Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested" \f C \l "2"

California Walnut Commission. Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives
– Key Pest 1: nematodes.  TC " California Walnut Commission – Table
16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives – Key Pest 1" \f F \l "1"

Key Pest: Replant disorder	Average disease % or rating and yields in
past 3~5 years

Methyl Bromide formulations and Alternatives

(include dosage rates and application method)	# of Trials	Disease (% or
rating)	# of Trials	Actual Yields (t/ha)	Citation

see Table 16.1 for Regions A (Stone Fruit), B (Grapes), & D (Almonds)

California Walnut Commission. Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data
Summary  TC " California Walnut Commission – Table C.1: Alternatives
Yield Loss Data Summary" \f F \l "1"

Alternative	List Type of Pest	Range of Yield Loss	Best Estimate of Yield
Loss

1,3-D (385 kg/ha)	Nematodes, roots	0-20%

(based on research plots)	10%

(based on research plots)

1,3-D (265 kg/ha) + chloropicrin (150 kg/ha)	Nematodes, fungi, roots
0-10%

(based on research plots)	5%

(based on research plots)

1,3-D (265 kg/ha) + chloropicrin (150 kg/ha) + metam-sodium (65 kg/ha)
Nematodes, fungi, roots	0-10%

(based on research plots)	5%

(based on research plots)

1,3-D (350 kg/ha) + metam-sodium (125 kg/ha)	Nematodes, roots	0-10%

(based on research plots)	5%

(based on research plots)

Overall Loss Estimate for All Alternatives to Pests	See discussion below

No alternatives are currently feasible in numerous orchard replant sites
(i.e., those with medium to heavy soils) and/or where township cap
restrictions apply.  In these cases losses of trees are likely to be
greater than 20% (McKenry, 1999).  Listed above are alternatives for
sites where soils are amenable to 1,3-D and where township caps are not
applicable.  Sites well-suited to 1,3-D should have efficacy similar to
MB.

California Walnut Commission. 17. Are There Any Other Potential
Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace
Methyl Bromide?  TC "California Walnut Commission - 17. Are There Any
Other Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being
Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?" \f C \l "2"

The use of 1,3-D is limited by township caps in the prime areas of
walnut production in California (Central and Coastal valleys).  In
addition, 1,3-D use may be limited by moisture factors when 1,3-D is not
an effective nematicide in heavy soils of an orchard and soils with
greater than 12% moisture.  In this situation MeBr is critical and its
use is of considerable effectiveness in light of the longevity of walnut
orchards and importance of early tree health to long producing orchards.
 It requires 8-10 years for trees to produce a saleable crop and the
failure to start the orchard with healthy trees or in a pathogen
infested site will reduce production over its 40 year life.  Improper
orchard replant can lead to additional replant within 10 years with no
production in the interim.

California Walnut Commission. 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to
Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?  TC
"California Walnut Commission. 18. Are There Technologies Being Used to
Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?" \f C \l "2"

1,3-D has been very effective in locations where soil, moisture, and
legal restrictions are not problematic.  Where 1,3-D is not an
acceptable treatment, MeBr is critical to the establishment of the
walnut orchard.

Some cultural practices can be instituted to reduce the effects of
replant problems (McKenry, 1999).  It is generally true that replant
problems are worse in sandy or alkaline soils.  It is also known that
walnuts grow better replanting after almond orchards (or grapes) rather
than after walnuts.  Many growers do not have choices of replant since
land is limited and choices must be made for future returns of a long
term crop.  McKenry (1999) outlines several approaches through field
research studies that can help to address MeBr alternatives for walnuts,
as well as grapes, stone fruit, and almonds.  These include use of
herbicides to kill remnant roots, use of fallow or rotation crops, use
of “virgin” soil as an amendment to possibly reduce replant problem,
resistant rootstocks when available, irrigation regimes to improve
consistency of metam-sodium, etc.  Field studies on these perennial
crops require considerable time to conduct and until replicated trials
can be analyzed MeBr is required.

California Walnut Commission. Summary of Technical Feasibility  TC "
California Walnut Commission - Summary of Technical Feasibility" \f C \l
"2"

Where alternatives, such as 1,3-D and chloropicrin ,are not effective
(e.g., sites with medium to heavy soils, and/or where township cap
restrictions apply), MeBr will be critical to the healthy establishment
of walnut orchards in 2008.  However, approximately 75% of growers may
use strip treatment and of those, 25-50% of this area currently may be
treated with 1,3-D and not MeBr (McKenry, 2005, personal communication).
 McKenry (1999) estimated that 85% of land used for California walnuts
was infested with one or more of three important nematode pests
(Pratylenchus vulnus, Criconemella xenoplax, or Meloidogyne spp.).
Studies of individual pest populations tell only a small portion of the
story of replant complex, since individual pests cause only a portion of
the adverse growth effects.  As with the stone fruit orchards, orchard
replant problems for walnut orchards are a result of biological and
environmental causes, and probably interactions of these forces.  There
are no commercially available resistant rootstocks that can provide
consistent relief from orchard replant problem in walnuts.  It is clear
that the long life of orchards requires that optimal pest management
strategies be employed to overcome replant disorder during the one
opportunity available—at orchard establishment.  The long history of
1,3-D use in California suggests that at optimal conditions it (or in
combination with another chemical) is the best chemical alternative to
MB.  However, the reality of California orchard locations precludes some
growers taking advantage of the material since either township caps or
soil texture/moisture issues reduces efficacy or legal availability to
1,3-D.  Therefore, for 2008, for walnut replant where alternatives are
not effective, there is a critical need for MeBr for establishment of
commercial operations.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Part B: Crop Characteristics
and Methyl Bromide Use  TC "Almond Hullers & Processors Association -
Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use" \f F \l "1"    TC
"Almond Hullers & Processors Association - Part B: Crop Characteristics
and Methyl Bromide Use" \f C \l "1"

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for
which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request
TC "Almond Hullers & Processors Association - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds
for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this
Request" \f C \l "2"  :

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table 10.1: Key Diseases and
Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request  TC " Almond Hullers &
Processors Association - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason
for Methyl Bromide Request" \f F \l "1"

Region where methyl bromide use is requested	Key pests 	Specific reasons
why methyl bromide is needed

Almond Hullers and Processors Association (California)	Replant problem
(affects ~25% of total growing area) is a disease complex comprising an
interaction of pests (primarily nematodes) and environmental factors.
Nematodes (affects 35-50% of total growing area): Meloidogyne incognita
(root knot), Pratylenchus vulnus (root lesion), Mesocriconema xenoplax
(ring), Xiphinema americanum (dagger); Bacteria: Pseudomonas syringae
(canker) (affects 15% of total growing area); Fungi: Armillaria mellea
(oak root fungus) (affects 5% of total growing area)	Many new almond
orchards were planted between 1979 and 1982.  These orchards will soon
need to be replanted as the life of the orchard is reaching its maximum
(25-30 years).  Because little virgin land is available, replant
problems will occur in locations previously planted with almonds.
Because of township caps (30% of area) and water moisture issues (65% of
area), the best alternative, 1,3-D, is not available or effective as a
replacement in many situations.  Therefore, MeBr is considered critical
for this industry.   Alternatives, such as 1,3-D and chloropicrin, may
be effective in reducing the effects of orchard replant disorder where
there is low disease pressure or where there are no legal restriction in
light, sandy loam soils, and where there is acceptable soil moisture.
In other situations, where soils are medium to heavy, or where township
caps are applicable, MeBr currently the product that has been
sufficiently tested to effectively target root remnants from previous
orchard trees.  Strategies that include multiple techniques, such as use
of herbicides, crop rotations, and fallow have the potential to reduce
pest problems in orchard replant.  Research is making progress in
defining the most effective alternatives (e.g., Lampinen et al., 2004;
Browne et al., 2004).  However, these combination techniques must first
be tested so as not to compromise orchard productivity.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association.   11. (i) Characteristics of
Cropping System and Climate  TC "Almond Hullers & Processors Association
- 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate" \f C \l "2"

The demand for almonds in the future is increasing, thus, after 2005, it
is estimated that there will be numerous orchards replanted to almonds
that were originally planted from 1979-1982, in addition to other
orchards that will be replanted to almonds.

The typical practice of replanting orchards with MeBr is to remove the
old trees after the final harvest.  The soil is harrowed and the
remaining roots are removed.  The soil is fumigated in the late fall and
the trees are replanted in the early winter.  When using fumigants,
growers might fallow after tree removal and before replanting new trees.

The typical practice of replanting orchards with 1,3-D + chloropicrin
(the best alternative where conditions permit), is to remove the old
trees after harvest and as many of the roots as time and resources
permit.  After the removal of the old trees the soil is ripped and then
irrigated to allow the soil to settle.  Any roots that are pulled to the
surface are removed, and the soil is graded.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table 11.1: Characteristics of
Cropping System  TC "Almond Hullers & Processors Association - Table
11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System" \f F \l "1"

Characteristics	Region D

Crop Type: (e.g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)	almond trees

Annual or Perennial Crop: (# of years between replanting) 	perennial
(25-30 years)

Typical Crop Rotation (if any) and use of methyl bromide for other crops
in the rotation: (if any)	none

Soil Types:  (Sand, loam, clay, etc.)	light, medium, heavy

Frequency of methyl bromide Fumigation: (e.g. every two years)	once in
25 to 30 years

Other relevant factors:	No other relevant factors were identified by the
applicant.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table 11.2 Characteristics of
Climate and Crop Schedule  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association
- Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule" \f F \l "1"

	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb

Climatic Zone

	USDA plant hardiness zones 9a, 9b

Rainfall (mm):30-60 cm/yr	16	72.1	17.3	0	trace	1.0	trace	0	44.7	56.9	9.9
30.5

Outside Temp. ((C)	14.4	14.8	20.8	25.7	30.3	27.4	25.1	18.4	13.4	9.6	10.3
10.6

Fumigation Schedule	1st year, land preparation and fumigation

Planting

Schedule	Occurs 2nd year, after fumigation

Key Market Window:	Not applicable

*For Fresno, California

Almond Hullers & Processors Association.  11. (ii) Indicate if any of
the above characteristics in 11. (i) prevent the uptake of any relevant
alternatives?  TC "Almond Hullers & Processors Association.  11. (ii)
Indicate if any of the above characteristics in 11. (i) prevent the
uptake of any relevant alternatives?" \f C \l "2"

Orchards replanted into previous orchard land (the typical situation in
California) must reduce pathogen populations (mostly nematodes and
fungi) and nutrient sources of old orchard tree roots and root remnants.
 This requires an effective material that is volatile and can penetrate
into the soil to reach these plant materials.  In sandy, loam soils,
where restrictions do not apply, 1,3-D may be an effective alternative
that can penetrate to the target areas.  In other situations, this
compound and other alternatives are not able to move sufficiently
through the soil to remove the problem pests.  Thus, there is a critical
need for MeBr for almond replant for 2008.  For sites that are not
amenable to alternative chemical fumigants, MeBr is a key component of
almond.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association.  12. Historic Pattern of Use of
Methyl Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an
Exemption Is Requested  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association -
12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or Mixtures
Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested" \f C \l
"2"

Almond Hullers & Processors Association.  Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of
Use of Methyl Bromide  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association -
Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide" \f F \l "1"

Years	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004 a

Area Treated (hectares)	2,046	1,430	496	819	278	211

	Hectares and Use Rate presented are for the treated strip.

ratio of Flat Fumigation b methyl bromide use to strip/bed use if strip
treatment is used	Strip treatment (65% of hectare treated)	Strip
treatment (65% of hectare treated)	Strip treatment (65% of hectare
treated)	Strip treatment (65% of hectare treated)	Strip treatment (65%
of hectare treated)	Strip treatment (65% of hectare treated)

Amount of methyl bromide active ingredient used

(total kg)	703,401	497,810	174,502	217,032	85,375	64,088

formulations of methyl bromide (methyl bromide/chloropicrin)	98:2	98:2
98:2	98:2	98:2	98:2

Method by which methyl bromide applied 	shank injected	shank injected
shank injected	Shank injected	Shank injected	Shank injected

Application rate [Active Ingredient] (kg/ha*)	344	348	352	265	307	304

Actual dosage rate of Active Ingredient (g/m2)*	34.4	34.8	35.2	26.5	30.7
30.4

* For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may be
the same.

a Data from preliminary estimates by California Department of Pesticide
Regulation.

b Various methods are used depending on the particular situation;
fumigation can be flat fumigation, strip, or even “by the hole” (for
individual tree replacement; MeBr is the only product that has
acceptable technology for hole application—approximately 0.5 kg/tree).

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Part C: Technical Validation
TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association - Part C: Technical
Validation" \f F \l "1"    TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association
- Part C: Technical Validation" \f C \l "1"

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. 13. Reason for Alternatives Not
Being Feasible  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association - 13.
Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible" \f C \l "2"

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table 13.1: Reason for
Alternatives Not Being Feasible  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors
Association – Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible"
\f F \l "1"

Name of Alternative	Technical and regulatory* reasons for the
alternative not being feasible or available 	Is the alternative
considered cost effective?

Chemical Alternatives

1,3-D	Can be effective in orchards with light soils; currently not
feasible in medium or heavy soils; usually more effective when
formulated with chloropicrin; subject to township caps and specific
moisture requirements.  (e.g., Browne et al., 2003a).  Promising results
have been reported with 1,3-D/chloropicrin for treatment of replant
disorder (Browne et al., 2003a, 2004)	Possibly, when able to optimize
application methods

Chloropicrin	May perform acceptably alone when fungi are primary cause
of orchard replant problem; for nematode causation, MeBr or 1,3-D is
preferred.  Promising results have been reported with some rates of
chloropicrin for treatment of replant disorder (Browne et al., 2003a,
2004)	Possibly, when able to optimize application methods

Metam-sodium	Not an effective nematicide since it can not reach deep
areas of soil, which is the primary cause of orchard replant problems;
generally not effective in areas where water percolation is a problem
(e.g., clay soils).	No

Dazomet	This alternative has been examined by researchers and is
inconsistent in field trials.  This has been deemed not feasible due to
lack of performance in field trials and inability to penetrate and kill
nematodes at depths required for orchard replant acceptability.  This
product requires that there be uniform saturation of the granules to
ensure that the product will perform consistently.  This is not feasible
in a typical orchard situation.	No

Nematicides	Other nematicides (besides 1,3-D) have limited use due to
their lack of performance or due to regulatory issues.  Therefore, this
product was deemed not feasible	No

Non Chemical Alternatives

Fallow, or crop rotation	Not sufficient alone; sometimes done regardless
of fumigant that follows; may require 4-10 year fallow for some crops
(McKenry, 1999) and may not be sufficient even then; may provide partial
control in some crops, however, economically difficult for grower to
sustain (Browne et al., 2002b; Trout et al., 2002).  Some research
suggests that short term rotations of some crops can reduce replant
disorder, but large scale studies need to be completed (Browne et al.,
2004).	No

Rootstock	Similar situation to stone fruit, rootstocks can help reduce
some problem nematodes, but are not tolerant to an array of pests, and
do not address overall replant “complex” (Browne et al., 2003a).
Initial results of research examining cover crops suggest reduction of
replant disorder when wheat is incorporated into soil prior to planting
nematode tolerant rootstocks (Browne, 2003b).  However, this research
must be continued, and results confirmed, before commercial application
can be accepted. 	No

Biofumigation, solarization, steam, Biological Control, cover crops and
mulching, crop rotation / fallow, crop residue and compost,
substrate/plug plants, plowing/tillage, resistant cultivars,
grafting/resistant rootstock, physical removal, organic
amendments/compost, general IPM	Each of the not-in-kind alternatives
were listed as options for replacement of MB.  Many of these
alternatives are currently being employed with current replant
practices.  Alternatives such as biofumigation, solarization, and steam
are not feasible due to planting times, one time fumigation requirement
per orchard (steam treatment), and inability to attain sufficient
biomass of plant material (biofumigation).  Biological control may have
promise, but research has not identified agents that can be used on a
commercial scale or that work consistently well.  The University of
California is investigating biological control of major fungal
pathogens, but this work is still in the early stages of research.  As
such, MeBr is currently considered critical to the industry	No

Combinations of Alternatives

1,3-D + chloropicrin	Effective against nematodes, fungi, and to kill
remnant roots when 1,3-D is used in orchards with light soils; not
feasible in medium or heavy soils; subject to township caps and specific
moisture requirements.  Promising results from research trials indicated
that efficacy may be improved by refining application protocols and use
rates (see e.g., Browne et al., 2003a, 2004).	Possibly, when able to
optimize application methods, if no legal restrictions apply and where
soil type is amenable

1,3-D + chloropicrin + metam-sodium

1,3-D + metam-sodium

* Regulatory reasons include local restrictions (e.g. occupational
health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of
registration.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. 14. List and Discuss Why
Registered (and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:  TC " Almond
Hullers & Processors Association - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered
(and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective
as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:" \f C \l "2"

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table 14.1: Technically
Infeasible Alternatives Discussion  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors
Association – Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion" \f F \l "1"

Name of Alternative	Discussion

 Herbicides (e.g., triclopyr, glyphosate) 	Not effective treatment
alone.  Herbicides are used for killing remnant roots of previous
orchard plants; research with walnuts (McKenry, 1999) suggested that
herbicide treatment followed by 18 months fallow can result in root knot
nematode control of 97% compared to untreated plots.  However, this
effect only lasted 6 months, not long enough to achieve acceptable
establishment of new orchard; no herbicides were found that kill grape
roots (McKenry, 1999).  In stone fruit, while remnant roots were killed
after 18 months, endoparasitic nematodes were not significantly reduced
(McKenry et al., 1995).  The combination of herbicide costs plus
additional 18 months waiting period prior to planting, becomes an
economic burden, especially with the limited effectiveness of treatment.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. 15. List Present (and Possible
Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives
TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association - 15. List Present (and
Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
Alternatives" \f C \l "2"  :

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table 15.1: Present
Registration Status of Alternatives  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors
Association – Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives"
\f F \l "1"

Name of Alternative	Present Registration Status

State if registered for this crop, registered for crop but use
restricted, registered for other crops but not target crop, or not
registered	Registration being considered by national authorities? (Y/N)
Date of possible future registration:

Sodium azide	No registration package has been received	No	Unknown

Propargyl bromide	No registration package has been received	No	Unknown

Iodomethane	Not registered in U.S.	Yes	Unknown

Muscador albus Strain QST 20799 	Registration package has been received.
Yes	Registered but not yet for sale in the U.S.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. 16. State Relative
Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for
the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested
TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association - 16. State Relative
Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for
the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested"
\f C \l "2"

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table 16.1: Effectiveness of
Alternatives – Replant Disorder.  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors
Association – Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives – Replant
Disorder" \f F \l "1"

Key Pest: Replant disorder	Average disease % or rating and yields in
past 3~5 years

Methyl Bromide formulations and Alternatives

(include dosage rates and application method)	# of Trials	Disease (% or
rating)	# of Trials	Actual Yields (t/ha)	Citation

fungal pathogens

[1] MB (409 kg/ha)

[2] chloropicrin (425 kg/ha)

[3] 1,3-D (409 kg/ha)

[4] non-fumigated	Almond (Marianna 2624 rootstock), 2001;

4 reps, research plots (19 m x 22 m), no tarp; 	Trunk diameter (mm)
(increase after 8 months post-fumigation)

[1] 4b

[2] 10c

[3] 2a

[4] 1a	same	Trees (%) w/growth >1.5 m height (in 8 months):

[1] 21%a

[2] 96%b

[3] 1%a

[4] 2%a	Browne et al., 2002b

fungal pathogens

[1] MB (0.34 kg/tree) + chloropicrin (0.11 kg/tree)

[2] chloropicrin (0.45 kg/tree)

[3] non-fumigated 	Almond (Marianna 2624 rootstock), 2002;

4 reps, research plots (19 m x 22 m), no tarp; 	Trunk diameter (mm)
(increase after 8 months post-fumigation)

[1] 15b

[2] 14b

[3] 4a

	same	Trees (%) w/growth >1.5 m height (in 8 months):

[1] 94%

[2] 83%

[3] 6%

	Browne et al., 2002b

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Table C.1: Alternatives Yield
Loss Data Summary  TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association –
Table C.1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary" \f F \l "1"

Alternative*	List Type of Pest	Range of Yield Loss	Best Estimate of
Yield Loss

1,3-D (385 kg/ha)	Nematodes, roots	0-20%

(based on research plots)	10%

(based on research plots)

1,3-D (265 kg/ha) + chloropicrin (150 kg/ha)	Nematodes, fungi, roots
0-10%

(based on research plots)	5%

(based on research plots)

1,3-D (265 kg/ha) + chloropicrin (150 kg/ha) + metam-sodium (65 kg/ha)
Nematodes, fungi, roots	0-10%

(based on research plots)	5%

(based on research plots)

1,3-D (350 kg/ha) + metam-sodium (125 kg/ha)	Nematodes, roots	0-10%

(based on research plots)	5%

(based on research plots)

Overall Loss Estimate for All Alternatives to Pests	See discussion below

*1,3-D is not a feasible alternative where soil moisture is not optimal
or where township caps restrict its use.

Alternatives are used in most replant sites.  MeBr is critical for 2008
for sites where conditions do allow effective use of alternatives (those
with medium to heavy soils, and/or where township cap restrictions
apply).  In these cases losses of trees can be greater than 20%
(McKenry, 1999).  Sites well-suited to 1,3-D should have efficacy
similar to MB.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. 17. Are There Any Other
Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to
Replace Methyl Bromide?  TC "Almond Hullers & Processors Association -
17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development which
Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide?" \f C \l "2"

1,3-D with chloropicrin is the primary alternative to MeBr in areas
where it is effective (light soils, moisture less than 12% at 1.5
meters, high moisture above 30 cm) and allowed.  Previously discussed
alternatives are the primary ones continuing to be examined (e.g.,
Lampinen et al., 2004; Browne et al., 2004).  Alternatives that are
being investigated include fallowing studies (frequently with prior
treatment with an herbicide to kill remnant roots from previous
plantings).  Thus far, nematode control is short-lived (only up to 6 to
9 months) (McKenry, 1999).  Rootstock with resistance to the primary
nematode pests are being developed, but orchard replant disorder is
caused by varying factors that are different in different orchard
locations and according to the crop grown (and crop grown prior to the
orchard replant).  Ongoing research (e.g., Lampinen et al., 2004; Browne
et al., 2004) suggests that alternatives, including tolerant rootstocks,
crop rotations, 1,3-D, chloropicrin, and VIF, have real potential as
replacements for MB.  However, most researchers warn that further
research is necessary before protocols for commercial treatments can be
devised and regulatory constraints (e.g., 1,3-D and VIF in California)
will prevent uses in important areas.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. 18. Are There Technologies
Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?:
 TC " Almond Hullers & Processors Association - 18. Are There
Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for
Methyl Bromide?" \f C \l "2"

A recent increase in demand for almonds has accelerated the rate of
various orchards being replanted to almonds.  To reduce MeBr use,
however, growers have been switching from the traditional broadcast
treatments to strip or single hole treatments.  Use of herbicides can
reduce remnant roots of previous plantings and reduce the nutrients used
by problem nematodes, but fumigants are still a necessary component.  In
addition, in orchards not subject to restrictions, 1,3-D can be in some
situations an acceptable alternative.  However, as with the other
commodities of this sector, there are numerous uncertainties concerning
the management of orchard replant problem.  Sound management practices
provide the trees with the optimal environment to allow a productive and
long-lived orchard.  Tests are being conducted to develop new delivery
systems to target pests with alternatives such as metam-sodium and 1,3-D
to depths where these compounds can more efficiently kill roots and
nematodes that feed on roots.  McKenry (1999) outlines several
approaches through field research studies that can help address MeBr
alternatives for almonds, as well as walnuts, grapes, and stone fruit.
These include use of herbicides to kill remnant roots, use of fallow,
crop rotations, use of “virgin” soil as an amendment to possibly
reduce replant problem, resistant rootstocks when available, irrigation
regimes to improve consistency of metam-sodium, etc.  Field studies on
these perennial crops require considerable time to conduct and until
replicated trials can be analyzed MeBr is required.  Early results,
however, are promising (e.g., Browne et al., 2003b, 2004; Lampinen et
al., 2004).

Almond Hullers & Processors Association. Summary of Technical
Feasibility  TC "Almond Hullers & Processors Association - Summary of
Technical Feasibility" \f C \l "2"

Currently, no alternatives are feasible in approximately 7% of almond
orchard replant sites (567 ha/8540 ha total replant).  In these cases
losses of trees are likely to be greater than 20% (McKenry, 1999).  As
with the other commodities of the orchard replant sector, replant
problems for almonds are a result of biological and environmental
causes, and interactions of these forces.  Studies of individual pest
populations tell only a small portion of the story of replant complex,
since individual pests can cause only a portion of the adverse growth
effects.  Nevertheless, approximately 35% of hectares planted in almonds
have infestations of Criconemella xenoplax and/or Pratylenchus vulnus
(McKenry, 1999).  Nemaguard, the most commonly used almond rootstock,
has resistance only to Meloidogyne spp.  As such, it is clear that the
long life of orchards requires that optimal pest management strategies
be employed to overcome replant disorder during the one opportunity
available—at orchard establishment.  The long history of 1,3-D use in
California suggests that at optimal conditions it (or in combination
with another chemical) is the best alternative to MB.  However, the
reality of California orchards precludes some growers from taking
advantage of the material since either township caps or soil
texture/moisture issues reduce efficacy or legal availability to 1,3-D.
Therefore, in 2008, for almond replant where alternatives are not
effective, there is a critical need for MeBr for establishment of
commercial operations.  Currently, research is being conducted examining
non-fumigant treatments.  Some non-chemical treatments have shown
promise in small-scale research trials, such as use of crop rotation
(Browne et al., 2003b, 2004).  Continued studies will have to be
conducted before these types of treatments are developed for commercial
application.

Part D: Emission Control  TC "Part D: Emission Control" \f F \l "1"
TC "Part D: Emission Control" \f C \l "1"

Research is being conducted among all the orchard replant commodities to
address the orchard replant disorder complex.  Fumigation is only one
means of achieving optimal orchard establishment.  Other practices can
reduce long-term effects of pathogens and biotic and abiotic causes of
this disorder.  Such practices as fallowing land, crop rotation,
strategic fertilization, water management, development of tolerant
rootstocks, deep injection of chemicals—all will reduce the emissions
of MeBr (or other toxic chemicals that might be alternatives).  Current
research also includes studies with soil amendments, such as thiosulfate
fertilizers that may act as barriers or absorbents of MeBr and reduce
emissions.

19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use
and Emissions in the Particular Use  TC "19. Techniques That Have and
Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions in the
Particular Use" \f C \l "2"

Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions  TC
"Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions" \f
F \l "1"

Technique or Step Taken	VIF or High Barrier Films	methyl bromide dosage
reduction	Increased % chloropicrin in methyl bromide formulation	Less
frequent application

What use/emission reduction methods are presently adopted?	VIF and high
density tarps being tested (almond) 	Testing reduction from 98:2 to
75:25 (almond)	When fungal pathogens are main concern chloropicrin
percent is increased	Fumigation is applied only once in 20-40 years for
this sector

What further use/emission reduction steps will be taken for the methyl
bromide used for critical uses?	Testing	Deep injection; use of
additional herbicides to kill remnant roots to increase efficacy of MeBr
and other fumigants; reduction of MeBr in formulation	Deep injection,
increased chloropicrin in formulation to 50:50 being examined	Fumigation
is applied only once in 20-40 years for this sector

Other measures (please describe)	Unidentified	Combination of chemicals
and cultural practices such as fallow + alternatives or reduced MB
Combination of chemicals and cultural practices such as fallow +
alternatives or reduced MB	Fumigation is applied only once in 20-40
years for this sector

Various techniques are being studied to improve the efficacy of
alternatives.  Primary is the development of application techniques to
improve delivery of the best alternatives, such as 1,3-D and
metam-sodium (e.g., McKenry, 2001).  In situations with no township
caps, and where soil moisture is less than 12% at 1.5 meters, 1,3-D may
be effective—this would occur generally in orchards with light, sandy
soils.  Although the cropping system of these orchards makes the use of
MeBr cost effective, current research (e.g., Browne et al., 2004;
Lampinen et al., 2004; Schneider et al., 2004) is advancing the
understanding of alternatives in orchard replant.  This research will
ultimately result in the development of protocols that will be adapted
for commercial use.

20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used,
or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State
Reasons  TC "20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not
Being Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination,
State Reasons" \f C \l "2"

Research is currently being conducted by all commodities of this sector
to find increasingly more effective ways of managing orchard replant
disorder (e.g., Browne et al., 2002b; Ferris and Walker, 2002; Martin,
2003; McKenry, 1999, 2001; Schneider et al., 1999, 2000; Trout et al.,
2001).  From 1992 to 2002, the expenditures on research have included
$430,000 (California Walnut Commission), $250,000 (California Grape and
Tree Fruit League), and $86,000 (Almond Hullers and Processors
Association).  Research by all of these crop associations is continuing.
 This industry is committed to reduction in MeBr use.  Currently MeBr is
used only once in 20 to 40 years, but ongoing tests to determine the
best approach to producing high quality fruit and nuts as well as
reducing MeBr emissions can help integrate new techniques.  These
include herbicide strategies to kill remnant roots more efficiently,
fallowing regimes that will not result in a significant delay in
replant, and deep injection to improve efficacy.

Part E: Economic Assessment  TC "Part E: Economic Assessment" \f F \l
"1"    TC "Part E: Economic Assessment" \f C \l "1"

21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period
TC "21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
Period" \f C \l "2"  :

Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year
Period

This table is not included since none of the alternatives are
technically feasible.  See Summary of Economic Feasibility below.

22. Gross and Net Revenue  TC "22. Gross and Net Revenue" \f C \l "2"  :

Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue

Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue

Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue

These tables are not included since none of the alternatives are
technically feasible.  See Summary of Economic Feasibility below.

Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives  TC
"Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives" \f C \l
"2"

California Grape and Tree Fruit League – Stone Fruit - Table E.1:
Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives

California Grape and Tree Fruit League – Raisin and Table Grapes -
Table E.2: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives

California Walnut Commission - Table E.3: Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives

Almond Hullers & Processors Association - Table E.4: Economic Impacts of
Methyl Bromide Alternatives

These tables are not included since none of the alternatives are
technically feasible.  See Summary of Economic Feasibility below.

Summary of Economic Feasibility  TC "Summary of Economic Feasibility" \f
C \l "2"

An economic analysis was not done for this sector because most of the
losses cannot be quantified.  The critical use nomination (CUN) for this
sector does not include areas where soil conditions are ideal and
township caps do not restrict the use of 1,3 D.  This CUN only applies
to areas where township caps or certain soil types do not permit the use
or effective use of 1,3-D.  In such areas there are no technically or
economically feasible alternatives and tree losses are likely to be
greater than 20% (McKenry, 1999).  1,3 D in combinations with
chloropicrin or metam-sodium is economically feasible in ideal soil
conditions when not restricted California township caps on 1,3 D.  Where
soil conditions permit the effective use of 1,3 D an estimated 5% tree
loss is expected from the use of 1,3 D in various combinations with
chloropicrin and metam sodium.  A 5% tree loss is considered a moderate
loss, making the treatment economically feasible, providing there are no
other losses.

Where 1,3 D is not permitted there are no effective nematicides.  Trees
that survive are not likely to be as healthy and could suffer yield
losses.  If a nematode infestation causes the death of trees, then
replacement trees would also suffer the same infestation unless there
use of an effective nematicide, or possibly several years of fallow.

An economic analysis was not done because most of the losses cannot be
quantified since there are no data to substantiate the magnitude of
these losses.  These losses include:

Delayed planting

Fallow

Additional use of herbicides

Tree loss

Replant costs to replace tree losses

Loss of trees replanted

Yield loss of fruit or nuts

Delayed achievement of full yield potential

Earlier loss of productivity of whole orchard

A number of soil pathogens and nematodes, many still poorly understood,
occur over the lifespan of an orchard.  It is important that the grower
be able to reduce the amount of inoculum in the soil to ensure that the
young trees have the opportunity to get off to a vigorous start to
ensure survival.  1,3 D, chloropicrin, and metam-sodium have shown
promise on some soil types, but long-term research on tree survival and
on yield impacts is incomplete.  If the alternatives do not work as
effectively as MB, then it is possible that other losses could occur,
such as additional replanting, higher yield losses, and shorter lifespan
of the whole orchard reducing the ability to amortize the initial
investment costs.

Part F. Future Plans  TC "Part F. Future Plans" \f F \l "1"    TC "Part
F. Future Plans" \f C \l "1"

23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy
Alternatives for This Crop?  TC "23. What Actions Will Be Taken to
Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for This Crop?" \f C \l "2"

The development of technologies to improve efficacy of alternatives,
such as deep injection methods, soil moisture management by improving
drip technologies, use of fallow, crop rotation, tolerant rootstocks,
and improved experience with chemical/non-chemical combinations.  Even
where MeBr is considered critical, an improvement in efficient delivery
techniques will result in reduction of MeBr use requirements.
Considering that this sector uses MeBr only once in the life of the
orchard, use of alternatives to replace MeBr will have to be well
considered in light of the long-term impact on fruit and nut production.
 As previously described, McKenry (1999) has outlined several approaches
through field research studies that can help address MeBr alternatives
for almonds, as well as walnuts, grapes, and stone fruit.  These include
use of herbicides to kill remnant roots, use of fallow and crop
rotations, use of “virgin” soil as an amendment to possibly reduce
replant problem, resistant rootstocks when available, irrigation regimes
to improve consistency of metam-sodium, etc.  Field studies on these
perennial crops require considerable time to conduct and until
replicated trials can be analyzed MeBr is required.  The consortia
requesting MeBr are currently developing timelines for transition from
MeBr to alternatives.  These timelines should be presented in the very
near future.

The amount of MeBr requested for research purposes is considered
critical for the development of effective alternatives.  Without MeBr
for use as a standard treatment, the research studies can never address
the comparative performance of alternatives.  This would be a serious
impediment to the development of alternative strategies.  The U.S.
government estimates that orchard replant research will require 1658 kg
per year of MeBr for 2008.  This amount of MeBr is necessary to conduct
research on alternatives and is in addition to the amounts requested in
the submitted CUE applications.

24. Are There Plans to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the
Critical Use in the Future?  TC "24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use
of Methyl Bromide for the Critical Use in the Future?" \f C \l "2"

As stated in Section 23, minimizing use of MeBr can be achieved through
the development of technologies to improve efficacy of alternatives,
such as deep injection methods or soil moisture management, and still
have reasonable cost effectiveness.  Even where MeBr is considered
critical, an improvement in efficient delivery techniques will result in
reduction of MeBr use requirements, even though use of MeBr is only used
once in the long life of these orchards.  Research that is currently
being conducted by all of the crop groups of this sector should help
identify strategies to most effectively manage replant disorder.  For
further details regarding the transition plans for this sector please
consult the national management strategy.

25. Additional Comments on the Nomination?  TC "25. Additional Comments
on the Nomination" \f C \l "2"

The U.S. Nomination for MeBr is for orchard replant areas where
alternatives are not suitable, either because of legal restrictions or
physical features, such as unacceptable soil type.  The critical use
exemption nomination for orchard replant has been reviewed by the U.S.
government and meets the guidelines of The Montreal Protocol on
Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.  This use is considered
critical in the designated areas because there are no effective
alternatives or substitutes available.  MeBr is critical in the orchards
where 1,3-D will not be an effective treatment to orchard replant
disorder, such as where orchards have medium to heavy soils, and/or
township cap restrictions for 1,3-D.  Under these circumstances MeBr is
critical for use in 2008, and its absence will result in a significant
burden for the orchard crop growers of California.

26. Citations  TC "26. Citations" \f C \l "2"

Browne, G., Connell, J., McLaughlin S., Lee, R., Schneider, S., and
Trout, T. 2004. Potential of chemical and non-chemical approaches for
managing Prunus replant disease. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2004).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Browne, G., Connell, J., Becherer, H., McLaughlin, S., Schneider, S.,
Lee, R., and Hosoda, E. 2003a. Evaluation of rootstocks and fumigants
for control of almond replant disease. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2003).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Browne, G., Trout, T., Becherer, H., McLaughlin, S., Lee, R., Gartung,
J., Gillis, M., Schneider, S., and Bulluck, R. 2003b. Pre-plant cropping
and fallowing effects on severity of Prunus replant disease. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2003).
  HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Browne, G. T., Connell, J. H., Bulluck, L. R., Trout, T. J., and
Schneider, S. M. 2002a. Management and etiology of replant disorder on
almond and peach. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives (2002).   HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"
http://mbao.org/

Browne, G., Trout, T. and Bulluck, R. 2002b.  Cultural control and
etiology of replant disease of Prunus spp. University of California,
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/grants/reports/mebr/browne/browne.html"
http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/grants/reports/mebr/browne/browne.html

Drenovsky, R. E., Duncan, R. A., and Scow, K. M. 2005. Soil
sterilization and organic carbon, but not microbial inoculants, change
microbial communities in replanted peach orchards. California
Agriculture 59 (3):176-181.   HYPERLINK
"http://californiaagriculture.ucop.edu/0503JAS/pdfs/SoilSterilization.pd
f"
http://californiaagriculture.ucop.edu/0503JAS/pdfs/SoilSterilization.pdf

Duncan, R. A., McKenry, M., and Scow, K. 2003. Evaluation of pre- and
post-plant treatments for replanted peach orchards. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2003).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Ferris, H. and Walker, M. A. 2002. Development of grape rootstocks with
broad and durable nematode resistance. University of California
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Final Report
(updated May, 2003).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/Grants/Reports/MeBr/Ferris/ferris.html"
http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/Grants/Reports/MeBr/Ferris/ferris.html

Gan, J., Becker, J. O., Ernst, F. F., Hutchinson, C., Knuteson, J. A.,
and Yates, S. R. 2000. Surface application of ammonium thiosulfate to
reduce 1,3-dichloropropene volatilization from soil. Pest Management
Science 56:264-270.

Lampinen, B., Browne, Schneider, S., Shrestha, A., Holtz, B., and Simon,
L. 2004. Alternative pre-plant soil fumigation treatments for deciduous
tree crops. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives (2004).   HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Martin, F. N. 2003. Development of alternative strategies for management
of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annual
Review of Phytopathology 41:325-350.

McKenry, M. 2001. Performance of metam sodium drenched to six different
replant sites. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives (2001).   HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"
http://mbao.org/

McKenry, M. V. 1999. The replant problem and its management. Contractor
for California Association of Nurseryman.  Prepared for California
Department of Pesticide Regulation. Catalina Publishing, Fresno,
California, USA.  (See CUE 03-0013, CUE 03-0014 request packages of
California Grape and Tree Fruit League, and CUE 03-0029 request of
California Walnut Commission.)

McKenry, M., Buzo, T., Kaku, and S. 1995. First-year evaluation of tree
and vine growth and nematode development following 17 pre-plant
treatments. In: University of California Plant Protection Quarterly.
Vol. 5, No. 4.   HYPERLINK "http://www.uckac.edu/ppq/PDF/95oct.pdf"
http://www.uckac.edu/ppq/PDF/95oct.pdf

Schneider, S., Trout. T., Browne, G., Ajwa, H., and Sims, J. 2004.
Vineyard replant—performance of methyl bromide alternatives over time.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
(2004).   HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Schneider, S., Trout. T., Browne, G., Ajwa, H., and Sims, J. 2003.
Vineyard replant field trials. Annual International Research Conference
on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2003).   HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"
http://mbao.org/

Schneider, S., Trout. T., Browne, G., Ajwa, H., and Sims, J. 2002.
Vineyard replant disorder—results after 1,2, and 4 growing seasons.
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
(2002).   HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Schneider, S., Ajwa, H., Trout. T., and Sims, J. 2000. Alternatives for
vineyard replant and grapevine nurseries. Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2000).   HYPERLINK
"http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

Schneider, Ajwa, H. Trout, T. and Sims, J. 1999. Grape replant
disorder—an integrated management approach.  USDA, Agricultural
Research Service, Methyl Bromide Alternatives.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/oct99/grape.htm"
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/oct99/grape.htm

Trout. T., Ajwa, H., Schneider, S., Gartung, J. 2002. Fumigation and
fallowing effects on replant problems in California peach. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (2002).
  HYPERLINK "http://mbao.org/"  http://mbao.org/

APPENDIX A.  2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index (BUNNI).
TC "APPENDIX A.  2008 Methyl Bromide Usage Newer Numerical Index
(BUNNI)." \f C \l "1"

Footnotes for Appendix A:

		Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

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

Strip Bed Treatment – Strip bed treatment is ‘yes’ if the
applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise.

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

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

Pest-free cert. Required - This variable is a ‘yes’ when the product
must be certified as ‘pest-free’ in order to be sold

Other Issues.- Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an
application that were checked

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

Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Removed? – This indicates whether the
Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares subject to QPS treatments
were removed from the nomination.

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

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

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

(%) Key Pest Impacts - Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate
to severe pest problems.  Key pests are those that are not adequately
controlled by MB alternatives.  For example, the key pest in Michigan
peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable
growing area.  In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge.

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

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

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

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

Most Likely Baseline Transition – Most Likely Baseline Transition
amount was determined by the DELPHI process and was calculated by
determining the maximum share of industry that can transition to
existing alternatives.

(%) Able to Transition – Maximum share of industry that can transition

Minimum # of Years Required – The minimum number of years required to
achieve maximum transition.

(%) Able to Transition per Year – The Percent Able to Transition per
Year is the percent able to transition divided by the number of years to
achieve maximum transition.

EPA Adjusted Use Rate - Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for
2008 or the historic average use rate or is determined by MBTOC
recommended use rate reductions.

EPA Adjusted Strip Dosage Rate – The dosage rate is the use rate
within the strips for strip / bed fumigation.

2008 Amount of Request – The 2008 amount of request is the actual
amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient
of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application
rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre.  U.S. units
of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were
converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination.

EPA Preliminary Value – The EPA Preliminary Value is the lowest of the
requested amount from 2005 through 2008 with MBTOC accepted adjustments
(where necessary) included in the preliminary value.

EPA Baseline Adjusted Value – The EPA Baseline Adjusted Value has been
adjusted for MBTOC adjustments, QPS, Double Counting, Growth, Use Rate/
Strip Treatment, Miscellaneous adjustments, MBTOC recommended Low
Permeability Film Transition adjustment, and Combined Impacts.

EPA Transition Amount – The EPA Transition Amount is calculated by
removing previous transition amounts since transition was introduced in
2007 and removing the amount of the percent (%) Able to Transition per
Year multiplied by the EPA Baseline Adjusted Value.

Most Likely Impact Value – The qualified amount of the initial request
after all adjustments have been made given in total kilograms of
nomination, total hectares of nomination, and final use rate of
nomination.

Sector Research Amount – The total U.S. amount of methyl bromide
needed for research purposes in each sector.

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

 PAGE

 PAGE   ii

U.S. Orchard Replant

Page  PAGE   11

U.S. Orchard Replant

Page  PAGE   71

U.S. Orchard Replant


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, April 25, 2016 1:33 PM
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
FAQ #1 - Coke ICR

Hello all - The attached FAQ was posted last week on the Coke ICR website. Note that you cannot send zip files to me via email. Even very large regular files sometimes 1 MB will not get through.

6.  Can I send big files to your email as zip files? What is your preference for electronic files?

Response: You cannot send zip files to EPA; they get stripped from the email. My preference is that you post all files to the ICR website. You can send me an email that notifies me of what you posted.  RTI is keeping track of all submissions in a spreadsheet which is made available to me weekly. Your emails are welcome, however, notifying me of your submissions.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< Coke ICR FAQs-Set#1- 04-18-16.doc >>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 500]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-284-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.403: Environmental
Filing 2014 to be effective 2/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20141229-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP01-74-008.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Petition of Dominion Transmission, Inc. to Modify Term
of Gathering and Products Extraction Settlement and Requesting
Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 12/29/14.
    Accession Number: 20141229-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 30, 2014.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30948 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12472]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM
Interconnection, LLC (PJM):

PJM Planning Committee

March 12, 2015, 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EST)

PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee

March 12, 2015, 11:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and
Training Center, PJM Interconnection, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon,
PA 19403.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket Nos. ER15-738 and ER15-739, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER15-596, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER15-33, et. al., The Dayton Power and Light Company
Docket No. ER15-994, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER15-639, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER15-61, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and American
Transmission Systems Incorporated
Docket No. ER14-2867, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, et al., and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-972 and ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-2864, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1960, ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
Participants Committee
Docket No. ER13-1957, ISO New England, Inc. et. al.
Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-1947, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1946, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1945, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1944, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1943, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1942, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1926, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Duquesne Light
Company
Docket No. ER13-1924, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Duquesne Light
Company
Docket No. EL15-40, Public Service Electric and Gas Company v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-18, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL11-54, Buckeye Power, Inc. v. American Transmission
Systems Incorporated

    For more information, contact the following:

Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Alina Halay, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 3, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05391 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 67179]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14215-000]

 Spartanburg Water System; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 23, 2011, Spartanburg Water System (Spartanburg) filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a
hydropower project located on the Pacolet River in Spartanburg County,
South Carolina. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 11.3-foot-
high, 171-foot-long wooden dam, owned by Spartanburg; (2) a reservoir
with a surface area of 11.69 acres and a storage capacity of 60 acre-
feet; (3) a 130-foot-long, 12-foot-wide concrete headrace channel; (4)
a powerhouse containing one generating unit with a total capacity of
150.0 kilowatts (kW); (5) a 70-foot-long, 10-foot-wide bedrock tailrace
structure; and (6) a 450-foot-long, 12 kilo-volt (KV) transmission
line. The project would have an estimated average annual generation of
770.0 megawatt-hours (MWh) and the project power would be sold.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Sue Schneider, General Manager, Spartanburg
Water, 200 Commerce Street, P.O. Box 251, Spartanburg, South Carolina
29304.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 Days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14215-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 25, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28109 Filed 10-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8132-8134]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03697]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82737; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Listing Standard for Warrants in Section 105 of the NYSE American
Company Guide

February 16, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 6, 2018, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standard for warrants as
set forth in Section 105 of the NYSE American Company Guide (the
``Company Guide'') to provide that any reduction in the exercise price
of a listed warrant must be widely publicized and must continue in
effect for at least 20 business days \3\ (or such longer period as may
be required under the tender offer rules of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')) and otherwise comply with any
other applicable tender offer regulatory provisions under the federal
securities laws, including Section 13(e) \4\ of the Act and Rule 13e-4
\5\ under the Act. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``business day'' is used as defined in Rule 14d-
1(g)(3) under the Act (17 CFR 240.14d-1(g)(3)).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(e).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.13e-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standard for warrants as
set forth in Section 105 of the Company Guide to provide that any
reduction in the exercise price of a listed warrant must be widely
publicized and must continue in effect for at least 20 business days
(or such longer period as may be required under the tender offer rules
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''))
and otherwise comply with any other applicable tender offer regulatory
provisions under the federal securities laws, including Section 13(e)
of the Act and Rule 13e-4 under the Act.
    Section 105 currently provides that the issuer of a listed warrant
may reduce the exercise price of such warrant provided that in doing so
it establishes a minimum period of ten business days within which such
price reduction will be in effect.\6\ The Exchange now proposes to
amend this provision so that it will be consistent with the tender
offer regulatory provisions applicable under the federal securities
laws and SEC rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 105 in its current form was approved in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 22777 (January 8, 1986); 51 FR 2613
(January 17, 1986).
    \7\ The proposed amendment will conform the rule to changes
recently adopted by the NYSE in its own warrant listing standard.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82566 (SR-NYSE-2018-04)
(January 22, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A reduction in the exercise price of publicly-traded warrants for a
limited time period is deemed to be a tender offer by the SEC staff and
is therefore subject to the requirements of the SEC's tender offer
rules as set forth in Regulation 14E under the Act.\8\ SEC Rule 14e-
1(a) \9\ requires that any tender offer subject to Regulation 14E be
held

open for at least 20 business days. SEC Rule 14e-1(b) \10\ provides for
certain circumstances in which a tender offer period must be extended
beyond that initial 20 business day period. Rule 14e-1(c) \11\ under
the Act requires securityholders to be paid promptly after tendering
their securities into a tender offer. In addition, all tender offers
for listed warrants will be subject to Section 13(e) of the Act, Rule
13e-4 under the Act, Section 14(e) \12\ of the Act, and Regulation 14E
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.14e-1 et seq.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.14e-1(a).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.14e-1(b).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.14e-1(c).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78n(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to require the issuer of any warrant which
gives the issuer the right, at its discretion, to reduce the exercise
price of the warrant for periods of time, or from time to time, to
undertake to comply with any applicable tender offer regulatory
provisions under the federal securities laws, including a minimum
period of 20 business days within which such price reduction will be in
effect (or such longer period as may be required under the SEC's tender
offer rules). In addition to ensuring compliance with applicable laws
and regulations, the Exchange believes that the proposed 20 business
day minimum notice requirement would ensure that warrant holders have a
reasonable amount of time to consider the advisability of exercising
their warrants during the period in which the reduced exercise price is
in effect and that warrant holders will therefore not be under
unreasonable pressure to make a hasty, ill-informed investment
decision.
    The Exchange proposes to require that any listed company that
reduces the exercise price of listed warrants announce that fact in a
manner consistent with the Exchange's policies with respect to the
dissemination of material news as set forth in Sections 401 and 402 of
the Company Guide. The Exchange believes that this requirement would
give all warrant holders appropriate notice and the ability to avail
themselves of the lower exercise price if they so desire.
    The Exchange has interpreted the provision with respect to
repricings in Section 105 broadly as restricting the taking of any
other action which has the same economic effect as a reduction in the
exercise price of the warrant.\13\ For the avoidance of doubt, the
Exchange now proposes to include a statement to that effect in the
proposed amended rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, the Exchange would view an exchange of common
stock for outstanding warrants as a transaction restricted by the
rule if the economic benefit to the warrant holder of participating
in the exchange was effectively the same as the benefit to the
holder of exercising the warrants at a reduced exercise price.
Similarly, an increase in the number of shares for which a warrant
is exercisable without a related increase in the warrant exercise
price is economically equivalent to a reduction in the exercise
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 105 currently provides that the repricing policy set forth
therein will not preclude the listing of warrant issues for which
regularly scheduled and specified changes in the exercise price have
been previously established. The Exchange proposes to clarify this
provisions by specifying that it relates specifically to regularly
scheduled and specified changes in the exercise price that have been
previously established at the time of original issuance of the
warrants.
    The Exchange also proposes to make revisions to Section 105 to
update references to the names of the Exchange and the NASDAQ Stock
Exchange to reflect their current names.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \14\ of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent
with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) because: (i)
The proposed requirement that the price reduction must stay in effect
for 20 business days or such longer period as required by the SEC's
tender offer rules would give the warrant holders a reasonable amount
of time to consider the advisability of exercising their warrants
during the period in which the reduced exercise price was in effect and
warrant holders would therefore not be under unreasonable pressure to
make a hasty, ill-informed investment decision; and (ii) the proposed
requirement that any listed company that reduces the exercise price of
listed warrants must announce that fact in a manner consistent with the
Exchange's material news dissemination policies would give all warrant
holders appropriate notice and the ability to avail themselves of the
lower exercise price if they so desired.
    The requirement that any warrant repricing under the proposed
amendment must be held open for at least 20 business days (or such
longer period as is required under the SEC's tender offer rules) and
that the company must undertake to comply with applicable tender offer
regulatory provisions would ensure that any warrant repricing under the
proposed amendment would be in compliance with Section 13(e) of the
Act, Rule 13e-4 under the Act, Section 14(e) of the Act, and Regulation
14E under the Act.
    The addition to the rule of language stating that the Exchange will
apply its requirements with respect to warrant re-pricings to the
taking of any other action that has the same economic effect as a
reduction in the exercise price of a listed warrant is consistent with
the Act as it simply codifies a longstanding interpretation of the rule
by the Exchange.
    The amendment to the rule to specify that the repricing provision
is not applicable to regularly scheduled and specified changes in the
exercise price that have been previously established at the time of
original issuance of the warrants is a clarification of the rule that
is consistent with the way it is currently implemented and is therefore
non-substantive in nature. Similarly, the updating of the names used in
the rule for NYSE American and the NASDAQ Stock Market is non-
substantive in nature.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the proposed
rule change is to impose additional limitations on the circumstances
under which listed companies may adjust the exercise price of listed
warrants, including by requiring any such repricing to be conducted in
a manner that is consistent with the SEC's tender offer rules. As such,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on competition.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-04. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-04, and should be
submitted on or before March 16, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03697 Filed 2-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P