[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13645-13646]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC20-5-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-923); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request of reinstatement with changes.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
reinstate FERC-923 (Communication of Operational Information between
Natural Gas Pipelines and Electric Transmission

Operators, OMB control number 1902-0265).

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by April 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-923 to OMB by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB control number (1902-
0265) in the subject line of your comments.
    Please provide a copy of your comments to the Commission by either
of the following methods:
     eFiling at the Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp; or
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426
    Please identify the following numbers in the title or subject line
of your comments: FERC-923, OMB Control Number 1902-0265.
    Instructions: All submissions to the Commission must be formatted
and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact
FERC Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone
at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for Text Telephone
(TTY).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Type of Request: Reinstatement of FERC-923
for 3 years.
    Title: FERC-923, Communication of Operational Information between
Natural Gas Pipelines and Electric Transmission Operators.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0265.
    Abstract: The regulations that authorize FERC-923 (18 CFR 38.2 and
284.12(b)(4)(i)) eliminate actual and perceived prohibitions against
the voluntary sharing of non-public, operational information between
natural gas pipelines and public utilities. FERC promulgated those
regulations in order to promote reliability of service. FERC-923 does
not involve submission of information to FERC.
    The expiration date of FERC-923 was January 31, 2020. FERC
initiated the renewal process for FERC-923 on December 30, 2019, by
publishing a 60-day notice (84 FR 71912). That notice provided for a
comment period that ended on February 28, 2020. No comments were
received.
    On January 28, 2020, FERC sent OMB a request for a 3-month
emergency extension of the expiration date in order to continue the
renewal process. In addition, FERC published a notice of the emergency
extension request on February 4, 2020 (85 FR 6153). OMB disapproved the
request for an emergency extension on February 4, 2020. FERC now seeks
reinstatement with changes, and once again invites public comment in
this notice.
    The changes consist of revised burden estimates due in part to
adjustments of the burdens that OMB approved in 2017. These changes are
based on normal market fluctuation. In addition, the previously
approved burden estimates are not in effect at present because of OMB's
February 4, 2020 disapproval of FERC's request for an emergency
extension on February 4, 2020.
    The net effect of reinstatement is outlined below. The requested
changes are not a result of any program change or change in reporting/
recordkeeping requirements.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \1\: The total estimated annual burden
for respondents is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the estimated burden, refer to
Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     4,152 responses;
     2,076 burden hours; and
     $166,080.
    The following table shows the pertinent calculations:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   C. Annual
                                 B. Number of      number of       D. Total      E. Average burden hrs. &   F. Total annual hr.  burdens    G. Cost per
 A. Initiator of communication    respondents    responses per     number of       cost per response \2\        & total  annual cost        respondent
                                                  respondent       responses
                                                                   (Column B x                              (Column D x Column E).......     (Column F /
                                                                     Column C)                                                                 Column B)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Utility Transmission                165              12           1,980  0.5 hrs.; $40.............  990 hrs.; $79,200...........            $480
 Operators.
Interstate Natural Gas                     181              12           2,172  0.5 hrs.; $40.............  1,086 hrs.; $86.880.........             480
 Pipelines.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals....................             346  ..............           4,152  ..........................  2,076 hrs.; $166,080........  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ Commission staff estimates that the respondents' skill set
(and wages and benefits) for FERC-923 are comparable to those of
FERC employees. Based on the Commission's Fiscal Year 2019 average
cost of $167,091/year (for wages plus benefits, for one full-time
employee), $80.00/hour is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1)Whether FERC-923 is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of FERC-923,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of FERC-923; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of FERC-923 on those who are to respond,
including the use of automated techniques or other forms of information
technology.

    Dated: March 3, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04738 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51240-51241]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-7]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0031; FRL-8963-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Extended Permit Terms for Renewal of Federally Enforceable
State Operating Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Indiana's rule revision to extend permit
terms for the renewal of Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits
(FESOPs) from five years to ten years. Indiana submitted this rule
revision for approval on December 19, 2007. FESOPs enable non-major
sources to obtain federally enforceable limits that keep them below
certain Clean Air Act (Act) applicability thresholds. EPA published
proposed and direct final approvals of this request on May 5, 2009. We
received adverse comments on our proposed rulemaking, which are
addressed below. As a result, EPA withdrew the direct final approval on
June 17, 2009.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0031. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sam Portanova,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Section is arranged as follows:

I. What Did EPA Propose?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Action Is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Did EPA Propose?

    On December 19, 2007, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) requested that EPA approve a rule revision to extend
permit terms for the renewal of FESOPs from five years to ten years. On
May 5, 2009, EPA published a proposed (74 FR 20665) and direct final
(74 FR 20599) approval of this request. EPA received adverse comments
on this action and withdrew the direct final approval on June 17, 2009
(74 FR 28616).

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?

    EPA received one comment letter with two comments from Valley
Watch, Inc.
    Comment: Permit terms of five years are sometimes too long to
account for changes in technology or other circumstances that make some
conditions obsolete fairly quickly. Extending those terms will have a
negative impact on the health of Valley Watch members and is, in
general, bad public policy.
    Response: Sources must comply with all applicable requirements of
the Act regardless of the length of a FESOP's term or the timing of its
issuance. FESOPs generally contain limits on the operations of the
plant, e.g., materials used and hours of operation, which effectively
restrict the source's potential to emit. See 54 FR 27281 (June 28,
1989). An approvable FESOP program such as Indiana's requires the
permits to undergo public notice and be subject to public comment. A
FESOP does not impact any previously or newly applicable substantive
requirements of the Act, such as new maximum achievable control
technology standards under Section 112. Such provisions remain
independently enforceable. Similarly, FESOP holders will still need to
meet all applicable requirements under the Act, including those related
to new construction. As such, an extension of FESOP renewal terms from
five to ten years does not delay the obligation of a source to comply
with all applicable requirements.
    Comment: Indiana has significantly cut back on its ability to do
inspections at both FESOP and bigger polluters. IDEM has taken away the
inspection responsibilities of numerous local government agencies by
stripping them of their financial and statutory support.
    Response: The length of a FESOP's term does not affect IDEM's
ability to conduct inspections at sources. The issue raised by the
commenter is not related to the rulemaking action being addressed in
this notice.

III. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving the revisions to 326 IAC 2-1.1-9.5 and 326 IAC 2-
8-4 regarding the permit terms for FESOP renewals.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 7, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 16, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(189) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (189) On December 19, 2007, Indiana submitted modifications to its
Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits rules as a revision to
the state implementation plan. The revision extends the maximum permit
term for renewals of Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits from
five years to ten years. EPA has determined that this revision is
approvable under the Clean Air Act.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326, Article 2: Permit Review
Rules, sections 2-1.1-9.5, ``General provisions; term of permit'', and
2-8-4, ``Permit content'', are incorporated by reference. Filed with
the Publisher of the Indiana Register on November 16, 2007, and became
effective on December 16, 2007. Published in the Indiana Register on
December 13, 2007 (20071212-IR-326060487FRA).

[FR Doc. E9-23938 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


( Submitted March 2004)

HIGH LOW Commodities 116,230 80,629 80,629 80,629 80,629 20 80,649 82,916 Cucurbits 1,362,231 1,187,120 801,139 529,933 746,898 941 747,839 753,202 Eggplants 150,069 148,914 111,333 81,845 100,812 433 101,245 106,626 Forest Seedlings 374,159 157,694 157,694 157,694 157,694  157,694 139,882 Ham 170,123 169,678 169,678 169,678 135,742  135,742 169,246 Orchard Replant 1,285,707 1,095,445 899,874 677,030 826,336 1,658 827,994 859,923 Fruit, Nut, & Flower Nursery 484,382 63,022 63,022 63,022 63,022 1,506 64,528 64,731 Ornamentals 226,796 198,447 198,447 198,447 158,757 4,060 162,817 230,856 Peppers 2,000,136 1,856,978 1,634,263 1,221,518 1,495,686 2,844 1,498,530 1,572,181 Strawberry Fruit 2,563,155 2,331,225 1,983,093 1,779,850 1,916,023 2,377 1,918,400 1,615,339 Strawberry Nursery 484,884 55,837 55,837 55,837 55,837 454 56,291 56,291 Structures Food Facilities 603,504 505,982 505,982 505,982 505,982  505,982 529,604 Tobacco Beds 16,431 16,431 16,431 16,431 13,145  13,145 16,431 Tobacco Trays 10,942 4,112 4,112 4,112 3,750  3,750 4,112 Tomatoes 4,653,353 4,516,161 3,023,666 2,465,541 2,839,484 5,501 2,844,985 2,937,380 Turf 680,388 137,949 137,949 96,564 129,672 1,928 131,600 131,600 Post Harvest Use ( NPMA) 198,117 188,811 181,079 181,079 144,863  144,863 181,079 TOTAL 15,380,609 12,714,434 10,024,226 8,285,191 9,374,331 21,722 9,396,053 9,451,399 PERCENT (%) OF 1991 BASELINE 60.3% 49.8% 39.3% 32.5% 36.7% 0.1% 36.8% 37.0%

1991 BASELINE 25,527,550 KILOGRAMS Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI)  REFINED NOMINATION SECTOR 2006 APPLICANT REQUEST ( KGS) INCLUDING SUBTRACTIONS FROM REQUEST ( KGS) COMBINED IMPACTS ADJUSTMENT ( KGS) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE ( KGS)

for applicants 2006 Original Nomination ( KGS)

RESEARCH AMOUNT ( KGS)

for research 2006 TOTAL REFINED NOMINATION ( KGS)

August 12, 2004 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM # Term Definition 1 Average Hectares in the US Average Hectares in the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.

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

3 2006 Amount of Request The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use,

and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination.

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

5 Quarantine and Pre Shipment Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments.

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

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

8 2006 Nomination Options 2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure.

9 Subtractions from Requested Amounts Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount.

10 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

2006 Request Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms.

11 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

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

12 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

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

13 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

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

14 Subtraction from Requested Amounts,

Use Rate Difference Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable,

minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares.

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

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

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

18 (%) Key Pest Impacts Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For example,

the key pest in Michigan peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge.

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

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

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

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

23 Most Likely Impact Value Most Likely Impact Value is the computational algorithm to estimate the most likely value of the High and Low combined impacts.

24 Most Likely Impact Value, Kilograms ( kg) Most Likely Impact Value, Kilograms ( kgs) is calculated by using a weighted percentage of the High and Low Combined Impact Adjustment.

25 Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) is the adjustment made to the sectors with new applicants that did not apply in the 2005 round of nominations.

25 Most Likely Impact Value, Hectares ( ha) Most Likely Impact Value, Hectares ( ha) is calculated by dividing the Most Likely Impact Value, Kilograms by the Most Likely Impact Value, Use Rate.

26 Most Likely Impact Value, Use Rate Most Likely Impact Value, Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate.

27 CUE Nominated amount CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate.

28 Percent Reduction Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination.

29 Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector Self explanatory.

30 Total US Sector Nomination Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector.

31 Dichotomous Variables Dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination.

32 Strip Bed Treatment Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise.

33 Currently Use Alternatives Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made.

34 Research/ Transition Plans Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives.

35 Tarps/ Deep Injection Used Because all pre plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes on the value ` tarp' when tarps are used and ` deep' when deep injection is used.

36 Pest free Certification Required This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 37 Other Issues Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 38 Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. # Term Definition Definition of Terms  Preplant 39 Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area.

40 Frequency of Treatment This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades.

41 Economic Analysis Provides summary economic information for the applications.

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

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

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

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

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

47 Marginal Strategy This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. # Term Definition 1 Average Volume in the U. S. Average Volume in the U. S. is the average of 2001 and 2002 total volume fumigated with methyl bromide in the U. S. in this sector ( when available).

2 % of Average Volume Requested Percent (%) of Average Volume Requested is the total volume in the sector's request divided by the Average Volume in the U. S. ( when available).

3 2006 Amount of Request The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total volume of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per thousand cubic feet. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the U. S. nomination.

4 2001 & 2002 Average Use The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in kilograms active ingredient of methyl bromide, total volume of methyl bromide use, and application rate in kilograms active ingredient of methyl bromide per thousand cubic meters. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used.

5 Quarantine and Pre Shipment Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) is the percentage (%) of the applicant's requested amount subject to QPS treatments.

6 Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume Regional Volume, 2001 & 2002 Average Volume is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of volume of methyl bromide used within the defined region ( when available).

7 Regional Volume, Requested Volume % Regional Volume, Requested Volume % is the volume in the applicant's request divided by the total volume fumigated with methyl bromide in the sector in the region covered by the request.

8 2006 Nomination Options 2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure 9 Subtractions from Requested Amounts Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount.

10 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

2006 Request Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms.

11 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

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

12 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

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

13 Subtractions from Requested Amounts,

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

14 Subtraction from Requested Amounts,

Use Rate Difference Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable,

minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining volume.

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

16 Use Rate kg/ 1000 m3 2006 Use rate in pounds per thousand cubic feet, 2006, is the use rate requested by the applicant as derived from the total volume to be fumigated divided by the total amount ( in pounds) of methyl bromide requested.

17 Use Rate kg/ 1000 m3 low Use rate in pounds per thousand cubic feet, low, is the lowest historic use rate reported by the applicant. The use rate selected for determining the amount to nominate is the lower of this rate or the 2006 use rate ( above).

18 (%) Key Pest Impacts Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For structures/

food facilities and commodities, key pests are assumed to infest 100% of the volume for the specific uses requested in that 100% of the problem must be eradicated.

19 Adopt New Fumigants (%) Adopt new fumigants (%) is the percent (%) of the requested volume where we expect alternatives could be adopted to replace methyl bromide during the year of the CUE request. Definition of Terms  Post Harvest # Term Definition Definition of Terms  Post Harvest 20 Combined Impacts (%) Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, and new fumigants. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive).

21 Most Likely Impact Value Most Likely Impact Value is the computational algorithm to estimate the most likely value of the High and Low combined impacts.

22 Most Likely Impact Value, Kilograms ( kg) Most Likely Impact Value, Kilograms ( kgs) is calculated by using a weighted percentage of the High and Low Combined Impact Adjustment.

23 Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) is the adjustment made to the sectors with new applicants that did not apply in the 2005 round of nominations.

24 Most Likely Impact Value, Volume ( 1000 m3) Most Likely Impact Value, Volume ( 1000 m3) is calculated by dividing the Most Likely Impact Value, Kilograms by the Most Likely Impact Value, Use Rate.

25 Most Likely Impact Value, Use Rate Most Likely Impact Value, Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate.

25 CUE Nominated amount CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying volume by the use rate.

26 Percent Reduction Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination.

27 Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector Self explanatory.

28 Total US Sector Nomination Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector.

29 Dichotomous Variables Dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination.

30 Currently Use Alternatives Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made.

31 Research/ Transition Plans Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives.

32 Pest free Market Required This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be pest free in order to be sold either because of U. S. sanitary requirements or because of consumer acceptance.

33 Other Issues Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 34 Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request.

35 Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area.

36 Frequency of Treatment This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades.

37 Economic Analysis Provides summary economic information for the applications.

38 Loss per 1000 m3 This measures the total loss per 1000 m3 of fumigation when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative, such as longer time spent in the fumigation chamber. It is measured in current U. S. dollars.

39 Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars.

40 Loss as a % of Gross revenue This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current U. S. dollars.

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

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

43 Marginal Strategy This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Date: not available Sector: not available Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) 2001 Volume % of Volume 20,412 850 24 18,218 773 24 0%

4,990 238 21 5,262 201 26 0%

87,362 1,435 61 72,121 1,501 48 20%

3,467 167 21 3,016 145 21 0%

116,230 2,689 43 98,617 2,620 38 5%

2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW Amount ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) % Reduction 20,412  1,839 355  18,218 18,218 18,218 773 24 11%

4,990  772   4,217 4,217 4,217 201 21 15%

87,362   18,390 13,794 55,178 55,178 55,178 1,148 48 37%

3,467  452   3,016 3,016 3,016 145 21 13%

116,230 116,230 113,168 94,423 80,629 80,629 80,629 80,629 2,267 36 31%

0% 0% 3% 19% 31% 31% 31% 31% 16% 18%

2006 Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 24 24 100 100 0 0 100% 100% 84 DAYS 21 21 100 100 0 0 100% 100% 84 DAYS 61 48 100 100 0 0 100% 100% 84 DAYS 21 21 100 100 0 0 100% 100% 84 DAYS Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Pest free Market Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use / State Frequency of Treatment / Yr Loss per 1000 m3 ( US$/ 1000m) Loss per Kg of MeBr ( US$/ kg) Loss as a % of Gross Revenue Y Y Y 0 N 2/ year 13,436 $ 560 $ 28%

Y Y Y + N 2/ year 222,051 $ 10,524 $ 28%

Y Y Y 0 N 2/ year 96,793 $ 975 $ 28%

Y Y Y new N 2/ year 61,498 $ 2,957 $ 28%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms 1,000 cu ft = 0.028316847 1,000 cubic meters DATES 404%

PISTACHIOS 133%

WALNUTS 559%

COMMODITY TYPE Loss as a % of Net Revenue DRIED FRUIT 131%

DATES Phosphine Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis PISTACHIOS Phosphine WALNUTS Phosphine Time, Quality, or Product Loss Marginal Strategy COMMODITY TYPE DRIED FRUIT Phosphine Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) (%) Key Pest Distribution (%) Adopt New Fumigants (%) Combined Impacts DATES Nomination Amount % Reduction Adjustments to Requested Amounts COMMODITY TYPE DRIED FRUIT PISTACHIOS WALNUTS TOTAL OR AVERAGE not available 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE WALNUTS not available DATES not available DRIED FRUIT not available PISTACHIOS not available 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Volume COMMODITY TYPE Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 7/ 7/ 04 Average Volume in the US:

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) COMMODITIES % of Average Volume Requested:

9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 181,552 5%

2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average 8,114 7%

21,489 24%

25,191 11%

54,794 16%

Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 27,656 574 48 0%

461,257 3,071 150 50%

257,985 1,718 150 36%

746,898 5,363 139 45%

45% 43% 3%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 48 48 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

150 150 0% 0% 0% 0% 66% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

150 150 8% 8% 0% 0% 64% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kg of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 2,232 $ 46 $ 12% 55%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year $ 2,883 19 $ 23% 70%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 4,108 $ 27 $ 33% 99%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 7,230 $ 48 $ 21% 52%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 10,871 $ 72 $ 31% 79%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare * Georgia rotates crops with solanaceous crops therefore we had to balance the distribution with the other sectors in Georgia's application. 44% Yield Loss Metam Sodium + Pic 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 44% Yield Loss Metam Sodium + Pic GEORGIA 29% Yield Loss 1,3 D + Pic MICHIGAN 6 % Yield Loss 1,3 D+ Pic SOUTHEASTERN US 29% Yield Loss 1,3 D + Pic GEORGIA * 68% 46%

Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy REGION MICHIGAN 100% 100%

SOUTHEASTERN US 66% 42%

Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 13% 13% 41% 61%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 13% 1,187,120 1,187,120 801,139 529,933 Nomination Amount 1,362,231 1,362,231 1,187,120   276,049 185,728 GEORGIA 405,837  61   497,434 316,549 SOUTHEASTERN US 928,739  175,050   27,656 27,656 MICHIGAN 27,656   USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) 11%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 1,362,231 9,460 144 1,231,094 8,589 143 0% 17%

430,696 2,868 150 0%

GEORGIA 405,837 2,702 150 7%

SOUTHEASTERN US 928,739 6,184 150 772,531 5,144 150 0% 29%

Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares MICHIGAN 27,656 574 48 27,867 578 48 0%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha)

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: CUCURBITS % of Average Hectares Requested:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 7/ 6/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 2,197 48%

2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average 497 64%

647 113%

1,145 99%

Kilograms ( kgs) Amended Adjustment ( kgs)* Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 26,591 26,591 177 150 46%

3,951 3,161 66 48 20%

71,061 71,061 473 150 27%

101,602 100,812 716 141 33%

32% 33% 32% 1%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 150 150 8 8 0 0 58 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 62% 43%

48 48 0 0 0 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 100 100 100% 100%

150 150 40 40 1 1 58 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 80% 59%

Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 7,593 $ 51 $ 18% 72%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 10,985 $ 73 $ 26% 105%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 1,674 $ 35 $ 5% 18%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 5,252 $ 35 $ 24% 82%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 7,796 $ 52 $ 36% 122%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare * Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) is the adjustment made to the sectors with new applicants that did not apply in the 2005 round of nominations. 44% yield loss + planting delay Metam Sodium + Pic 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 MICHIGAN 6% Yield Loss 1,3 D+ Pic FLORIDA 29% yield loss + planting delay 1,3 D + Pic GEORGIA 29% yield loss + planting delay 1,3 D + Pic 44% yield loss + planting delay Metam Sodium + Pic Economic Analysis Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy REGION FLORIDA Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Combined Impacts (%)

REGION GEORGIA MICHIGAN (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 1% 1% 26% 45%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 1% 148,914 148,914 111,333 81,845 Nomination Amount 150,069 150,069 148,914   77,800 57,378 FLORIDA 97,250     3,951 3,951 MICHIGAN 3,951     29,582 20,517 GEORGIA 48,868  1,155 USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) 100%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 150,069 1,055 142 166,317 1,129 147 0% 92%

114,623 728 157 0%

FLORIDA 97,250 647 150 65%

MICHIGAN 3,951 82 48 3,981 83 48 0% not available Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares GEORGIA 48,868 325 150 47,713 318 150 0%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha)

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: EGGPLANT % of Average Hectares Requested:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 6/ 9/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 2001 & 2002 Average % of Average Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 87,348 233 375 64%

21,528 86 250 37%

1,911 7 263 55%

14,370 43 336 20%

12,709 54 236 50%

12,970 38 341 60%

4,477 17 263 51%

2,381 6 392 50%

157,694 484 326 58%

58% 56% 4%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 375 375 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 250 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 263 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 336 336 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 236 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 341 341 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 269 263 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 392 392 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MB (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ 4years 3,056 $ 33 $ 9% 19%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 1x/ 4years 3,695 $ 59 $ 11% 20%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ year 14,142 $ 54 $ 7% 8%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 1x/ 4years 1,710 $ 20 $ 6% 15%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ 3years 2,368 $ 27 $ 13% 25%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ 1 3years 6,547 $ 38 $ 20% 66%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1x/ 3 4years 5,988 $ 67 $ 6% 37%

No Yes Yes Tarp N/ A No 1x/ 2 3years 28,359 $ 145 $ 20% 28%

Notes: Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare * International Paper and Weyerhaeuser ( SE) were included in the Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative, therefore they were removed from the Southern Forest Cooperative application as double counting.

0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 Michigan Seedling Association 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Weyerhaeuser ( NW) 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc. 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Illinois Department of Natural Resources 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Weyerhaeuser ( SE) 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop. 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic International Paper 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic REGION Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Michigan Seedling Association 100% 100%

Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 100% 100%

Weyerhaeuser ( NW) 100% 100%

NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc. 100% 100%

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 100% 100%

Weyerhaeuser ( SE) 100% 100%

Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop. 100% 100%

International Paper 100% 100%

Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 25% 58% 58% 58%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 19% 25% 278,933 157,694 157,694 157,694 Nomination Amount 374,159 302,823 280,926  2,381 2,381 2,381 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,763   191 4,477 4,477 4,477 Michigan Seedling Association 9,144    12,970 12,970 12,970 NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc. 32,455  6,514 1,803 3,177 12,709 12,709 Weyerhaeuser ( NW) 25,358  7,669  3,592 14,370 14,370 Weyerhaeuser ( SE) 17,962    1,911 1,911 1,911 Illinois Department of Natural Resources 4,264  442  5,382 21,528 21,528 International Paper 34,181  7,271  87,348 87,348 87,348 Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop. 246,032 71,336  () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison not available 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE 411,704 1,147 359 39%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 374,159 1,100 340 not available 50,723 129 392 50% not available 8,954 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,763 12 392 34 263 50%

Michigan Seedling Association 9,144 34 269 not available NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc. 32,455 95 341 26,558 76 349 50% not available 15,886 67 236 20%

Weyerhaeuser ( NW) 25,358 96 263 not available Weyerhaeuser ( SE) 17,962 53 336 22,970 63 367 20% not available 3,822 15 263 50%

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 4,264 16 263 not available International Paper 34,181 137 250 36,759 108 341 20% not available Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop. 246,032 656 375 246,032 656 375 50%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) 51,506 2006 Methyl Bromine Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: FOREST SEEDLINGS % of Average Hectares Requested: 2%

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 7/ 6/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 10,952 47 235 78%

20,167 61 328 90%

31,903 95 336 86%

63,022 203 310 87%

87% 86% 5%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 253 235 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 328 0 0 0 0 100 100 44 31 0 0 0 0 336 336 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No No Yes Tarp Yes + Yes 2 3 yr No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  Yes 3 5 yr No No Yes Tarp Yes 0 Yes 3 5 yr Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 REGION Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium Not included as there is no technically feasible alternative.

CA Rose Growers CA Assoc.  Fruit & Nut Tree Growers CA Assoc.  Fruit & Nut Tree Growers 100% 100%

Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium 100% 100%

CA Rose Growers 100% 100%

Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 9% 87% 87% 87%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 7% 441,735 63,022 63,022 63,022 Nomination Amount 484,382 484,382 449,655  180,786 31,903 31,903 CA Assoc.  Fruit & Nut Tree Growers 224,528  11,839 5,782 181,500 20,167 20,167 CA Rose Growers 209,975  2,526 2,137 16,427 10,952 10,952 Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium 49,879  20,363 () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE not available 441,735 1,364 324 78%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 484,382 1,487 326 not available CA Assoc.  Fruit & Nut Tree Growers 224,528 668 336 212,689 633 336 85% not available 60% not available CA Rose Growers 209,975 622 337 201,667 615 328 90%

Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium 49,879 197 253 27,379 117 235 not available 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs)

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: FRUIT, NUT, & FLOWER NURSERY % of Average Hectares Requested:

Date: 6/ 9/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: not available 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM Date:

Sector:

Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) 2001 & 2002 Average % of Volume 1,696 68 25 1,250 68 18 0%

145 7 20 163 7 23 0%

168,283 7,004 24 0%

170,123 7,079 24 1,413 75 19 0%

2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW Amount ( kgs) Amended Adjustment ( kgs) * Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3) % Reduction 1,696   446  1,250 1,250 1,250 1,000 54 18 41%

145     145 145 145 116 6 20 20%

168,283     168,283 168,283 168,283 134,626 5,609 24 20%

170,123 170,123 170,123 169,678 169,678 169,678 169,678 169,678 135,742 5,670 24 20%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 20% 0%

2006 Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 25 18 100 100 0 0 100% 100%

20 20 100 100 0 0 100% 100%

24 24 100 100 0 0 100% 100%

Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Pest free Market Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use / State Frequency of Treatment / Yr Loss per 1000 m3 ( US$/ 1000m) Loss per Kg of MeBr ( US$/ kg) Loss as a % of Gross Revenue ? ? Yes 0 No 7x / year ? ? Yes 0 No 4x / year ? ? Yes 0 No 4x / year Notes Conversion Units: 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms 0.02831685 1,000 cubic meters * Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) is the adjustment made to the sectors with new applicants that did not apply in the 2005 round of nominations.

1,000 cu ft =

HAM ASSOCIATION Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION No information was provided.

NAHUNTA PORK CENTER AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Marginal Strategy HAM ASSOCIATION NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION No information was provided.

NAHUNTA PORK CENTER AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS (%) Key Pest Distribution (%) Adopt New Fumigants (%) Combined Impacts Time, Quality, or Product Loss Nomination Amount % Reduction from Initial Request Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3)

HAM ASSOCIATION NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION NAHUNTA PORK CENTER AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MEAT PROCESSORS not available not available TOTAL OR AVERAGE not available NATIONAL COUNTRY HAM ASSOCIATION not available NAHUNTA PORK CENTER not available 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Volume HAM ASSOCIATION 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) HAM % of Average Volume Requested: not available Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 6/ 9/ 04 Average Volume in the US: not available 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 530,745 1,578 336 26%

71,993 203 354 57%

119,329 426 280 47%

104,268 286 364 41%

826,336 2,494 331 36%

36% 35% 1%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 336 336 0 0 0 0 60 35 8 2 0 0 50 35 382 354 0 0 0 0 35 35 8 2 0 0 50 35 280 280 0 0 0 0 85 85 8 2 0 0 50 35 364 364 0 0 0 0 50 35 8 2 0 0 50 35 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MB (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Y+ N Yes Yes Deep No 0 Yes 1 / 20 No Yes Yes Deep No 0 Yes 1 / 20 No Yes Yes Deep No 0 Yes 1 / 40 Y+ N Yes Yes Deep No + 3 Yes 1 / 20 Alternatives 1,3 D may not be suitable due to soil type, pests or township caps Notes 1 2 3 Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 * Due to the nature of these applications, the historical reported data varies greatly from year to year. Therefore an average of the usage from 1997 through 2001 were used.

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruit requested 8100 acres but only 65% of those acres are fumigated due to strip bed treatment, therefore the acreage was adjusted downward.

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruit reported historical use rates that were grossly underestimated for normal fumigation use. A use rate of 300 pounds ai/ acre was multiplied by the reported acreage to reflect a more accurate estimate of methyl bromide used.

This applicant only replanted every 20 years, so change from 2002 is not necessarily relevant since replant in 2002 reflects status of market in ~ 1982, which was less than planting in 1970s that are now being replanted.

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits Not included as there is no technically feasible alternative.

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes CA Walnut Commission Almond Hullers & Processors Association Other Issues Economic Analysis CA Walnut Commission 100%

Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy REGION Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) 92%

Almond Hullers & Processors Association 77% 58%

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits 82% 58%

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes 70% 58%

Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Unsuitable Soil (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 15% 15% 30% 47%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 14% 1,095,445 1,095,445 899,874 677,030 Nomination Amount 1,285,707 1,285,707 1,104,082   113,511 85,502 Almond Hullers & Processors Association 176,901  29,483   122,564 112,759 CA Walnut Commission 226,796  104,232 8,637  76,310 63,229 CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes 165,561  47,910   587,488 415,540 CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits 716,449   USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) not available TOTAL OR AVERAGE 1,285,707 3,859 333 1,516,785 4,507 337 0% not available not available 85%

Almond Hullers & Processors Association 176,901 486 364 546,618 1,471 372 0% not available 90%

CA Walnut Commission 226,796 809 280 90,817 437 208 0% not available 90%

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes 165,561 433 382 109,015 308 354 0%

Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits 716,449 2,131 336 770,335 2,291 336 0%

2006 Amount of Request 1997~ 2001 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) not available 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: ORCHARD REPLANT % of Average Hectares Requested: not available Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 6/ 9/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 2000 Data % of 2000 Data 10,702 11%

10,702 11%

Kilograms ( kgs) Amended Adjustment ( kgs) * Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 198,447 158,757 463 343 30%

198,447 158,757 463 343 30%

13% 30% 20% 13%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 392 343 0 0 0 0 100 100 44 31 0 0 0 0 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No Yes Yes Yes 0 Varies 4,980 $ 11 $ 19% 43%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare * Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) is the adjustment made to the sectors with new applicants that did not apply in the 2005 round of nominations.

0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 REGION Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy CUT FLOWERS AND FOLIAGE 20% Metam Sodium CUT FLOWERS AND FOLIAGE 100% 100%

Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 13% 13% 13% 13%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 0% 198,447 198,447 198,447 198,447 Nomination Amount 226,796 226,796 226,796 28,350  198,447 198,447 CUT FLOWERS AND FOLIAGE 226,796   USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) 5%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 226,796 578 392 60,747 150 404 0% 5%

Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares CUT FLOWERS AND FOLIAGE 226,796 578 392 60,747 150 404 0%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) not available 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: ORNAMENTALS % of Average Hectares Requested: not available Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 6/ 9/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 & 2002 Average 9,854 9%

3,581 25%

2,554 89%

8,215 103%

749 44%

24,954 51%

Kilograms ( kgs) Amended Adjustment ( kgs)

** Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 159,659 159,659 890 179 12%

77,711 77,711 517 150 65%

242,761 242,761 1,616 150 30%

1,006,074 1,006,074 6,699 150 18%

11,852 9,482 197 48 40%

1,498,057 1,495,686 9,919 151 25%

25% 25% 26%  1%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 179 179 0 0 0 0 100 100 26 17 0 0 0 0 150 150 0 0 0 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 8 8 0 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 40 40 1 0 80 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 0 0 0 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 75 75 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/

) Verified Historic MeBr Use /

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 1,194 $ 8 $ 6% 29%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 8,954 $ 60 $ 29% 76%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 11,429 $ 76 $ 37% 97%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 7,368 $ 49 $ 21% 112%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 10,453 $ 70 $ 30% 160%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 6,724 $ 45 $ 23% 73%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 9,637 $ 64 $ 33% 105%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No N/ A Yes 1/ year 933 $ 19 $ 4%  14%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare * CA average of 1997 2001 ** Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) is the adjustment made to the sectors with new applicants that did not apply in the 2005 round of nominations.

0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 44% Metam Sodium MICHIGAN 6% 1,3 D + Pic 44% Metam Sodium FLORIDA 29% 1,3 D + Pic 44% Metam Sodium GEORGIA 29% 1,3 D + Pic CALIFORNIA 6% 1,3 D + Pic SOUTHEASTERN US 29% 1,3 D + Pic MICHIGAN 75% 75%

Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy REGION GEORGIA 82% 51%

FLORIDA 89% 67%

CALIFORNIA 100% 100%

SOUTHEASTERN US 80% 47%

Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 7% 7% 18% 39%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 7% 1,856,978 1,856,978 1,634,263 1,221,518 Nomination Amount 2,000,136 2,000,136 1,856,978   11,852 11,852 MICHIGAN 15,803     1,095,431 824,651 FLORIDA 1,230,822     277,363 172,507 GEORGIA 347,183  8,935   89,956 52,849 SOUTHEASTERN US 224,891  112,445   159,659 159,659 CALIFORNIA 181,437  21,778 USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) 44%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 2,000,136 13,343 150 2,014,313 12,832 157 0% 53%

15,924 330 48 0%

MICHIGAN 15,803 328 48 90%

FLORIDA 1,230,822 8,195 150 1,360,776 8,468 161 0% 100%

342,716 2,282 150 0%

GEORGIA 347,183 2,312 150 10%

SOUTHEASTERN US 224,891 1,497 150 135,238 900 150 0% 42%

Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Requested Hectares %

CALIFORNIA* 181,437 1,012 179 159,659 852 187 0%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) 36,007 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: PEPPERS % of Average Hectares Requested: 37%

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 6/ 9/ 2004 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM Date:

Sector:

Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) 2001 & 2002 Average % of Volume 93,523 3,892 24 89,861 3,740 24 0%

9,938 414 24 5,869 244 24 0%

85,393 3,554 24 76,899 3,200 24 0%

503 21 24 643 27 24 0%

3,856 160 24 3,596 150 24 0%

4,905 204 24 4,352 181 24 0%

198,117 8,245 24 181,219 7,542 24 0%

2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW Amount ( kgs) Amended Adjustment ( kgs) * Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) % Reduction 93,523  3,663   89,861 89,861 89,861 71,889 2,992 24 23%

9,938  4,069   5,869 5,869 5,869 4,695 195 24 53%

85,393  8,494   76,899 76,899 76,899 61,519 2,560 24 28%

503     503 503 503 402 17 24 20%

3,856  260   3,596 3,596 3,596 2,876 120 24 25%

4,905  553   4,352 4,352 4,352 3,482 145 24 29%

198,117 198,117 188,811 188,811 188,811 181,079 181,079 181,079 144,863 6,029 24 27%

0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 27% 27% 0%

2006 Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

24 24 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Pest free Market Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use /

State Frequency of Treatment / Yr Loss per 1000 m3 ( US$/ 1000m) Loss per Kg of MeBr ( US$/ kg) Loss as a % of Gross Revenue Y Y Y 0 N 2 3 Y Y Y + N 2 Y Y Y 0 N 1/ 5 yr Y Y Y + N 2 Y Y Y 0 N 1/ 5 yr Y Y Y  N 2.5 Conversion Units: 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms 1,000 cu ft = 0.028316847 1,000 cubic meters * Most Likely Impact Value, Amended Adjustment ( kgs) is the adjustment made to the sectors with new applicants that did not apply in the 2005 round of nominations.

FOOD FACILITY TYPE Loss as a % of Net Revenue Processed Foods Not provided by applicant.

Spices and Herbs Cocoa Dried Milk Cheese Processing Plants Other Commodity Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Cheese Processing Plants Heat Other Commodity Heat FOOD FACILITY TYPE Processed Foods Unknown Heat Spices and Herbs Heat Cocoa Heat Dried Milk Heat (%) Adopt New Fumigants (%) Combined Impacts Time, Quality,

or Product Loss Marginal Strategy % Reduction from Initial Request djustments to Requested Amou Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) (%) Key Pest Distribution Dried Milk Cheese Processing Plants Other Commodity Nomination Amount FOOD FACILITY TYPE Processed Foods Spices and Herbs Cocoa TOTAL OR AVERAGE not available 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE Cheese Processing Plants not available Other Commodity not available Cocoa not available Dried Milk not available Processed Foods not available Spices and Herbs not available 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Volume FOOD FACILITY TYPE 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) POST HARVEST USE ( NPMA) % of Average Volume Requested: not available Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Proce 6/ 9/ 04 Average Volume in the US: not available 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 19,486 68%

2001 & 2002 Average Requested Hectares %

11,109 73%

2,873 100%

13,982 95%

Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 1,452,732 7,422 196 11%

152,294 1,010 151 57%

310,997 1,682 185 46%

1,916,023 10,114 189 25%

25% 24% 2%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 202 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 82 15 15 0 0 151 151 0 0 40 40 40 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 185 40 40 1 1 40 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 53 $ 15% 79%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No + Yes 1/ year 47 $ 14%  128%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No 0 Yes 1/ year 62 $ 18% 42%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 1 Buffer Zones were reduced from 300 feet to 100 feet, therefore the impact estimate has been reduced from 90% to 40%.

2 The Regulatory Issues impact estimate has been adjusted for California. Their original request already reflected Regulatory Issues impacts.

3 Combined Impacts were revised on 3/ 31/ 04 due to the above mentioned adjustments.

0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 FLORIDA 9,319 $ 14% Yield Loss 1,3 d+ pic EASTERN US 8,661 $ 14% Yield Loss 1,3 d+ pic/ Metam+ Pic CALIFORNIA 10,732 $ 14% Yield Loss Metam Sodium + Pic REGION Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy FLORIDA 64% 58%

Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis CALIFORNIA 95% 85%

EASTERN US 64% 58%

Combined Impacts (%) 3 REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) 2 Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones1 9% 9% 23% 31%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 5% 2,331,225 2,331,225 1,983,093 1,779,850 Nomination Amount 2,563,155 2,563,155 2,425,520 45,586  320,925 290,839 FLORIDA 579,691  32,659   157,156 142,423 EASTERN US 350,534  104,977 48,709  1,505,011 1,346,589 CALIFORNIA 1,632,931   USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) 94%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 2,563,155 13,284 193 2,382,379 12,747 187 0% 91%

501,446 2,711 185 0%

FLORIDA 579,691 2,873 202 74%

EASTERN US 350,534 2,317 151 278,967 1,851 151 0% not available Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of 2001 & 2002 Average CALIFORNIA 1,632,931 8,094 202 1,601,966 8,184 196 0%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha)

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: STRAWBERRIES % of Average Hectares Requested:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 6/ 9/ 2004 Average Hectares in the US:

9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 53,751 204 263 88%

2,086 5 413 95%

55,837 209 267 88%

88% 88% 2%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 263 263 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 413 413 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No Yes Yes Tarp Yes + Yes years 2~ 5 7,208 $ 27 $ 18% 61%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes + Yes years 2~ 5 5,469 $ 13 $ 13% 46%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 CALIFORNIA 10% 1,3 D + Pic SOUTHEASTERN US 10% 1,3 D + Pic REGION Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis CALIFORNIA 100% 100%

SOUTHEASTERN US 100% 100%

Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 22% 88% 88% 88%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 22% 377,301 55,837 55,837 55,837 Nomination Amount 484,884 484,884 377,301  16,878 2,086 2,086 SOUTHEASTERN US 41,453  22,489  304,587 53,751 53,751 CALIFORNIA 443,432  85,094 () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE not available 393,544 1,455 270 87%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 484,884 1,784 272 not available SOUTHEASTERN US 41,453 100 413 28,499 69 413 89% not available Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares CALIFORNIA 443,432 1,683 263 365,045 1,386 263 85%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) not available 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: STRAWBERRY NURSERY % of Average Hectares Requested: not available Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 6/ 9/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM Date: not available Sector: not available Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) 2001 & 2002 Average % of Volume 202,756 6,173 33 142,881 4,587 31 20%

23,814 1,206 20 29,937 1,529 20 0%

48,081 2,209 22 48,264 2,215 22 0%

328,854 16,990 19 340,194 16,990 20 0%

603,504 26,578 23 561,277 25,322 22 5%

2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW Amount ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) % Reduction 202,756  52,084 7,790 28,576 114,305 114,305 114,305 3,670 31 44%

23,814  9,072   14,742 14,742 14,742 753 20 38%

48,081     48,081 48,081 48,081 2,209 22 0%

328,854     328,854 328,854 328,854 16,990 19 0%

603,504 603,504 542,348 534,558 505,982 505,982 505,982 505,982 23,622 21 16%

0% 0% 10% 11% 16% 16% 16% 16% 11% 6%

2006 Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 33 31 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 17 Days 20 20 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 9 Days 22 22 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 1 Day 19 19 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 9 Days Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Pest free Market Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use / State Frequency of Treatment / Yr Loss per 1000 m3 ( US$/ 1000m) Loss per Kg of MeBr ( US$/ kg) Loss as a % of Gross Revenue Y Y Y 0 N 2 3 2,023 $ 62 $ 18%

Y Y Y + N 2 7,513 $ 381 $ 8%

Y Y Y 0 N 1/ 5 yr 2,776 $ 128 $ 3%

Y Y Y  N 2.5 12,439 $ 616 $ 14%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms 1,000 cu ft = 0.02831685 1,000 cubic meters NORTH AMERICAN MILLER'S ASSOCIATION 57%

BAKERIES 58%

PET FOOD INSTITUTE 46%

FOOD FACILITY TYPE Loss as a % of Net Revenue RICE MILLER'S ASSOCIATION 138%

NORTH AMERICAN MILLER'S ASSOCIATION Heat Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis BAKERIES Heat PET FOOD INSTITUTE Heat Time, Quality,

or Product Loss Marginal Strategy FOOD FACILITY TYPE RICE MILLER'S ASSOCIATION Heat Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m3) (%) Key Pest Distribution (%) Adopt New Fumigants (%) Combined Impacts NORTH AMERICAN MILLER'S ASSOCIATION Nomination Amount % Reduction from Initial Request Adjustments to Requested Amounts FOOD FACILITY TYPE RICE MILLER'S ASSOCIATION BAKERIES PET FOOD INSTITUTE TOTAL OR AVERAGE not available 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE PET FOOD INSTITUTE not available NORTH AMERICAN MILLER'S ASSOCIATION not available RICE MILLER'S ASSOCIATION not available BAKERIES not available 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Volume FOOD FACILITY TYPE Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 6/ 9/ 04 Average Volume in the US:

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUN STRUCTURES  FOOD FACILITIES % of Average Volume Requested:

9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM Date: Sector: 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average % of Request 749 88% 88%

15,479 6% 6%

29,672 97% 101%

45,900 67% 69%

Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 10,746 223 48 66%

102,058 971 105 0%

2,726,680 18,161 150 40%

2,839,484 19,355 147 39%

39% 39% 0%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 48 48 0% 0% 0% 0% 34% 34% 0% 0% 0% 0% 34% 34% 34% 34%

105 105 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 1% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

150 150 32% 32% 0% 0% 50% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 66% 53%

Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 4,730 $ 98 $ 12% 50%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 8,618 $ 82 $ 10% 26%

Yes Yes Yes Tarp No  Yes 1/ year 5,708 $ 38 $ 14% 39%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare Southeastern US 21%, 6.2% Yield Loss + 14.8% delay 1,3 D+ Pic+ herbicide 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 Michigan 22%, 6% Yield Loss + 16% delay 1,3 D + Pic California 15% Yield Loss, Range 15 to 20% Metam Sodium Economic Analysis Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy REGION Southeastern US Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Combined Impacts (%)

REGION Michigan California (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 3% 3% 35% 47%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 3% 4,516,161 4,516,161 3,023,666 2,465,541 TOTAL 4,653,353 4,653,353 4,516,161   2,910,861 2,352,736 Southeastern US 4,519,688  137,191   102,058 102,058 California 102,058     10,746 10,746 Michigan 31,606   USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

4,584,953 30,537 150 0%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 4,653,353 31,731 147 4,442,326 28,887 154 0%

Southeastern US 4,519,688 30,104 150 0%

California 102,058 971 105 110,779 990 112 0%

Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

Michigan 31,606 656 48 31,848 661 48 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha)

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) TOMATOES % of Average Hectares Requested: 62%

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 6/ 9/ 2004 Average Hectares in the US: 51,506 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM 131,971 1%

2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 129,672 432 300 81%

129,672 432 300 81%

81% 69% 38%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 480 300 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

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

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 1 / 3 years 6,634 $ 14 $ 34% 64%

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 REGION Quality/ Time/

Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy Turfgrass Producers International 25% Dazomet Turfgrass Producers International 100% 70%

Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Combined Impacts (%)

REGION HIGH LOW (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 59% 80% 80% 86%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 42% 275,897 137,949 137,949 96,564 Nomination Amount 680,388 680,388 394,139 118,242 137,949 137,949 96,564 Turfgrass Producers International 680,388  286,249 USA 2006 NOMINATION AMOUNT

MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE REGION 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs) not available TOTAL OR AVERAGE 680,388 1,416 480 388,041 821 473 50% not available Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % of Requested Hectares Turfgrass Producers International 680,388 1,416 480 388,041 821 473 50%

2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Regional Hectares**

REGION Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha)

2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Sector: TURF % of Average Hectares Requested:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Date: 7/ 6/ 04 Average Hectares in the US: 9/ 7/ 044: 02 PM