For EPA Use Only ID # ______________ SECTOR _________________________

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 Under the Clean Air Act and the international treaty to protect the ozone layer ( the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer), the production and import of methyl bromide will be phased out in the United States on January 1, 2005. This application seeks information to support a U. S. request to produce and import methyl bromide for certain critical uses and circumstances beyond this 2005 phaseout date.

The information in this application will be used to review whether your use of methyl bromide is " critical" because no technically and economically feasible alternatives are available. In order to estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available, EPA needs to compare data ( yields, crops/ crop groupings, prices, revenues and costs) for your use of methyl bromide with uses of alternative pest control regimens.

If you submit a well documented application with sound reasons why alternatives are not technically and economically feasible, the U. S. government can be a better advocate for your exemption request internationally.

EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Burden means 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. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number. The information contained in this application is critical to process and assess the need for methyl bromide. Filling out this application in its entirety will bolster the U. S. government's ability to strengthen the nomination package for the international review boards. OMB Control # 2060 0482 WHY IS THIS INFORMATION NEEDED? 2003 Application for Critical Use Exemption of Methyl Bromide for Pre Plant Use in 2005 and beyond in the United States Click on the Instructions tab located at the bottom of the screen for additional information. WHO APPLIES?

STATE CONTACTS HOW DO I APPLY?

IS MY INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL?

WHEN IS THE INFORMATION NEEDED?

Mailing Address for applications being submitted by mail directly to the EPA: Address for applications being sent by courier or non U. S. Postal overnight express delivery to the EPA:

US Environmental Protection Agency US Environmental Protection Agency Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Office of Pesticide Programs Office of Pesticide Programs Mail Code 7503C 911 Bay, BEAD 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway Washington, DC 20460 Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 308 8200 OMB Control # 2060 0482 You may either complete an electronic ( Microsoft Excel) or a printed version of the application. Please fill out each form or worksheet in the application as completely as possible. If you are completing the printed version and need extra space you may attach additional sheets as needed. Additional information may be available from your local state department of agriculture or at the sites listed below or by calling 1 800 296 1996. The applicant may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information in the application by placing on ( or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as trade secret, proprietary, or company confidential. Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non confidential documents should be clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the applicant desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures set forth under 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B; 41 FR 36902, 43 FR 400000. 50 FR 51661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant. Applicants submitting their application via e mail assume responsibility for the confidentiality of the electronic message transmission.

This application must be postmarked to the EPA address below no later than 120 days after the Notice was published in the Federal Register requesting critical use exemption applications. If you anticipate that you will need methyl bromide in 2005 because you believe there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives, then you should apply for the critical use exemption. This application may be submitted either by a consortium representing multiple users or by individual users. We encourage users with similar circumstances of use to submit a single application ( for example, any number of pre plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions can submit a single application.)

If a consortium is applying for multiple methyl bromide users, the economic data should be for a representative or typical user within the consortium unless otherwise noted. If economic or technical factors ( such as size of the farm) affecting the ability of this " representative user" to use alternatives are significantly different than other users in the consortium, more than one application should be submitted to reflect these differences.

Please contact your local, state, regional or national commodity association and/ or state representative agency to find out if they plan on submitting an application on behalf of your commodity group.

States that have agreed to participate in the exemption process are listed on EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cueqa. html methyl. bromide@ epa. gov ( When submitting an application electronically, you should also print a hard copy, sign it, and submit it by mail)

If you have general questions about this application call:

Stratospheric Ozone Hotline 1 800 296 1996 INSTRUCTIONS The information provided by you in this application will be used to evaluate the requested methyl bromide use. The U. S. and other countries that are parties to the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer decided that: " a use of methyl bromide should qualify as " critical" only if the nominating Party determines that: ( i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and ( ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination  "

WHERE DO I SUBMIT THE APPLICATION?

HOW CAN I RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? Electronic Address for applications: EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant SECTIONS OF WORKBOOK OMB Control # 2060 0482 Printing worksheets To increase or decrease the size of the page that is viewable on the screen, go to the menu bar and select " View" and then " Zoom".

Navigating between worksheets The set of four arrows on the bottom left of the screen will help you navigate between worksheets. This is necessary to access the remaining worksheet tabs in the workbook that are not viewable. The two arrows with vertical lines to either the left or right will take you to the first worksheet and to the last worksheet respectively in the workbook. The inner two arrows allow you move the worksheet tabs to the right or to the left incrementally. The two arrows on the bottom right of the screen allow you to move the worksheet that you are viewing to the right or to the left. This is useful if the viewable area of on the screen is smaller than the entire page that is in the 7. Change the title row of the newly pasted worksheet from the old worksheet number to be consistent with the worksheet tab. 2. Select the top left corner of the worksheet ( this is the space to the left of column A and above row 1. You will know that the entire worksheet has been selected because the row and column marks as well as the worksheet itself Note: This is the only way you can copy a worksheet and not lose portions of the text instructions.

Viewing worksheets Worksheets are best viewed in " Page Break Preview." To select the view of the worksheet, go to the menu bar and select " View" and then " Page Break Preview." Page break preview shows only the printable area of the worksheet, with the blue lines that surround the screen indicating the edges of each page. 3. Go to the menu line at the top of the worksheet and select " Edit" then " Copy".

4. Go to the blank worksheet where you want the copied information to be pasted. 5. Again, select the top left corner of the worksheet ( left of column A and above row 1) to select the entire worksheet. 6. Go to the menu line at the top of the worksheet and select " Edit" then " Paste" Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Worksheet 2 D( 1& 2). Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for 2002 ( Annual or Perennial)

Worksheet 5. Application Summary Definitions Climate Zone Map Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Worksheet 3 B( 1& 2). Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs ( Annual or Perennial) Worksheet 4. Future Research Plans Instructions Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Historical Use for 1997  2002 Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Crop Grouping Yield & Gross Revenue for 2000  2002 Worksheet 2. Methyl Bromide 2. A tab with the name " Sheet 1" will appear at the bottom of the worksheet and will be highlighted in white. Take the cursor and double click the " new tab" 3. By double clicking in the tab you can now rename the worksheet to the appropriate number letter designation ( e. g., 3 A( 1), 3 A( 1)( a), etc.)

4. To move a newly inserted worksheet, simply drag the worksheet with your mouse to the desired location.

5. Once you add a new worksheet, Excel will automatically name each subsequently added worksheet as Sheet 2, Sheet 3, etc  Follow the instructions above to rename the new blank worksheets as appropriate.

Copying and pasting an entire worksheet's contents into a blank worksheet:

1. Select the worksheet to be copied by clicking on the worksheet tab at the bottom of the screen. The tab will turn white in color when it has been selected. EXCEL USER TIPS Inserting a blank worksheet:

1. To add additional blank worksheets in the Excel file, go to the menu line at the top of the worksheet and select " Insert" then " worksheet" Worksheet 3. Alternatives Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Pest and Crop Information INSTRUCTIONS Each worksheet number corresponds to the tab number in the electronic version of the application. Instructions specific to each worksheet are provided at the top of each sheet. A header row is included on each worksheet to include an application ID number that EPA will assign. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant If you would like to print all worksheets that are contained in this workbook, go to the menu bar at the top of the screen and select " File" and then " Print." Then in the section of the menu that appears called " Print what," select " Entire Workbook." Yes No X X X Cell Fax X X Cell Fax OMB Control # 2060 0482 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Burden means 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. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number. Daytime Phone E mail Address Alternate Contact Contact Name Reginald Brown ( 407) 894 1351 ( 407) 257 6148 or ( 407) 257 4694 dan@ ffva. com or maerts@ ffva. com ( 407) 894 7840 Specialty E mail Address Address Daytime Phone ( 407) 894 3071 reggie@ floridatomatoes. org If yes, the applicant assumes responsibility for the secure transmission of electronic submissions.

Applicant Name Primary Contact Contact Name ( Check One) Specialty Daniel A. Botts or Michael Aerts FFVA  Florida Tomato  North Florida Region Print Name Daniel A. Botts Director, Environmental and Pest Management Division, FFVA I certify that all information contained in this document is factual to the best of my knowledge.

Signature 11 Aug 03 Director, Environmental and Pest Management Division, FFVA Title Signature 11 Aug 03 Date Date Title Information in this application may be aggregated with information from other applications and used by the United States government to justify claims in the national nomination package that a particular use of methyl bromide be considered " critical" and authorized for an exemption beyond the 2005 phaseout. Use of aggregate data will be crucial to making compelling arguments in favor of critical use exemptions. By signing below, you agree now to assert any claim of confidentiality that would affect the disclosure by EPA of aggregate information based in part on information contained in this application. Print Name Daniel A. Botts ( 407) 894 4296 Florida Tomato Committee P. O. Box 140635 Orlando, FL 32814 0635 Agronomic Economic ( 407) 257 2027 4401 E. Colonial Dr. ( P. O. Box 140155) Orlando, FL 32803 ( 32814 0155 for P. O. B.) Economic Address Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide requested and the contact person for this request. It is important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional information during the review of the application.

Is this information Confidential Business Information?

Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association Agronomic 1. Location 2. Crop/ Crop Grouping 3.

4. Climate Zone Zones: ( check all that apply)

5. Soil Type & Organic Matter Light 40% Medium 60% Heavy 0 to 2 % X 2 to 5 % X over 5 %

6. Yes Pounds No X 7. Yes X CUE # 02 0046 No 8.

Year 2005 Acres 2006 Acres 2007 Acres 9.

10.

11. Yes Lbs No X 12. Yes Lbs No X OMB Control # 2060 0482 lbs. 643,200 Please explain why there may be variations in the pounds or acres treated from year to year. 380 Fall/ Spring ( typical)

( check all that apply) ( Indicate the climate zone designation by reviewing the U. S. climate zone map located at the end of this workbook or online at http:// www. usna. usda. gov/ Hardzone/ ushzmap. html.)

1____ 2a____ 2b____ 3a____ 3b____ 4a____ 4b____ 5a____ 5b____ 6a____ 6b____ 7a____ 7b____ 8a____ 8b_ X_ 9a____ 9b____ 10a____ 10b____ 11____ over 400 acres 4,800 Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Total Pounds Active Ingredient ( a. i.) of Methyl Bromide 672,000 Total Area to be Treated If yes, please specify amount ( in pounds). If yes, please specify amount ( in pounds).

Do you anticipate that you will have any methyl bromide in storage after January 1, 2005? Methyl Bromide continues to be the most consistent and reliable pest control alternative for the pest complex targeted by preplant fumigation. The variation in consistency with alternatives at the present time presents unacceptable risks to both crop yields and quality.

Do you have access to recycled methyl bromide? 4,800 ( Indicate the soil type and percent organic matter where methyl bromide would be applied.)

Soil Type:

Organic Matter:

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data should be the total for the consortium. ( Include all crops/ crop groupings that benefit from an application of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle. For a definition of fumigation cycle see Worksheet entitled " Definitions".)

Fresh Market Tomatoes ( includes Round, Roma, Cherry, Grape and others) ( Enter the state, region, or county.)

North Florida  Southwest Georgia ( Tomatoes grown for shipment through packing house located in Quincy, FL)

Has this applicant previously applied for Critical Use Exemption of methyl bromide? Range of acres farmed by growers included in this application Is this applicant eligible for Quarantine and Preshipment ( QPS) uses of methyl bromide? 100  200 acres 200  400 acres 25  50 acres 50  100 acres Please explain why methyl bromide is being requested. ( Insert number or percentage of users in each category) 0  25 acres lbs. 4,800 lbs. What is the amount of methyl bromide being requested by this application ? ( Do NOT include QPS amounts)

643,200 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Worksheet Title 2 A Methyl Bromide  Crop & Pest Information If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

The purpose of this worksheet is to determine pest infestation and crop information where methyl bromide is used. This forms the baseline for evaluating the impacts of using an alternative to replace methyl bromide.

2 B Methyl Bromide  Historical Use 1997  2002 If a consortium is submitting this application, all data should reflect the actual data for the consortium.

This worksheet provides data in actual usage for 1997 2002.

2 C Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Crop grouping Yield and Gross Revenue for 2000 2002 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

This worksheet provides crop/ crop grouping yield and gross revenue for 2000 through 2002.

The purpose of this worksheet is to determine past gross revenues when methyl bromide is used. This forms the baseline for evaluating the revenue impacts of using an alternative to replace methyl bromide.

2 D( 1 & 2) Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for 2002 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

This data is needed to estimate a baseline for operating costs in order to estimate changes in costs and the impact on operating profit and short run economic viability as a result of not using methyl bromide and to provide required information to the international review board.

The purpose of this worksheet is to determine operating expenses when methyl bromide is used. This forms the baseline for evaluating the cost impacts of using an alternative to replace methyl bromide. The data requested are designed to help you identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide were unavailable, which will be shown in Worksheet 3 B. Worksheet 2 D( 1) is for users with a fumigation cycle of less than 5 years. Worksheet 2 D( 2) is for users growing perennial crops following a single fumigation at establishment.

In collaboration with USDA, we will estimate fixed and overhead costs across crops and regions to ensure consistency within the U. S. nomination. OMB Control # 2060 0482 Purpose of Data: To establish a baseline estimate of crop/ crop grouping yields, gross revenues, and costs using methyl bromide.

Instructions specific to each worksheet are located at the top of each sheet. Worksheet 2. Methyl Bromide EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 1. Crop/ Crop Grouping or Consortium 2. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec X* X*

2. Fumigation and Crop Timeline Beginning Fumigation Cycle Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Land Preparation Fumigation Planting Harvest See Narrative  p. 9 Fallow Other Key Crop Steps Other Key Pest Steps Continuation of Fumigation Cycle ( if needed)

Month 13 Month 14 Month 15 Month 16 Month 17 Month 18 Month 19 Month 20 Month 21 Month 22 Month 23 Month 24 Land Preparation Fumigation Planting Harvest See Narrative  p. 9 Fallow Other Key Crop Steps Other Key Pest Steps OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Crop & Pest Information FFVA  Florida Tomato  North Florida ( Indicate when fumigation, major crop and pest management practices typically occur by shading the appropriate cells. Show a second crop if part of the fumigation cycle. If the fumigation cycle is longer than one year change the months to an appropriate interval. These tables are for annual crops but more than one crop may benefit from one methyl bromide fumigation. If application covers multiple crops/ crop groupings not grown sequentially, they will need to provide this information for all crops/ crop groupings. Please adjust timeline as necessary. Please provide additional comments or description below or on a separate page. Please begin the timeline with the first land preparation. For perennials, please begin with the year of land preparation and fumigation and indicate the years of production by yield or percentage of full production.) Which month does your fumigation cycle start? ( check only one)

Time Interval ( e. g. MONTH/ YEAR/ SEASON)

A comprehensive description that includes the timeline and variability in timing for specific field operations is given in the narrative ( see p. 9) Time Interval ( e. g. MONTH/ YEAR/ SEASON)

Comments: 3. Target Pest( s) or Pest Problem( s):

Pest 1 Pest 2 Pest 3 Pest 4 Pest 5 4. Pest Economic Threshold Year Pest 1 Pest 2 Pest 3 Pest 4 Pest 5 5. Target Pest Infestation Pest 1 % Pest 2 % Pest 3 % Pest 4 % Pest 5 %

6. Representative User : see narrative, p. 23 24 see narrative, p. 23 24 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Low density / unidentified ( Please estimate the percentage of the consortia's total growing area with a moderate to severe problem with these pests. Describe source of information such as a survey or expert estimate.) Low density / unidentified Common Name Genus EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant OMB Control # 2060 0482 100 100 100 100 Percentage of Total Growing Area Source Threshold Low density / unidentified Low density / unidentified Low density / unidentified Units ( e. g. pests/ sq ft)

Describe a few crops that could follow this crop: * 380 cucumber Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Crop & Pest Information ( Please identify the top target pests or pest problems. Provide at least common name and genus and species if possible. Additional pests or pest problems can be provided as an attachment.)

Nightshade Solanum spp. Nutsedge Bacterial Wilt Cyperus rotundus / C. esculentus Ralstonia solanacerum watermelon squash Average Farm Size Average acres in this crop Average Area Treated with Methyl Bromide: Acres cantalope 100 Other descriptive factors regarding representative user: For double crop on the same plastic, we have used cucumber as the model crop for budget purposes, other cucurbits may be planted. Acres Acres ( Please provide descriptive factors regarding your operation.) Root Knot Nematode Meloidogyne spp.

Source ( additional, see narrative p. 21)

( Please provide the economic threshold information for each pest. Describe year and source of information such as survey or expert estimate.) Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

A B C Total Actual Pounds a. i. of Methyl Bromide Applied per Year Total Actual Acres Treated per Year* Average Pounds a. i. Applied per Acre per Year 1997 538,020 2,800 192 1998 568,346 3,250 175 1999 440,241 2,550 172 2000 544,000 3,400 160 2001 544,000 3,400 160 2002 544,000 3,400 160 OMB Control # 2060 0482 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant The downward trend in rates from 1997 reflect formulation changes from 98 2 to 67 33 and availability of products as the phase out schedule reduced the amounts of material available to distributors.

* Acreage numbers for 1997 1999 were given for round tomatos only. From 2000 to present, acreage included for all tomato cultivars.

Comments: ** Per annual cropping season, crop rotational considerations may result in a specific acre being treated more than once in a calendar year. Very low probability of occurrence. If there is a variation ( greater than 10%) in the quantity a. i., the acres treated or average application rate from year to year, please explain the reasons for the variation. What is the frequency of methyl bromide applied per area?** ( 1x / year, 2x / year, 1x / 3 years, etc.)

____ 1x___ times per __ year___ Enter the total actual acres treated. Note: This number should be the total actual acres treated by the individual user or total actual acres treated for the entire consortium, for the year indicated. For furrow treatment the acres should include the area between the rows as well as the area of the rows. i. e. acres treated is the area of the cultivated fields being treated including the area between rows even if they are not treated.

Average Pounds a. i. Applied per Area per Year The average application rates in pounds a. i. of methyl bromide per area may be calculated by dividing Column A by Column B.

Year Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Historical Use for 1997 2002 Total Actual Pounds a. i. of Methyl Bromide Applied per Year Enter the total actual pounds active ingredient ( a. i.) of methyl bromide applied. Note: This number should be the total pounds a. i. applied by the individual user or the entire consortium, for the year indicated. Include only the pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide. Do not include the pounds of chloropicrin that may be part of the same product.

Total Actual Acres Treated per Year Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

Column D:

Column E:

Column F:

Column G:

A B C D E F G Year Crops/ Crop Groupings Market Category Yield Unit of Measurement Price* ($) Gross Revenue per Acre ($)

2000 Tomato Fresh Market 1266 25 lb Carton $ 6.73 $ 8,520.18 2001 Tomato Fresh Market 1373 25 lb Carton $ 9.26 $ 12,713.98 2002 Tomato Fresh Market 1500 25 lb Carton $ 8.07 $ 12,105.00 OMB Control # 2060 0482 Gross revenue per acre for each market category and or each crop/ crop grouping may be calculated using the data you entered as price times yield. If revenue is not equal to price times yield, you may enter a different revenue amount, but please explain the difference in the comments section below. Gross Revenue Price Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ species ( lbs, cwt, carton, bin). If not by weight, specify in the comments section the average weight of the measure. Units of Measurement Enter average prices received by the users for that crop/ crop grouping and market category. Average price over all categories can be calculated separately, if needed. Enter marketing categories that determine prices received, for example, grade ( size, color), timeliness ( early season, late season), or end use ( fresh, processing). Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate if lack of methyl bromide would effect the yields in each category.

Enter the yield per acre, or the proportion of total yields, obtained for that category. For perennial crops, please enter yields at full production. Be sure to indicate yields at other stages in the timeline in Worksheet 2 A. Yield Comments: Values given are for round tomatoes only. If this application is for multiple crops/ crop groupings ( e. g. nurseries producing evergreens, deciduous, and forbs) please indicate the proportion of land area allocated to each crop/ crop grouping. Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Species Yield & Gross Revenue for 2000 2002 Market Categories Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ crop groupings in the fumigation cycles from 2000 to 2002. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year methyl bromide was applied.

Enter all crops/ crop groupings that benefit from methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle. If multiple crops/ crop groupings are grown during the interval between fumigations ( e. g. tomatoes followed by peppers in a single growing season, or strawberries followed by lettuce over 2 or 3 years) include all of the crops/ crop groupings during the entire interval.

If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops/ crop groupings grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below. Year Crops/ Crop Groupings EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

Column D:

Column E: OMB Control # 2060 0482 For perennial crops ( Worksheet D( 2)), we have divided the lifespan into three basic periods: pre production ( including establishment), initial production, and full production. Please ensure that the timeline in Worksheet 2 A indicates the years of each period. Operating costs should be an average of costs incurred during each period. Please consider expected replanting rates and indicate which year dead or poorly performing young trees would be replaced. You may copy columns/ rows as needed if these periods need to be refined for your situation.

For inputs and operations detailed in Columns B and D, total costs can be calculated as Column B times Column D. Otherwise, enter total cost of the input or operation. As a check, you may add up Column E to obtain an estimate of total variable operating costs. These will not include fixed and overhead costs, nor a return to the owners' labor. It should, therefore, be less than gross revenues calculated in Worksheet 2 C. If it is not, please explain ( for example, unusually poor yields or unusually poor prices). For perennial crops, Column E should only be totaled for the years at full production. For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify the unit cost. Also, indicate all costs of applying methyl bromide, including any material costs, for example, tarps. If custom applied and separate costs are unavailable, write ' custom' and enter total cost in Column E. For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify the units of measurement. Worksheet 2 D( 1& 2). Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for 2002 Enter all operating costs incurred during a fumigation cycle. Users with a relatively short fumigation cycle ( less than five years) should use version D( 1); users cultivating perennial crops should use version D( 2). Users with multiple crops, either on the same area in a single fumigation cycle or on different areas treated separately, should copy this sheet and provide costs for each crop. If multiple crops are cultivated sequentially following a single fumigation, replace fumigation costs in Pre plant Operations with any additional pest control costs used prior to the following crops. If a fallow season is an important part of the fumigation cycle, include costs incurred ( for example, cultivating a cover crop) as a separate line or as a separate sheet, if costs are extensive. Please fill in the unshaded areas. The shaded areas can be used if the information is known.

The operations/ inputs listed here are not meant to be exhaustive or representative of your specific production system. They are meant to provide suggestions and to help you identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide were unavailable. Be as precise as necessary otherwise you may aggregate operations or inputs. For example, specify herbicide costs if additional treatments would become necessary with the use of a methyl bromide alternative, otherwise you may simply specify total pesticide costs. Please specify only variable operating costs.

This field is required only for methyl bromide. However, you may include specific amounts of other inputs or operations if you believe it helps to document the additional costs you would incur by using an alternative fumigant. Operation / Input Quantity Used per Acre Operation / Input for Perennial Crops Harvest costs may likewise be calculated as costs per acre ( Column B) plus variable costs per unit of yield ( Column C) times yield ( Column D). Total Cost per Acre Unit Costs Total Cost per Acre Constant Cost per Acre For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on land area, for example, picking costs, per acre of land.

Cost per Unit of Yield For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on amount of product harvested, for example, packing material, per unit of produce. Units Yield For harvest operations, indicate average yields or representative yields from Worksheet 2 C. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant B C D E Quantity Used per Acre Units ( lbs, hours, etc) Unit Cost ($) Total Cost per Acre ($)

3,513.04 $

Constant Cost per Acre ($) Cost per Unit of Yield ($) Yield Total Cost per Acre ($)

3,099.50 $

3,798.00 $ For Enterprise Budget detail see Appendix II  B  2 Total Packing, Selling, and Related Overhead OMB Control # 2060 0482 Operation / Input A Worksheet 2 D( 1). Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for 2002 Total Preharvest Costs Land preparation Fumigation product ( methyl bromide)

application Irrigation Other costs Cultural Operations Seed / Seedlings Fertilizer / Soil Amendments Pesticides Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Nematicide Irrigation Labor ( manual)

Fuel / Machine Labor Other Costs Harvest Operations Labor Hauling Material Grading / Packing / Storage Other Costs Total Harvesting Costs EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant A B ( 1) C ( 1) D ( 1) E ( 1) B ( 2) C ( 2) D ( 2) E ( 2) B ( 3) C ( 3) D ( 3) E ( 3)

Operation or Input Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

hours, etc) Unit Cost Total Cost per Acre Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

hours, etc) Unit Cost Total Cost per Acre Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

hours, etc) Unit Cost Total Cost per Acre Establishment Operations Land preparation Fumigation product application Irrigation Seedlings Other costs Cultural Operations Fertilizer/ soil amendments Pesticides Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Nematicide Irrigation Labor ( manual)

Fuel/ machine labor Other costs Harvest Operations Constant Cost per Acre Cost per Unit of Yield Yield Total Cost Constant Cost per Acre Cost per Unit of Yield Yield Total Cost Constant Cost per Acre Cost per Unit of Yield Yield Total Cost Picking/ hauling Material Grading/ packing Other costs OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 D( 2). Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for Perennial Crops INITIAL PRODUCTION YEARS _____ FULL PRODUCTION YEARS _____

PRE PRODUCTION YEARS _______ EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Worksheet 3 A 3 B OMB Control # 2060 0482 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

This data is needed to estimate changes in costs and the impact on operating profit and short run economic viability as a result of not using methyl bromide and to provide required information to the international review board.

The purpose of this worksheet is to determine operating expenses when alternatives are used for evaluating the cost impacts of using an alternative to replace methyl bromide. The data requested are designed to help you identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide were unavailable. Worksheet 3 B( 1) is for users with a fumigation cycle of less than 5 years. Worksheet 3 B( 2) is for users growing perennial crops following a single fumigation at establishment.

In collaboration with USDA, we will estimate fixed and overhead costs across crops and regions to ensure consistency within the U. S. nomination. Please fill out this worksheet for each alternative specified in the U. S. Matrix and for other alternatives for which the economic evaluation would bolster the case that methyl bromide is needed. Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs Worksheet 3. Alternatives  Feasibility of Alternative Pest Control Regimens Title You must complete one worksheet for each alternative. Please inset the name of the alternative in the area on top of the page. If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review. However, you must fill in the information in Question # 1 and # 3 or we will assume no yield or quality loss. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Purpose of Data: To estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available. EPA needs to compare data ( yields, crop/ species prices, gross revenues and costs) on the use of methyl bromide and alternative pest control regimens.

Complete worksheet 3 A for each alternative pest control regimen listed in the " U. S. Matrix" for chemical controls ( www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cueqa. html) and the " International Matrix" for nonchemical pest controls ( www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cue). Each worksheet contains a place holder in the title for you to insert the name of the specific alternative pest control regimen addressed. You should add additional worksheets as required.

Enter all alternative pesticides and pest control methods ( and associated cost and yield data) that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Definition worksheet for a comprehensive definition on fumigation cycles. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 1.

2.

Study # 1 2 3 4 5 3.

Units Units 4.

X No 5.

6. See 02 0046 ( in Appendix II B 1) and Appendix I B, 2003 Application OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Yield with Methyl Bromide Yield With Alternative Quality Impact Description For the information in # 1 above list: the study name, authors, publication, date, and if a copy is attached. 5 Details Attached?

Quality Loss * variable variable Enter Average Loss Alternative:

% Yield Loss * Telone C 35, broadcast at 26 gallons ( 16.9 lbs a. i.) per acre, + Chloropicrin shanked into the bed at 150 gallons ( 150 lbs a. i.) per treated acre, + Devrinol ( 2 lbs a. i. per acre) and Dual Magnum ( 1.27 lbs a. i. per acre) applied to the bed top at plastic laying, followed by Sandea ( 0.05 lbs a. i. per acre) applied as a post emergent directed spray Yield Loss & Pest Control When Comparing This Alternative to Methyl Bromide Pest Being Tested Study # ( list below) Provide numerical estimates where possible.

variable Details % Pest Control *

variable variable variable Based on multiple research trials conducted over the past 10 years and summarized in the narrative of 02 0046 ( in Appendix II B 1). Additional research submitted in Appendix I D, 2003 Application. 1 2 3 4 ( If yes, please explain) Extended pretransplanting period for Telone depends on soil temperature and moisture Are there any production delays ( planting/ harvesting) associated with this alternative?

This information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide needed. Restrictions on Alternative Use Regulatory Restriction % of Area Details Soil Restriction Nightshade Root Knot Nematode ( additional pests)

Study Information Are there any variety or cultivar issues associated with this alternative? Describe quality impacts such as: percent smaller fruit, reduced grade, smaller plants, crop damage, disease vector, etc. Refer to market category question in Worksheet 2 C.

Market Category Nutsedge Bacterial Wilt variable variable Yes  Label Restriction 100% Organic Matter Restriction Off Site Damage ( outgassing) Other Restrictions ( Describe)  Township Caps 6%

Pest Resistant To Alternative Label Restriction Terminology  " Karst Geography"  see narrative, p. 15 16 * If no yield or quality loss information is given we will assume no losses. Only provide pest control information if yield or quality loss information is not available. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 7.

8.

9.

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Chloropicrin 150 lbs 1 OMB Control # 2060 0482 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Comments: Alternative: Telone C 35, broadcast at 26 gallons ( 16.9 lbs a. i.) per acre, + Chloropicrin shanked into the bed at 150 gallons ( 150 lbs a. i.) per treated acre, + Devrinol ( 2 lbs a. i. per acre) and Dual Magnum ( 1.27 lbs a. i. per acre) applied to the bed top at plastic laying, followed by Sandea ( 0.05 lbs a. i. per acre) applied as a post emergent directed spray Time Interval ( e. g. MONTH/ YEAR/ SEASON)

Fallow Other Key Crop Steps Other Key Pest Steps Harvest Continuation of Alternative Cycle ( if needed)

Planting Planting Harvest Fallow Other Key Crop Steps Other Key Pest Steps ( see narrative, p. 25) Beginning Fumigation Cycle Land Preparation Fumigation Name of Product and Formulation ( Indicate when fumigation, major crop and pest management practices typically occur by shading the appropriate cells. Show a second crop if part of the fumigation cycle. If the fumigation cycle is longer than one year change the months to an appropriate interval. These tables are for annual crops but more than one crop may benefit from one methyl bromide fumigation. If application covers multiple crops/ crop groupings not grown sequentially, they will need to provide this information for all crops/ crop groupings. Please adjust timeline as necessary. Please provide additional comments or description below or on a separate page. Please begin the timeline with the first land preparation. For perennials, please begin with the year of land preparation and fumigation and indicate the years of production by yield or percentage of full production.) Alternative Timeline Time Interval ( e. g. MONTH/ YEAR/ SEASON)

Land Preparation Fumigation Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Use Rate of Chemical Alternative Quantity a. i. per Acre # of Acres Treated # of Applications per Year Active Ingredient ( a. i.)

All efforts to reduce pest pressure through cultural practice during fallow periods are included in the alternative treatments. Those include cover crops, physical control, and flooding ( when possible). Units ( gals, lbs. Etc.) 1 Telone 16.9 lbs Devrinol 2 1,3  Dichloropropene lbs Dual Magnum SANDEA Napropamide 1 1 1 Non Chemical Pest Control ( please describe) 1.27 0.05 lbs lbs S metolachlor Halosulfuron Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

Column D:

Column E: OMB Control # 2060 0482 Unit Costs Operation / Input for Perennial Crops For perennial crops ( Worksheet B( 2)), we have divided the lifespan into three basic periods: pre production ( including establishment), initial production, and full production. Please ensure that the timeline in Worksheet 3 A indicates the years of each period. Operating costs should be an average of costs incurred during each period. Please consider expected replanting rates and indicate which year dead or poorly performing young trees would be replaced. You may copy columns/ rows as needed if these periods need to be refined for your situation.

Quantity Used per Acre This field is required only for methyl bromide. However, you may include specific amounts of other inputs or operations if you believe it helps to document the additional costs you would incur by using an alternative fumigant. Constant Cost per Acre For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify the unit cost. Also, indicate all costs of applying methyl bromide, including any material costs, for example, tarps. If custom applied and separate costs are unavailable, write ' custom' and enter total cost in Column E. Worksheet 3 B( 1& 2). Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs Enter all operating costs incurred during a fumigation cycle. Users with a relatively short fumigation cycle ( less than five years) should use version B( 1); users cultivating perennial crops should use version B( 2). Users with multiple crops, either on the same area in a single fumigation cycle or on different areas treated separately, should copy this sheet and provide costs for each crop. If multiple crops are cultivated sequentially following a single fumigation, replace fumigation costs in pre plant Operations with any additional pest control costs used prior to the following crops. If a fallow season is an important part of the fumigation cycle, include costs incurred ( for example, cultivating a cover crop) as a separate line or as a separate sheet, if costs are extensive. Please fill in the unshaded areas. The shaded areas can be used if the information is known.

Operation / Input The operations/ inputs listed here are not meant to be exhaustive or representative of your specific production system. They are meant to provide suggestions and to help you identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide were unavailable. Be as precise as necessary otherwise you may aggregate operations or inputs. For example, specify herbicide costs if additional treatments would become necessary with the use of a methyl bromide alternative, otherwise you may simply specify total pesticide costs. Please specify only variable operating costs. Alternative: [ Insert Alternative]

For inputs and operations detailed in Columns B and D, total costs can be calculated as Column B times Column D. Otherwise, enter total cost of the input or operation. As a check, you may add up Column E to obtain an estimate of total variable operating costs. These will not include fixed and overhead costs, nor a return to the owners' labor. It should, therefore, be less than gross revenues calculated in Worksheet 2 C. If it is not, please explain ( for example, unusually poor yields or unusually poor prices). For perennial crops, Column E should only be totaled for the years at full production. For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on land area, for example, picking costs, per acre of land.

Units For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify the units of measurement.

Cost per Unit of Yield For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on amount of product harvested, for example, packing material, per unit of produce.

Yield For harvest operations, indicate average yields or representative yields from Worksheet 3 A.

Total Cost per Acre Total Cost per Acre B C D E Quantity Used per Acre Units ( lbs, hours, etc) Unit Cost ($) Total Cost per Acre ($)

4,007.07 $

Constant Cost per Acre ($) Cost per Unit of Yield ($) Yield Total Cost per Acre ($)

2,949.75 $

3,605.25 $ For Enterprise Budget detail see Appendix II  B  2 Total Packing, Selling, and Related Overhead OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 B( 1). Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs Harvest costs may likewise be calculated as costs per acre ( Column B) plus variable costs per unit of yield ( Column C) times yield ( Column D).

EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Total Preharvest Costs Alternative: Telone C 35, broadcast at 26 gallons ( 16.9 lbs a. i.) per acre, + Chloropicrin shanked into the bed at 150 gallons ( 150 lbs a. i.) per treated acre, + Devrinol ( 2 lbs a. i. per acre) and Dual Magnum ( 1.27 lbs a. i. per acre) applied to the bed top at plastic laying, followed by Sandea ( 0.05 lbs a. i. per acre) applied as a postemergent directed spray Operation / Input A Land preparation Fumigation product ( methyl bromide)

application Irrigation Other costs Cultural Operations Seed / Seedlings Fertilizer / Soil Amendments Pesticides Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Nematicide Irrigation Labor ( manual)

Fuel / Machine Labor Other Costs Harvest Operations Labor Hauling Material Grading / Packing / Storage Other Costs Total Harvesting Costs Overhead EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Alternative:

A B ( 1) C ( 1) D ( 1) E ( 1) B ( 2) C ( 2) D ( 2) E ( 2) B ( 3) C ( 3) D ( 3) E ( 3)

Operation or Input Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

hours, etc) Unit Cost Total Cost per Acre Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

hours, etc) Unit Cost Total Cost per Acre Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

hours, etc) Unit Cost Total Cost per Acre Establishment Operations Land preparation Fumigation product application Irrigation Seedlings Other costs Cultural Operations Fertilizer/ soil amendments Pesticides Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Nematicide Irrigation Labor ( manual)

Fuel/ machine labor Other costs Harvest Operations Constant Cost per Acre Cost per Unit of Yield Yield Total Cost Constant Cost per Acre Cost per Unit of Yield Yield Total Cost Constant Cost per Acre Cost per Unit of Yield Yield Total Cost Picking/ hauling Material Grading/ packing Other costs OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 B( 2). Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs for Perennial Crops PRE PRODUCTION YEARS _______ INITIAL PRODUCTION YEARS _____ FULL PRODUCTION YEARS _____

[ Insert Alternative ] EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 1. 1 4 2 5 3 2. 1 4 2 5 3 3. 1 4 2 5 3 4.

5.

6. Yes X No 7. Yes X No 8.

From:

X To:

9.

Years Amount ($) 1993 2003 $ 1.1 million 1993 2003 $ 1.6 million 1993 2003 $ > 3 million 10. $ > 5.7 million ( total across all production regions)

Cost 11. ( see Appendix II B 1, CUE 02 0046, and Appendices I A, I B)

Telone C 35, broadcast at 26 gallons ( 16.9 lbs a. i.) per acre, + Chloropicrin shanked into the bed at 150 gallons ( 150 lbs a. i.) per treated acre, + Devrinol ( 2 lbs a. i. per acre) and Dual Magnum ( 1.27 lbs a. i. per acre) applied to the bed top at plastic laying, followed by Sandea ( 0.05 lbs a. i. per acre) applied as a post emergent directed spray Growers are prepared to shift from methyl bromide when consistently effective and economical alternatives become available that do not reduce their competitiveness in the global marketplace. OMB Control # 2060 0482 Please provide an overview/ timeline of the plan to transition away from using methyl bromide. VIF Technology Nutsedge Bacterial Wilt Nightshade ( Describe each investment and its associated costs. e. g. specialized machinery, etc.) Grower In Kind Research / Field Plots FFVA / FFVREF Florida Tomato Committee / Gadsden County Tomato Association What is the cumulative amount spent and the types of contributions this consortium has made to fund research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide since 1992? ( e. g. consortium dues, direct research funding, etc.)

Name of Organization / Research Institution Formulation Changes Formulation Changes ( please specify)

( check all that apply)

Cultural Practices ( please specify) Other Pesticides ( please specify)

EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Grant requests made to USDA, EPA, state, or other funding group. ( see research summaries in 02 0046 and current application narrative) Investment Other total investments, if any, made to reduce your reliance on methyl bromide? How will you minimize your use and/ or emissions of methyl bromide? What would be the best currently available alternative if methyl bromide were not available? Prioritize the alternative chemicals or cultural practices to be tested.

Iodomethane Will yield/ quality loss be measured? Telone Application Methodologies Will economic impacts be measured? Fosthiazate Provide a list of alternative chemicals or cultural practices that have been tested. Root Knot Nematode ( additional pests, see narrative p. 21) Worksheet 4. Future Research Plans Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. You may use this worksheet to describe all future plans.

Identify the top 3 to 5 target pests for your research.

_____% methyl bromide, _____% chloropicrin _____% methyl bromide, _____% chloropicrin Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF)

Non Chemical Methods ( please specify) Tarpaulin ( High Density Polyethylene)

Other Trifloxysulfuron Na ( other technology as research dictates) 1.

2.

3.

4. 2005 5. 2005 6.

2006 643,200 lbs. 4,800 2007 643,200 lbs. 4,800 Not Technically Feasible Not Economically Feasible OMB Control # 2060 0482 Potential Alternatives Reasons see 02 0046 see 02 0046 Area Treated Acres Place an " X" in the column( s) labeled " Not Technically Feasible" and/ or " Not Economically Feasible" where appropriate. Use the " Reasons" column to describe why the potential alternative is not feasible. Area Treated Acres No assurances that issues associated with potential alternatives will be resolved, or that the currently described best available alternative will provide economically or technically feasible long term solutions. Acres Treated with Methyl Bromide 4,800 Acres If methyl bromide is requested for additional years, reason for request: Crop: Fresh Market Tomatoes ( includes Round, Roma, Cherry, Grape and others) Pounds of Methyl Bromide Requested 672,000 lbs. Consortium Name: FFVA  Florida Tomato  North Florida Region Location: North Florida  Southwest Georgia ( Tomatoes grown for shipment through packing house located in Quincy, FL) For EPA Use Only ID # _______________ SECTOR __________________________

Worksheet 5. Application Summary This worksheet will be posted on the web to notify the public of requests for critical use exemptions beyond the 2005 phase out for methyl bromide. Therefore, this worksheet cannot be claimed as CBI. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 82 Fumigation cycle:

Year:

Comparable data:

2 year example:

Other beneficiary example Crop cycle change example:

Crop Grouping EPA Form # 7620 18a The period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.

If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, " year" refers to the calendar year when methyl bromide is applied ( or the beginning of the cycle).

In order to compare revenues and costs with and without methyl bromide, data on alternatives for pest control, yields, revenues, and costs must be for the same time interval as the methyl bromide fumigation cycle. If, however, quantitative data, is not available for the entire fumigation cycle, then to be comparable, the quantitative data for the alternatives should cover the same portion of the fumigation cycle as the quantitative data for methyl bromide, and the rest of the cycle should be discussed in the comments sections.

If a methyl bromide fumigation is made every 2 years, then the 2001 fumigation cycle began in 2001 and would end in 2003. The data should cover the methyl bromide costs and usage for the methyl bromide fumigation made in 2001, and all yields and revenues received and other costs incurred during the 2 year period. To be comparable, the data on alternatives should cover a similar 2 year period beginning in 2005 beginning at the same time of year when a methyl bromide fumigation would be made. The data should cover all methyl bromide alternatives used, and all yields and revenues received during that 2 year interval. Other pest control and other costs would only need to be provided for that interval if they would change from what they were with methyl bromide.

If someone other than the applicant benefits from a methyl bromide fumigation, you should comment on these benefits if you do not have quantitative data for the entire fumigation cycle. For example, if a rotational crop in the second year benefits from a methyl bromide fumigation a year earlier, but there is quantitative data only on the first crop, then the data on the alternatives should cover only the first crop, and the benefits of methyl bromide and the additional pesticides that would have to be used on the rotational crop should be discussed in the comments sections.

If in a one year interval, methyl bromide is applied, tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers, then the fumigation cycle would be one year including the tomatoes and peppers. If, however, without methyl bromide, it is not possible to follow tomatoes with peppers in the same one year interval, then the alternative data on pesticides, costs, yields, and revenues should just cover tomatoes. The loss of profit from not being able to grow peppers with the alternatives would be part of the loss from not having methyl bromide.

The applicant can group simliar crops together if: ( i) Crops would experience similar yield and quality losses in the absence of methyl bromide; and ( ii) Crops are grown on the same fumigation and cultivation cycle with similar operating costs. For example, nursery crops including various flower or tree species can be aggregated, with average yields per acre and prices. However, if crops are distinctly different in revenues and operating costs, or the cycles, the applicant may want to present yield, price and operating costs for each crop separately and also indicate the proportion of land area allocated to each crop. Definitions: OMB Control # 2060 0482 Pre Plant


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8930-8933]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02714]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91065; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2021-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

February 4, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 1, 2021, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to introduce a new credit applicable to
Customer Electronic executions. The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee change effective February 1, 2021. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.

The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to add a
new credit for Customer Electronic Simple and Complex executions based
on an ATP Holder's achievement of certain volume thresholds.
Specifically, an ATP Holder that executes the requisite volume in
Complex CUBE Auctions, Customer Electronic executions, and Professional
(as defined in Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule) Electronic executions
will earn a $0.10 per contract credit on Customer Electronic
executions, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and orders
routed to another exchange. The Exchange proposes to introduce this
pricing on February 1, 2021.
    Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule currently provides incentives for
ATP Holders that increase their Electronic volume in the Professional
Customer, Broker Dealer, Non-NYSE American Options Market Maker, and
Firm ranges (collectively, the ``Professional'' range).
    The Exchange proposes to modify Section I.H. to provide ATP Holders
with a new credit of $0.10 per contract on Customer Electronic Simple
and Complex executions (excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and
orders routed to another exchange), provided that each of three monthly
volume qualifications are met: (a) 15,000 Contracts ADV from Initiating
CUBE Orders in Complex CUBE Auctions; (b) Customer Electronic
executions of 0.05% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC
Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another exchange; and
(c) Professional Electronic executions of 0.03% of TCADV.\4\ In
calculating an OFP's Electronic volume for purposes of this credit, the
Exchange will include the activity of either (i) Affiliates of the OFP,
such as when an OFP has an Affiliated NYSE American Options Market
Making firm, or (ii) an Appointed MM of such OFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed credit will continue to incent
ATP Holders to direct order flow to the Exchange and also encourage ATP
Holders to engage in a variety of transactions on the Exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, facilitating tighter spreads, and enhancing
price discovery to the benefit of all market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\6\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\8\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options order flow. More specifically, in November 2020, the Exchange
had less than 10% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options trades.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety of
formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange, available
here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \9\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in multiply-listed equity and ETF
options increased from 8.06% for the month of November 2019 to 9.09%
for the month of November 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees and rebates can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The proposed rule change is designed to continue to incent ATP
Holders to direct liquidity to the Exchange in a variety of forms and
from a variety of sources, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery, and price improvement and enhancing order execution
opportunities for market participants. In particular, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to provide ATP Holders with a credit for
achieving certain volume goals in different types of executions,
consistent with credits offered through a similarly-structured program
on a competing options exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Cboe Exchange Inc. Fee Schedule, Volume
Incentive Program, available at: https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf (providing comparable per contract
credits for Customer orders based on volume from a variety of
executions, including auction volume, volume from various account
types, and volume from both simple and complex executions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed credit is reasonably
designed to encourage ATP Holders to execute a variety of orders on the
Exchange and that having multiple volume criteria to qualify for the
proposed credit should encourage greater use of the Exchange by all ATP
Holders, which may lead to greater opportunities to trade--and for
price improvement--for all participants.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed new credit would
continue to attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange generally
and would therefore benefit all market participants through increased
opportunities to trade at potentially improved prices, as well as by
enhancing price discovery.
    Finally, to the extent the proposed fees and credits encourage
greater volume and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed change
would continue to improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and
strengthen its market quality for all market participants. In the
backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange operates,
the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
maintain its market share relative to its competitors.

The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders can opt
to avail themselves of the incentive or not. Moreover, the proposal is
designed to encourage ATP Holders and their affiliated or appointed
parties to aggregate their executions at the Exchange as a primary
execution venue. To the extent that the proposed change continues to
attract more executions to the Exchange, this increased order flow
would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order
execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and,
as a consequence, continue to attract more order flow to the Exchange
thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed modifications would be available to
all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis. The Exchange's fees and credits are designed to
continue to encourage greater use of the Exchange, which may lead to
greater opportunities to trade--and for price improvement--for all
participants.
    The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted
on the Exchange and ATP Holders are not obligated to try to achieve the
incentive. Rather, the proposal is designed to continue to encourage
participants to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue (if
they have not done so previously) or increase Electronic volume sent to
the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed change continues to
attract more executions--and executions of varying types--to the
Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange
a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change would continue to improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting volume and
liquidity would continue to provide more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just
and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would continue to encourage the submission of
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among
orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks
for all types of orders, large and small.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 7, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to
continue to attract increased and diverse order flow to the Exchange by
offering competitive credits based on increased volumes on the
Exchange, which may increase the volumes of contracts traded on the
Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change, by offering an additional credit applicable to Customer
Electronic executions, will incent ATP Holders to direct order flow to
the Exchange and participate in a variety of types of executions on the
Exchange to meet the proposed thresholds to qualify for the credit. To
the extent that this purpose is achieved, all of the Exchange's market
participants should benefit from the continued market liquidity.
Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results
from the increase in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit
all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees and credits to remain competitive with
other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on
publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no
single exchange currently has more than 16% of the market share of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\12\
Therefore, no exchange currently possesses significant pricing power in
the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in November 2020, the Exchange had less than 10%
market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options trades.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 8.
    \13\ Based on OCC data, supra note 9, the Exchange's market
share in multiply-listed equity and ETF options increased from 8.06%
for the month of November 2019 to 9.09% for the month of November
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees and
credits in a manner designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct trading
interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order
flow. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will encourage ATP Holders to direct increased Electronic volume to the
Exchange, thereby increasing the number of executions (and executions
of varying types) on the Exchange and continuing to make the Exchange a
more competitive venue for order execution. To the extent that this
purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should
benefit from the improved market quality and increased opportunities
for price improvement.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues by
encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section

19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-07. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-07, and should be
submitted on or before March 3, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02714 Filed 2-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P