 Forwarded by Hodayah Finman/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 09/ 11/ 02 10: 55 AM

SToth < Steve_ Toth@ ncsu. edu>

09/ 09/ 02 07: 49 PM To: Bromide Methyl@ EPA, Bill Chism/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Christine Augustyniak/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Burleson. smith@ usda. gov, Steve_ Toth@ ncsu. edu Subject: Southeastern Strawberry Consortium  Methyl Bromide CUE On behalf of the Southeastern Strawberry Consortium, I am submitting an electronic version of a methyl bromide critical use exemption application for continued use of methyl bromide for strawberry nursery production by growers in NC and TN after January 1, 2005. Attached to this message are the following:

Microsoft Excel file containing completed Worksheets 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 Microsoft Word file containing methyl bromide usage data from the participating states Worksheets 3, supporting narratives, reference materials, signature pages, etc. have been sent by FedEx this evening and should arrive at the Global Programs Division office tomorrow.

Please except these materials for consideration for a critical use exemption for methyl bromide for strawberry nursery production in the above mentioned Southeastern states. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.

If you have problems accessing the materials or have questions regarding this application, please contact me by e mail, telephone ( 919 515 8879),

or fax ( 919 515 7746).

Thank you.

Stephen J. Toth, Jr.

Extension Entomologist and Pest Management Information Specialist North Carolina State University Methyl Bromide Use on Southeastern Strawberry Nurseries Year NC TN Total Acres Formulated Product ( lb) Methyl Bromide Percentage Methyl Bromide ( lb AI)

2001 152 4 156 62,400 67% 41,808 2000 123 4 127 50,800 67% 34,036 1999 98 4 102 40,800 67% 27,336 1998 98 4 102 40,800 98% 39,984 1997 92 10 102 40,800 98% 39,984 1.

2.

3.

4.

Light 7% Medium 93% Heavy 0 to 2% 100% 2 to 5 % over 5%

5.

6. Specialty ( check one)

7. agronomic x 8. economic x 9. Daytime phone 10. FAX 11.

List an additional contact person if available. Specialty ( check one)

12. agronomic x 13. economic 14. 15. FAX 16. For EPA Use Only ID#

Contact name Address Daytime phone E mail Steve_ Toth@ ncsu. edu Mr. Stephen J. Toth, Jr. Department of Horticultural Science, Campus Box 7609, North Carolina State University 919 515 8879 Location ( Enter the state, region, or county. Provide more detail about the location if relevant to the feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide.)

Crop/ commodity ( Include all crops/ commodities that benefit from the application of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle. A fumigation cycle is the period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.)

Climate ( Individual users should enter their climate zone designation by reviewing the U. S. climate zone map. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each climate zone. This map is located at the end of this workbook or it can be reviewed online at http:// www. usna. usda. gov/ Hardzone/ ushzmap. html).

Zones 6b ( 93% of area), 7a ( 5% of area), and 7b ( 2% of area) 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.

Other geographic factors that may affect crop/ commodity yield ( e. g., water table).

Southeastern Strawberry Consortium North Carolina and Tennessee Strawberries ( nursery production)

Soil Type:

Organic Matter:

Water table ( high in Coastal areas), elevation ( lower temperatures at higher elevations)

Consortium name Soil type Check the box( es) for the soil types and percent organic matter that apply to your area. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each soil type.

Dr. Barclay Poling Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 7613 919 515 2505 Contact name Address Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 7609 Barclay_ Poling@ ncsu. edu E mail Department of Entomology, Campus Box 7613, North Carolina State University 919 515 7746 919 515 1195 ( office); 919 418 9687 ( mobile) Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information 17. lbs.

17a. acres units 18. Yes x No 18a.

19.

20.

20a.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 If applying as a consortium for many users of methyl bromide, please define a representative user . Define exactly, issues such as size of the operation ( acres treated with methyl bromide for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications), whether the representative user owns or rents the land or operation, intensity of methyl bromide use ( treat regularly or only when pest reaches a threshold), pest pressure, etc. Target Pest( s) or Pest Problem( s): ( Be as specific as possible about the species or classes of pests relevant to the feasibility of alternatives.) If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for question 17 and 17a. should be the total for the consortium.

In the question below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Are you requesting methyl bromide for additional years beyond 2005?

acres Methyl bromide is broadcast applied to soil and is tarped immediately following fumigation with 1 mil clear plastic. How much area will this be applied to? Please list units. How much active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide are you requesting for 2005?

156 41,808 Unit of Area Treated acres 2007 In the table below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications. If a consortium is submitting this application, the data below should be the total for the consortium.

156 acre for the region is approximately 200,000 plants. There is a considerable range of acreage for strawberry nurseries ( from 3 acres to 80 acres); thereby, it is difficult to characterize a representative producer based on operation size. However, 3 of the larger nurseries in Consortium represent more than 91% of the total acreage. Nursery producers all use methyl bromide for weed, disease and nematode management.

The typical strawberry nursery has 50 acres and this represents the average size of the 3 largest nurseries ( 91% of total acreage in Consortium). The fresh dug plants are sold primarily to North Carolina and Florida strawberry producers. The typical yield per Explain why this user represents the typical user in the consortium. 2006 Quantity ai ( lb.) of Methyl Bromide 41,808 Area to be Treated 156 If yes, please list year and quantity active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide requested in the table below and explain why you need authorization for multiple years.

by strawberry nursery producers. It is uncertain at this time when suitable alternatives will be available and transferred to producers. Thus, the Consortium is requesting 3 yrs. of exemption. 41,808 Root knot nematodes, Meloidogyne spp. In the absence of technically and economically feasible alternatives, methyl bromide will be needed For EPA Use Only ID#

Yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus, and purple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus Year Black root rot ( complex of diseases; e. g., Pythium spp. may predominate in sandy soil and Rhizoctonia spp. in clay soil)

Crown rot, Phytophthora cactorum ( Lebert & Cohn) Worksheet Title Instructions specific to each worksheet are located at the top of each sheet.

2 A Methyl Bromide Use for 1997  2000 This worksheet provides data in actual usage for 1997 2000.

2 B Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for 1997

2000 This worksheet provides crop/ commodity yield and gross revenue for 1997 through 2000.

2 C Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for 2001 This data provides historical information on crop/ commodity yield and gross revenue for 2001.

2 D Methyl Bromide Use and Costs for 2001 This worksheet isolates use and cost data for 2001.

2 E Methyl Bromide  Other Operating Costs for 2001 This data is needed to estimate a baseline for operating costs in order to estimate the impact on operating profit and short run economic viability as a result of not using methyl bromide.

2 F Methyl Bromide  Fixed And Overhead Costs for 2001 This data is needed to estimate a baseline for total costs in order to estimate the impact on profitability and long run economic viability as a result of not using methyl bromide.

Purpose of Data: To establish a baseline estimate of crop/ commodity yields, gross revenues, and costs using methyl bromide. Worksheet 2. Methyl Bromide  Historical Use of Methyl Bromide Col A: Formulation of Methyl Bromide Col B, E, H, K: Actual Area Treated Col C, F, I, L: Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Col D, G, J, M: Actual Average lbs. ai Applied per Area A B C D E F G H I J K L M Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area Total Actual Area Treated Actual Total lbs. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied Average lbs. ai Applied per Area over 95% methyl bromide 102 39,984 392 102 3,984 392 75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin 67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin 102 27,336 268 127 34,036 268 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin All formulations of methyl bromide 102 39, 984 392 102 3,984 392 102 27,336 268 127 34,036 268 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Use 1997 2000 Enter the appropriate data in Col B M for each formulation, if known, and/ or the totals and averages for all formulations. If you enter only the total and averages for all formulations in the last row of the table, please describe in the comments section the formulations typically used, or the approximate proportions of the formulations used.

If a consortium is submitting this application, all data should reflect the actual data for the consortium.

The average application rates in pounds ai of methyl bromide per area are automatically calculated from the previous 2 columns. 2000 Enter the total actual area treated. Note: This number should be the total actual area treated by the individual user or total actual area for the entire consortium, for the year indicated.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Formulation of Methyl Bromide Enter the actual total pounds active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide applied. Note: This number should be the total pounds ai applied by the individual user or the entire consortium, for the year indicated.

1997 1998 1999 For EPA Use Only ID#

A C D E F Year Methyl Bromide was Applied Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per area) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area)

1997 Plant 200,000 $ 0.08 $ 15,000.00 1998 Plant 200,000 $ 0.08 $ 16,000.00 1999 Plant 200,000 $ 0.09 $ 17,000.00 2000 Plant 200,000 $ 0.09 $ 17,000.00 Total Revenue for 1997 $ 15,000.00 Total Revenue for 1998 $ 16,000.00 Total Revenue for 1999 $ 17,000.00 Total Revenue for 2000 $ 17,000.00 Average Revenue Per Year $ 16,250.00 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Strawberry Nursery Plants Strawberry Nursery Plants Strawberry Nursery Plants Strawberry Nursery Plants B Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue Crop/ Commodity Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Average Revenue per Year: The average revenue per year is calculated automatically using the summary data you enter for each year.

Total Revenue for 1997 2000 Enter the total revenue per year by adding the revenue for all crops for that year.

Col. A: Year Col. B: Crop/ Commodity Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 1997 2000 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the actual averages for the consortium.

Enter the average prices received by the users for the year and crop/ commodity indicated ( 1997 2000).

This number is calculated automatically using the values you entered in Cols. D and E. You may override the formula to enter a different revenue. Please explain why the revenue amount is different in the comment section below.

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ commodities in the fumigation cycles from 1997 to 2000. 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/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in each fumigation cycle. ( For example, if normally methyl bromide is applied and tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers without an additional treatment of methyl bromide, then both tomatoes and peppers would be part of the same fumigation cycle.) See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodities produced per area.

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 grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

The purpose of this worksheet is to estimate the gross revenue for 1997  2000 when using methyl bromide. Post harvest and structural users may work with EPA to modify this form to accommodate differences in operations when providing gross revenue data. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. B: Price Factors Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Revenue A B C D E F Crop/ Commodity Price Factors ( grade, time, market) Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per area) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area)

Strawberry Nursery Plants Plant 200,000 $ 0.09 $ 17,000.00 Total Revenue $ 17,000.00 Comments: Reference: Estimated costs and returns per acre of a representative strawberry nursery, Western North Carolina, 2001 OMB Control # 2060 0482 The purpose of this worksheet is to estimate the gross revenue for 2001when using methyl bromide. Post harvest users may modify this form to accommodate differences when providing gross revenue data. If 2001 was not a typical year for the individual or for the representative user of a consortium, the applicant may provide additional data for a different year. However, all applicants must complete this worksheet for the year 2001 regardless. Please explain in the comment section at the bottom of the worksheet why 2001 is not considered a typical year, if that is the case. Enter all crops/ commodities that benefit from methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning with the treatment of methyl bromide in 2001. If multiple crops 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 during the entire interval. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

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 grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

Enter average 2001 prices received by the users for that crop/ commodity and price factor.

Revenue is automatically calculated using the data you entered for yield and price. If revenue is not equal to yield times price, you may override the formula and enter a different revenue amount. Please explain why this revenue amount is different in the comment section below.

Enter factors that determine prices ( e. g., grade, time, market). If you received different prices for your crop/ commodity as a result of quality,

grade, market ( e. g. fresh or processing), timing of harvest, etc., you may itemize by using more than one row. Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate in making the case that the use of methyl bromide affects these price factors.

Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ commodity.

Enter the number of units of crop/ commodity produced per area for that price factor. Col. A: Formulation of Methyl Bromide Col B: Average lbs. active ingredient ( ai) of Methyl Bromide Applied per Area Cols. C, D, E, G: Prices and Costs Col. F: Actual Area Treated A B C D E F G Formulation of Methyl Bromide Lb. ai of Methyl Bromide Applied per Area ( 2001 Average) Price per lb. ai of Methyl Bromide ( 2001 Average) Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area ( 2001 Average) Other MBr Costs ( e. g. tarps,

etc.) per Area ( 2001 Average) Total Actual Area Treated in the Consortium Cost per Area over 95% methyl bromide 75% methyl bromide, 25% chloropicrin 67% methyl bromide, 33% chloropicrin 268 $ 3.65 $ 250.00 $ 190.40 156 $ 1,418.60 50% methyl bromide, 50% chloropicrin __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin __% methyl bromide, __% chloropicrin All formulations of methyl bromide Comments: Reference: Estimated costs and returns per acre of a representative strawberry nursery, Western North Carolina, 2001 OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

If 2001 was not a typical year for the individual or for the representative user of a consortium, the applicant may provide additional data for a different year. However, all applicants must complete this worksheet for the year 2001 regardless. If you provide an additional year's data, please explain in the comment section at the bottom of the worksheet why 2001 is not considered a typical year.

If the methyl bromide is custom applied then put the cost per area in Column G and fill in the average lb ai of methyl bromide applied per area ( Col B) and the Total Actual Area Treated ( Col F).

Worksheet 2 D. Methyl Bromide  Use and Costs for 2001 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data in Cols. B, C, D, and E should reflect the representative user in the consortium. The data in Col. F should reflect the actual area treated by all users in the consortium.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Enter the appropriate data in Col B G for each formulation, if known, and/ or the totals and averages for all formulations of methyl bromide. If you just enter data in the bottom row in the table ( All formulations of methyl bromide), please describe in the comments, the relative usage of the various formulations, to the extent known.

Enter the average pounds active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide applied per area.

Enter the average price per pound active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide in Col. C and the average cost of applying methyl bromide per area treated in Col. D. In Col. E, enter the average other costs per area associated with applying methyl bromide ( e. g., tarps). Column G will be calculated automatically using the values you entered in columns B E. If methyl bromide is custom applied, enter the cost per area in Col. G and fill in Cols. B and F.

Enter the actual area treated. Note: This number should be the total area treated by all users in the consortium. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col A: Operation Col B: Custom Operation Cost Col C: Material Cost per Area Col D: Labor Cost per Area Col E: Total Cost per Area Col F: Typical Equipment Used A B C D E F Material Cost per Area Labor Cost per Area Total Cost per Area Typical Equipment Used Fertilizer $ 804.74 $ 804.74 Pest Control $ 2,882.41 $ 2,882.41 Transplanter $ 1,463.20 $ 1,463.20 Operator Labor $ 131.12 $ 131.12 Hand Labor $ 82.00 $ 82.00 Harvest Labor $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Other $ 76.51 $ 76.51 Total Custom per Area $ 0.00 User Total per area $ 9,439.98 Comments: Reference: Estimated costs and returns per acre of a representative strawberry nursery, Western North Carolina, 2001 OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 E. Methyl Bromide  Other Operating Costs for 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Custom Operation Cost per Area Operation If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Do not include methyl bromide costs.

Identify the typical equipment used for operations done by user. Please be specific, such as tractor horsepower. No cost data is required in this column.

If you do not incur custom operation costs, enter the material cost per area.

The total cost per area is calculated automatically from the values you enter in Cols. C and D.

If you do not incur custom operation costs, enter the labor cost per area.

Enter all operating costs except methyl bromide costs incurred during the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning in 2001. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. Enter these costs in Col B for custom operations, or in Col C and D for operations done by user.

Identify in Col A the operations ( except methyl bromide) to which the costs apply. For growers, these operations should include but are not limited to ( 1) prepare soil, ( 2) fertilize, ( 3) irrigate, ( 4) plant, ( 5) harvest, ( 6) other pest controls, etc. You must include all other operating costs.

If you incur custom operation costs, enter those costs in Col. B.

Submit crop budgets for each crop, if available. You may submit crop budgets electronically or in hard copy. If your costs are significantly different than the crop budgets,

please explain in the comments. Operation Done by User For EPA Use Only ID#

Col A: Cost Item Col B: Description Col C: Allocation Method Col D: Cost per Area A B C D Cost Item Description Allocation Method Cost per Area Land rent $ 200.00 Interest on borrowed money $ 262.61 Depreciation on equipment $ 1,722.50 Total $ 2,185.11 Comments: Reference: Estimated costs and returns per acre of a representative strawberry nursery, Western North Carolina, 2001 OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 F. Methyl Bromide Fixed and Overhead Costs in 2001 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Identify in Col. A the cost items. These items should include, but are not limited to: ( 1) land rent, ( 2) interest, ( 3) depreciation,

( 4) management, and ( 5) overhead such as office and administration.)

Please describe the cost in more detail.

Please describe how you estimated the portion of total fixed cost of the farm or entity that applies to this crop/ commodity.

Enter the cost per area of methyl bromide treated.

Enter all fixed and overhead costs incurred during the fumigation cycle ( interval between fumigations) beginning in 2001. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. Worksheet Title 3 A Alternatives  Technical Feasibility This form is used to obtain information on the chemical alternatives identified by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) that are registered for use in the United States, as well as the non chemical alternatives identified by the MBTOC. Applicants must address the technical feasibility of all the chemical and non chemical alternatives identified on the list.

3 B Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs This form is used to estimate the cost of using alternative pest control regimens.

3 C Alternatives  Crop/

Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue This form is used to estimate the crop/ commodity yields and gross revenues when using alternative pest control regimens.

3 D Alternatives  Changes in Other Costs This form is used to estimate change in any other costs as a result of using the alternatives.

Complete each of the worksheets below ( 3 A, 3 B, 3 C, and 3 D) 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 non chemical 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. Please add a number designation to each worksheet title to indicate a different alternative. For example, for the first alternative pest control regimen label the worksheets as 3 A( 1), 3 B( 1), 3 C( 1), and 3 D( 1). For the second alternative pest control regimen label the worksheets 3 A( 2), 3 B( 2), 3 C( 2), and 3( D)( 2).

Purpose of Data on Alternative Pest Control Regimens: To estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available. EPA needs to compare data ( yields, crop/ commodity prices, gross revenues and costs) on the use of methyl bromide and alternative pest control regimens.

Worksheet 3. Alternatives  Feasibility of Alternative Pest Control Regimens 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 fumigation cycle worksheet for a comprehensive definition. Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study:

Section I. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives 1. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

1a. Full use permitted 1b. Township caps 1c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country 1d. Other ( Please describe) For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide [ Insert Study Title] In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no research has been conducted ( i. e. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area. For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative, for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( a). For the same alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( 1)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

BACKGROUND If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1, 5, and 8.

[ Insert Alternative] In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area. There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1996. If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed. Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No 1a. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes No 7.

8.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N:

Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O: Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J  O):

Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Pest 1 Pest 2 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Provide one summary table for each study being described.

Research Summary Table For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil, number of colony forming units per gram of soil,

etc.).

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected.

Ideally, a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used.

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Enter the interval after treatment that the rating was taken. Enter the interval ( days, weeks or months) in the column heading or in the comments section. In the comments describe the rating scale ( e. g. 0 to 100 where 100 is complete control).

Use these columns to describe the level of control provided for a specific pest and the time interval at which the rating was taken. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. In this example, type over the words " Rating Interval 1" with " pre treatment", type over " Rating Interval 2" with " 3 weeks", and type over " Rating Interval 3" with " 6 weeks." If you are completing the printed version, please define Rating Interval in the comments below.

Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide For EPA Use Only ID#

Treatment Treatment Number Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area)

Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications. Yield ( units/ area)

[ Insert Alternative] [ Insert Study Title] Alternative: Study:

Col. A: Treatment Number Col. B: Treatment Col. C: Rate Col. D, F, H, J, L, N:

Interval Cols. E, G, I, K, M, O:

Rating for Interval:

Control of Pests 1 and 2 ( Cols. D  I and Cols. J  O):

Col. J: Yield A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Sting nematode Stunt nematode Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating for Interval 3 Interval 1 Rating for Interval 1 Interval 2 Rating for Interval 2 Interval 3 Rating Interval 3 1 Untreated  pre trt 700 3 wks 700 6 wks 707 pre trt 100 3 wks 111 6 wks 109 5,000 2 Methyl Bromide 300 gal. pre trt 669 3 wks 221 6 wks 120 pre trt 98 3 wks 77 6 wks 36 8,000 3 Iodo methane 150 gal. pre trt 675 3 wks 250 6 wks 125 pre trt 111 3 wks 35 6 wks 32 7,580 Comments:

Ratings are for nematodes per gram of soil OMB Control # 2060 0482 Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Treatment Number Treatment Rate ( lbs. or gals. ai per area) Yield ( lbs/ acre)

Enter the intervals ( days, weeks or months) that the rating was taken for each treatment in Columns D, F, H, J, L, and N. For example, a study for nematode control may have looked at nematode population in the soil pre treatment, 3 weeks after treatment, and 6 weeks after treatment. For this example, insert " pre treatment" in the " Interval 1" column , insert " 3 weeks" in the " Interval 2" column,

and insert " 6 weeks" in the " Interval 3" column."

In columns E, G, I, K, M, and O insert the rating ( the level of control provided for a specific pest) for each interval for each treatment described. In this example, for the methyl bromide treatment for sting nematode enter 669 for the " Rating for Interval 1", 221 for the " Rating for Interval 2", and 120 for the " Rating for Interval 3." In the comments section below describe the rating scale ( e. g.,

nematodes per gram of soil, number of colony forming units per gram of soil, etc.).

For the target pest( s) in the study list the pest or pest species being rated in the column header or the comments section. For example, a study for nematode control in tomatoes may have looked at sting nematode and stunt nematode. Enter sting nematode for pest 1 in the Col F header below and stunt nematode for pest 2 in the Col. L header below. In the comments section describe the rating system used ( 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no control, number of nematodes per gram of soil, number of colony forming units per gram of soil,

etc ) Enter the marketable yield of the crop or commodity and specify the units ( lbs./ acre, tons) in the column header or comments section.

Provide a summary table of research information that will allow us compare the impact of methyl bromide and the alternative regimen on such things as pest control, yield or quality of the commodity being treated, or protected. Ideally,

a research study should directly compare methyl bromide and the alternative regimen.

List the treatment number from the research study you are citing.

List what type of pest control method was used.

Enter the pounds or gallons of a chemical used, days of solarization, etc.

Example Research Summary Table Example Provide one summary table for each study being described. Col. B: Target Pests Col. C: Active Ingredients Col. D: Formulation Col. E, F, G: Application Rate Col. H, I, J: Prices and Costs Col. K: Area Treated Col. L: # of Applications per Year Col. M: Cost per Area in 2001 Dollars Non chemical Control A B C D E F G H I J K L M lbs. ai per Area per Application Units of product per Area per Application Product Unit ( e. g., lbs.,

gals) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Non Chemical Pest Control Target Pests Description Cost/ area Total $ 0.00 Comments:

If you do not have the quantitative data for additional crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comment section.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 For EPA Use Only ID#

Use one row for each active ingredient ( ai). For example, if a product contains 2 ai's use 2 rows for that product. Once a row is completed for a given product, then only Col.

B ( if applicable), C, and E need to be completed for additional rows regarding the same product.

Enter the number of applications in a fumigation cycle comparable to methyl bromide for this alternative pest control regimen. Since this number is an average, it does not need to be a whole number.

Enter the formulation or the % of active ingredient. Cost per Area ( 2001$)

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Name of Product Price per Unit of the Product Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area Other Costs per Application Worksheet 3 B. Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs for Alternative: [ Insert name of alternative]

Enter the area receiving at least one application of the pesticide.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Enter all alternatives and non chemical pest control that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. If multiple crops 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 pesticides that replace methyl bromide for the entire interval. Do not include pesticides that are used along with methyl bromide enter only the additional pest control if methyl bromide were not available.

Be as specific as possible regarding the species or classes of pests controlled by the active ingredient or pesticide product.

Col. A: Name of Product and Non chemical Control If someone other than the applicant previously benefited from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

As a cross check, EPA is requesting both the amount of active ingredient in Col. E and product applied per area in Col. F. Indicate the unit of the product in Col. G.

Use 2001 prices and costs. If the product is custom applied you may enter the total cost in the last column ( Col. M) and override the formula. If a pesticide is applied by the user, enter the price of the product in Col. H and the cost of applying it in Col. I. Enter any other costs associated with applying this product in Col. J, specifying what they are in the comments section at the bottom of this sheet.

Enter the cost per area in 2001 dollars. Col. M will be calculated automatically using the data you have entered for a chemical pest control, or, the formula in Col. M can be overridden if the cost per area is known because the product was custom applied. Area Treated at Least Once Enter data near the bottom of the form. Identify the control in Col. A. Enter the target pests in Col. B. Describe the non chemical pest control Col. B L. Enter the costs in Col. M in 2001 dollars. # of Applications per Year Application Rate Formulation of Product Target Pests Active Ingredients ( ai) in Product Col. B: Target Pests Col. C: Active Ingredients Col. D: Formulation Col. E, F, G: Application Rate Col. H, I, J: Prices and Costs Col. K: Area Treated Col. L: # of Applications per Year Col. M: Cost per Area in 2001 Dollars Non chemical Control A B C D E F G H I J K L M lbs. ai per Area per Application Units of product per Area per Application Product Unit ( e. g., lbs.,

gals)

Product X Pest Y, Pest Z Chemical D,

Chemical F 90% Chemical D,

10% Chemical F 250 278 lbs $ 10.00 $ 20.00 0 25 1 $ 2,800.00 Product U Pest V, Pest Y Chemical C 100% 150 200 gal $ 5.00 $ 20.00 10 25 2 $ 2,060.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Non Chemical Pest Control Target Pests Description Cost/ area Control P Pest J, Pest K $ 500.00 Total $ 5,360.00 Comments:

If you do not have the quantitative data for additional crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comment section.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Enter the cost per area in 2001 dollars. Col. M will be calculated automatically using the data you have entered for a chemical pest control, or, the formula in Col. M can be overridden if the cost per area is known because the product was custom applied Area Treated at Least Once Enter data near the bottom of the form. Identify the control in Col. A. Enter the target pests in Col. B. Describe the non chemical pest control Col. B L. Enter the costs in Col. M in 2001 dollars. # of Applications per Year Application Rate Formulation of Product Target Pests Active Ingredients ( ai) in Product Worksheet 3 B. Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs for Alternative: Product X Enter the area receiving at least one application of the pesticide.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

Enter all alternatives and non chemical pest control that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle. If multiple crops are grown Be as specific as possible regarding the species or classes of pests controlled by the active ingredient or pesticide product.

Col. A: Name of Product and Non chemical Control If someone other than the applicant previously benefited from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

As a cross check, EPA is requesting both the amount of active ingredient in Col. E and product applied per area in Col. F. Indicate the unit of the product in Col. G.

Use 2001 prices and costs. If the product is custom applied you may enter the total cost in the last column ( Col. M) and override the formula. If a pesticide is applied by the user, enter the price of the product in Col. H and the cost of applying it in Col. I. Enter any other costs associated with applying this product in Col. J, specifying what they are in the comments section at the bottom of this sheet.

Name of Product Price per Unit of the Product Cost of Applying Pesticide per Area Other Costs per Application per area For EPA Use Only ID#

Control P is done 2 times per year according to ____ methods.

Use one row for each active ingredient ( ai). For example, if a product contains 2 ai's use 2 rows for that product. Once a row is completed for a given product, then only Col.

B ( if applicable), C, and E need to be completed for additional rows regardin Enter the number of applications in a fumigation cycle comparable to methyl bromide for this alternative pest control regimen. Since this number is an average, it does not need to be a whole number.

Enter the formulation or the % of active ingredient. Cost per Area ( 2001$)

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. B: Price Factors Col. C: Unit of Crop/ Commodity Col. D: Crop/ Commodity Yield Col. E: Price Col. F: Gross Revenue A B C D E F Crop/ Commodity Price Factors ( grade, time, market) Unit of Crop/ Commodity ( e. g., pounds, bushels) Crop/ Commodity Yield ( Units per area) Price ( per unit of crop/ commodity) Revenue ( per area) $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Revenue $ 0.00 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Enter the number of units of crop/ commodity produced per area for that price factor identified.

Enter the average 2001 prices received by the users for that crop/ commodity and price factor.

The purpose of this worksheet is to identify the gross revenue for units ( crop, commodity, structure) when using an alternative compared to gross revenue when using methyl bromide.

Postharvest and structural users may modify this form to accommodate differences in operations when providing gross revenue data.

Col. A: Crop/ Commodity 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 grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

Worksheet 3 C. Alternatives  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Gross Revenue for Alternativ [ Insert name of alternative]

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user.

In the electronic version, revenue is automatically calculated below using the data you entered for yield and price. If revenue is not equal to yield times price, you may override the formula and enter a different revenue amount. Please explain why this revenue amount is different in the comment section b l Enter the unit of measurement for your crop/ commodity.

Enter all crops/ commodities that can be grown/ treated during the same interval of time comprising a methyl bromide fumigation cycle. Please discuss changes in crop cycles resulting from alternative use in the comments. See the Fumigation Cycle Worksheet for a comprehensive definition of the fumigation cycle.

Enter in Col. B any factors that determine prices ( e. g., grade, time, market). If you received different prices for your crop/ commodity as a result of quality, grade, market ( e. g., fresh or processing), timing of harvest, etc., you may itemize by using more than one row. Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate in making the case that the use of alternatives affects these price factors. For EPA Use Only ID#

Col. A: Operation or Cost Item Col. B: Custom Operation Cost Col. C, D, E: Costs per Area Col. F: Typical Equipment Used A B C D E F Material Cost per Area Labor Cost per Area Total Cost per Area $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Custom per Area $ 0.00 User Total per area $ 0.00 Comments:

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Enter in Col. C and D, material and labor costs per area that change for operations done by user. The total cost per area is calculated automatically from the values you enter in Cols. C and D. Typical Equipment Used Operation Done by User [ Insert name of alternative]

Worksheet 3 D. Alternatives  Changes in Other Costs for Alternative:

Custom Operation Cost per Area Operation or Cost Item Enter data only for costs ( other than the cost of alternative pest control) that change as a result of using the alternatives instead of methyl bromide. Enter the whole cost, not just the incremental changes. Enter the cost in Col. B for custom operation costs, or in Col. C and D for operations done by user.

Identify changes in the typical equipment used by the user as a result of not using methyl bromide. Please be specific such as tractor horsepower. No cost data are required in this column.

Identify the operations or cost items that change as a result of not using methyl bromide.

Enter custom operation costs that change in Col. B.

Area is defined below as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect a representative user . 1. Name of study:

2. Researcher( s):

3. Your test is planned for:

4. Location:

5. Name of alternative to be tested:

6. Yes No 7.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 Multiple studies  see attachments ( Appendix 4.1 and 4.2) Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. ( All available methyl bromide alternatives from the alternatives list should have been tested or have future tests planned.) There is no need to complete a separate worksheet for future research plans for each alternative  you may use this worksheet to describe all future research plans.

If additional testing is not planned, please explain why. ( For example, the available alternatives have been tested and found unsuitable, an alternative has been identified but is not yet registered for this crop, available alternatives are too expensive for this crop, etc.) Will crop yield be measured in the study? For EPA Use Only ID#

We have conducted extensive work with halosulfuron in tomatoes, but it is not registered in strawberries for fruit or nursery production. Halosulfuron is very effective for nutsedge, especially postemergence. Worksheet 4. Alternatives  Future Research Plans 1.

1a. Check all methods you will use Nothing Tarpaulin ( high density polyethylene)

Virtually impermeable film ( VIF) x Cultural practices ( please specify)

1b. Will you use other pesticides to reduce use of methyl bromide? Yes x No If yes please specify.

1c. Other non chemical methods: ( please specify):

2. Yes No x If yes, how many pounds? lbs.

3. Yes No x If yes, how many pounds? lbs.

4.

$

5.

6.

When do you expect these to occur?

7.

0 10 acres 10 25 acres 25 50 acres 50 100 acres 100 200 acres 200 400 acres over 400 acres Worksheet 5. Additional Information For EPA Use Only ID#

4 2 Do you anticipate that you will have any methyl bromide in storage on January 1, 2005? Maintain weed control with use of combination of fumigants to reduce rate Iodomethane registration ( 2003 2004?) would possibly eliminate Broad spectrum, cost effective fumigant that will work under variable soil textures and moisture conditions that is not phytotoxic. bromide alternatives Identify what factors would allow you to stop or reduce your use of methyl bromide ( e. g. registration of particular pesticide; completion of research plan; capital outlay). What is the cumulative amount spent to date by the user or consortium on research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide ( beginning in 1992)? How will you minimize your use and/ or emissions of methyl bromide?

none Do you have access to recycled methyl bromide? methyl bromide + 1,3 dichloropropene ( 1,3 D, Telone)

250,000 Range of acres farmed by growers included in this application? ( insert number of users in each category) Other investments, if any, made to reduce your reliance on methyl bromide. Describe each investment and its associated cost.

0.8 FTE ( full time equivalent) of faculty position at North Carolina State University devoted to work on methyl methyl bromide use if costs of iodomethane are not prohibitive.

1 Worksheet 5. Additional Information ( continued)

8.

0  5,000 sq. ft. 5,001  10,000 sq. ft. 10,001  20,000 sq. ft. 20,001  40,000 sq. ft. 40,001  80,000 sq. ft. 4 80,001  160,000 sq. ft. 3 over 160,000 sq. ft.

I certify that all information contained in this document is factual to the best of my knowledge.

Signature Date Print Name Title Signature Date Print Name Title OMB Control # 2060 0482 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. Range of square feet of the area to which applicants included in this application will apply methyl bromide? ( insert number of users in each category)

E. Barclay Poling E. Barclay Poling Professor and Extension Specialist ( Small Fruits)

Professor and Extension Specialist ( Small Fruits) 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 not 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. For EPA Use Only ID# 1. 2. 3. 4. Pounds of Methyl Bromide Requested 2005 41,808 5. Area Treated with Methyl Bromide 2005 156 acres units 6. If methyl bromide is requested for additional years, reason for request:

2006 41,808 lbs. Area Treated 156 acres units 2007 41,808 lbs. Area Treated 156 acres units Not Technically Feasible Not Economically Feasible x x x x x x x For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet 6. 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.

Name of Applicant:

Location:

Crop: Southeastern Strawberry Consortium In the absence of technically and economically feasible alternatives, methyl bromide will be needed by strawberry nursery and fruit producers. It is uncertain at this time when suitable alternatives will be available and transferred to producers. Thus, the Consortium is requesting 3 yrs. of exemption.

North Carolina and Tennessee Strawberries ( nursery production) This alternative does not give effective control of nutsedge. Excessive PPE requirements, and set or buffer space requirements.

There are occasional phytotoxicity problems associated with is alternative.

This alternative does not give effective control of nutsedge. Excessive PPE requirements, and set or buffer space requirements.

This alternative does not give effective control of nutsedge.

None registered This potential alternative has an extended time between application and crop planting ( compared to methyl bromide) and is not very effective on nutsedge. It also can be inconsistant for disease control. Reasons This alternative does not give effective control of nutsedge. It also produces objectionable odors ( a seriuos issue in urban fringe areas where strawberries are grown). Insuffieient root knot nematode control.

This alternative does not give effective control of nutsedge. Excessive PPE requirements, and set or buffer space requirements.

chloropicrin 1,3 D Potential Alternatives metam Na 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.

metam Na, chloropicrin nematicides 1,3 D, chloropicrin 1,3 D, chloropicrin, metam Na


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44839-44841]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0164; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-02-AD;
Amendment 39-18191; AD 2015-13-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-19-05 for
all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2,
1K1, 1S, 1S1, 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines.
AD 2014-19-05 required an initial one-time vibration check of the
engine accessory gearbox (AGB) on certain Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 model
engines, and repetitive vibration checks for all Arriel 1 and Arriel 2
engines. This AD was prompted by our determination that we incorrectly
identified technical references in AD 2014-19-05. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the engine AGB, which could lead to in-flight
shutdown and damage to the engine, which may result in damage to the
aircraft.

DATES: This AD is effective September 1, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 1,
2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
November 5, 2014 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59 74 40 00; telex:
570 042; fax: 33 0 5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2014-0164.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0164; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information,
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2014-19-05, Amendment 39-17973 (79 FR 59091,
October 1, 2014), (``AD 2014-19-05''). AD 2014-19-05 applied to the
specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 4, 2015 (80 FR 6017). The NPRM proposed to continue to require
an initial one-time vibration check of the engine AGB on certain higher
risk Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 model engines. That NPRM also proposed to
continue to require repetitive vibration checks of the engine AGB for
all Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines at every engine shop visit.
    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Allow Sufficient Compliance Time

    One commenter requested that sufficient time be allowed to comply
with this AD to account for the availability of the vibration test
equipment and Turbomeca technical representatives. The commenter
indicated that the initial one-time vibration check of the engine AGB
requires use of Turbomeca-specified vibration test equipment and is
performed by Turbomeca technical personnel.
    We do not agree. The compliance times in the AD provide sufficient
time for the operator to perform the required maintenance. Operators
can also procure the required vibration test equipment to perform the
test. We did not change this AD.

Request To Revise Definition of Shop Visit

    One commenter requested that we revise the AD to make the
definition of ``shop visit'' consistent with EASA AD 2014-0036. The
EASA AD specifies that the repetitive vibration check of the engine AGB
be performed during a ``qualifying shop visit,'' which is when the
engine is ``overhauled or repaired in a qualified Repair Center.'' The
commenter indicated that because of the modularity of the Arriel
engine, it is possible to separate a major mating flange during ``Level
2'' or ``Level 1 maintenance.''
    We do not agree. We do not find specific criteria in EASA AD 2014-
0036's definition of ``engine shop visit'' for when the repetitive AGB
vibration check should be conducted. We did not change this AD.

Request To Eliminate Repetitive Vibration Check

    One commenter requested that the repetitive vibration check
required by this AD be eliminated. The commenter indicated that this
vibration check is already incorporated in Turbomeca Level 4
maintenance, and in subsequent test requirements, so it will always be
done. Further, adding this requirement to the AD only adds to the cost
and paperwork requirements for operators.
    We do not agree. The repetitive vibration checks of the engine AGB
are required to prevent failure of the AGB. We did not change this AD.

Revisions To Service Information References

    Turbomeca S.A. updated the service bulletins (SBs) referenced in
this AD. We reviewed the updated SBs and found they adequately
addressed the unsafe condition. Therefore, we revised this AD to
reference the updated versions of the SBs. This AD now references
Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839,
Version C, dated June 18, 2014, and Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849,
Version C, dated June 18, 2014. We also revised compliance paragraph
(e) of this AD to refer to the corresponding paragraphs used in these
updated MSBs to require the vibration checks.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated
June 18, 2014; and Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated
June 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
vibration checks. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section
of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,268 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4
hours per engine to comply with the inspection requirement in this AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $431,120.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2014-19-05, Amendment 39-17973 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2015-13-04 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-18191; Docket No. FAA-2014-
0164; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-02-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 1, 2015

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-19-05, Amendment 39-17973 (79 FR
59091, October 1, 2014).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C,
1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, 1S1, 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1,
and 2S2 turboshaft engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight
shutdowns on Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines following
rupture of the 41-tooth gear forming part of the 41/23-tooth bevel
gear located in the engine accessory gearbox (AGB). We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the engine AGB, which could lead to
in-flight shutdown and damage to the engine, which may result in
damage to the aircraft.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, 2B, and 2B1
turboshaft engines, perform a one-time vibration check of the AGB
41/23-tooth bevel gear meshing within 32 months of the effective
date of this AD, as follows:
    (i) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines,
except those engines with an AGB installed with a serial number (S/
N) listed in the figure under paragraph 2.2. of Turbomeca S.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated
June 18, 2014, use paragraph 2.3.1. through 2.3.3. of Turbomeca S.A.
MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, to perform the
vibration check.
    (ii) You must also use Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 Technical
Instruction (TI) No. 292 72 0839 and Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 TI No.
292 72 0840 to do the vibration check.
    (iii) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 engines, except
those engines with an AGB installed with an S/N listed in the figure
under paragraph 2.2. of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version
C, dated June 18, 2014, use paragraphs 2.3.1. through 2.3.3. of
Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014,
to perform the vibration check. Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849
refers to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2849 and to
Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2850, which you must also use
to do the vibration check.
    (iv) The reporting requirements in paragraphs <IP_ADDRESS>.3.,
<IP_ADDRESS>.3., and the requirement to return module M01 (AGB) to a
Repair Center in paragraph <IP_ADDRESS>.2. in Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292
72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, and in Turbomeca S.A. MSB
No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, are not required by
this AD.
    (2) For all affected Turbomeca S.A. engines, during each engine
shop visit after the effective date of this AD, perform a vibration
check of the AGB 41/23-tooth bevel gear meshing.
    (3) If the AGB does not pass the vibration check required by
paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, replace the AGB with a part
eligible for installation.

(f) Credit for Previous Action

    If you performed a vibration check of the AGB before the
effective date of this AD using Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839,
Version A, dated September 9, 2013, or Version B, dated November 25,
2013, or MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version A, dated September 9, 2013, or
Version B, dated November 25, 2013; or during an engine shop visit
per paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you met the initial inspection
requirement of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges. The separation
of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transportation without
subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop
visit.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to

make your request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Mark Riley,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2014-0036,
dated February 11, 2014, for related information. You may examine
the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0164-0003.
    (3) Turbomeca S.A. Engine Test Bed Acceptance Test
Specifications CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Version T; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Version R; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Version I; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Version K; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Version K; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Version J; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Version I; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Version I; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Version K; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Version H; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Version L; CCT No.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Version H; or Turbomeca ID No. 383952; or Turbomeca RTD No. X 292 65
327 2, provide information on performing a vibration check during an
engine shop visit. These service documents can be obtained from
Turbomeca S.A. using the contact information in paragraph (j)(5) of
this AD.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 1, 2015.
    (i) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72
0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014.
    (ii) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June
18, 2014.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 5, 2014 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014).
    (i) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version B, dated
November 25, 2013.
    (ii) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version B, dated
November 25, 2013.
    (iii) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 Technical Instruction (TI) No. 292
72 0839, Version E, dated February 20, 2014.
    (iv) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 TI No. 292 72 0840, Version A,
dated November 29, 2013.
    (v) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2849, Version E, dated
February 20, 2014.
    (vi) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2850, Version A,
dated November 29, 2013.
    (5) For Turbomeca S.A. service information identified in this
AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59
74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 0 5 59 74 45 15.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 16, 2015.
Robert J. Ganley,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-18051 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P