For EPA Use Only ID # ______________ SECTOR _________________________

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

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

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

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

STATE CONTACTS HOW DO I APPLY?

IS MY INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL?

WHEN IS THE INFORMATION NEEDED?

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

US Environmental Protection Agency US Environmental Protection Agency Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Office of Pesticide Programs Office of Pesticide Programs Mail Code 7503C 911 Bay, BEAD 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway Washington, DC 20460 Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 308 8200 INSTRUCTIONS The information provided by you in this application will be used to evaluate the requested methyl bromide use. The U. S. and other countries that are parties to the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer decided that: " a use of methyl bromide should qualify as " critical" only if the nominating Party determines that: ( i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and ( ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination  "

WHERE DO I SUBMIT THE APPLICATION?

HOW CAN I RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? Electronic Address for applications: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov ( When submitting an application electronically, you should also print a hard copy, sign it, and submit it by mail)

If you have general questions about this application call:

Stratospheric Ozone Hotline 1 800 296 1996 If you anticipate that you will need methyl bromide in 2005 because you believe there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives, then you should apply for the critical use exemption. This application may be submitted either by a consortium representing multiple users or by individual users. We encourage users with similar circumstances of use to submit a single application ( for example, any number of pre plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions can submit a single application.)

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

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

States that have agreed to participate in the exemption process are listed on EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cueqa. html You may either complete an electronic ( Microsoft Excel) or a printed version of the application. Please fill out each form or worksheet in the application as completely as possible. If you are completing the printed version and need extra space you may attach additional sheets as needed. Additional information may be available from your local state department of agriculture or at the sites listed below or by calling 1 800 296 1996. The applicant may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information in the application by placing on ( or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as trade secret, proprietary, or company confidential. Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non confidential documents should be clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the applicant desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures set forth under 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B; 41 FR 36902, 43 FR 400000. 50 FR 51661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant. Applicants submitting their application via e mail assume responsibility for the confidentiality of the electronic message transmission.

This application must be postmarked to the EPA address below no later than 120 days after the Notice was published in the Federal Register requesting critical use exemption applications. OMB Control # 2060 0482 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant SECTIONS OF WORKBOOK INSTRUCTIONS Each worksheet number corresponds to the tab number in the electronic version of the application. Instructions specific to each worksheet are provided at the top of each sheet. A header row is included on each worksheet to include an application ID number that EPA will assign.

EXCEL USER TIPS Inserting a blank worksheet:

1. To add additional blank worksheets in the Excel file, go to the menu line at the top of the worksheet and select " Insert" then " worksheet" Worksheet 3. Alternatives Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Pest and Crop Information Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Historical Use for 1997  2002 Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Crop Grouping Yield & Gross Revenue for 2000  2002 Worksheet 2. Methyl Bromide 2. A tab with the name " Sheet 1" will appear at the bottom of the worksheet and will be highlighted in white. Take the cursor and double click the " new tab" 3. By double clicking in the tab you can now rename the worksheet to the appropriate number letter designation ( e. g., 3 A( 1), 3 A( 1)( a), etc.)

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

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

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

1. Select the worksheet to be copied by clicking on the worksheet tab at the bottom of the screen. The tab will turn white in color when it has been selected. Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Worksheet 2 D( 1& 2). Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for 2002 ( Annual or Perennial)

Worksheet 5. Application Summary Definitions Climate Zone Map Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Worksheet 3 B( 1& 2). Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs ( Annual or Perennial) Worksheet 4. Future Research Plans Instructions 2. Select the top left corner of the worksheet ( this is the space to the left of column A and above row 1. You will know that the entire worksheet has been selected because the row and column marks as well as the worksheet itself Note: This is the only way you can copy a worksheet and not lose portions of the text instructions.

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

4. Go to the blank worksheet where you want the copied information to be pasted. 5. Again, select the top left corner of the worksheet ( left of column A and above row 1) to select the entire worksheet. 6. Go to the menu line at the top of the worksheet and select " Edit" then " Paste" OMB Control # 2060 0482 Printing worksheets To increase or decrease the size of the page that is viewable on the screen, go to the menu bar and select " View" and then " Zoom".

Navigating between worksheets The set of four arrows on the bottom left of the screen will help you navigate between worksheets. This is necessary to access the remaining worksheet tabs in the workbook that are not viewable. The two arrows with vertical lines to either the left or right will take you to the first worksheet and to the last worksheet respectively in the workbook. The inner two arrows allow you move the worksheet tabs to the right or to the left incrementally. The two arrows on the bottom right of the screen allow you to move the worksheet that you are viewing to the right or to the left. This is useful if the viewable area of on the screen is smaller than the entire page that is in the 7. Change the title row of the newly pasted worksheet from the old worksheet number to be consistent with the worksheet tab. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant If you would like to print all worksheets that are contained in this workbook, go to the menu bar at the top of the screen and select " File" and then " Print." Then in the section of the menu that appears called " Print what," select " Entire Workbook." Yes No x x x Cell Fax Cell Fax Address Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide requested and the contact person for this request. It is important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional information during the review of the application.

Is this information Confidential Business Information?

4401 E. Colonial Dr.; Box 140155 Agronomic Orlando, FL 32814 0155 Economic Agronomic Economic Date Title Information in this application may be aggregated with information from other applications and used by the United States government to justify claims in the national nomination package that a particular use of methyl bromide be considered " critical" and authorized for an exemption beyond the 2005 phaseout. Use of aggregate data will be crucial to making compelling arguments in favor of critical use exemptions. By signing below, you agree now to assert any claim of confidentiality that would affect the disclosure by EPA of aggregate information based in part on information contained in this application. Print Name Michael J. Aerts I certify that all information contained in this document is factual to the best of my knowledge.

Signature 11 Aug 03 Asst. Director, Environmental and Pest Management Division, FFVA Title Signature 11 Aug 03 Date Print Name Michael J. Aerts Asst. Director, Environmental and Pest Management Division, FFVA If yes, the applicant assumes responsibility for the secure transmission of electronic submissions.

Applicant Name Primary Contact Contact Name ( Check One) Specialty Michael J. Aerts or Daniel A. Botts Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association  Florida Peppers E mail Address Address Daytime Phone ( 407) 894 1351 ( 407) 257 4694 or ( 407) 257 6148 maerts@ ffva. com or dan@ ffva. com ( 407) 894 7840 Alternate Contact Contact Name Specialty Daytime Phone E mail Address OMB Control # 2060 0482 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number. 1. Location 2. Crop/ Crop Grouping 3.

cannot determine cannot determine cannot determine 4. Climate Zone Zones: ( check all that apply)

5. Soil Type & Organic Matter Light 95% Medium x Heavy 0 to 2 % x 2 to 5 % x over 5 %

6. Yes Pounds No x 7. Yes x CUE # 02 0054 No 8.

Year 2005 Acres 2006 Acres 2007 Acres 9.

10.

11. Yes Lbs No x 12. Yes Lbs cannot determine Please explain why methyl bromide is being requested. ( Insert number or percentage of users in each category) 0  25 acres lbs. 20,250 lbs. What is the amount of methyl bromide being requested by this application ? ( Do NOT include QPS amounts)

2,713,500 Has this applicant previously applied for Critical Use Exemption of methyl bromide? Range of acres farmed by growers included in this application Is this applicant eligible for Quarantine and Preshipment ( QPS) uses of methyl bromide? 100  200 acres 200  400 acres 25  50 acres 50  100 acres cannot determine ( Enter the state, region, or county.)

Florida ( Include all crops/ crop groupings that benefit from an application of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle. For a definition of fumigation cycle see Worksheet entitled " Definitions".)

Peppers  Statewide 20,250 ( Indicate the soil type and percent organic matter where methyl bromide would be applied.)

Soil Type:

Organic Matter:

If a consortium is submitting this application, the data should be the total for the consortium.

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

If yes, please specify amount ( in pounds). 20,250 Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Total Pounds Active Ingredient ( a. i.) of Methyl Bromide 2,713,500 Total Area to be Treated **

( check all that apply) ** The average farm size of a grower is about 400 acres. Some double cropping takes place in southwest part of the state.

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

1____ 2a____ 2b____ 3a____ 3b____ 4a____ 4b____ 5a____ 5b____ 6a____ 6b____ 7a____ 7b____ 8a____ 8b____ 9a_ 20%_ 9b_ 35%__ 10a_ 40%__ 10b_ 5%__ 11____ over 400 acres OMB Control # 2060 0482 lbs. 2,713,500 Please explain why there may be variations in the pounds or acres treated from year to year. No x storage after January 1, 2005? If yes, please specify amount ( in pounds).

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

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

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

This worksheet provides data in actual usage for 1997 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Land Preparation Fumigation Planting Harvest Fallow Other Key Crop Steps Other Key Pest Steps See Narrative, pages 13 and 14. Which month does your fumigation cycle start? ( check only one)

Other key crop steps include items such as pruning, tying, mulch removal, string removal and Other key pest steps include insecticide, fungicide and herbicide applications, burndown of crop and cover cropping. stake removal where practiced. A comprehensive description that includes the timeline and variability in timing for specific field operations is given in the Time Interval ( e. g. MONTH/ YEAR/ SEASON)

Comments:

narrative. See pages 13 and 14. Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Crop & Pest Information * Fumigation Cycle Start is dependent on regionally differences. See Strawberry Production Timeline on pages 13 and 14 of the narrative. Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Peppers ( Indicate when fumigation, major crop and pest management practices typically occur by shading the appropriate cells. Show a second crop if part of the fumigation cycle. If the fumigation cycle is longer than one year change the months to an appropriate interval. These tables are for annual crops but more than one crop may benefit from one methyl bromide fumigation. If application covers multiple crops/ crop groupings not grown sequentially, they will need to provide this information for all crops/ crop groupings. Please adjust timeline as necessary. Please provide additional comments or description below or on a separate page. Please begin the timeline with the first land preparation. For perennials, please begin with the year of land preparation and fumigation and indicate the years of production by yield or percentage of full production.)

Time Interval ( e. g. MONTH/ YEAR/ SEASON) OMB Control # 2060 0482 3. Target Pest( s) or Pest Problem( s):

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

6. Representative User : Low Density/ Undefined Damping Off Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium spp.

Source Source Solanum spp. Nutsedge Phytophthora Blight Nightshade Cyperus rotundus & C. esculentus 100 Average Area Treated with Methyl Bromide: Acres Other descriptive factors regarding representative user:

* For double crop on the same plastic, we have used cucumber as the model for budget purposes; other cucurbits may be planted. Acres Acres ( Please provide descriptive factors regarding your operation.)

Average Farm Size Average acres in this crop Root Knot Nematodes Meloidogyne spp. See pages 22  23 of the narrative Phytophthora spp. ( Please identify the top target pests or pest problems. Provide at least common name and genus and species if possible. Additional pests or pest problems can be provided as an attachment.) Worksheet 2 A. Methyl Bromide  Crop & Pest Information Common Name Genus Describe a few crops that could follow this crop: 400 400 cucurbits* Threshold Low Density/ Undefined Low Density/ Undefined See Narrative, pages 23 and 24. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant OMB Control # 2060 0482 100 100 100 100 Percentage of Total Growing Area Low Density/ Undefined ( Please estimate the percentage of the consortia's total growing area with a moderate to severe problem with these pests. Describe source of information such as a survey or expert estimate.) Low Density/ Undefined ( Please provide the economic threshold information for each pest. Describe year and source of information such as survey or expert estimate.)

Units ( e. g. pests/ sq ft) EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

A B C Total Actual Pounds a. i. of Methyl Bromide Applied per Year Total Actual Acres Treated per Year Average Pounds a. i. Applied per Acre per Year 1997 3,808,807 23,300 163.47 1998 3,594,367 22,000 163.38 1999 3,625,506 22,000 164.79 2000 3,156,226 21,600 146.12 2001 3,100,000 21,600 143.5 2002 2,900,000 20,250 143.2 Worksheet 2 B. Methyl Bromide  Historical Use for 1997 2002 Total Actual Pounds a. i. of Methyl Bromide Applied per Year Enter the total actual pounds active ingredient ( a. i.) of methyl bromide applied. Note: This number should be the total pounds a. i. applied by the individual user or the entire consortium, for the year indicated. Include only the pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide. Do not include the pounds of chloropicrin that may be part of the same product.

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

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

Year If there is a variation ( greater than 10%) in the quantity a. i., the acres treated or average application rate from year to year, please explain the reasons for the variation. What is the frequency of methyl bromide applied per area? ( 1x / year, 2x / year, 1x / 3 years, etc.) *

_____ 1____ time per _____ year_______ OMB Control # 2060 0482 impacting planted acreages, pest impacts, cultural impacts, and rates applied per acre.

Comments: Pages 16 through 21 of the CUE petition # 02 0054 describes the factors affecting the application of methyl bromide. Refer to both narratives for further specifics and descriptions EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant The downward trend in sales from 1997 reflects formulation changes ( and availability of products) from 98: 2 to 67: 33 as the phase out schedule reduced the amounts of material available to distributors. * Per annual cropping season, crop rotational considerations may result in a specific area being treated more than once in a calendar year, but this has a very low probability of occurrence. Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

Column D:

Column E:

Column F:

Column G:

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

1997 pepper fresh 1,119 28 lb. Bushel $ 9.91 $ 11,089.29 1998 pepper fresh 1,073 28 lb. Bushel $ 13.70 $ 14,700.10 1999 pepper fresh 1,138 28 lb. Bushel $ 11.21 $ 12,756.98 2000 pepper* fresh 1,210 28 lb. Bushel $ 10.86 $ 12,922.80 2001 pepper* fresh 1,195 28 lb. Bushel $ 10.71 $ 12,798.45 2002 pepper* fresh 1,142 28 lb. Bushel $ 8.72 $ 9,958.24 * For additional specifics related to enterprise budgets when including cucurbits as a second crop, refer to the pepper crop budgets included in Appendix II.

If this application is for multiple crops/ crop groupings ( e. g. nurseries producing evergreens, deciduous, and forbs) please indicate the proportion of land area allocated to each crop/ crop grouping. Worksheet 2 C. Methyl Bromide  Crop/ Species Yield & Gross Revenue for 2000 2002 Market Categories Be sure to enter the year. Use as many rows as needed for each year for all the crops/ crop groupings in the fumigation cycles from 2000 to 2002. If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, then the year of the fumigation cycle is the year methyl bromide was applied.

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

If someone other than the applicant benefits from the application of methyl bromide in the fumigation cycle and you do not have the quantitative data for the crops/ crop groupings grown on the same land, please indicate so in the comments section below. Year Crops/ Crop Groupings Comments: OMB Control # 2060 0482 Gross revenue per acre for each market category and or each crop/ crop grouping may be calculated using the data you entered as price times yield. If revenue is not equal to price times yield, you may enter a different revenue amount, but please explain the difference in the comments section below. Gross Revenue Price Enter the unit of measurement for each crop/ species ( lbs, cwt, carton, bin). If not by weight, specify in the comments section the average weight of the measure. Units of Measurement Enter average prices received by the users for that crop/ crop grouping and market category. Average price over all categories can be calculated separately, if needed. Enter marketing categories that determine prices received, for example, grade ( size, color), timeliness ( early season, late season), or end use ( fresh, processing). Itemize or aggregate these factors to the extent appropriate if lack of methyl bromide would effect the yields in each category.

Enter the yield per acre, or the proportion of total yields, obtained for that category. For perennial crops, please enter yields at full production. Be sure to indicate yields at other stages in the timeline in Worksheet 2 A. Yield EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

Column D:

Column E: Constant Cost per Acre For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on land area, for example, picking costs, per acre of land.

Cost per Unit of Yield For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on amount of product harvested, for example, packing material, per unit of produce. Units Harvest costs may likewise be calculated as costs per acre ( Column B) plus variable costs per unit of yield ( Column C) times yield ( Column D). Total Cost per Acre Unit Costs Total Cost per Acre Quantity Used per Acre Operation / Input for Perennial Crops For perennial crops ( Worksheet D( 2)), we have divided the lifespan into three basic periods: pre production ( including establishment), initial production, and full production. Please ensure that the timeline in Worksheet 2 A indicates the years of each period. Operating costs should be an average of costs incurred during each period. Please consider expected replanting rates and indicate which year dead or poorly performing young trees would be replaced. You may copy columns/ rows as needed if these periods need to be refined for your situation.

For inputs and operations detailed in Columns B and D, total costs can be calculated as Column B times Column D. Otherwise, enter total cost of the input or operation. As a check, you may add up Column E to obtain an estimate of total variable operating costs. These will not include fixed and overhead costs, nor a return to the owners' labor. It should, therefore, be less than gross revenues calculated in Worksheet 2 C. If it is not, please explain ( for example, unusually poor yields or unusually poor prices). For perennial crops, Column E should only be totaled for the years at full production. For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify the unit cost. Also, indicate all costs of applying methyl bromide, including any material costs, for example, tarps. If custom applied and separate costs are unavailable, write ' custom' and enter total cost in Column E. For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify the units of measurement.

Yield For harvest operations, indicate average yields or representative yields from Worksheet 2 C. OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 2 D( 1& 2). Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for 2002 Enter all operating costs incurred during a fumigation cycle. Users with a relatively short fumigation cycle ( less than five years) should use version D( 1); users cultivating perennial crops should use version D( 2). Users with multiple crops, either on the same area in a single fumigation cycle or on different areas treated separately, should copy this sheet and provide costs for each crop. If multiple crops are cultivated sequentially following a single fumigation, replace fumigation costs in Pre plant Operations with any additional pest control costs used prior to the following crops. If a fallow season is an important part of the fumigation cycle, include costs incurred ( for example, cultivating a cover crop) as a separate line or as a separate sheet, if costs are extensive. Please fill in the unshaded areas. The shaded areas can be used if the information is known.

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

This field is required only for methyl bromide. However, you may include specific amounts of other inputs or operations if you believe it helps to document the additional costs you would incur by using an alternative fumigant. Operation / Input EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant B C D E Quantity Used per Acre Units ( lbs, hours, etc) Unit Cost ($) Total Cost per Acre ($)

Single Crop: $ 6,531.80 Double Crop: $ 8,281.89 Constant Cost per Acre ($) Cost per Unit of Yield ($) Yield Total Cost per Acre ($)

Single Crop 1,477.50 $

Single Crop 1,967.50 $

Double Crop 2,557.50 $

Double Crop 3,683.50 $ See Pepper Enterprise Budget Worksheets included in Appendix II  B  2 of the narrative.

Total Packing, Selling and Related Overhead Total Packing, Selling and Related Overhead Grading / Packing / Storage Other Costs Fungicide Nematicide Irrigation Labor ( manual)

Total Harvesting Costs Total Harvesting Costs Harvest Operations Labor Hauling Material Cultural Operations Seed / Seedlings Fertilizer / Soil Amendments Pesticides Insecticide Herbicide Fuel / Machine Labor Other Costs application Irrigation Other costs Pre plant Operations  Totals Land preparation Fumigation product ( methyl bromide) Operation / Input OMB Control # 2060 0482 A Worksheet 2 D( 1). Methyl Bromide  Baseline  Operating Costs for 2002 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant A B ( 1) C ( 1) D ( 1) E ( 1) B ( 2) C ( 2) D ( 2) E ( 2) B ( 3) C ( 3) D ( 3) E ( 3)

Operation or Input Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

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

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

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

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

PRE PRODUCTION YEARS _______ EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Worksheet 3 A 3 B Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs Worksheet 3. Alternatives  Feasibility of Alternative Pest Control Regimens Title You must complete one worksheet for each alternative. Please inset the name of the alternative in the area on top of the page. If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review. However, you must fill in the information in Question # 1 and # 3 or we will assume no yield or quality loss. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Purpose of Data: To estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available. EPA needs to compare data ( yields, crop/ species prices, gross revenues and costs) on the use of methyl bromide and alternative pest control regimens.

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

Enter all alternative pesticides and pest control methods ( and associated cost and yield data) that would replace one treatment of methyl bromide throughout the fumigation cycle. See the Definition worksheet for a comprehensive definition on fumigation cycles. OMB Control # 2060 0482 If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for this table should reflect the representative user for the consortium.

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

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

In collaboration with USDA, we will estimate fixed and overhead costs across crops and regions to ensure consistency within the U. S. nomination. Please fill out this worksheet for each alternative specified in the U. S. Matrix and for other alternatives for which the economic evaluation would bolster the case that methyl bromide is needed. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 1.

2.

Study # 1 2 3 4 5 3.

Units Units 4.

x No 5.

6. See Appendices 1 A, 1 B, 1 C and 1 D in the narrative portion of the petition. root knot nematodes variable variable Based on multiple research trials conducted over the past 10 years and summarized in the narrative of CUE # 02 0053. Additional research submitted in Appendix 1  D, 2003 application. J33 * If no yield or quality loss information is given we will assume no losses. Only provide pest control information if yield or quality loss information is not available.

 Township Caps Restrictions on Alternative Use Soil Restriction Pest Resistant To Alternative Quality Loss *

Off Site Damage ( outgassing) the use of Telone products in Florida. 100% of Dade County cannot use Telone  Label Restriction Organic Matter Restriction nutsedge variable variable phytophthora blight See pages 15 and 15 of the narrative and pages 22 and 23 of CUE petition # 20 0054.

geology." This language take literally would appear to prohibit This information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide needed.

% of Area Details The Telone label says, " Do not apply in areas overlying Karst 100% Are there any variety or cultivar issues associated with this alternative? Are there any production delays ( planting/ harvesting) associated with this alternative?

( If yes, please explain) See pages 15 and 16 of the narrative and pages 22 and 23 of CUE petition # 02 0054. Yes 1 2 3 4 Study Information For the information in # 1 above list: the study name, authors, publication, date, and if a copy is attached. 5 % Pest Control *

variable variable variable Alternative:

% Yield Loss * Telone C35 + chloropicrin + Devrinol + Dual. See pages 25 and 26 of the narrative and the narrative in MB CUE Petition # 02 0054.

Yield Loss & Pest Control When Comparing This Alternative to Methyl Bromide Pest Being Tested Study # ( list below) Provide numerical estimates where possible.

Details variable variable variable Enter Average Loss nightshade damping off Details See Appendices 1 A, 1 B, 1 C and 1 D in the narrative portion of the petition and 2002 CUE submission # 02 0054. Attached?

Yield with Methyl Bromide Yield With Alternative Quality Impact Description Describe quality impacts such as: percent smaller fruit, reduced grade, smaller plants, crop damage, disease vector, etc. Refer to market category question in Worksheet 2 C.

Market Category OMB Control # 2060 048 Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Other Restrictions ( Describe)

EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 7.

8.

9.

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 initial CUE submission, and additional alternatives work planned for the immediate future.

Refer to pages 25 and 26 and Appendix II within the narrative for a description of delays and costs Non Chemical Pest Control ( please describe) Refer to Appendix I in the CUE narrative for a complete overview of alternative experimental projects undertaken since the Units ( gals, lbs. Etc.) Active Ingredient ( a. i.) Name of Product and Formulation Land Preparation Fumigation Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide See pages 25 and 26 of the narrative and the discussion of non chemical pest control alternatives included in pages 27 through 32 of CUE petition # 02 0054. Use Rate of Chemical Alternative Quantity a. i. per Acre # of Acres Treated # of Applications per Year ( Indicate when fumigation, major crop and pest management practices typically occur by shading the appropriate cells. Show a second crop if part of the fumigation cycle. If the fumigation cycle is longer than one year change the months to an appropriate interval. These tables are for annual crops but more than one crop may benefit from one methyl bromide fumigation. If application covers multiple crops/ crop groupings not grown sequentially, they will need to provide this information for all crops/ crop groupings. Please adjust timeline as necessary. Please provide additional comments or description below or on a separate page. Please begin the timeline with the first land preparation. For perennials, please begin with the year of land preparation and fumigation and indicate the years of production by yield or percentage of full production.) Alternative Timeline Time Interval ( e. g. MONTH/ YEAR/ SEASON) Beginning Fumigation Cycle Land Preparation Fumigation Planting Harvest Fallow Other Key Crop Steps Other Key Pest Steps associated with these delays.

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

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

Planting OMB Control # 2060 048 Comments: Alternative: Telone C35 + chloropicrin + Devrinol + Dual . See pages 25 and 26 of the narrative. EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 482 es 482 Column A:

Column B:

Column C:

Column D:

Column E:

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

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

Total Cost per Acre Total Cost per Acre For all inputs and operations detailed in Column B, please specify the unit cost. Also, indicate all costs of applying methyl bromide, including any material costs, for example, tarps. If custom applied and separate costs are unavailable, write ' custom' and enter total cost in Column E. Cost per Unit of Yield For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on amount of product harvested, for example, packing material, per unit of produce.

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

Quantity Used per Acre This field is required only for methyl bromide. However, you may include specific amounts of other inputs or operations if you believe it helps to document the additional costs you would incur by using an alternative fumigant. Constant Cost per Acre For harvest operations, specify costs that depend on land area, for example, picking costs, per acre of land.

Units OMB Control # 2060 0482 Worksheet 3 B( 1& 2). Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs Enter all operating costs incurred during a fumigation cycle. Users with a relatively short fumigation cycle ( less than five years) should use version B( 1); users cultivating perennial crops should use version B( 2). Users with multiple crops, either on the same area in a single fumigation cycle or on different areas treated separately, should copy this sheet and provide costs for each crop. If multiple crops are cultivated sequentially following a single fumigation, replace fumigation costs in pre plant Operations with any additional pest control costs used prior to the following crops. If a fallow season is an important part of the fumigation cycle, include costs incurred ( for example, cultivating a cover crop) as a separate line or as a separate sheet, if costs are extensive. Please fill in the unshaded areas. The shaded areas can be used if the information is known.

Operation / Input The operations/ inputs listed here are not meant to be exhaustive or representative of your specific production system. They are meant to provide suggestions and to help you identify how your operation would change if methyl bromide were unavailable. Be as precise as necessary otherwise you may aggregate operations or inputs. For example, specify herbicide costs if additional treatments would become necessary with the use of a methyl bromide alternative, otherwise you may simply specify total pesticide costs. Please specify only variable operating costs. Alternative: Telone C35 + chloropicrin + Devrinol + Dual . B C D E Quantity Used per Acre Units ( lbs, hours, etc) Unit Cost ($) Total Cost per Acre ($)

Single Crop: $ 6,847.17 Double Crop: $ 8,691.36 Constant Cost per Acre ($) Cost per Unit of Yield ($) Yield Total Cost per Acre ($)

Single Crop 1,233.00 $

Single Crop 2,430.00 $ See Pepper Enterprise Budget Worksheets included in Appendix II of the narrative.

Total Packing, Selling and Related Overhead Hauling Material Grading / Packing / Storage Other Costs Total Harvesting Costs Harvest Operations Labor Fuel / Machine Labor Other Costs Fungicide Nematicide Irrigation Labor ( manual) Fertilizer / Soil Amendments Pesticides Insecticide Herbicide Cultural Operations Seed / Seedlings Irrigation Other costs Land preparation Fumigation product ( methyl bromide)

application Pre plant Operations  Total Costs Alternative: Telone C35 + chloropicrin + Devrinol + Dual .

Operation / Input Worksheet 3 B( 1). Alternatives  Changes in Operating Costs A Harvest costs may likewise be calculated as costs per acre ( Column B) plus variable costs per unit of yield ( Column C) times yield ( Column D).

EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant OMB Control # 2060 0482 Double Crop 2,248.20 $

Double Crop 4,043.04 $ Total Packing, Selling and Related Overhead Total Harvesting Costs EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant Alternative:

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

Operation or Input Quantity used per acre Units ( lbs,

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

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

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

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

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

5.

6. Yes No 7. Yes No 8.

x From:

x To:

9.

Years Amount ($)

10. $

Cost 11. Will economic impacts be measured? trifloxysulfuron sodium Tarpaulin ( High Density Polyethylene)

Other depends on specific study depends on specific study Will yield/ quality loss be measured? solarization flooding halosulfuron 1,3 dichloropropene Also, as per Orlando Workshop discussions on June 24, 2003, this question does not apply to soil fumigation petitions. effective alternative is made available that is technically and economically feasible. Currently, there is no program to 1,3 dichloropropene __ 98___% methyl bromide, __ 2___% chloropicrin __ 67_% methyl bromide, __ 33_% chloropicrin Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF)

Non Chemical Methods ( please specify) Worksheet 4. Future Research Plans Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. You may use this worksheet to describe all future plans.

Identify the top 3 to 5 target pests for your research. Nutsedge Phytophthora Blight Root Knot Nematodes Provide a list of alternative chemicals or cultural practices that have been tested. Damping Off Nightshade How will you minimize your use and/ or emissions of methyl bromide? chloropicrin metam sodium transition to that doesn't have excessive monetary risks, unpredictability, and production timing issues and conflicts. Also see Appendix II  B  1, CUE # 02 0054, and Appendices I  A, I  B.

What would be the best currently available alternative if methyl bromide were not available? Currently, the best alternative has been a strategy of applying 1,3 dichloropropene broadcast, followed 3  4 weeks later Prioritize the alternative chemicals or cultural practices to be tested.

metam sodium iodomethane Formulation Changes Grant requests made to USDA, EPA, state, or other funding group.

See research summaries in CUE # 02 0054 and current application narrative. Investment Refer to Appendix 1 with an additional application of chloropicrin plus Devrinol plus Dual Magnum made to the bed before laying plastic.

Please provide an overview/ timeline of the plan to transition away from using methyl bromide. The Florida pepper industry will transition away from dependency from methyl bromide as soon as an efficacious, cost Other total investments, if any, made to reduce your reliance on methyl bromide? Formulation Changes ( please specify)

( check all that apply)

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

Refer to Appendix 1 What is the cumulative amount spent and the types of contributions this consortium has made to fund research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide since 1992? ( e. g. consortium dues, direct research funding, etc.)

Name of Organization / Research Institution OMB Control # 2060 0482 ( Describe each investment and its associated costs. e. g. specialized machinery, etc.) EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 1.

2.

3.

4. 2005 5. 2005 6.

2006 2,713,500 lbs. 20,500 2007 2,713,500 lbs. 20,500 Not Technically Not Economically For EPA Use Only ID # _______________ SECTOR __________________________

Worksheet 5. Application Summary This worksheet will be posted on the web to notify the public of requests for critical use exemptions beyond the 2005 phase out for methyl bromide. Therefore, this worksheet cannot be claimed as CBI.

Consortium Name: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Location: Florida Crop: Peppers Pounds of Methyl Bromide Requested 2,713,500 lbs. Acres Treated with Methyl Bromide 20,250 Acres If methyl bromide is requested for additional years, reason for request:

Area Treated Acres No assurances that issues associated with potential alternatives will be resolved, or that the currently described best available alternative will provide economically or technically feasible long term solutions.

Area Treated Acres Place an " X" in the column( s) labeled " Not Technically Feasible" and/ or " Not Economically Feasible" where appropriate. Use the " Reasons" column to describe why the potential alternative is not feasible.

Potential Alternatives Reasons see CUE # 02 0054 See CUE # 02 0054 OMB Control # 2060 0482 EPA Form # 7620 18a Pre Plant 82 Fumigation cycle:

Year:

Comparable data:

2 year example:

Other beneficiary example Crop cycle change example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register: May 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29897-29901]
[DOCID:fr30my07-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0540; FRL-8319-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Oxides of Nitrogen Regulations, Phase II

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) rules which satisfy the requirements of EPA's
NOX SIP Call Phase II Rule (the Phase II Rule). We are
proposing to approve these rules based on Indiana's demonstration that
the State will meet the Phase II Rule requirements through rules
regulating stationary internal combustion (IC) engines. Limiting
NOX emissions from IC engines will enable the State to meet
the Phase II budget of 4,244 tons during the ozone season, thereby
improving air quality and protecting the health of Indiana citizens. We
are also proposing to approve other changes to Indiana's NOX
rules. These are minor clerical corrections and changes in definitions
made by Indiana to conform to EPA's Phase II Rule. Citizens who wish to
comment on this proposed approval of the Indiana Phase II
NOX plan are encouraged to do so within the timeframe noted
below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0540, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0540. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless

you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone John Paskevicz, Engineer, at (312) 886-
6084 before visiting the Region 5 office.

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

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. Who is affected by the new Phase II rule and the amendments to
the Phase I rules?
IV. What would approval of this rule accomplish?
V. How are owners and operators expected to comply with the new
requirement?
VI. What action is EPA taking today?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

    On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued the NOX
SIP Call in which it required 22 states, including Indiana, to prepare
plans to reduce the transport of ozone throughout the eastern part of
the United States. This was to be accomplished by reducing emissions of
NOX from selected source categories, primarily major fuel
burning sources, using available cost-effective measures. The rule
established a cap on emissions of NOX from each state.
States had flexibility in determining which fuel burning sources were
to be included in their rules. For the most part, states targeted
NOX reductions from electric utilities and other large
industrial boilers, cement kilns, and IC engines as sources which could
be controlled in a cost-effective manner. Background information in
this regard is available from documents prepared by EPA, and can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/otag/index.html.

    Some states and industry challenged the rule. In Michigan v. EPA,
213 F.3d 663 (D.C.Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1225 (2001), the
Court largely upheld EPA's rulemaking. It did, however, remand a
portion of the rule concerning IC engines to EPA for further notice and
public comment.
    Subsequent to the Court's decision, EPA proceeded initially with
rules concerning electric generating units (EGU), industrial boilers
(non-EGU) and cement kilns as Phase I sources. The IC engines fell into
the Phase II group, to be addressed at a later date. Indiana adopted
its Phase I rules and submitted them to EPA. We approved the Phase I
rules on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56465).
    On April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21603), EPA issued the Phase II Rule. It
required most States with Phase I budget programs to submit a Phase II
plan to achieve incremental reductions not addressed by Phase I rules.
The Phase II Rule also included amendments to the Phase I rules
affecting definitions for EGUs, and identified the additional
NOX budget reductions (incremental reductions) that would be
required by regulating large (greater than one ton per day emissions)
IC engines. The amount of incremental reductions required resulted from
the re-calculation of the overall budget to reflect a control level of
82 percent from natural gas-fired lean-burn IC engines with greater
than one ton per day NOX emissions. IDEM drafted the new
rule (326 IAC 10-5, NOX Reduction Program from IC Engines)
based on guidance from EPA dated September 19, 2004, which contained an
example model rule. The State also made some clerical changes to 326
IAC 10-3 and 10-4 as fix-ups to IDEM's existing NOX SIP.
    The public process for the State's IC engine rule started on May 4,
2005, and ended on October 5, 2005. The Indiana Air Pollution Control
Board (IAPCB) adopted the rules and they became effective on February
26, 2006. New rule 326 IAC 10-5 applies to any person who owns or
operates a large reciprocating stationary IC engine that emits more
than one ton of NOX per day during the ozone season. At the
time of the State rulemaking, the only two subject Indiana companies
were ANR Pipeline and Panhandle Eastern Company, which operate most of
the gas-fired engines in the State. These companies own a total of 17
large lean-burn engines and many smaller engines throughout the State
serving compressor stations located on pipelines that transport natural
gas to customers.
    The IAPCB also adopted minor changes to its Phase I rules in 326
IAC 10-3 and 10-4, to conform to changes EPA had made to its rule.
    On March 8, 2006, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted its Phase II rules to EPA. IDEM sent
additional follow-up information addressing the budget demonstration
for this source category in a June 22, 2006, letter requesting EPA
approval. IDEM also

asked in this submittal for EPA to approve the minor changes to the
Phase I NOX rules. The State's budget demonstration, which
contains enforceable emission limits for Indiana IC engines, uses the
information in the source compliance plans to conclude that these
sources will meet the incremental reduction called for in the Phase II
Rule.
    The overall NOX budget for Indiana was originally
calculated using emissions data from base year 1995. This number was
based on the assumption that IC engines would be controlled at a highly
cost-effective (90 percent) control level. However, the Court ruled in
Michigan v. EPA that EPA had failed to provide adequate notice of the
90 percent control level assumed for IC engines. In the original
proposed rule, EPA had proposed a range of control levels from 82 to 91
percent for the IC engine portion of the budget. As a result of the
Court's decision, EPA set the control level at 82 percent for gas-fired
lean-burn engines and recalculated the budget. The recalculation
resulted in an overall budget number which for most states is smaller
than the budget published by EPA on March 2, 2000. The incremental
difference is the target reduction which Indiana is required to (and
expects) to achieve with the Phase II Rule.
    In the Phase II Rule, EPA calculated the 2007 base year emissions
inventory from which Indiana needed additional reductions of 4,244 tons
per ozone season, based upon achieving an 82 percent reduction at all
IC engines in Indiana with greater than one ton per day of
NOX emissions. EPA allows states flexibility to use company-
wide emissions averaging to achieve the needed emissions reductions.
(See August 22, 2002 memorandum from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air
Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to EPA Air Division Directors). EPA's example
model rule is sufficiently flexible to allow companies with multiple
affected engines to comply using a specific emission rate limit for
each engine listed in the source compliance plan. (see http://epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/reports/23814qnaasfin.pdf
; undated memorandum, Phase II of

the NOX SIP Call: Q&As and Example Rule). Emission rate
limits must be reflected in a Federally enforceable permit, the
enforcement mechanism for the compliance plan, which shows that the
control measures are adequate to meet the State's Phase II budget
incremental difference.
    The Indiana rule requires sources to show that the emission
reductions associated with a source will meet the facility seasonal
NOX tonnage reduction assigned to the source. Sources are
required to project 2007 base emissions and then show the emissions
reductions associated with the control technology or other reduction
methodology (engine replacement, for example). The Indiana budget
demonstration shows that sources will meet the required seasonal
tonnage reductions by reducing emissions from various other engines in
the inventory, so that the overall reductions are equivalent to
achieving 82 percent reductions on IC engines with greater than one ton
per day NOX emissions. Some of the engines use combustion
modification and some engines have been replaced with newer engines.
Demonstrated reductions resulting from the replacement of older engines
with newer engines in some cases exceeds 82 percent. More importantly,
the compliance plans for the two companies, as noted in the Indiana
budget demonstration, show that the sources meet the NOX SIP
Call emission reductions specified for Indiana.

III. Who is affected by the new Phase II rule and the amendments to the
Phase I rules?

    New rule 326 IAC 10-5 applies to any person who owns or operates a
large stationary reciprocating IC engine and other smaller stationary
IC engines that are included in a compliance plan. A large IC engine is
defined as an engine that emits more than one ton of NOX per
ozone season day, based on operation during the 1995 ozone season.
Pipeline energy companies are the major users of large IC engines and
the State developed its budget demonstration based on control of
engines used in this energy transport industry.
    The minor amendments to 326 IAC 10-3 and 326 IAC 10-4 clarify
regulatory language and correct various clerical errors. They also
incorporate changes applicable to EGUs and non-EGUs, made in accordance
with EPA's Phase II Rule, including the definitions of ``EGU'' and
``non-EGU'' as applied to co-generation units.

IV. What would approval of this rule accomplish?

    Approval of rule 326 IAC 10-05 will provide a means by which the
State of Indiana will meet the required reductions of NOX
emissions from IC engines during the ozone season. The State rule
affects NOX SIP Call IC engines as well as any other
stationary IC engine subject to NOX control in the State's
rule. The emission reductions for some large engines will be permanent
and year-round resulting from low emission combustion measures
retrofitted to existing engines. Low emission combustion measures
cannot be cycled off once the changes are made to the engine. The
combustion control technology is a permanent, physical change to the
design and operation of the engine which, when implemented, is expected
to reduce emissions of NOX year-round. A source subject to
these rules may achieve the required reductions through a facility-wide
or State-wide averaging program approved by Indiana. The State's rules
include provisions which the sources must follow to demonstrate
compliance with the rules. The environmental benefits and health
implications are expected to be permanent.
    The amendments to the plan also make clarifying clerical and
formatting corrections to previously approved rules 326 IAC 10-3 and
326 IAC 10-4. They incorporate changes contained in EPA's Phase II Rule
applicable to EGUs and non-EGUs, including the definitions of ``EGU''
and ``non-EGU'' as applied to co-generation units. These amendments
will bring the originally approved Phase I NOX State rules
into conformance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and current EPA
requirements.

V. How are owners and operators expected to comply with the new
requirement?

    Owners of large IC engines were required to submit to IDEM, by May
1, 2006, compliance plans showing how the companies will meet the
emission reductions in their respective systems. The State's budget
demonstration shows that the owners of the large NOX SIP
Call engines will reach the required reductions by reducing emissions
from all of the engines in their respective systems and not just from
the large, one-ton-per-day, engines. These reductions shown in the
budget demonstration are taken from the compliance plans submitted to
IDEM by the two companies currently subject to the rule, and must be
achieved by May 1, 2007. The applicable emission rate, along with
monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements, must be
incorporated into Federally enforceable State permits to be issued to
the companies. As public documents, these permits and compliance
reports can be viewed by the public to verify compliance with the
State's plan.
    Known subject sources have met the first increment of compliance by
submitting to the State of Indiana compliance plans as required by
rule. The next major increment is completion of the requirements listed
in the source

plans which bring the sources into compliance. This step, which
includes the application of low emission technology (or other controls)
or source averaging or both, must be completed by May 2007.
    EPA published the incremental budget for affected States, including
Indiana, in the April 21, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 21604). The
State's budget demonstration shows that, through the use of low
emission combustion technology, installation of new units to replace
old engines, and the use of averaging NOX emissions system-
wide by the two companies identified above, the State will be able to
reduce emissions of NOX to meet the Phase II incremental
difference of 4244 tons of NOX for the ozone season.
    The State rule 326 IAC 10-5-3 includes a requirement that an owner
or operator of a large IC engine shall not operate an affected engine
during the ozone period unless there is a compliance plan which meets
the requirements of the rule. The compliance plan was required to be
submitted to the State by May 1, 2006, and the rules prohibit operation
of affected engines after May 1, 2007, if they are not in compliance
with the requirements. Included in the compliance plan is a requirement
that the projected NOX emissions from the engine, in grams
per break horsepower-hour, be included in a Federally enforceable
permit. This information will enable the State to determine if
reductions from the covered sources should meet the Phase II budget
increment. The failure of a source to meet the required NOX
reductions is a violation of the provisions of the permit. The State of
Indiana is expected to determine non-compliance with its rules by
reviewing monitoring and testing information submitted by the owners
and operators of the affected engines. In addition, because the
compliance plan will be included in Federally enforceable permits, EPA
has the authority to enforce the applicable provisions.

VI. What action is EPA taking today?

    EPA is proposing to approve the Phase II NOX rules
submitted by the State. We are taking this action because we have
determined that the rules satisfy the requirements of the CAA and the
Phase II Rule. The State has shown, through its budget demonstration,
that it can achieve the Phase II budget increment through source
compliance with the State's rules affecting IC engines and the State's
permitting program. Meeting the Phase II budget increment and the Phase
I increment means the State will meet its total overall ozone season
NOX budget and bring about reductions in ozone
concentrations in the State and downwind from Indiana. EPA is also
proposing to approve other changes to Indiana's NOX SIP.
These other changes are minor clerical corrections and changes in
definitions to conform to the changes made by EPA in the NOX
Phase II Rule. Citizens who wish to comment on this proposed approval
of the Indiana plan are encouraged to do so within the timeframe noted
in the front of this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes approval of
a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
CAA. Therefore, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 18, 2007.
Gary Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-10317 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P