U. S. government Responses to MBTOC  CUE nomination in 2005 3rd round of questions dated December 4, 2003 With respect to our initial preparation and further review of the U. S. critical use exemption ( CUE) application, the U. S. government has undertaken a thorough and exhaustive review throughout this CUE process to assemble, review, and analyze all pertinent information related to the sectors for which we have submitted nominations. We believe this effort has produced a thorough and accurate assessment of the need for MB in accordance with the Protocol's CUE criteria. Based on some comments and questions from MBTOC, it appears that MBTOC experts may be aware of information beyond that considered pertinent by the United States in making our CUE nomination ( e. g., with respect to questions 1, 4, 11, and 14). We believe it is important that the full relevant body of scientific information is brought to bear in our domestic process, and would request that in these instances MBTOC provide us with additional information so we can consider it in future nominations. With that said, we also believe it is important that additional information or studies be carefully examined to ensure that they are relevant for consideration in the specific context of our nomination ( i. e., comparable topography, production and cultural practices, climate, pest type and degree of pressure). This information would be very helpful to us in better understanding some questions from MBTOC, as well as considering our future CUE nominations. Responses to the specific questions raised by MBTOC follow, and we have attached a brief discussion of recently approved pesticides and research activities that may in the future be important in efforts to replace methyl bromide uses.

General Questions Question 1   Is there scope for further reduction in the nominated quantities of MB through refinement of the processes given above prior to and during 2005? In particular, [ through] adoption of MB/ chloropicrin mixtures containing a reduced MB component ( e. g. 57: 43 MB: Pic or lower where registered), reduced dosage in conjunction with increased exposure periods with tarps of lower permeability, and further use of strip treatments, reduced frequency of fumigations, or other measures.

Part of the argument against use of higher proportions of chloropicrin (> 35%) in fumigant mixes is that they are said to increase vegetative growth at the expense of fruit production in strawberries. Are there published studies on this? It is notable that there is some commercial use of 100% chloropicrin in California for strawberry production and that the 57: 43 MB: Pic formulation is widely used.

Where reductions are feasible, the Party is requested to reassess the CUNs and provide new nominated quantities.

Answers 1 a. Possibility of adoption of lower concentration mixtures of MeBr ( eg 57: 43 or lower) where registered. January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 2 Based on this question from MBTOC, the United States reviewed our original submissions in the " noted" categories of our CUE, and held discussions with both US experts and the relevant applicants. As a result of this work, we have concluded that the MeBr mixtures currently committed to in the context of the 2005 CUE nomination are at the lowest level possible consistent with the need to provide both essential pest control and economic agricultural production.

In considering this issue, it should be noted that, in most cases, the crops in the " noted" category have already moved significantly from historic mixtures of MeBr, which were at the 98: 2 rate, to mixtures averaging 67: 33 or better. For example, in nominated tomato producing regions the formulation in 1997 was predominately 98: 2, but by 2002 it had shifted almost exclusively to 67: 33. Likewise, the formulations used in regions nominated for Strawberry production in 1997 were predominately 98: 2 but shifted by 2002 to predominately 67: 33, with over 50% of growers in California using a 57: 43 formulation ( although the use of this lower formulation can be limited by the specific pest pressures faced by an individual user, such as where higher nematode and weed pressure exist). In addition, MBTOC has taken note of ( 2002 MBTOC Report p. 351) the lower dosage rates currently in use in the United States as compared to other countries; this hinders the potential for further reductions here. As chloropicrin is less expensive per pound than methyl bromide, growers already have an economic incentive to use it in higher concentrations until such time that they have inadequate efficacy. According to Dr. Husein Ajwa, at University of California at Davis, the reason higher ratios of chloropicrin are not used with methyl bromide is that weed control suffers below 67: 33 ( at 250 300 lbs mixture / acre, or 167 200 lb MeBr/ acre), although 57: 43 is used when weed pressure is not intense. ( Dr. Husein Ajwa; University of California; Salinas, California; personal communication 1/ 30/ 04) In that regard, we would like to address the statement that was included at the beginning of the latest round of MBTOC questions   to the effect that we had calculated dosage rates on a per hectare, rather than treated hectare basis. In fact, we have calculated on a treated hectare basis.

While our review of the issue of MeBr mixtures has determined that the rates included in our 2005 nomination are at the lowest level currently deemed effective for the circumstances in which the specific crops are produced, we would like to assure MBTOC and that Parties that the US is committed to evaluating all available avenues to reduce the use of methyl bromide and maintain the level of pest control necessary for modern agricultural production. Indeed, many sectors are evaluating lower MeBr mixtures. For example, several of the CUE applicants in the Forest Seedling sector have indicated that they are exploring moving to 67: 33 or 50: 50 methyl bromide chloropicrin mixtures or reductions in formulation possibly combined with Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF). Further, if our continuing research in this area demonstrates that lower rates are technically/ economically feasible in the situation faced by US applicants, we are committed to using them in the context of our future nominations. However, given the facts noted above, we are not in a position to assume lower MeBr containing mixtures in the context of our 2005 nomination.

As an example of the significant progress made by the United States over recent years on shifting to formulations with lower MeBr content, see the data below for our California Strawberry sector. This Table presents total MeBr use ( Preplant) and use of products with low percent January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 3 (< 66% MB) use ( predominately 57: 43 mix). Please note it is a table of total historical acreage treated with MB; the U. S. CUE nomination only includes a portion of this acreage where the need for MB was deemed to be critical.

Total MB Use Low Percent MB Use Percent of Total Year lbs MB AI Acres MB lbs MB AI Acres MB lbs Acres 1996 14,856,784 63,237 1,034,804 5,126 7% 8% 1997 15,217,859 63,885 999,682 4,993 7% 8% 1998 12,831,191 54,539 1,007,911 4,936 8% 9% 1999 14,338,149 63,033 1,019,226 5,323 7% 8% 2000 9,968,624 48,848 2,109,976 10,930 21% 22% 2001 6,155,632 33,569 3,898,608 22,698 63% 68%

1b. Consideration of Reduced MeBr dosage in conjunction with increased holding times and the use of less permeable tarps and more strip treatments.

Further minimizing MeBr use by reduced dosage rates in conjunction with increased holding times, the use of less permeable tarps and greater use of strip treatments is not considered a feasible method for lowering either MeBr emissions, or the level of the US nomination for 2005. There are several reasons for this.

First, as noted by the MBTOC on page 351 of the 2002 MBTOC report,

" in some countries ( eg: the USA) the potential for reducing MB dosages for soil fumigation compared to many other counties will be less because dosages are already low. In 1994, estimates of rates of MB used for soil fumigation in many European countries was between 50 100g/ m2, compared to rates as low as 20gm/ m2 in regular use in the US."

Indeed, in some cases, the rates used by the US are even lower than 20 g/ m2 ( eg: tomato in Florida and the Southeastern US are at the 15 16 g/ m2 rates). As a consequence of such low rates and the above noted MBTOC finding, we find it somewhat confusing that MBTOC is asking us if our dosage rates can be made lower. Further confusing this matter were MBTOC comments in their report last year which seemed to congratulate other countries who were only now approaching rates as low as we have been using for several years. In this regard, we hope we are not being put in a poorer light for our historic efforts to minimize MeBr use and emissions through low dosage rates.

The consideration of combining even lower dosage rates with increasing holding times and the use of less permeable tarps also raises issues of the efficacy of less permeable tarps as they relate to both the economic production of crops, and the potential for lowering use and emissions of MeBr. In that regard, we would like to first address the issue of less permeable VIF tarps. To do that, we would like to quote from page 349 of the 2002 MBTOC report.

That report found that: January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 4 " VIF is inefficient, if not entirely ineffectual at reducing MBR emissions from soil fumigation when: only part of the field is covered with VIF, any of the film strip over laps become unglued or are otherwise unsealed, any of the film edges anywhere around the field become unsealed, or the film seal is broken before 10 20 days have passed."

Indeed, in our experience, particularly with strawberry growers in the southeast who have experimented with VIF tarps, it was found that they tear easily, take longer to apply, and do not provide the endurance of standard tarps ( personal communication, Phillip Brannen, University of Georgia). It is not legal to use VIF tarps in California due to concerns over worker exposure to elevated levels of MeBr when VIF tarps are removed. As a consequence of all of these problems, it is just as possible, if not likely, that switching to VIF tarping in the context of US growing practices could result in greater emissions and the need for more MeBr, not less.

Further limiting the use of this method in the US is the fact that there are environmental impacts related to the disposal of these tarps. Indeed, on page 350 of the 2002 MBTOC report, MBTOC notes that there has been little progress on dealing with these issues, which include lack of environmentally sound disposal options, and inability to recycle. In our specific circumstance, out of related environmental concerns, these tarps are banned in California   an area of use encompassing almost 50% of the US pre plant nomination. In other areas, serious disposal issues still remain.

Aside from the issue of environmentally safe disposal, the use of VIF tarps are also more costly, both in terms of the capital start up costs necessary to purchase the machinery for laying the tarps, the logistics of supply, and the capital costs of the tarps themselves ( the latter cost is up to $ 200 over the cost of high density polyethylene and $ 300 over the cost of low density polyethylene tarps in cost / acre of use).

Nonetheless, given MBTOC interest in this issue, we are committed to undertaking further evaluation of the potential for VIF tarping in certain cropping situations where it appears most feasible. In particular, this issue is under investigation for use in the forest seedling sector. Further, while we do have concerns about the use of VIF tarps, we wish to assure MBTOC that we are nonetheless committed to using tarps. In fact, tarps are currently used in virtually all circumstances in the United States. Information supplied by the major custom applicator for the western United States ( Paul Niday, TriCal, Inc., personal communication) based on company records for 2002, indicated that 92.5% of all pre plant applications of methyl bromide in California were under tarps. The remaining 7.5% of pre plant applications were deep injections ( over 20 inches, or 50 cm in depth) used for orchard planting and re planting. According to Michael McKenry ( University of California, personal communication) when methyl bromide is injected at this depth there is actually less off gassing than when it is injected at a depth of 10 12 inches ( 25 30 cm) and tarped. In Florida all of the crops that have applied for CUEs are grown using plastic mulch culture so all methyl bromide is applied using tarps ( Michael Aerts, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, personal communication).

An additional component of this MBTOC question implied the need for both lower dosage rates and increased holding times. While, as noted above, lower dosage rates are not considered feasible, we agree with MBTOC that the issue of holding times is a very important consideration January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 5 when less permeable tarps are considered. That is because using VIF tarps while maintaining existing holding times could result in a spike in emissions when the tarps are removed increasing the risk of drift related exposure. We acknowledge that in other countries, productive land may be held fallow for several months prior to planting, thereby enabling the use of longer holding times without sacrificing crop production. However, this is not the case with US crops covered by the CUE. Increasing the holding time in the context of the crops covered by the US CUE, where full utilization of the land is often a prerequisite to cost effective operation, is not considered economically feasible.

The MBTOC question also suggested that decreasing frequency of MeBr applications could lead to further decreased use. Such a measure is more likely to be effective in other countries using much higher rates of MeBr application, whereas maintaining efficacy at the lower rates used by the United States involves a regular application of MeBr as put forward in the U. S. CUE nomination. Previous work by USDA ARS scientists has focused much more extensively on MeBr replacements rather than a transition strategy of further reducing concentrations or frequency of MeBr applications. As the progress towards finding replacements has indicated that anticipated replacements may not be forthcoming in the immediate future, additional work is being planned to look at strategies for rotating alternatives that demonstrate activity for one or two years of application, but are not long term, stand alone replacements in the crops to which they are applied at this time.

A final component of this question seems to suggest that the measures discussed above could be combined with increased use of strip treatments. Further, in considering combining more strip treatments with VIF, MBTOC documents note that VIF is inefficient if not entirely ineffectual at reducing MBR emissions from soil fumigation when: only part of the field is covered with VIF, any of the film strip over laps become unglued or are otherwise unsealed passed ( Rice et al., 1996; Thomas 1998; Wang et al. 1999) ( and there is a known problem with finding effective glues), any of the film edges anywhere around the field become unsealed, or the film seal is broken before 10 20 days have. These issues are much more prevalent in the case of strip treatment. Further, while strip treatments utilizing high or low density polyethylene films have been used in the U. S. for a number of years to reduce the rate and amount of methyl bromide used in crops such as: cucurbits, eggplant, peppers, strawberries and tomatoes there are trade offs with strip treatments that may not make them suitable for all situations. Research from S. R. Yates ( 1996) in California has suggested that methyl bromide emissions will be increased if the entire soil surface is not covered ( i. e. strip treatments). Many nursery situations prefer to use flat fumigation ( 100% of the area is treated) because they are concerned that the target pests can rapidly reinvade from the adjacent untreated areas and infest their planting stock. This in turn may lead to more frequent applications of methyl bromide to control the target pest.

1c. Are there published studies supporting your CUE submissions which noted that use of a Higher proportion of chloropicrin would lead to increased vegetative growth ?...

Before addressing your question, we would like to make clear that our primary concern regarding the use of mixtures with lower level of MeBr relates to efficacy in addressing target pests, and that the issue regarding increased vegetative growth with higher levels of chloropicrin, January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 6 while important, is considered secondary. Regarding increased vegetative growth, while we cannot cite specific studies regarding this effect, the U. S. has had discussions with individual applicants and USDA researchers indicating that higher proportions of chloropicrin can increase vegetative growth. There are ongoing studies by the USDA that are seeking to quantify this issue, but those data are not yet available.

1d. As an indication that there may be ways to reduce use of MeBr on California strawberries, It is of note that there is some Commercial use of 100% chloropicrin in strawberry production in CA...

Regular use of 100% chloropicrin is not feasible for that portion of the strawberry crop included in the US nomination for several reasons. First, and most importantly, chloropicrin does not control the target pests in California, such as weeds and nematodes. Second, the plant back times for chloropicrin are substantially longer than for MeBr. Mattner et al 2003 indicate that phytotoxicity problems with chloropicrin used alone can require a doubling of plant back intervals compared to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin ( 70: 30) combinations. In their work they indicated that optimum plant back intervals went from P opt ( weeks) of 3.14 weeks with methyl bromide plus chloropicrin ( 70: 30 at 50 g/ m2) to 6.78 weeks with straight chloropicrin ( 17.5 g/ m2).) Such plant back times are not technically/ economically feasible with California strawberries.

Question 2  Is there scope for reduction in the nominated quantities for 2005 in those areas where a 2X cap is currently in operation? The Party is requested to recalculate nominated MB quantity in the affected CUNs on the basis of a 2X cap or to provide information on the specific circumstances that prevent this increased usage from being a feasible alternative to MB in 2005.

Answers California 2X Telone   township cap

Out of environmental concerns regarding the quality of the ambient air, California regulates the amount of Telone   that can be used in each township within the State. Specifically, Telone   has been found by the State of California to be a carcinogen and regulations have been put in place to limit the cumulative lifetime exposure to bystanders. There are over four thousand townships ( of 36 square miles or 9,300 ha) represented in the California township assessment.

The current rule in effect for California Telone   use was what was used for the 2005 U. S. CUE nomination. This is based on Telone   usage being allowed at the baseline amount. The California Department of Pesticide Regulations ( Cal DPR) was contacted for clarification on the Telone   township cap question. Cal DPR explained the use of Telone   in 2005 and beyond would be based on: current and historic use patterns in each individual township, future enhancements to the air concentration model and health impact models, and assumptions on the use of adjacent land in the models. Because of the uncertainties in all of these parameters they are currently unable to speculate what the future Telone   township caps will be. Therefore, the U. S. CUE assumed continued application of the current regulatory limit, not the short term January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 7 exemption limits. Accordingly, we believe that the CUE must cover the level of MeBr needed to meet the existing 1 times regulatory limit because the current limit is a short term exemption set to expire at the end of 2004. However, we would like to assure MBTOC and the Parties that we are committed to using only that amount of MeBr that is actually needed, taking into account what would be needed at the time of allocation of the CUE, and taking into account any future exemption of the CA Telone   cap that is established.

The effect of the township caps ( at their permanent level) in limiting the use of 1,3D ( Telone   ) in California was calculated by Carpenter and Lynch, 1999 and updated by Carpenter et al. 2001. It is not possible to duplicate this work in the time allowed for this response for a different level of township cap, even if the level of the new cap were known.

Question 3   Parties are requested to supply MB usage figures ( quantity used, hectares treated) for 2002, where available, for the nominated uses in the ` noted' category and to reassess the quantities of MB nominated where uncertainty at the time of initial nomination led to a conservative value being nominated, but where now a reduced quantity is feasible for 2005.

While the US tracks overall MeBr consumption nationally for purposes of compliance with the Protocol, it is very difficult for us to assemble information on actual use on a crop by crop basis. We use proprietary ( purchased) data as well as survey data collected by the National Agricultural Statistical Service ( NASS) and the State of California to ` ground truth' applicant information. Unfortunately, the kind of data needed is not all collected on an annual basis and the definitions used to collect the data do not closely match the needs of the CUE process. For example, data on post harvest use is not collected as part of the agricultural survey, quarantine use is not noted, and in some cases information is collected by ` marketing order' so that some crops or crop subdivision are not included. As a consequence, there are no more recent data than are contained in the numerical tables that we submitted to MBTOC in August 2003. We are trying to gather such information in the context of our 2006 submission, but unfortunately, that information is not yet available.

Rose Plants Question 4  Further clarification is requested on why alternatives, principally 1,3 D/ Pic mixtures, cannot be used for at least some of this nomination in 2005 and also whether a proportion cannot be grown in substrates. Rose plants in diverse climates are successfully produced in substrates ( containerised systems). These systems offer substantial commercial advantages, at least in some situations, despite the significant conversion cost. Well designed substrate systems in operation in some regions do not suffer from the disadvantages described in the supplementary CUN of Sept 03 ( i. e. " the cut flower rose industry has determined that field grown roses are more vigorous, produce more flowers and are longer lived"). The basis for the statement ( p. 4) that " the cut flower rose industry in the U. S. will only buy field grown plants" is requested.

Answers January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 8 Use of 1,3 D/ Pic and/ or containerized systems and/ or substrates as an alternative to methyl bromide

In addressing this question it is important to be clear on the crop that is being produced using methyl bromide. It is not a ` cut flower crop' but is, rather the rootstock which goes to the nurseries which then provide cut flowers or the rose plants sold to homeowners.

The rose plants are grown in open fields so that the resulting root systems are extremely vigorous with healthy ` branches' growing in all directions. When the rootstock is transferred ( sold) to a facility for either cut flower production or containerized plant production, the plant is truncated at 10 to 25 cm in height and the root system is sheared at a circumference of 25 cm in diameter. This remnant is then grown, sometimes in open field, sometimes in containerized systems , to produce the end product of either cut flowers, a bare root plant for landscape uses, or a containerized plant for landscape uses. To prepare a field for the next crop, remaining roots that may harbor nematodes or pathogens must be killed through fumigation to reduce future pest pressure.

When the intermediate product ( the rootstock) is produced in a containerized system it is not as vigorous and is less likely to produce healthy landscape plants or adequate amounts of floristquality flowers. This arises principally from the effect of the container in constraining root growth and generally limiting root development. This effect is often exacerbated if the container is subject to uneven temperature or sunlight so that the root development occurs only on one side of the plant ( in one side of the pot). It is the inadequate and often uneven root development that causes producers of the final product to reject rootstocks grown in containerized systems even when they themselves grow their products in a containerized system. This is analogous to the situation of organically grown strawberry fruit growers who demand rootstock grown with the aid of methyl bromide even though they themselves do not use chemicals to produce their own products   unless their stock is extremely clean, they cannot profitably grow fruit organically.

As we described in our August 2003 CUE supplemental submission to MBTOC, 1,3 D ( Telone   ) is currently used as an alternative to methyl bromide to control the target pests. However, the township caps put in place by the State of California limit the potential for substitution of methyl bromide with 1,3 D Regarding conversion to substrates, it must be noted that this is an entirely different cropping system. And it is used to produce a different product   cut flowers and plants for landscape uses, not the rootstocks from which these final products are grown. It has been noted by MBTOC that conversion to entirely different growing systems ( e. g., open fields to substrates) takes substantial time and money, and therefore is not feasible under certain situations.

Basis for Statement that the rose industry will only buy field grown plants   California is the largest producer of rose rootstock plants for commercial flower nurseries, homeowners, commercial landscapers, and other nursery operations. The basis for the statement that " the cut flower rose industry in the U. S. will only buy field grown plants" is a personal communication by the applicant. In addition, Professor Dr. Heiner Lieth stated that field grown January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 9 plants are said to start faster and be more robust than container grown stock ( personal communication Heiner Leith, U. C. Davis, Jan. 15, 2004, Dept of Environmental Horticulture).

Question 5  The supplementary CUN of Sept 2003 estimates a yield loss of 5 10% if California rose growers use 1,3 D, and the nomination is based on 1X Township cap restrictions on 1,3 D. The CUN of Feb 03 discusses some alternatives. Is any additional information available about alternatives relevant to this crop and is the yield loss reported in the CUN still to be expected under optimised use procedures for 1,3 D based systems and other alternatives? If so, technical results of trials or commercial practice are requested, with supporting economic information, if available.

Ornamental nursery growers rely on fumigation with methyl bromide/ chloropicrin within the full bed, plastic mulch production system to control soil borne diseases and pests. There has been extensive research on alternatives for the sector, and where possible, many have been incorporated. In addition, there have been many studies done on yield comparing alternatives in the forest tree seedling sector to methyl bromide and these results provide insights into likely yield impacts in nursery rose and chrysanthemum production. Sources for the studies are The Methyl Bromide Alternatives Conference, applications for critical use exemptions, and case studies. For each alternative, the amount of studies done is as follows: Bare fallow and combinations 22; Basamid and combinations 76; Brozone 4; Captan and combinations 2; Cedar sawdust 2; Chloropicrin and combinations 56; Compost 3; Eptam ( EPTC) 12; Fallow 41; Formaldehyde 1; Grafting 1; Hot water 3; Methyl bromide 200 1; Methyl bromide 300 8; Metam Sodium ( Vapam) and combinations 19; Nemagon 2; other non chemicals 1; Silica sand 1; Solarization 1; Telone ( 1,3 D) and combinations 6; Thiram 1; Triform and combinations  8.

However, the effectiveness of chemical and non chemical alternatives designed to fully replace methyl bromide in ornamental production must still be characterized as in a preliminary stage. These alternatives have not been shown to be stand alone replacements for methyl bromide. Methyl bromide is believed to be the only treatment currently available that consistently provides reliable control of nutsedge species and the disease complex affecting ornamental nursery production.

The best available information we have is that yield losses of 5 10% are to be expected when the best alternative to methyl bromide, 1,3 D ( Telone   ) , is used. This level of yield loss would not be technically/ economically feasible in this sector. However, the basis of the U. S. CUE nomination was that this alternative would not be available to growers because of township caps, which would necessitate movement to less efficient alternatives, and lead to greater losses. Telone   cannot be more widely used because use of 1,3 D in California is capped by the State of California on a township by township basis. See the answer to Question 2 for additional details on the Telone   township caps.

Question 6  The CUN of Sept 03 mentions that California rose growers used MB doses of 31g/ m2 in 2002. However, the calculations in Table 4 use 34.7 g/ m2. It appears that this could be recalculated as 65 x 310 = 20,150 kg MB. Is it appropriate and feasible to reduce the nomination thus, and is there further scope for reduction such as based on reduced January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 10 overall dosages use of less pervious tarping, strip treatments and/ or extended exposure times?

Answer Amount nominated for rose growers   The figure of 31g/ m2, reported as the use rate for 2002, is a miscalculation. The correct figure is derived from a request of 22,393 kg of methyl bromide ( a reduction of 90% of the amount originally requested by the applicant) to be applied to 65 hectares for a use rate of 34.5g/ m2 for 2002. This compares with a use rate of 34.7g/ m2 requested for 2005. The main thrust of the US government and applicant research plans has been to evaluate replacements for methyl bromide rather than to test combinations that use lower methyl bromide rates with the objective of eliminating rather than just reducing methyl bromide use. We do not believe the rate can be reduced beyond the requested rate in our CUE.

Dried Fruit, Beans, and Nuts Question 7  The Party is requested to confirm that the quantity nominated is restricted to those situations where the available facilities, restrictions on time available for treatment and other factors require the use of methyl bromide and where slower acting processes, notably phosphine fumigation, are not technically and economically feasible. MBTOC recognises that some industries covered by this CUN have successfully made the transition from MB.

Answer Restriction of the methyl bromide to only those situations where alternatives are not feasible

We can confirm that the amounts in the U. S. CUE nomination were calculated based only on circumstances where alternatives are not currently technically and economically feasible. For example, Only half of the walnut market and 20% of the pistachio crop are included in this request. Specifically, rapid processing and shipment of nuts, particularly walnuts, is necessary to meet European holiday demand. California produces nearly 100% of the U. S. crop and about 45% of the world's walnut crop. ( Approximately one quarter of the total crop is sold around St. Nicholas Day, December 6th, with significant sales occurring before Epiphany, January 6th.) Export quality walnuts are harvested from the beginning of September to the beginning of December. Nuts destined for Europe must be delivered to the processors no later than October 31st. Nuts not received by this date are sold in the lower valued domestic market resulting in large economic losses.

Slower acting processes, notably phosphine   The major alternative to fumigation with methyl bromide is fumigation with phosphine. This alternative, however, requires a longer time than fumigation with methyl bromide ( up to one week compared to four hours) and would likely require retrofitting fumigation chambers to enable them to sustain the gas at sufficient concentrations for the longer period. Phosphine has reduced activity at the lower temperatures occurring in mid winter and has label restrictions for use at these temperatures. In addition, use of phosphine during the harvest time would require January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 11 the construction of additional fumigation chambers to provide capacity equal to the amount of nuts being harvested. See Yarkin et al 1994 for additional technical and economic impacts.

Methyl bromide is also used for a fraction of the dried bean production. In this case the issue is not timing within a market window but fumigation capacity. Because phosphine requires a much longer in chamber period, additional fumigation capacity must be built before the remaining use can be switched to currently registered alternatives Alternatives to methyl bromide and phosphine   California has recently ( January 2004) registered propylene oxide for additional crops, including walnuts. Walnut processors are eager to try this alternative ( personal communication James Leesch, USDA ARS) but as yet have not had the opportunity to determine whether propylene oxide will enable them to meet the European holiday market. The U. S. has also recently registered sulfuryl fluoride ( Profume   ) for pest control in dried fruit and nuts. However, this fumigant is not currently registered for food crops in the state of California where the majority of crops are harvested and stored. A separate registration review will be conducted by California DPR before Profume   can be legally used in California. We expect that in the future there will be reduced need for methyl bromide in this sector because of these newly available pesticides.

Forest nursery seedlings Question 8  The CUN and supplementary information refer to single treatments such as metam sodium and dazomet as MB alternatives. However it is possible that other treatments, such as some fumigant mixtures, may have been successful, presenting feasible alternatives to MB in the circumstances of the nomination. Did any combinations or specific application methods provide results close to MB fumigation in the specific circumstances of the nomination? If so, please provide technical results of trials or commercial practice.

Answers Fumigant mixtures for treatment of target pests   The U. S. reviewed the " matrix" of methyl bromide alternatives provided by MBTOC in the preparation of the 2003 CUE nomination. Only the alternatives requested by MBTOC were addressed in the nomination. Based on current discussions with MBTOC members the U. S. will include information to evaluate the potential of 1,3 D plus chloropicrin and metam sodium plus chloropicrin to control the target pests in the 2004 CUE nomination document. As indicated in the original submission, however, metam sodium and other MITC generators, although providing control of some pests, do not provide reliable control of nutsedge and some pathogens which are key pests affecting the forest nursery sector. Neither 1,3 D nor chloropicrin provides weed ( nutsedge) control. Because nutsedge is a key pest affecting the forest nursery sector, the potential for replacing methyl bromide with one of these combinations is limited.

Alternative treatments, specifically mixtures of fumigants, can be foreseen as likely long term replacements for methyl bromide in forest seedling nurseries. Alternatives to methyl bromide currently available include chloropicrin, and combinations of chloropicrin with methyl January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 12 isothiocyanate ( MITC) producers, or 1,3 D. These combinations can be effective in reducing pest infestations, including some weed problems ( e. g., Carey, 2000; Carey, 1996; Carey, 1994; Weyerhaeuser, # 8, 1992 95; Weyerhaeuser, # 10, 1994 96). However, they are problematic for their inconsistent performances, and therefore, are unreliable for nurseries with moderate to high pest ( especially weed) pressure. Their adoption will depend on the development of application or formulation technologies to better deliver these alternatives to soils containing target pests.

Because of the importance placed on seedling quality ( due to the high correlation of quality and subsequent forest health and value), failure to achieve consistently healthy seedlings in even a fraction of the production area can have a devastating effect on this sector's ability to provide acceptable seedlings for reforestation. In addition, the use of 1,3 D may be restricted due to legal ( township caps or buffer zones) or geological factors ( karst geology). Non chemical and biological control methods have not proven to be reliable independent treatments, although in most nurseries they have been integrated into the routine seedling production system. At present, therefore, the use of methyl bromide is critical to forest tree seedling nurseries in the U. S.

Did any combinations or specific application methods provide results close to MB   While the U. S. considers methyl bromide critical for the short term, forest seedling nurseries are working to reduce reliance on MB in the future ( also see comments for Q1, above) and research is being conducted to this end. For example, Weyerhaeuser Corporation, one of the largest growers of forest tree seedlings, suggested the most promising avenues of research are ( in descending order): 1) chloropicrin, 340 kg/ ha; 2) 1,3 D at 260 kg/ ha + chloropicrin at 140 kg/ ha; 3) metam sodium, ( 485 kg/ ha) and chloropicrin ( 115 kg/ ha); 4) dazomet, 400 kg/ ha; 5) nonchemical treatments such as steam; 6) biological control agents. However, to date the technical/ economic feasibility of these alternatives has yet to be demonstrated.

Inconsistency in pest management performance by chemical alternatives is the primary concern for this sector, and the reason that MB is currently critical for maintaining high quality seedlings. While direct yield losses, in terms of seedlings/ hectare, were not very large on average when alternatives were used, intensive seedling production relies on the ability of nursery managers to meet quality, as well as yield, goals. In addition, economic issues such as increased application costs ( e. g., costs associated with application of metam sodium and a separate chloropicrin application), and more lower grade less marketable plants may have an impact on overall feasibility of these alternatives for the forest tree seedling nursery sector.

Mills and processors Question 9  MBTOC seeks further information on how the estimates were made that were used to derive the nominated amounts and, particularly on the proportion of structures judged unsuitable for heat disinfestation or IPM approaches because of structural inadequacies or other factors, and how this judgement was made. Alternatives in commercial use include combinations of rigorous sanitation programmes and IPM processes supplemented by heat disinfestation ( permanently installed or transportable equipment) and/ or phosphine based treatments ( where corrosion risk can be managed). January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 13 Answers Estimates of nominated amounts versus heat, sanitation, or IPM as an alternative   First it must be stressed that mills in the U. S. are not treated with methyl bromide alone, but rather methyl bromide is used in conjunction with sanitary measures, IPM and heat or other measures, that significantly reduce the need for methyl bromide. These measures alone are not, however, sufficient to maintain the required sanitary standards.

Most of the mills in the United States are between 10 and 100 years old, although there are both older and newer mills. These mills range in size up to a city block ( approximately 0.1 hectare) ` footprint' and five levels in height. A variety of materials have been used in their construction, but a common feature is wood. This is significant because wooden structures provide harborage and are often sufficiently " porous" that insects from the surrounding area cannot be excluded from the facility. Mills generally also include sophisticated electronic equipment to control equipment, manage inventories and process and track activities. The electronic equipment contains gold, silver, and copper components ( in addition to those of other materials) which are particularly susceptible to corrosion when exposed to phosphine. Efforts have been made to shield susceptible materials in mills, but shielding has provided additional harborage for insects and thus been self defeating. It is an industry practice to treat the commodity with phosphine or other fumigant prior to bring the commodity on site for processing, thus reducing the insect populations that must be controlled. In many cases the final products are also treated with an alternative fumigant prior to being packaged and shipped.

Heat alone has also not proven a viable alternative to chemical fumigation for a variety of reasons. Heating the oils in products speeds the oxidation process, which turns the fats rancid, and causes some products to spoil. During very cold weather it may not be possible to heat mills to a sufficient temperature to destroy all of the insect stages of the key pests. For mills with significant portions constructed of wood, heating will drive insects out of the mill, but in temperate climates they can survive outdoors and are able to return after the heat process.

Estimates of methyl bromide needed because alternatives were not adequate   The estimates of the amount of methyl bromide needed were derived from past methyl bromide use by the consortium applying for the CUE. The requested amounts were checked against public and proprietary sources of use information and USG experts in the fields of pest control in post harvest situations were consulted. Applicants were not allowed to include any ` growth' in their request; i. e. any increase for new facilities or higher use rates was removed from the nomination. The amount of methyl bromide nominated represents use only where alternatives such as: heat, IPM, phosphine, or sanitation have not proven effective in controlling the target pests. The nominated amount represents a weighted average ( where the weighting factor is proportion of processing capacity located in various climatic zones) of mills by number of methyl bromide fumigations per year. The range of annual fumigations is broad, from as many as 5 6 per year for older facilities in the southern U. S. to once every 3 5 years for newer facilities in the northern U. S. Some facilities that had committed to become methyl bromide free have had to use methyl bromide despite the commitment when they were not able to maintain sanitary standards. Even facilities that have not used methyl bromide in five years are reluctant to commit to not using methyl bromide ever in the future given the uncertainties about characteristics of future pest outbreaks. January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 14 Alternatives to methyl bromide and phosphine   The U. S. has recently registered sulfuryl fluoride ( Profume   ) for pest control in dried fruit, nuts and some mills and food processing facilities. However, this does not allow for the immediate use of sulfuryl fluoride as a replacement for methyl bromide. In the United States there is a two level registration process. After registration of a pesticide at the federal level, each state must also register the chemical for use within the state. Many states have a process which generally follows the federal process so that registration in the state follows the federal registration as a matter of routine. Even for such States, it takes some time before formal approval is granted for a pesticide so that it can be legally used in that jurisdiction. Several states, however, have requirements in addition to the federal registration process that must be satisfied before the chemical can be used within the state. California, a state with a high level of methyl bromide use is also one with stringent additional requirements for pesticide registration. Even if there are no issues needing resolution, registration in California takes six months or longer after the federal registration. And after it has entered CDPR's queue. At this time the registrant ( Dow AgroSciences) has not yet requested a California registration. Until such registrations are granted, users may not apply a Federally registered product. Even after state registrations are granted, mill operators will likely phase in new products in order to confirm that they perform satisfactorily at individual locations before converting entirely to these new products.

Furthermore, the replacement of methyl bromide with sulfuryl fluoride will likely be delayed because the registrant is requiring that all potential applicators of this product be trained by the registrant ( this is in addition to any legal requirements for applicator training) before they will sell the product to the applicator. Given its recent registration, it is not yet possible to ascertain what the cost of this potentially promising alternative will be. Until issues of training cost and availability, among others, have been addressed, there will not be a cadre of available applicators.

Although the registrant has a similar product for use as a termite control agent, termite control applicators are not licensed to apply pesticides in food processing facilities.

Float trays for tobacco seedlings Question 10  MBTOC seeks further information as to why steam treatment cannot be used in the specific circumstances of this nomination.

Answer The U. S. consulted Dr. Nesmith, professor at The University of Kentucky and one of the authors of the paper cited in the question. Dr. Nesmith clarified that steaming is only technically feasible when performed in a large scale, custom steaming, operation with equipment that can maintain the temperatures with enough precision to sterilize the trays without damaging them. This method is used by large ( commercial scale) growers but is not economically feasible for the smaller growers ( Personal communication, Dr. William Nesmith, University of Kentucky Department of Plant Pathology, December 9, 2003). Production systems of this commercial size represent a very small percentage of plant production in all Southeastern states. January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 15 Trials conducted by Dr. Melton, a Professor at North Carolina State University, with steam treatment of trays indicated that good control was not necessarily achieved in all portions of the steam chamber. His assessment is that if the scale of operation is of sufficient size, steaming can be as effective as methyl bromide, but that both the technical aspects and the cost make it inappropriate for small operations. He further stated that as tobacco allotments are not expected to increase in the foreseeable future any grower who has not already invested in a steaming operation, doing so would be economically infeasible. ( Personal communication, Dr. Thomas Melton, Professor and Extension Leader, North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Plant Pathology, December 9, 2003.)

Strawberry fruit   field grown Question 11  The CUN of Sept 2003 cites yield loss data from studies on potential MB alternatives prior to 1999 ( Table 3). Further advances in MB alternatives have been made since that time. In particular, improved application methods and other combinations of fumigants/ chemicals have repeatedly shown similar efficacy to MB/ Pic mixtures in broadscale studies, e. g. IR 4 and others. Information available to MBTOC suggests that there is little yield difference from several potential alternatives. In the absence of specific circumstances or restrictions, it appears that there are several available alternatives for at least part of this CUN. In those circumstances where the Party believes alternatives cannot be used due to nutsedge infestation, it is requested that the Party provide substantiating data from recent studies ( after 1999) from trials on areas with moderate to high nutsedge infestation.

Answers Discuss studies newer than 1999   The United States believes it has taken into consideration all relevant studies both before and after 1999 in assessing our need for a MeBr CUE. Where additional appropriate data are found the results will be considered in future CUE nominations.

In particular the U. S. attempts to only cite research studies conducted under moderate to severe pest pressure because that is the only use where methyl bromide is considered critical. The U. S. briefly reviewed the information provided by Ian Porter of MBTOC at the 2003 MBAO meeting in San Diego, CA. In his presentation data on methyl bromide alternatives for strawberries were presented in a table entitled " Victorian Strawberry Fruit Trials". That table presented supporting data from 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Using only data newer than 1999 removes seven of ten research studies. The U. S. government believes that all relevant studies, whether conducted before or after 1999 should be given due consideration in this process. In the remaining three studies, there is no documentation that any pests or plant pathogens were present in the trial sites during the trial. Therefore, in our view, these studies would not be considered adequate, either as a justification for or against the US submission. Indeed, we think this is a very important point. We acknowledge that it is more than possible to include 20 or more studies in a meta analysis for some crops which would appear to indicate that alternatives are January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 16 viable for that crop. However, if the analysis did not include studies which focused on the crop conditions faced by the applicant for a CUE, we strongly believe that it would not be in keeping with the terms of the Critical use decision to use such analyses to make CUE decisions.

Improved application methods The U. S. is unaware of any new application methods registered in the U. S. since 1999 that would have an appreciable impact on the U. S. CUE nomination. We would consider this issue in future CUE nominations if provided with more specific information by MBTOC that is pertinent to our nomination.

MBTOC data suggest little yield difference between several potential alternatives   The U. S. briefly reviewed the information provided by Dr. Ian Porter of MBTOC at the 2003 MBAO meeting in San Diego, CA in support of this statement. A preliminary evaluation was made of one of the data tables entitled Table 1. Relative yield data from strawberry trials presented at the MBAO conferences 1999 2002 created some level of concern in the United States. One minor point is that there appeared to be data inaccuracies in the data presented in terms of how averaging was performed. Of more importance is the fact that there was no information on the type or level of infestation of pests or plant pathogens present in the trials. The U. S. nomination is for methyl bromide use only in areas of moderate to severe pest pressure. The United States considers this type of information, where critical factors are not presented, to be inappropriate for determining critical needs, and believes that studies performed in areas of low or negligible pest pressure do not demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives in areas facing higher pest pressure such as those included in the U. S. CUE.

Similar efficacy between methyl bromide and alternatives in IR 4 studies and others   The U. S. is aware of studies conducted by IR 4 among other researcher in areas of low to no pest or plant pathogen pressure for the purposes of determining crop residues, phytotoxicity, or measuring parameters other than performance. While carefully conducted and documented, we are not aware of IR 4 studies that demonstrate sufficient target pest pressure to be included in the U. S. reviews.

We would further caution on the applicability of IR 4 data based on this communication from Dr. Jack Norton, IR 4 Special Projects Manager: "  I urge caution because when you consider the number of pests that affect crop production that are effectively controlled by methyl bromide and when the entire data base in the IR 4 trials is examined there are many species of nematodes, fungal pathogens and even weeds that have not yet been evaluated in direct comparison to the MB/ PIC standard. One must also consider the intensity of the pest pressures and while much headway has been made, we have only scratched the surface when you consider the great variability that occurs between locations and even within single fields. In some trials the combinations were evaluated only against one or two parts of the pest spectrum and not all components   On another point, we can not say with certainty that the standards and the experimental products are economically viable since our trials provide only a part of the equation, the yield and crop quality data."

Question 12  MBTOC recognizes that regulatory restrictions associated with environmental concerns restrict the use of 1, 3 D ( Township caps in California, karst January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 17 topography in Florida, and buffer zones in the southeast U. S.). However some other fumigants/ chemicals have been found effective in controlling the key soil borne pests affecting strawberry fruit production, particularly chloropicrin EC alone or in combination with metam sodium. To what extent could these techniques be adopted in the areas involved in this CUN where 1, 3 D cannot be used for regulatory reasons?

Answers Use of other alternatives particularly chloropicrin   In the United States, all of the strawberry growing areas are affected by weeds as key pests in addition to soilborne plant pathogens, and nematodes. Although chloropicrin is effective against some of the important plant pathogens, it is not useful for the control of weeds and thus does not address this key pest. As reported in the September 2003 submission, chloropicrin, whether used alone or in combination with metam sodium, results in yield losses, which range from a likely loss of 5% in the southeastern U. S. to a likely loss of 14% in California. At present there are no registered selective herbicides that can be used in conjunction with chloropicrin or chloropicrin plus metam sodium to provide the necessary weed control.

Even if a target crop were only affected by plant pathogens ( such areas are not included in the U. S. nomination), rather than also being affected by weeds and nematodes, the strategy of replacing methyl bromide with chloropicrin is severely limited by regulatory restrictions on rates of chloropicrin use. In most California counties, for example, limit the rate of chloropicrin application to 200 lb/ a ( 225 kg/ h). ( Personal communication, Daniel LeGard, Director of Research and Education, California Strawberry Commission, January 29, 2004.)

A number ( 4 or 5 in the last year) of farm trials have been conducted on strawberries in California using chloropicrin alone. According to the John Duniway of the University of California ( personal communication, January 29th, 2004), drip applied chloropicrin results in a 5 25% yield loss relative to methyl bromide when applied at 200 lbs per acre which is the maximum permissible rate in counties where strawberries are grown. ( this is dictated by agricultural commissioners, not rulemaking) When the chloropicrin is shank applied, ( broadcast) at 200 lbs/ acre the losses run 10 15% relative to methyl bromide. The variability is a function of the variety of strawberry, the level of pest pressure, and other factors. However, there are few trials which showed repeated use on the same land, and there is some evidence that chloropicrin is not effective against nematodes. A 1999 trial conducted by University of California at Davis showed steady declines in yield compared to methyl bromide from 2.2% the first year, to 10.6% the second year, to 13.7% the third year. Accumulation of the existing pest complex with chloropicrin alone will also increase over time. These increasing yield losses over time also lead to economic losses of approximately US $ 2,459 per acre in Northern California and a total loss of US $ 98,360 for the third year alone.

With respect to regulatory constraints, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation is currently re evaluating chloropicrin, ( based on data submitted under the Birth Defect Prevention Act) and it is anticipated that the review will be complete in approximately 2 years. These data indicate that chloropicrin has the potential to cause adverse health effects at low doses. Presently, chloropicrin is listed as a toxic air contaminant in the state of California and could be subject to additional regulatory constraints after a complete review of the Scientific Review January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 18 Panel of the Air Resources Board. ( California Department of Pesticide Regulation, August 2002).

Question 13  A 1, 3 D/ Pic combination ( InLineTM) is in commercial use as an alternative to MB in at least some areas covered by this CUN. The use of 1,3 dichloropropene ( 1,3 D) is restricted in some jurisdictions through Township caps. Currently in at least some relevant areas a 2X cap is in operation, allowing twice the basic cap to be used and increasing the area that can potentially where 1,3 D and mixtures containing 1,3 D can be used in place of MB. Information is requested on what change to the nominated quantity can be made if a 2X cap was in operation in 2005.

California 2X Telone   township cap

While the township caps on 1,3 D present a limitation on the use of this alternative in California in some respect, the primary basis for the U. S. CUE nomination for California strawberries is that alternatives, including 1,3 D, do not provide adequate control of key pests in the areas of moderate to severe pest pressure included in our CUE request. As you may recall from Table 5 of our August 2003 information submission to MBTOC, the ` key pests impact' for the CA strawberry request, comprising 89% of the area requested by the applicant, was the dominant factor in making our evaluation. In fact, the U. S. CUE nomination includes a request for 89% of what the applicant had requested ( i. e., we didn't augment the U. S. request to account for township caps). The CA caps present a secondary limitation in the use of this alternative, but as you can see from Table 5, we did not increase the U. S. CUE request to include areas outside of those we deemed had moderate to severe pest pressure. Therefore, the size of the township caps in 2005 is not deemed to have an appreciable impact on the U. S. CUE nomination in this sector. A description of additional issues related to the township cap follows.

The 2005 U. S. CUE nomination was based on the assumption that the Telone   usage in California would only be allowed at the baseline amount. The California Department of Pesticide Regulations ( Cal DPR) was contacted for clarification on the Telone   township cap question. There are over four thousand townships, of 9,300 ha or 36 square mile represented in the township assessment. Cal DPR explained that use of Telone   in 2005 and beyond would be based on: current and historic use patterns in each individual township, future enhancements to the air concentration model and health impact models, and assumptions on the use of adjacent land in the models. Because of the uncertainties in all of these parameters they are currently unable to speculate what the future Telone   township caps will be.

The effect of the township caps ( at their permanent level) in limiting the use of 1,3D ( Telone   ) in California was calculated by Carpenter and Lynch, 1999 and updated by Carpenter et al, 2001. It is not possible to duplicate this work in the time allowed for our response for a different level of township cap, even if the level of the new cap were known.

The U. S. CUE assumed continued application of the current regulatory limit, not the short term exemption limits. Accordingly, we believe that the CUE must cover the level of MeBr needed to meet the existing 1 times regulatory limit. However, we would like to assure MBTOC and the Parties that we are committed to using only that amount of MeBr that is actually needed, taking January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 19 into account what would be needed at the time of allocation of the CUE, and taking into account any future exemption of the CA Telone   cap that could be provided.

With regard to the combination of 1,3 D and chloropicrin, a significant issue of concern for some California strawberry growers is the lack of control of weeds. While some increased control of weeds has been demonstrated with InLine applications and VIF mulch, weed control is not observed along the sides of the beds where drip applications do not reach. Since these weeds are under the mulch, the application of an additional herbicide would not be an economically feasible solution because operational costs would increase.

There are additional problems with InLine drip applications as it performs erratically in sloping fields. The drip material requires very specific soil types, moisture, and delivery conditions. For example, the volume delivery of the drip material is inappropriate for sandy soils and hilly terrain because there is no spread throughout the bed, while there is too much spread in heavier soil. If material is applied too rapidly in large volumes, the beds can collapse; this has occurred in some experimental trials. Furthermore, growers in some circumstances would face substantial economic costs to replace PVC piping and add the appropriate valve and flow equipment. The California Strawberry Commission estimates approximately US$ 100 per acre to upgrade and maintain drip systems. Phytotoxicity can also result if material left in the system reaches transplants. Research is currently underway by the California Strawberry Commission related to finding optimal conditions under which growers can implement trials.

Furthermore, InLine is subject to a 20% penalty in calculations for determining use under California township caps ( e. g. 1 lb of 1,3 D applied as InLine counts as 1.2 lbs. under the cap). ( Personal communication, Husein Ajwa, University of California, January 30, 2004.) The doubling of the township cap is considered a temporary solution until the unused amounts are used in the near future. According to USDA ( Trout, 2002), one study projects that in a best case scenario, Telone products will be unavailable to 47% of the total strawberry acreage in the state. The study projects unavailable acres according to the following table, based on 2001 acreage:

REGION TOTAL ACRES ACRES UNAVAILABLE % OF ACRES Watsonville 10,759 4,344 40.4% Santa Maria 3,817 1,645 43% Ventura County 7,777 4,228 54% Orange County 2,446 243 10%

The combination of 1 3D Telone products and chloropicrin is under constant regulatory constraint because of acute toxicity and the carcinogen classification of 1 3D. This factor makes it difficult for growers to consider this combination a viable alternative, especially with township caps in effect.

Tomatoes field grown Question 14  The CUN of Sept 2003 presents some yield data based largely on 1,3 D/ chloropicrin ( Table 2). The CUN indicates that where published studies of yields under January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 20 conditions of moderate severe key pest pressure were not available, estimates were developed by contacting university professors and experts. MBTOC notes that recent studies in Florida, e. g. IR 4 and others, have trialled combinations of fumigants/ chemicals and shown performance equivalent for MB that appear to have reduced the need for MB. Comparative yield data is requested ( since 2000) from recent studies showing specific soil preparation information and key alternatives that have produced results comparable to MB under good commercial practice, particularly those carried out under medium or high nutsedge pressure.

Answers Comparative performance data from studies newer than 2000   The United States believes that we have considered all relevant data in preparing our CUE nomination including data from 2000 or later. In particular the U. S. attempts to only cite research studies conducted under moderate to severe pest pressure because that is the only use where methyl bromide is considered critical. Please see the answer to Question 11 ( above) for a discussion of the need to use all relevant studies.

Similar efficacy between methyl bromide and alternatives in IR 4 studies and others   The U. S. is aware of studies conducted by IR 4 among other researcher in areas of low to no pest or plant pathogen pressure for the purposes of determining crop residues, phytotoxicity, or measuring parameters other than performance. While carefully conducted and documented, we are not aware of any IR4 studies that demonstrate sufficient target pest pressure to be relevant in the U. S. reviews.

Turfgrass Question 15  MBTOC recognizes that the sector has reduced the formulations of MB to 67: 33 and sometimes to 50: 50. What are the constraints to reducing the MB content of the fumigant mixture further? There may also be scope for dosage rate reduction through adoption of less permeable tarping combined with increased exposure periods. It is notable that the current use rate of MB is high, 480 and 610kg/ Ha in Table 2 of the supplementary nomination. Have these rates been adjusted to take into account the use of chloropicrin in the fumigant mixtures and, if so, are such high rates necessary against the target pests?

Answers 15 a. Constraints to reducing methyl bromide content in the fumigant mixture   The turfgrass industry is still attempting to find treatments that provide multi year control of " off type" perennial grass species ( see Question 16 below). Rates and fumigant mixtures are the result of scientific testing and analysis as well as individual farmer experiences based on the variable soil types, climatic conditions, time of year of application, and specific pests being controlled. Because of the expense of methyl bromide treatments farmers are interested in reducing their expenses for methyl bromide but not at the cost of losing or significantly reducing overall efficacy of the single treatment ( personal communication D. Fender, Turfgrass Producers Int., Jan. 14, 2004).

15 b. Rate reductions through less permeable tarping combined with increased exposure periods. January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 21 Information from the turfgrass industry indicates that they are already using high density polyethylene tarps. Additional work is being conducted with VIF but results to date with steam sealing, tearing, lack of photo stability and slower speed in which it can be removed from the roll have all hampered its use in the U. S. This is consistent with MBTOC findings which found that " VIF is inefficient, if not entirely ineffectual at reducing MBR emissions from soil fumigation( MEBTOC 2002, p. 349) when: only part of the field is covered with VIF, any of the film strip over laps become unglued or are otherwise unsealed, any of the film edges anywhere around the field become unsealed, or the film seal is broken before 10 20 days have passed." It is also consistent with information from the Europa Environmental website ( http:// europa. eu. int/ comm/ environment/ ozone/ faqs. htm) indicates that VIF can be ineffectual at controlling methyl bromide emissions unless the seams and edges can be sealed properly. The U. S. has not been able to find data that compares tarping intervals and pest control efficacy to provide insight into how longer tarping intervals could be used to reduce use rates in turfgrass sod production.

15 c. Current methyl bromide use rates from Table 2. These rates have been evaluated and determined to include adjustments for chloropicrin. Because the use of methyl bromide in turfgrass is for control of off type turfgrass the material must deeply penetrate the soil strata and control dense vigorously growing grass roots. Rates and fumigant mixtures that were nominated are the result of scientific testing and analysis as well as individual farmer experiences based on the variable soil types, climatic conditions, time of year of application, and specific pests being controlled. However, the U. S. hopes that future testing can produce techniques to further reduce the rates of methyl bromide needed for adequate control Question 16  From the CUN and supplementary information, it appears that an important target of current MB use in the sector is nutsedge control. What proportion of the nomination is concerned specifically with nutsedge control?

Answers 16a. Nutsedge in turfgrass sod   While there are many pests that addressed by MeBr, including nutsedge the primary purpose and benefit of methyl bromide fumigation as compared to any alternatives is its multi year control of " off type" perennial grasses not nutsedge. Nutsedge should not have been described as a primary target for methyl bromide treatment. Rather, nutsedge is a ` marker' species in that when control of nutsedge is achieved the applicator is reasonably assured that the off grass species are also controlled. Turfgrass and sod are also impacted by a variety of insect and nematode pests that are controlled by methyl bromide.

MBTOC notes that 352.194 tonnes of MB have been nominated for these uses. MBTOC considers that several alternatives, particularly dazomet and steam, are suitable alternatives for most of the uses in this nomination. From the information provided, MBTOC could not determine why alternatives were not feasible in the specific circumstances of the nomination, but accepts statements in the nomination that alternatives were not appropriate. January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 22 The U. S. is not aware of any referenced research that supports these comments from MBTOC. Dazomet was not considered a suitable alternative because it does not provide the necessary control of " off type" perennial grasses and other pests, particularly when the turf producer is seeking multiple year control from a single methyl bromide application. Steam was not considered a suitable alternative because it has not been adequately tested or proven as an alternative, particularly when multiple year control of multiple pests is required. Please see " Fumigant Alternatives for MeBr Prior to Turfgrass Establishment   Unruh, J. B. et al, Weed technology, Volume 16, No, 2 pp. 379 387 for review of chemical alternatives in the context of the U. S. nomination. As noted previously, while we believe we conducted a thorough review of pertinent research results, we would appreciate it if MBTOC would provide us with citations relevant to dazomet and steam as mentioned in the question.

Supplemental Information for MBTOC on newly registered pesticides and research activities We would like to note that the United States remains fully committed to researching, registering and evaluating methyl bromide alternatives. Important recent action in the United States with respect to the registration of MB alternatives are shown in the tables below. The impact of these new registrations on the U. S. need for methyl bromide isn't clear at this time, but we anticipate that it will become clear in the near future and will be taken into account in future U. S. CUE nominations. In any case, it is generally recognized that it takes some time to switch over to newly registered alternatives. We would like to assure MBTOC and the parties that the U. S. will evaluate all these alternatives to reduce the use of methyl bromide and maintain the level of pest control necessary for modern agricultural production.

New Alternatives for Post Harvest and Structural Pest Control Chemical Use Site Transition Strategy Propylene oxide1 ( PPO) Pest control in stored fruit and nuts in shells Newly registered in California. Requires vacuum chambers for the current formulation. The U. S. is determining the number of facilities and time necessary to can convert to this alternative. Sulfuryl fluoride2 ( Profume   ) pest control in stored products and flour mills Newly registered in the U. S. Not yet registered in California. The U. S. is determining the number of facilities and time necessary to convert to this alternative.

1Propylene oxide California label available online at http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ cgi bin/ label/ label. pl? typ= pir& prodno= 22076 2Sulfuryl fluoride pesticide tolerance available online at: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2004/ January/ Day 23/ p1540. htm New Alternatives for Pre Plant Soil Pest Control Chemical Use Site Transition Strategy Fosthiazate ( Nemathorin   ) Nematode control on tomatoes Newly registered in the U. S. Only labeled for application through drip irrigation. Research being conducted with fungicides and January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 23 herbicides for a replacement combination. Halosulfuron methyl ( Sandea   ) Weed control in tomatoes Labeled for pre transplant, postemergence, and row middles. Up to a 24 month rotational restriction. Research being conducted with fungicides and nematicides for a replacement combination. Rimsulfuron ( Matrix   or Shadeout   ) Weed control in tomatoes Labeled for post transplant and directed row middles. Up to an 18 month rotational restriction. Research being conducted with fungicides and nematicides for a replacement combination. s Metolachlor ( Dual Magnum   ) Weed control in tomatoes Labeled for pre transplant, and row middles. Plant back to non labeled crops may be restricted for up to 12 months. Research being conducted with fungicides and nematicides for a replacement combination. Trifloxysulfuron sodium ( Enfield   ) Weed control in tomatoes Labeled for transplanted tomatoes. Up to an 18 month rotational restriction. Research being conducted with fungicides and nematicides for a replacement combination Research is continuing on both pre plant uses and postharvest treatments. A well balanced research program will include methodology utilizing chemical, biological and physical means to manage the pests that methyl bromide currently controls. As methyl bromide is phased out, undoubtedly additional pest problems are likely to arise necessitating identification of the problems and additional research efforts to improve management. Long term replacements for MB, such as biological control and host plant resistance, will be investigated and incorporated into pest management systems for varied crops grown in the many US geographic regions. Anticipated expenditure on MeBr alternatives by USDA in FY04 is $ 18,213,300. The expenditures for this research for FY 1993  FY 2003 are $ 153.5M.

REFERENCES Carey, W. A. 2000. Fumigation with chloropicrin, metham sodium, and EPTC as replacements for methyl bromide in southern pine nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 24: 135 139.

Carey, W. A. 1996. Testing alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation at the Winona Nursery. Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative Research Rept. 96 2.

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

Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 D will Impact Adjustment to Methyl Bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3. January 2004 U. S. response to MBTOC Page 24 Carpenter, Janet and Lori Lynch. 1999. Impact of 1,3 D Restrictions in California after a Ban on Methyl Bromide. Presentation at the 1999 Annual International Conference of Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Europa Environmental website Frequently Asked Questions, 2004. Q10. What is virtually impermeable film. Reference : Art 17: Leakages of controlled substances. Available online at http:// europa. eu. int/ comm/ environment/ ozone/ faqs. htm .

Mattner, SW, I. J. Porter, R. K. Gounder and A. L. Shanks. 2003. Phytotoxicity and plant back  Critical issues in the Australian strawberry industry. Presentation at the 2003 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available online at http:// mbao. org Porter, Ian. 2003. MBTOC Issues ( Soils Committee), How to help Industries and Parties? Presentation at the 2003 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available online at http:// mbao. org Unruh, J. B. et al, Fumigant Alternatives for MeBr Prior to Turfgrass. Establishment Weed technology, Volume 16, No, 2 pp. 379 387 Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 7 ( Fort Towson Nursery, Ft. Towson, Oklahoma). 1994 1996. MB chloropicrin alternatives trial. 2002 CUE request package.

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

Yarkin, C., D. Sunding, D. Zilberman, and J. Siebert. 1994. Cancelling methyl bromide for postharvest use to trigger mixed economic results. California Agriculture, Volume 48, Number 3, pp 16 21 ( May June 1994).

Yates, S. R. 1996. Reducing Methyl Bromide Emissions Available online at http:// www. ars. usda. gov/ is/ np/ mba/ april96/ yates. htm


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88611]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28172]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-11595-01-OCSPP]

Access to Confidential Business Information by CGI Federal Inc
(CGI)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor CGI Federal Inc (CGI) of
Fairfax, VA to access information which has been submitted to EPA under
all Sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the
information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than
December 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Colby Lintner/Adam Schwoerer,
Program Management and Operations Division (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8182; email address: [email protected] or email address:
[email protected]; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Because other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket
access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under GSA FEDSIM Task Order (TO) 47QFCA23F0030, contractor CGI
located at 12601 Fairfax Lakes Circle, Fairfax, VA 22033 is assisting
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing
technical support; development of operations and maintenance of Central
Data Exchange (CDX) chemical safety and pollution prevention (CSPP)
applications; and Chemical Information Systems (CIS) OPPT Confidential
Business Information Local Area Network (CBI LAN) applications.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all Sections of TSCA that EPA will provide CGI access to these
CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI
under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and CGI, site
located at 12601 Fairfax Lakes Circle, Fairfax, VA 22033 in accordance
with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual and the Rules of Behavior for
Virtual Desktop Access to OPPT Materials, including TSCA CBI.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until July 16,
2030. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    CGI personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and
will be briefed on specific security procedures for TSCA CBI.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: December 18, 2023.
Pamela Myrick,
Director, Project Management and Operations Division, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2023-28172 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P