html. Page 27 Browne, G., J. Connell, L. Bulluck, T. Trout and S. Schneider. 2002. Management of replant disorder on almond and peach, Conference proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, at http:// mbao. org/ 2002proc/ mbrpro02. html.

Buchner, R., J. Edstrom, J. Hasey, W. Krueger, W. Olson, W. Reil, K. Klonsky and R. De Moura. 2002. Sample costs to establish a walnut orchard and produce walnuts, Sacramento Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ WalnutSac2002. pdf Day, K., H. Andris, R. Beede, K. Klonsky, R. De Moura and P. Livingston. 2000a. Sample costs to establish a peach/ nectarine orchard and produce peaches/ nectarines, southern San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ 2000peach. pdf.

Day, K., H. Andris, R. Beede, K. Klonsky, R. De Moura and P. Livingston. 2000b. Sample costs to establish a plum orchard and produce plums, southern San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ Plums2000. pdf.

Duncan, R., P. Verdegaal, B. Holtz, K. Klonsky and R. De Moura. 2002. Sample costs to establish an almond orchard and produce almonds, San Joaquin Valley North, micro sprinkler irrigation, University of California Cooperative Extension, at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ coststudies/ AMSPRKVN02. pdf.

Grant, J., J. Caprile, K. Kelley, K. Klonsky and R. De Moura. 2001. Sample costs to establish an orchard and produce sweet cherries, San Joaquin Valley  North, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ coststudies CherrySJVN2001. pdf.

Klonsky, K., H. Andris, B. Beede, S. Sibbett and P. Livingston. 1997. Sample costs to establish a prune orchard and produce prunes, in the southern San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, available at http:// www. agecon. ucdavis. edu/ outreach/ crop/ cost studies/ 97Prunes. pdf.

Larson, K. D. and Shaw, D. V. 2000. Soil fumigation and runner plant production: a synthesis of four years of strawberry nursery field trials. HortScience 35: 642 646.

Larson, K. D. and Shaw, D. V. 1999. A meta analysis of strawberry yield response to preplant soil fumigation with combinations of methyl bromide   chloropicrin and four alternative systems. HortScience 34: 839 845.

McKenry, M. V. 2000. Evaluation of alternatives to methyl bromide for soil fumigation at Page 28 commercial fruit and nut tree nurseries. submitted in Critical Use Exemption request, originally submitted to California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( contract # 98 0281).

UNEP ( United Nations Environment Programme), 1998. Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) 1998 assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. p. 49 U. S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service ( USDA/ NASS). 2001. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, 2000 Summary, July.

Yuen, G. Y., Schroth, M. N., Weinhold, A. R., and Hancock, J. G. 1991. Effects of soil fumigation with methyl bromide and chloropicrin on root health and yield in strawberry. Plant Disease 75: 416 420.

14. Appendices Appendix A. List of Critical Use Exemption Requests for the Orchard Nursery Sector in the U. S.

CUE 02 0010, Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium CUE 02 0035, California Association of Nurserymen   Deciduous Fruit and Nut Tree Growers CUE 02 0036, California Association of Nurserymen   Citrus and Avocado Growers Page 29 Appendix B. Spreadsheets Supporting Economic Analysis This appendix presents the calculations, for each sector, that underlie the economic analysis presented in the main body of the nomination chapter. As noted in the nomination chapter, each sector is comprised of a number of applications from users of methyl bromide in the United States, primarily groups ( or consortia) of users. The tables below contain the analysis that was done for each individual application, prior to combining them into a sector analysis. Each application was assigned a unique number ( denoted as CUE #), and an analysis was done for each application for technically feasible alternatives. Some applications were further sub divided into analyses for specific sub regions or production systems. A baseline analysis was done to establish the outcome of treating with methyl bromide for each of these scenarios. Therefore, the rows of the tables correspond to the production scenarios, with each production scenario accounting for row and the alternative( s) accounting for additional rows.

The columns of the table correspond to the estimated impacts for each scenario. ( The columns of the table are spread over several pages because they do not fit onto one page.) The impacts for the methyl bromide baseline are given as zero percent, and the impacts for the alternatives are given relative to this baseline. Loss estimates include analyses of yield and revenue losses, along with estimates of increased production costs. Losses are expressed as total losses, as well as per unit treated and per kilogram of methyl bromide. Impacts on profits are also provided.

After the estimates of economic impacts, the tables contain basic information about the production systems using methyl bromide. These columns include data on output price, output volume, and total revenue. There are also columns that include data on methyl bromide prices and amount used, along with data on the cost of alternatives, and amounts used. Additional columns describe estimates of other production ( operating) costs, and fixed/ overhead costs.

The columns near the end of the tables combine individual costs into an estimate of total production costs, and compare total costs to revenue in order to estimate profits. Finally, the last several columns contain the components of the loss estimates. Page 30 # Notes 1 Costs and revenues are per crop cycle or harvest.

Typically one crop is grown for 2 years every 4 years with 2 years of fallow, rotation, or cover crop.

2 Based on strawberry nursery data.

3 This estimate was added to be consistent with CUEs 35 & 36.

No yield loss estimates were available specifically for raspberries, so the yield loss impact was not estimated.

The cost of this alternative was made equal to CUEs 35 & 36 for consistency.

* kg ai that would be applied/ hectare = application rate for the alternatives or requested application rate for MBr.

* Other pest control costs are those other than methyl bromide or its alternatives. Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Appendix C: U. S. Technical and Economic Review Team Members Christine M. Augustyniak ( Technical Team Leader). Christine has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1985. She has held several senior positions, both technical and managerial, including Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Chief of the Analytical Support Branch in EPA's office of Environmental Information and Deputy Director for the Environmental Assistance Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. She earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Augustyniak is a 1975 graduate of Harvard University ( Cambridge) cum laude ( Economics). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Augustyniak was a member of the economics faculty at the College of the Holy Cross ( Worcester).

William John Chism ( Lead Biologist). Bill has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. He evaluates the efficacy of pesticides for weed and insect control. He earned his Ph. D. ( Weed Science) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ( Blacksburg), a Master of Science ( Plant Physiology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Agriculture) from California Polytechnic State University ( San Luis Obispo). Dr. Chism is a 1978 graduate of The University of California ( Davis). For ten years prior to joining the EPA Dr. Chism held research scientist positions at several speciality chemical companies, conducting and evaluating research on pesticides.

Technical Team Jonathan J. Becker ( Biologist) Jonathan has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Scientific Advisor within the Office of Pesticides Programs. In this position he leads the advancement of scientific methods and approaches related to the development of pesticides use information, the assessment of impacts of pesticides regulations, and the evaluation of the benefits from the use of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Zoology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Masters of Science ( Biology/ Zoology) from Idaho State University ( Pocatello). Dr. Becker is a graduate of Idaho State University. Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Becker worked as a senior environmental scientist with an environmental consulting firm located in Virginia.

Diane Brown Rytlewski ( Biologist) Diane is the Nursery and Landscape IPM Integrator at Michigan State University, a position she has held since 2000. She acts as liaison between industry and the university, facilitating research partnerships and cooperative relationships, developing outreach programs and resource materials to further the adoption of IPM. Ms. Rytlewski holds a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) and a Bachelor of Science ( Entomology), both from the University of Wisconsin ( Madison). She has over twenty year experience working in the horticulture field, including eight years as supervisor of the IPM program at the Chicago Botanic Garden.

Greg Browne ( Biologist). Greg has been with the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1995. Located in the Department of Plant Pathology of the University of California ( Davis), Greg does research on soilborne diseases of crop systems that currently use methyl bromide for disease control, with particular emphasis on diseases caused by Phytophthora species. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of diseases in fruit and nut crops He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from the University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the same institution. Dr. Browne is a graduate of The University of California ( Davis). Prior to joining USDA was a farm advisor in Kern Page 35 County.

Nancy Burrelle ( Biologist). Nancy Burelle is a Research Ecologist with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, currently working on preplant alternatives to methyl bromide. She earned both her Ph. D. and Master of Science degrees ( both in Plant Pathology) from Auburn University ( Auburn).

Linda Calvin ( Economist). Linda Calvin is an agricultural economist with USDA's Economic Research Service, specializing in research on topics affecting fruit and vegetable markets. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley).

Kitty F. Cardwell ( Biologist). Kitty has been the National Program Leader in Plant Pathology for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service since 2001. In this role she administrates all federally funded research and extension related to plant pathology, of the Land Grant Universities throughout the U. S. She earned her Ph. D. ( Phytopathology) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Cardwell is a 1976 graduate of The University of Texas ( Austin) cum laude ( Botany). For twelve years prior to joining USDA Dr. Cardwell managed multinational projects on crop disease mitigation and food safety with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Cotonou, Bénin and Ibadan, Nigeria.

William Allen Carey ( Biologist). Bill is a Research Fellow in pest management for southern forest nurseries , supporting the Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternative fumigants to methyl bromide in tree nursery applications. He earned his Ph. D. ( Forest Pathology) from Duke University ( Durham) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology ) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville). Dr. Carey is a nationally recognized expert in the field of nursery pathology.

Margriet F. Caswell ( Economist). Margriet has been with the USDA Economic Research Service since 1991. She has held both technical and managerial positions, and is now a Senior Research Economist in the Resource, Technology & Productivity Branch, Resource Economics Division. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from the University of California ( Berkeley). Dr. Caswell also received a Master of Science ( Resource Economics) and Bachelor of Science ( Natural Resource Management) from the University of Rhode Island ( Kingston). Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Caswell was a member of both the Environmental Studies and Economics faculties at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Tara Chand Goyal ( Biology). Tara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as a plant pathologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on risk reduction. He earned his Ph. D. ( Mycology and Plant Pathology) from The Queen's University ( Belfast) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology and Mycology) from Punjab University ( Ludhiana). Dr. Chand Goyal is a graduate of Punjab University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chand Goyal was a member of the faculty of The Oregon State University ( Corvallis) and of The University of California ( Riverside). His areas of research and publication include: the biology of viral, bacterial and fungal diseases of plants; biological control of plant diseases; and, genetic manipulation of microorganisms.

Daniel Chellemi ( Biologist). Dan has been a research plant pathologist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1997. His research speciality is the ecology, epidemiology, and management of soilborne plant pathogens. He earned Page 36 his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Hawaii ( Manoa). Dr. Chellemi is a 1982 graduate of the University of Florida ( Gainesville) with a degree in Plant Science. He is the author of numerous articles in the field of plant pathology. In 2000 Dr. Chellemi was awarded the ARS " Early Career Research Scientist if the Year". Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Chellemi was a member of the plant pathology department of The University of Florida ( Gainesville).

Angel Chiri ( Biologist). Angel has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Biology/ Entomology) from California State University ( Long Beach). Dr. Chiri is a graduate of California State University ( Los Angeles). Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chiri was a pest and pesticide management advisor for the U. S. Agency for International Development working mostly in Latin America on IPM issues.

Colwell Cook ( Biologist). Colwell has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. She serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from Purdue University ( West Lafayette) and has a Master of Science ( Entomology) from Louisiana State University ( Baton Rouge). Dr. Cook is a 1979 graduate of Clemson University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Cook held several faculty positions at Wabash College ( Crawfordsville) and University of Evansville ( Evansville).

Julie B. Fairfax ( Biologist) Julie has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. She currently serves as a senior biologist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, and has previously served as a Team Leader in other divisions within the Office of Pesticides Programs. She has held several technical positions specializing in the registration, re registration, special review and regulation of fungicidal, antimicrobial, and wood preservative pesticides. Ms. Fairfax is a 1989 graduate of James Madison University ( Harrisonburg, VA) where she earned her degree in Biology. Prior to joining EPA, Julie worked as a laboratory technician for the Virginia Poultry Industry.

John Faulkner ( Economist) John has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs imposed by the regulation of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from the University of Colorado ( Boulder) and holds a Master's of Business Administration from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Faulkner is a 1965 graduate of the University of Colorado ( Boulder). Prior to joining EPA was a member of the economics faculty of the Rochester Institute of Technology ( Rochester), The University of Colorado ( Boulder) and of the Colorado Mountain College ( Aspen).

Clara Fuentes ( Biologist). Clara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection agency since 1999, working in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ( Region III) office. She specializes in reviewing human health risk evaluations to pesticides exposures and supporting the state pesticide programs in Region III. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and a Master of Science ( Zoology) from Iowa State University ( Ames). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Fuentes worked as a research assistant at U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) ( Beltsville), Maryland, and as a faculty member of the Natural Sciences Department at InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico. Her research interest is in the area of Integrated Pest Management in agriculture.

James Gilreath ( Biologist). Jim has been with the University of Florida Gulf Coast Research and Education Center Page 37 since 1981. In this position his primary responsibilities are to plan, implement and publish the results of investigations in weed science in vegetable and ornamental crops. One main focus of the research is the evaluation and development of weed amangement programs for specific weed pests. He earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Master of Science, also in Horticulture, from Clemson University ( Clemson). Dr. Gilreath is a 1974 graduate of Clemson University ( Clemson) with a degree in Agronomy and Soils.

Arthur Grube ( Economist). Arthur has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1987. He is now a Senior Economist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh) and a Masters of Arts ( Economics) also from North Carolina State University. Dr. Grube is a 1970 graduate of Simon Fraser University ( Vancouver) where his Bachelor of Arts degree ( Economics) was earned with honors. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Grube conducted work on the costs and benefits of pesticide use at the University of Illinois ( Urbana). Dr. Grube has been a co author of a number of journal articles in various areas of pesticide economics LeRoy Hansen ( Economist). LeRoy Hansen is currently employed as an Agricultural Economist for the USDA Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division in the Resources and Environmental Policy Branch. He received his Ph. D. in resource economics from Iowa State University ( Ames) in 1986. During his 16 years at USDA, Dr. Hansen has published USDA reports, spoken at profession meetings, and appeared in television and radio interviews.

Frank Hernandez ( Economist). Frank has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1991. He is a staff economist at the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. He holds degrees in Economics and Political Science from the City University of New York.

Arnet W. Jones ( Biologist). Arnet has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1990. He has had several senior technical and management positions and currently serves as Chief of the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Prior to joining EPA he was Senior Agronomist at Development Assistance Corporation, a Washington, D. C. firm that specialized in international agricultural development. He holds a Master of Science ( Agronomy) from the University of Maryland ( College Park).

Hong Jin Kim ( Economist). Jin has been an economist at the National Center for Environmental Economics at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) since 1998. His primary areas of research interest include environmental cost accounting for private industries He earned his Ph. D. ( Environmental and Resource Economics) from The University of California ( Davis) and holds a Master of Science from the same institution. Dr. Kim is a 1987 graduate of Korea University ( Seoul) with a Bachelor of Arts ( Economics). Prior to joining the U. S. EPA, Dr. Kim was an assistant professor at the University of Alaska ( Anchorage) and an economist at the California Energy Commissions. Dr. Kim is the author of numerous articles in the fields of resource and environmental economics.

James Leesch ( Biologist). Jim has been a research entomologist with the Agricultural Resarch Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1971. His main area of interest is post harvest commodity protection at the San Joaquin Valle. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology/ Insect Toxicology) from The University of California ( Riverside) Dr. Leesch received a B. A. degree in Chemistry from Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA in 1965. He is currently a Research entomologist for the Agricultural Research Service ( USDA) researching Agricultural Sciences Center in Page 38 Parlier, CA. He joined ARS in June of 1971.

Sean Lennon ( Biologist). Sean is a Biologist interning with the Office of Pesticide Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. He will receive his M. S. in Plant and Environmental Science in December 2003 from Clemson University ( Clemson). Mr. Lennon is a graduate of Georgia College & State University ( Milledgeville) where he earned a Bachelor of Science ( Biology). Sean is conducting research in Integrated Pest Management of Southeastern Peaches. He has eight years of experience in the commercial peach industry.

Nikhil Mallampalli ( Biologist). Nikhil has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2001. He is an entomologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, and analysis of the impacts of risk mitigation on pest management. Dr. Mallampalli earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and holds a Master of Science ( Entomology) from the samr institution. Prior to joining the EPA, he worked as a postdoctoral research fellow at Michigan State University ( East Lansing) on IPM projects designed to reduce reliance on pesticides in small fruit production.

Tom Melton ( Biologist). Tom has been a member of the Plant Pathology faculty at North Carolina State University since 1987. Starting as an assistant professor and extension specialist, Tom has become the Philip Morris Professor at North Carolina State University. His primary responsibilities are to develop and disseminate disease management strategies for tobacco. Dr. Melton earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science ( Pest Management) degree from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh). He is a 1978 graduate of Norht Carolina State University ( Raleigh) Prior to joining the North Carolina State faculty, Dr. Melton was a member of the faculty at The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign).

Richard Michell ( Biologist). Rich has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1972. He is a nematologist/ plant pathologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, with special emphasis on fungicide and nematicide use and the development of risk reduction options for fungicides and nematicides. Dr. Michell earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science degree ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Georgia ( Athens).

Lorraine Mitchell ( Economist). Lorraine has been an agricultural economist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service since 1998. She works on agricultural trade issues, particularly pertaining to consumer demand in the EU and emerging markets. Dr. Mitchell earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley). Prior to joining ERS, Dr. Mitchell was a member of the faculty of the School of International Service of The American University ( Washington) and a research assistant at the World Bank.

Thuy Nguyen ( Chemist). Thuy has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997, as a chemist in the Office of Pesticides Program. She assesses and characterizes ecological risk of pesticides in the environment as a result of agricultural uses. She earned her degrees of Master of Science ( Chemistry) from the University of Delaware and Bachelor of Science ( Chemistry and Mathematics) from Mary Washington College ( Fredericksburg, VA). Prior to joining the EPA, Ms Nguyen held a research and development scientist position at Sun Oil company in Marcus Hook, PA, then managed the daily operation of several EPA certified laboratories for the analyses of pesticides and other Page 39 organic compounds in air, water, and sediments.

Jack Norton( Biologist). Jack has worked for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Interregional research Project # 4 ( IR 4) as a consultant since 1998. The primary focus of his research is the investigation of potential methyl bromide replacement for registration on minor crops. He is an active member of the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Working Group. Dr, Norton earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from Texas A& M University ( College Station) and holds a Master of Science ( Horticultural Science) from Oklahoma State University( Stillwater). He is a graduate of Oklahoma State University ( Stillwater). Prior to joining the IR 4 program, Dr. Norton worked in the crop protection industry for 27 years where he was responsible for the development and registration of a number of important products.

Olga Odiott ( Biologist) Olga has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. She has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Biologist within the Office of Science Coordination and Policy. In this position she serves as Designated Federal Official and liaison on behalf of the Office of Pesticide Programs and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, an independent peer review body that provides advice to the Agency on issues concerning the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. She holds a Masters of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the University of Puerto Rico ( San Juan). Prior to joining EPA, Ms. Odiott worked for the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Craig Osteen( Economist). Craig has been with the U. S. Department of Agriculture for over 20 years. He currently is with the Economic Research Service in the Production Management and Technology Branch, Resource Economics Division. He primary areas of interest relate to issues of pest control, including pesticide regulation, integrated pest management, and the methyl bromide phase out. Dr. Osteen earned his Ph. D. ( Natural Resource Economics) from Michigan State University ( East Lansing).

Elisa Rim ( Economist). Elisa is an Agricultural Economist interning with the Office of Pesticide Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. She earned her Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from The Ohio State University ( Columbus) and holds a Bachelor of Arts ( Political Science) from the same institution. She has conducted research in environmental economics and developed a cost analysis optimization model for stream naturalization projects in northwest Ohio.

Erin Rosskopf ( Biologist). Erin received her PhD from the Plant Pathology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville in 1997. She is currently a Research Microbiologist with the USDA, ARS and has served in this position for 5 years.

Carmen L. Sandretto ( Agricultural Economist). Carmen has been with the Economic Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture for over 30 years in a variety of assignments at several field locations, and since 1985 in Washington, DC. He has worked on a range of natural resource economics issues and in recent years on soil conservation and management, pesticide use and water quality, and small farm research studies. Mr. Sandretto holds a Master of Arts degree ( Economics) from Harvard University ( Cambridge) and a Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of Wisconsin ( Madison). Mr Sandretto is a graduate of Michigan State University ( East Lansing). Prior to serving in Washington, D. C. he was a member of the economics faculty at Michigan State Page 40 University and at the University of New Hampshire ( Durham).

Judith St. John ( Biologist). Judy has been with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service since 1967. She currently serves as Associate Deputy Administrator and as such she is responsible for the Department's intramural research programs in the plant sciences, including those dealing with pre and post harvest alternatives to methyl bromide. Dr. St. John earned her Ph. D. ( Plant Physiology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville).

James Throne ( Biologist). Jim is a Research Entomologist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Research Leader of the Biological Research Unit at the Grain Marketing and Production Research Center in Manhattan, Kansas. He conducts research in insect ecology and development of simulation models for improving integrated pest management systems for stored grain and processed cereal products. Other current areas of research include investigating seed resistance to stored grain insect pests and use of near infrared spectroscopy for detection of insect infested grain. Jim has been with ARS since 1985. Dr. Throne earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) in 1983 from Cornell University ( Ithaca) and earned a Master of Science Degree ( Entomology) in 1978 from Washington State University ( Pullman). Dr. throne is a 1976 graduate ( Biology) of Southeastern Massachusetts University ( N. Dartmouth).

Thomas J. Trout ( Agricultural Engineer). Tom has been with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service since 1982. He currently serves ar research leader in the Water Management Research Laboratory in Fresno, CA. His present work includes studying factors that affect infiltration rates and water distribution uniformity under irrigation, determining crop water requirements, and developing alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Dr. Trout earned his Ph. D. ( Agricultural Engineering) from Colorado State University ( Fort Collins) and holds a Master of Science degree from the same institution, also in agricultural engineering. Dr. Trout is a 1972 graduate of Case Western Reserve University ( Cleveland) with a degree in mechanical engineering. Prior to joining the ARS, Dr. trout was a member of the engineering faculty of Colorado State University ( Fort Collins). He is the author of numerous publications on the subject of methyl bromide alternatives.

J. Bryan Unruh ( Biologist). Bryan is Associate Professor of Environmental Horticulture at The University of Florida ( Milton) and an extension specialist in turfgrass. He leads the statewide turfgrass extension design team. Dr. Unruh earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from Iowa State University ( Ames) and holds a Master of Science degree ( Horticulture) from Kansas State University ( Manhattan). He is a 1989 graduate of Kansas State University.

David Widawsky ( Chief, Economic Analysis Branch). David has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1998. He has also served as an economist and a team leader. As branch chief, David is responsible for directing a staff of economists to conduct economic analyses in support of pesticide regulatory decisions. He earned his Ph. D. ( Development and Applied Economics) from Stanford University ( Palo Alto), and a Master of Science ( Agricultural Economics) from Colorado State University ( Fort Collins). Dr. Widawsky is a 1987 graduate ( Plant and Soil Biology, Agricultural Economics) of the University of California ( Berkeley). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Widawsky conducted research on the economics of integrated pest management in Asian rice production, while serving as an agricultural economist at the International Rice Research Institute ( IRRI) in the Philippines.

TJ Wyatt ( Economist). TJ has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 2001. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs and benefits of pesticide regulation. His other main area of research is Page 41 farmer decision making, especially pertaining to issues of soil fertility and soil conservation and of pesticide choice. Dr. Wyatt earned his Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Davis). Dr. Wyatt holds a Master of Science ( International Agricultural Development) from the same institution. He is a 1985 graduate of The University of Wyoming ( Laramie). Prior to joining the EPA, he worked at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics ( ICRISAT) and was based at the Sahelian Center in Niamey, Niger.

Leonard Yourman ( Biologist). Leonard is a plant pathologist with the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. He currently conducts assessments of pesticide use as they relate to crop diseases He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from Clemson University ( Clemson) and holds a Master of Science ( Horticulture/ Plant Breeding) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Yourman is a graduate ( English Literature) of The George Washington University ( Washington, DC). . Prior to joining EPA, he conducted research on biological control of invasive plants with USDA at the Foreign Disease Weed Science Research Unit ( Ft. Detrick, MD). He has also conducted research on biological control of post harvest diseases of apples and pears at the USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Station ( Kearneysville, WV). Research at Clemson University concerned the molecular characterization of fungicide resistance in populations of the fungal plant pathogen Botrytis cinerea.

Istanbul Yusuf ( Economist). Istanbul has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 1998. She serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs imposed by the regulation of pesticides. She earned her Master's degree in Economics from American University ( Washington). Ms Yusuf is a 1987 graduate of Westfield State College ( Westfield) with a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration. Prior to joining EPA Istanbul worked for an International Trading Company in McLean, Virginia. Page 42 Appendix D: CHARTS ( See the separate electronic file for Chart 1 and Chart 2.)