Page 1 2003 NOMINATION FOR A CRITICAL USE EXEMPTION FOR STRAWBERRY NURSERIES FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1. Introduction In consultation with the co chair of Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC), the United States ( U. S.) has organized this version of its Critical Use Exemption Nomination in a manner that would enable a holistic review of relevant information by each individual sector team reviewing the nomination for a specific crop or use. As a consequence, this nomination for strawberry nurseries, like the nomination for all other crops included in the U. S. request, includes general background information that the United States believes is crucial to enabling review of our nomination in a manner that meets the requirements of the Parties' critical use decisions. With that understanding, the fully integrated U. S. nomination for strawberry nurseries follows.

2. Background In 1997, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol adjusted Article 2H of the Protocol, and agreed to accelerate the reduction in the controlled production and consumption of methyl bromide. This adjustment included a provision calling for a phaseout of methyl bromide by the year 2005 " save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses." At the same time, the Parties adopted decision IX/ 6, the critical use exemption decision, which laid out the terms under which critical use exemptions under Article 2H would be granted.

3. Criteria for Critical Uses Under the Montreal Protocol In crafting Decision IX/ 6 outlining the criteria for a critical use exemption, the Parties recognized the significant differences between methyl bromide uses and uses of other ozone depleting chemicals previously given scrutiny under the Protocol's distinct and separate Essential Use exemption process. The United States believes that it is vitally important for the MBTOC to take into account the significant differences between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption in the review of all methyl bromide critical use nominations.

During the debate leading up to the adoption of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6, an underlying theme voiced by many countries was that the Parties wanted to phase out methyl bromide, and not agriculture. This theme was given life in various provisions of the critical use exemption, and in the differences in approach taken between the critical use exemption and the essential use exemption. Those differences are outlined below.

The Protocol's negotiated criteria for the critical use exemptions for methyl bromide are much different from the criteria negotiated for " Essential Uses" for other chemicals. Page 2 Under the Essential Use provisions, in order to even be considered for an exemption, it was necessary for each proposed use to be " critical for health, safety or the functioning of society." This high threshold differs significantly from the criteria established for the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption. Indeed, for methyl bromide, the Parties left it solely to the nominating governments to find that the absence of methyl bromide would create a significant market disruption.

For the U. S. nomination for strawberry nurseries, following detailed technical and economic review, the United States has determined that the level of methyl bromide being requested is critical to ensuring that there is no significant market disruption. The detailed analysis of technical and economic viability of the alternatives listed by MBTOC for use in strawberry nurseries is discussed later in this nomination.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized many agricultural fumigants were inherently toxic, and therefore there was a strong desire not to replace one environmentally problematic chemical with another even more damaging.

The critical use exemption language explicitly requires that an alternative should not only be technically and economically feasible, it must also be acceptable from the standpoint of health and environment. This is particularly important given the fact that most chemical alternatives to methyl bromide are extremely toxic, and can involve threats to human health or the environment that are even greater than the threats posed by methyl bromide.

In the case of methyl bromide, the Parties recognized that evaluating, commercializing and securing national approval of alternatives and substitutes is a lengthy process.

In fact, even after an alternative is tested and found to work against some pests in a controlled setting, adequate testing in large scale commercial operations can take many cropping seasons before the viability of the alternative can be adequately assessed from the standpoint of the climate and soil for various potential users. In addition, the process of securing national and sub national approval of alternatives may require extensive analysis of environmental consequences and toxicology. The average time for the national review of scientific information in support of a new pesticide, starting from the date of submission to registration, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the company submitting the information has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the toxicology and other environmental data necessary to support the registration request.

The Parties to the Protocol recognized that unlike other chemicals controlled under the Montreal Protocol, the use of methyl bromide and available alternatives could be site specific and must take into account the particular needs of the user.

The Essential Use exemption largely assumed that an alternative used in one place could, if approved by the government, be used everywhere. Parties clearly understood that this was not the case with methyl bromide because of the large number of variables involved, such as crop type, soil types, pest pressure and local climate. That is why the methyl bromide Critical Use exemption calls for an examination of the feasibility of the alternative from the standpoint of the user, and in the context of the specific circumstances of the nomination, including use and geographic location. In order to effectively implement this last, very important provision, we believe it is critical for MBTOC reviewers to Page 3 understand the unique nature of U. S. agriculture, as well as U. S. efforts to minimize the use of methyl bromide, to research alternatives, and to register alternatives for methyl bromide.

4. U. S. Consideration/ Preparation of the Critical Use Exemption for Strawberry Nurseries Work on the U. S. critical use exemption process began in early 2001. At that time, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) initiated open meetings with stakeholders both to inform them of the Protocol requirements, and to understand the issues being faced in researching alternatives to methyl bromide. During those meetings, which were attended by State and association officials representing thousands of methyl bromide users, the provisions of the critical use exemption Decision IX/ 6 were reviewed in detail, and questions were taken. The feedback from these initial meetings led to efforts by the United States to have the Protocol Parties establish international norms for the details to be in submissions and to facilitate standardization for a fair and adequate review. These efforts culminated in decision XIII/ 11 which calls for specific information to be presented in the nomination.

Upon return from the Sri Lanka meeting of the Parties, the U. S. took a three track approach to the critical use process. First, we worked to develop a national application form that would ensure that we had the information necessary to answer all of the questions posed in decision XIII/ 11. At the same time, we initiated sector specific meetings. This included meetings with representatives of strawberry nurseries across the United States to discuss their specific issues, and to enable them to understand the newly detailed requirements of the critical use application. These sector meetings allowed us to fine tune the application so we could submit the required information to the MBTOC in a meaningful fashion.

Finally, and concurrent with our preparation phase, we developed a plan to ensure a robust and timely review of any and all critical use applications we might receive. This involved the assembly of more than 45 PhDs and other qualified reviewers with expertise in both biological and economic issues. These experts were divided into interdisciplinary teams to enable primary and secondary reviewers for each application/ crop. As a consequence, each nomination received by the U. S. was reviewed by two separate teams. In addition, the review of these interdisciplinary teams was put to a broader review of experts on all other sector teams to enable a third look at the information, and to ensure consistency in review between teams. The result was a thorough evaluation of the merits of each request. A substantial portion of requests did not meet the criteria of decision IX/ 6, and a strong case for those that did meet the criteria has been included.

Following our technical review, discussions were held with senior risk management personnel of the U. S. government to go over the recommendations and put together a draft package for submission to the parties. As a consequence of all of this work, it is safe to say that each of the sector specific nominations being submitted is the work of well over 150 experts both in and outside of the U. S. government. government.

5. Overview of Agricultural Production 5a. U. S. Agriculture Page 4 The United States is fortunate to have a large land expanse, productive soils and a variety of favorable agricultural climates. These factors contribute to and enable the U. S. to be a uniquely large and productive agricultural producer. Indeed, the size and scope of farming in the U. S. is different than in most countries. Specifically, in 2001, U. S. farm land totaled 381 million hectares, a land area larger than the size of many entire countries. Of this, approximately 140 million hectares were devoted to cropland, with the rest devoted to pasture, forest, and other special uses. There were 2.16 million farms, with average farm size across all farms of 176 hectares ( approximately 10 times larger than average farm size in the European Union). The availability of land and the fact that so many U. S. regions are conducive to outdoor cultivation of fruits and vegetables, has had an important influence on the way agriculture has developed. Specifically, these factors have meant that greenhouse production has generally proven to be very costly ( in relative terms) and has as a consequence, been limited.

Other factors also affected the general development of farming in the U. S.. While land for farming is widely available, labor is generally more expensive and less plentiful. As a result, the U. S. has developed a system of highly mechanized farming practices that are highly reliant on pesticides such as methyl bromide and other non labor inputs. The extent of mechanization and reliance on non labor inputs can be best demonstrated by noting the very low levels of labor inputs on U. S. farms: in 2001, only 2.05 million workers operated the 2.16 million U. S. farms, with help from less than 1 million hired workers.

U. S. agriculture is also unique in terms of the broad range of crops produced. For example, the fruit and vegetable sector, the agricultural sector most reliant on methyl bromide, is diverse, and includes production of 107 separate fruit and vegetable commodities or groups of commodities. With this diversity, however, has come a large number of pest problems that methyl bromide has proven uniquely able to address.

Finally, the above factors have contributed to a harvest of commodities that has enabled the U. S. to meet not only its needs, but also the needs of many other countries. The U. S. produced 88.3 million metric tonnes of fruits and vegetables in 2001, up 10 percent from 1990. At the same time, the land planted in fruits and vegetables has remained stable, and individual farm size has increased as the number of farms has fallen. The related yield increases per land area are almost exclusively related to non labor inputs, like the adoption of new varieties, and the application of new production practices, including plastic mulches, row covers, high density planting, more effective pesticide sprays, and drip irrigation, as well as increased water irrigation practices. Optimization of yields through these and other scientific and mechanized practices make U. S. agricultural output very sensitive to changes in inputs. Therefore, as evidenced by the U. S. nomination for critical uses of methyl bromide, the phaseout of methyl bromide can have a very significant impact on both the technical and economic viability of production of certain crops in certain areas.

5b. Strawberry Nursery Production Most of the strawberry nursery stock is raised in California, with significant additional production occurring in the southeastern U. S. including the states of North Carolina and Tennessee. California nurserymen produce over one billion plants per year on about 1,295 hectares for national and international shipment. The typical California strawberry nursery is about 80 to 160 hectares. California growers use approximately 600,000,000 of these plants annually and 400,000,000 plants are Page 5 exported to other U. S. states, Canada, Europe, and Asia. The total value of California production is estimated at US$ 60 million, annually. California is able to produce strawberry rootstock for this wide distribution of climates because they have both high elevation and low elevation strawberry nurseries. As a consequence, this nomination covers use in a variety of areas with differing soil and climactic characteristics. Production of strawberry rootstock in the southeastern U. S. is primarily for various States in the southeast. In the United States, the strawberry nursery industry supplies plants that are used as root stock for strawberry fruit production and nursery plantings for the U. S., Canada, Mexico, Spain, and several South American countries. It is extremely important that these plants are pest and disease free in order to avoid the introduction of pests into strawberry fruit production areas and to ensure vigorous fruit producing plants. In the U. S., strawberry nursery production practices vary among regions. Strawberry nurseries produce two distinct types of plants  runner and plug.

California. In California, plug plants constitute only 1 percent of the strawberry transplants with the majority of production going to runner plants. The strawberry nursery growers fumigate plantings every year with methyl bromide as they move the plants through the 5 year cycle of: year 1  foundation plantings, year 2  screenhouse propagation, year 3  foundation increases, year 4  registered increases, and year 5  certified field increases. Strawberry nursery fields are typically rotated out of strawberry production for two years. The rotation crops that follow strawberry rootstock production benefit from the low levels of pests due to methyl bromide. These crop rotation commodities include: onions, garlic, endive, horseradish, mint, potatoes, sugar beets, alfalfa, barley, oats, wheat, and triticale.

California strawberry nurseries are at both high and low elevations, with high elevation nurseries representing 75% of the land area and low elevation nurseries representing 25% of the land area. . Seventy percent of the soils are mostly light and sandy which is optimal for deep root development. Sixty percent of fields are planted in spring, and fumigation may either be performed in the spring or fall, with deep fumigation required. Planting is mechanical and fields are generally hand weeded and the typical field size is 80 to 160 hectares ( 200 to 400 acres). Overhead irrigation, chemigation, and fertigation are used as plant canopy closes.

As nursery plants are harvested, some material is left in the field because of the harvesting techniques and the removal of foliage. Because strawberry plants are propagated vegetatively in order to maintain genetic characteristics, occurrence of volunteer plants from seed must be controlled to avoid genetically mixed plantings which would render them unsaleable.

Southeast. The Southeast nurseries produce both runner and plug plants. Runner plants are propagated on flat, unmulched beds. Methyl bromide is broadcast injected below the soil surface and then tarped in one operation with 1 mil clear plastic. When they reach maturity the freshly dug plants are sold primarily to North Carolina and Florida strawberry producers. About 1 hectare of nursery runner plants ( about 1,235,000 plants per hectare) supplies plant materials for about 5 hectares of production berries. Southeast strawberry nurseries can range in size from 1 to 30 hectares ( 3 to 80 acres) with the typical strawberry nursery having approximately 20 hectares ( 50 acres).

The use of plug plants is expanding in the Southeast and in contrast to runner plants, plug plants are produced from plantlets ( tips) propagated on raised, mulched beds that require fumigation. Roughly the same land area is required to produce these tips ( about 620,000 per hectare) as is required to produce the Page 6 bare root plants. The cost of plug plants is about 16 cents per plant compared to 8 cents per plant for the traditional bare root plants. However, the use of plug plants reduces the costs of both planting and plant establishment because the planting can be mechanized and there is a reduction in irrigation cost. Additionally, the plug plant system is more tolerant of extreme weather conditions. The reduced rates required to fumigate a raised bed with methyl bromide verses the rates required to fumigate a flat bed would result in a 40% savings in terms of amount of actual methyl bromide used.

Production in the strawberry nursery sector is also subject, as is all nursery production, to a number of legal requirements designed to restrict the spread of pest to areas not currently infested. In some cases these restrictions explicitly require fumigation with methyl bromide. In other cases, the need for pests to be controlled to non detectable levels has implicitly required that methyl bromide be used because of its efficacy and reliability. Because methyl bromide is known to be so effective, some protocols for nursery facilities do not even require sampling of the nursery stock to determine that it is pest free, it is simply assumed to be so. If an alternative to methyl bromide is used, sampling may be required with the potential for destruction of 100 percent of the strawberry stock if detectable levels of pests are found.

In general, U. S. society has a strong interest in avoiding the spread of pests and in maintaining healthy and pest free propagative material which must be weighed against other kinds of environmental damage. In addition, vigorous, healthy, pest free stock produces more fruit when in production than plants burdened with a pest or disease infestation. Specifically, according to the California Strawberry Nursery Association, when data is generated for alternative chemical replacements for methyl bromide using strawberry transplants that have not been produced in nursery beds fumigated with methyl bromide, 7.5 percent yield reduction in fruit production can be calculated relative to fruit produced by nursery plants fumigated with methyl bromide irrespective of the type of pesticide treatment of the fruit producing plant.. In the U. S., producers of organically grown strawberries have stated that they cannot produce organically grown strawberries unless they receive root stock that has been treated with methyl bromide. ( Communication from the U. S. methyl bromide review team.)

Nursery stock regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) require that nursery stock for commercial farm planting be nematicide free ( CDFA Code of Regulations Sections 3055 to 3055.6 and 3640).

Additionally, there are specific soil treatment and handling procedures to facilitate compliance with the regulations for the Nursery Stock Nematode Control Program. Under California regulatory laws, nursery crops must be " free of especially injurious pests and disease symptoms" and " commercially clean with respect to established pests of general distribution" in order to qualify for a nursery stock certificate for interstate and intrastate shipments. Strawberry nurserymen must document compliance on a monthly basis and if they are found to have nursery stock with nematodes, 100% of their strawberry root stock is at risk for a loss. These plants represent a 5 year investment by the nursery grower and are shipped worldwide as both nursery and production plants. There are wide and specific destination quarantine restrictions and international quarantine control issues involved with shipment of nursery stock.

Tennessee, North Carolina, and most of the other Southeastern states, have either general and/ or specific plant protection and nursery stock regulations that require strawberry nursery plants being transported within or into the state, to be essentially free of pests and diseases. Page 7 6. Results of Review  Determined Need for Methyl Bromide in the Production of Strawberry Nurseries 6a. Target Pests Controlled with Methyl Bromide Strawberry nurseries in the U. S. contend with a variety of pests. The pests which have a significant impact on the quantity and quality of the rootstock and the subsequent production of strawberry fruit are the fungi which produce Black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.), Crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum); the Root Knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.); and the weed species Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) and Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus). Although nutsedge is generally less of a problem in nursery soils than in fruit production operations, when there is weed pressure, more likely in the Southeast than in other regions, hand and mechanical weed control is limited and difficult in runner plant production. The critical use exemption nomination is based primarily on the need to provide pestfree root stock to have healthy and vigorous producing stock and to avoid introducing pest species into areas where they are not already common, although the need to control the above mentioned pests is also important in maintaining yield and quality of the runner plants.

Fungal diseases. Crown root rot, caused by Phytophthora cactorum, causes rotting of the crown of the plant, followed by plant death, often just as fruiting is starting. Phytophthora blight is one of the most destructive diseases and there are few control measures. Resistance to metalaxyl has been documented for Phytophthora species. Black root rot, caused by Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp., is also very common and destructive syndrome affecting strawberry and other crops. Plants with black root rot complex do not grow properly and soon die. The root system will be dark and rotten, and there will be a noticeable absence of small feeder roots. In California's strawberry nursery areas, phytophthora is the major problem controlled with methyl bromide, and this disease is endemic to California.

Root knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.) Root damage caused by these nematodes leads to reduced rooting systems, which in turn lead to reduced water and nutrient uptake. The gall formation induced by the nematodes at their root feeding sites results in symptoms like stunting, wilting, and chlorosis, and renders the plant more susceptible to secondary infections. Preplant control of nematodes is important because once root damage is done and symptoms are evident, it is very difficult to avoid significant yield losses. Nematodes are found in all nursery areas in the U. S.

Yellow & purple nutsedge: ( Cyperus spp.) Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus L.) and purple nutsedge Cyperus rotundus L.) are perennial species of the Cyperacea family that are widely recognized for their detrimental economic impact on agriculture. Purple nutsedge is considered the world's worst weed due to its widespread distribution and the difficulties in controlling it ( Holm et al., 1977). Purple nutsedge is considered a weed in at least 92 countries and is reported infesting at least 52 different crops. Yellow nutsedge is listed among the top fifteen worst weeds. Yellow nutsedge is found throughout the continental U. S. Purple nutsedge is primarily found in southern coastal U. S. and along the Pacific coast in California and Oregon. A survey conducted in Georgia ranked the nutsedges as the most troublesome weeds in vegetable crops ( there are more 30 vegetable crops grown in Georgia) and among the top five most troublesome weeds in corn, cotton, peanut, and soybean ( Webster et al., 2001). Page 8 Nutsedge is propagated by tubers formed along underground rhizomes and corms. The parent tuber could be a tuber or a corm from the previous generation. During tillage of the soil, the underground stems are broken and new plants are established from either single or chains of tubers or corms. A single plant is capable of producing 1,200 new tubers within 25 weeks ( Gilreath et al., 1999). Each tuber is capable of sprouting several times ( Thullen et al., 1975). Tuber populations between 1,000 and 8,700 per/ m2 have been reported for purple nutsedge ( Gamini et al., 1987). Nutsedge is very difficult to eradicate once it is established because of dormancy factors in the tubers and their ability to survive an array of adverse conditions for long periods of time. Nutsedge species are strong competitors with most vegetable crops for water and nutrients and can dramatically reduce crop yields, even at low plant densities, if not controlled effectively.

Purple and yellow nutsedge are serious problems in polyethylene film mulch vegetable production systems. Most weeds are controlled by these films, but nutsedges are able to penetrate the plastic films and actively compete with the vegetable crops, causing yield losses reported between 41 and 89 percent ( Patterson, 1998).

There are very few herbicides that provide effective nutsedge control in high pest pressure scenarios and none are registered for use in strawberry plant production in the U. S. The herbicides that are available for these crops are generally older chemicals that are marginally effective against the spectrum of weeds that are problematic for strawberry plants. Among the areas covered by this nomination for continued methyl bromide use in strawberry nurseries, 40 to 60 percent of the area in the southeast, including North Carolina and Tennessee, are moderately to highly infested with nutsedge.

6b. Overview of Technical and Economic Assessment of Alternatives Methyl bromide has been recognized as being a significant contributor to the success of a robust U. S. strawberry nursery industry by providing consistent and effective treatment for target pests. Most chemical alternatives do not deliver the deep fumigation control obtained with methyl bromide and nonchemical alternatives alone are insufficient. Refer to Table 1 and Table 2 below for a complete listing of the MBTOC alternatives.

There has been extensive research on alternatives for the strawberry fruit sector, and some of the research is applicable to the strawberry nursery sector. The findings have been incorporated into nursery production where possible. However, the effectiveness of chemical and non chemical alternatives designed to fully replace methyl bromide must still be characterized as preliminary. These alternatives have not been shown to be stand alone replacements for methyl bromide, and no combination has been shown to provide effective, economical pest control to the level necessitated by the legal and market requirements for nursery stock.

1,3 Dichloropropene appears to be an effective alternative to methyl bromide for various crops. However, since 1,3 dichloropropene is a hazardous air pollutant and is managed to prevent groundwater contamination, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( CDPR) has set limits on how much 1,3 dichloropropene can be used in each township in California. In 1997, 40% of 1,3 dichloropropene use was for carrots, with potatoes, including sweet potatoes, being the next largest single crop use, and perennial crops, including grapes, almonds, and walnuts, also accounting for a substantial proportion of use ( Carpenter and Lynch 1999). As a result of the methyl bromide phase out, likely crops to switch to Page 9 1,3 dichloropropene include strawberries, strawberry nurseries, various other vegetable crops, and perennials. These other crops will compete for 1,3 dichloropropene with crops that currently use methyl bromide. Given the regulatory caps on total use of this alternative, which are applied by townships ( subdivisions of counties) some growers will require continued use of methyl bromide because they will be ` closed out' of use of the 1,3 dichloropropene. Timing of use is also an issue with caps. If the caps are exceeded early in the year, when most crops are planted, there will be no more 1,3 dichloropropene allocation available for growers who want to use it later.

We begin our technical and economic assessment by presenting in kind ( chemical) alternatives, and then describe the attributes of the not in kind alternatives.

6c. Technical Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives Table . In Kind Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by MBTOC for Strawberry Nurseries. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Technically Feasible Economically Feasible 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin No No 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin/ Metam sodium No No 1,3 dichloropropene/ Metam sodium No No 1,3 Dichloropropene/ chloropicrin General Issues: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin is not technically feasible because it does not adequately control pests and diseases to the level required by various state laws, and results in yield losses in nursery plants. 1,3 Dichloropropene provides good nematode control, only moderate disease control, and poor weed control. A 90 meter ( 300 feet) buffer requirement would be particularly constraining on smaller fields in predominantly urban fringe areas, which is particular concern for the southeastern U. S. Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE) requirements also limit operations that require workers in the field, particularly given the high temperatures which occur both in California and the southeast, exacerbated by high humidity in the southeast. Workers wearing the required Personal Protective Equipment become at risk for possible heat exhaustion or heat stroke. For example, PPE may require applicators to wear fully sealed suits, with respirators. Such suits are do not have refrigeration components, and under conditions of high heat and humidity, rapidly become unbearable for a typical applicator. Growers believe that the requirements for buffers and PPE may make it impractical to adopt 1,3 dichloropropene. The buffer requirements, especially for the small farms in the Eastern U. S., eliminate so much area around the perimeter of a field that there is very little left that can be treated using 1,3 dichloropropene alone to grow strawberries. Chloropicrin provides good disease control, but poor nematode and weed control. Workers complain about eye and lung irritation when applying chloropicrin.

Chloropicrin has been determined to be a toxic air contaminant by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. This compound may be subject to future regulatory constraints, including increased buffer zones. Effective rates for chloropicrin of 225 kg/ ha ( 200 pounds per acre) or greater are prohibited or strongly discouraged for both shank and drip applications of this product. Products containing chloropicrin cannot be applied through PVC pipe because of the corrosive Page 10 nature of this chemical. Workers have also expressed concerns about eye and lung irritation when applying chloropicrin.

If sequential application of these two chemicals is used, as opposed to applying both at the same time, more time is required than using methyl bromide alone since growers must wait longer after soil fumigation to set the root stock in the ground. Growers have a greater planting delay for several weeks, which will extend their production schedule. This directly impacts cultivar options, Integrated Pest Management practices, timing of planting and harvest for strawberry fruit production, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules.

California: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin is not technically feasible because it does not adequately control nematodes to the level required by state law and results in yield losses in nursery plants. Nursery stock regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) require that nursery stock for commercial farm planting be nematode free ( CDFA Code of Regulations Sections 3055 to 3055.6 and 3640). Additionally, there are specific soil treatment and handling procedures to facilitate compliance with the regulations for the Nursery Stock Nematode Control Program. Under California regulatory laws, nursery crops must be " free of especially injurious pests and disease symptoms" and " commercially clean with respect to established pests of general distribution."

The yield loss estimate for the 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin combination is approximately 9 percent which is based on data presented in peer reviewed scientific publications. Findings from California nurseries reveal losses of 9 percent of the nursery stock with a high proportion of chloropicrin ( 30/ 70, 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin). With a low proportion of chloropicrin ( 70/ 30, 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin), the yield loss was 16 percent of the nursery stock. The degree of yield reduction with alternative fumigants depends on the production scenario. Less runner production, less vigorous plants, and phytotoxicity can also cause a loss in fruit production. Amplification of pest problems that occur in nurseries is highly likely. Complete crop loss can occur if the nursery stock cannot be certified as nematode free.

Southeast: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin is not technically feasible because it does not adequately control pests to the level required by state law and, because areas with high infestations of nutsedge will not be adequately controlled. Tennessee state regulations say that, " No strawberry plants shall be sold, offered, stored, or held for sale, or transported within or into the State of Tennessee unless they have been certified as being essentially free of insect pests and plant diseases by a legally constituted agency designated for such purpose in the states, other states, territories, or counties."

Similarly in North Carolina, state regulations mandate that " No person shall distribute, sell or offer for sale nursery stock or collected plants without a valid nursery dealer certificate, plant inspection certificate, or nursery registration certificate as required in these rules." A plant inspection certificate is " a document issued by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture or the appropriate Page 11 plant pest regulatory agency of any other state which declares that the plants grown by the person named on the certificate have been inspected and found apparently free of injurious plant pests. "

The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin is being used on a limited basis in the Southeast, but its usefulness is limited due to the juxtapostion of the small size of the nursery operations and the 300 ft buffer requirements. The estimates for Southeastern strawberry nurseries yield losses range from 0 percent to 20 percent. The yield loss estimate calculated based on data presented in production field trials is 5 percent. The most likely estimate of expected yield loss associated with 1,3 dichloropropene and chloropicrin in the southeast is approximately 10 percent, but could go as high as 60 percent if there are low levels of phytotoxicity from chloropicrin ( some studies show that chloropicrin can cause high levels of phytotoxicity). Since 1,3 dichloropropene dissipates more slowly than methyl bromide ( about 3 weeks verses 1 2 weeks), there are increased risks associated with weather related delays in planting which may result in a less robust plant.

When 1,3 dichloropropene is used in combination with chloropicrin, Southeast growers can experience limited flexibility in scheduling fumigation operations due to the higher required soil temperatures for this combination to be used. Delays in soil fumigation for the root stock could force growers to set all of their transplants out at one time instead of spacing out the plantings so that they don't have to harvest all the berries at one time. This could also eliminate the planting and harvest of early cultivars, which are often the cultivars of great demand and high value in the strawberry market. Also, delays in planting often decrease the yield and quality of the fruit In the instances where weeds are a problem ( in the southeast nutsedge is of particular concern), this chemical combination would require an effective herbicide to adequately control the problems. This combination of chemicals would require a herbicide companion or hand weeding at great expense, approximately US$ 1,250 per hectare ( US$ 500 per acre). Hand weeding is not a desirable practice for controlling nutsedge. The process of hand weeding will remove nutsedge plants on the surface but results in releasing the below ground tubers from dormancy and resulting in their growth. Since nutsedge plants can have 10 to 30 tubers per plant this cascading effect results in a 10 to 30 fold increase in nutsedge plants in the field. There are no herbicides registered or currently undergoing testing in the U. S. for control of nutsedge in strawberries.

1,3 Dichloropropene/ chloropicrin/ metam sodium General Issues: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin and metam sodium is not technically feasible because it does not adequately control pests and diseases to the level required by various state laws, and results in yield losses in nursery plants. 1,3 Dichloropropene is a good nematicide and chloropicrin is a good fungicide. Metam sodium provides moderate but unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed control since it suffers from erratic efficacy, most likely due to irregular distribution of the product through soil. Metam sodium degrades in the soil to form methylisothiocyanate, which has activity against nematodes, fungi, insects, and weeds. Methyl bromide has a higher vapor pressure than metam sodium, therefore can penetrate and diffuse throughout the soil more effectively than metam sodium. In addition, the effectiveness of metam sodium is very dependent on the organic matter and moisture content of the soil. Studies to evaluate best delivery systems for metam sodium are being conducted. Some studies have shown that soil injections and drenches are more effective than drip irrigation. Research trials show that Page 12 incorporation of metam sodium with a tractor mounted tillovator provides good results but most growers do not have this equipment. A 3 week time interval before planting is recommended to avoid phytotoxic levels; causing delays/ adjustments in production schedules that could lead to missing specific market windows, thus reducing profit or actually causing a loss for a grower.

The combination of the three chemicals would still require a companion herbicide or hand weeding. Failure to control the full spectrum of weeds could most lead to increased disease pressure over time because the weeds can be reservoirs for disease or act as harborage for insect vectors of disease. Also, in strawberry fruit production, there is demand for pest free strawberry root stock. The nursery growers who do not supply this type of product will be forced out of the market.

As with the 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin combination ( above) there are issues with the use of Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE) in the hot or hot and humid climates of California and the southeastern U. S. In addition, the buffer requirement of 90 meters ( 300 feet) would be particularly constraining on smaller fields in predominantly urban fringe areas. For small strawberry nursery operations in the southeastern U. S., the 1,3 dichloropropene buffer requirements eliminate a a large area around the field perimeter which impacts the total area available for strawberry nursery production.

Chloropicrin has been determined to be a toxic air contaminant by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. This compound may be subject to future regulatory constraints, including increased buffer zones. Effective rates for chloropicrin of 225 kg/ ha ( 200 pounds per acre) or greater are prohibited or strongly discouraged for both shank and drip applications of this product. Products containing chloropicrin cannot be applied through PVC pipe because of the corrosive nature of this chemical. Workers have also expressed concerns about eye and lung irritation when applying chloropicrin.

Sequential application of each one of these chemicals requires significantly more time than using methyl bromide alone since growers must wait longer after fumigation to put the strawberry root stock in the ground. Growers have a greater planting delay for several weeks, which will extend their production schedule. This directly impacts cultivar options, Integrated Pest Management practices, timing of planting and harvest for strawberry fruit production, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules. Since growers will require rootstock at a fixed time during the year, the nursery plants could be of lower grade and quality ( smaller) causing loss to both the nursery grower and the fruit grower.

California: The combination of 1,3 dichoropropene, chloropicrin and metam sodium is not a technically feasible alternative because complete crop loss can occur if the nursery stock cannot be certified as nematode free. Nursery stock regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) require that nursery stock for commercial farm planting be nematode free ( CDFA Code of Regulations Sections 3055 to 3055.6 and 3640). Page 13 Southeast: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene, chloropicrin and metam sodium is not technically feasible because it does not adequately control pests to the level required by state law. Tennessee state regulations say that, " No strawberry plants shall be sold, offered, stored, or held for sale, or transported within or into the State of Tennessee unless they have been certified as being essentially free of insect pests and plant diseases by a legally constituted agency designated for such purpose in the states, other states, territories, or counties."

Similarly in North Carolina, state regulations mandate that " No person shall distribute, sell or offer for sale nursery stock or collected plants without a valid nursery dealer certificate, plant inspection certificate, or nursery registration certificate as required in these rules." A plant inspection certificate is " a document issued by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture or the appropriate plant pest regulatory agency of any other state which declares that the plants grown by the person named on the certificate have been inspected and found apparently free of injurious plant pests. "

In the instances where weeds are a problem ( in the southeast nutsedge is of particular concern), this chemical three way combination still not provide effective control of nutsedge. This combination of chemicals would require a herbicide companion or hand weeding at great expense, approximately US $ 1,250 per hectare ( US$ 500 per acre). Hand weeding is not a desirable practice for controlling nutsedge. The process of hand weeding will remove nutsedge plants on the surface but results in releasing the below ground tubers from dormancy and resulting in their growth. Since nutsedge plants can have 10 to 30 tubers per plant this cascading effect results in a 10 to 30 fold increase in nutsedge plants in the field. There are no herbicides registered or currently undergoing testing in the U. S. for control of nutsedge in strawberries.

1,3 Dichloropropene/ Metam Sodium.

General Issues: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and metam sodium is not technically feasible because it does not adequately control pests and diseases to the level required by various state laws, and results in yield losses in nursery plants. 1,3 Dichloropropene is a good nematicide and metam sodium provides moderate but unpredictable disease, nematode, and weed control. As indicated above, metam also suffers from erratic efficacy, most likely due to irregular distribution of the product through soil. The combination of these chemicals would still require a companion herbicide or hand weeding. Failure to control the weed seed in soil would most likely lead to increased disease pressure over time. Also, in strawberry fruit production, there is demand for pest free strawberry root stock. The nursery growers who do not supply this type of product will be forced out of the market.

As with the other suggested combinations ( above) there are issues with the use of Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE) in the hot or hot and humid climates of California and the southeastern U. S. In addition, the buffer requirement of 90 meters ( 300 feet) would be particularly constraining on smaller fields in predominantly urban fringe areas. For small strawberry nursery operations in the southeastern U. S., the 1,3 dichloropropene buffer requirements eliminate a a large area around the field perimeter which impacts the total area available for strawberry nursery production. Sequential application of each one of these chemicals requires significantly more time than using methyl bromide alone since growers must wait longer after fumigation to put the strawberry root Page 14 stock in the ground. Growers have a greater planting delay for several weeks, which will extend their production schedule. This directly impacts cultivar options, Integrated Pest Management practices, timing of planting and harvest for strawberry fruit production, marketing window options, land leasing decisions, and subsequent crop rotation schedules. Since growers will require rootstock at a fixed time during the year, the nursery plants could be of lower grade and quality ( smaller) causing loss to both the nursery grower and the fruit grower.

California: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and metam sodium is not a technically feasible alternative because complete crop loss can occur if the nursery stock cannot be certified as nematode free. Nursery stock regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) require that nursery stock for commercial farm planting be nematode free ( CDFA Code of Regulations Sections 3055 to 3055.6 and 3640).

Southeast: The combination of 1,3 dichloropropene and metam sodium is not technically feasible because it does not adequately control pests to the level required by state law. Tennessee state regulations say that, " No strawberry plants shall be sold, offered, stored, or held for sale, or transported within or into the State of Tennessee unless they have been certified as being essentially free of insect pests and plant diseases by a legally consituted ageny designated for such purpose in the states, other states, territories, or counties."

Similarly in North Carolina, state regulations mandate that " No person shall distibute, sell or offer for sale nursery stock or collected plants without a valid nursery dealer certificate, plant inspection certificate, or nursery registration certificate as required in these rules." A plant inspection certificate is " a document issued by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture or the appropriate plant pest regulatory agency of any other state which declares that the plants grown by the person named on the certificate have been inspected and found apparently free of injurious plant pests. "

6d. Economic Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives None of the alternatives listed by MBTOC and reviewed above were found to be technically feasible for strawberry nurseries therefore no economic analysis was conducted.

As discussed above, this critical use exemption nomination is based primarily on the need to provide pest free root stock to have healthy and vigorous producing stock and to avoid introducing pest species into areas where they are not already common, although the need to control the above mentioned pests is also important. Research findings submitted by applicants indicate that when strawberry nursery stock that has not been treated with methyl bromide is used to produce strawberry fruit, fruit production is 7.5 percent lower that if methyl bromide treated stock is used. This result is independent of the pesticide regimen used during field production of strawberry fruit. In addition, requirements that nursery stock have non detectable levels of pests, and the associated costs and risk imposed by the certification requirements, mean that there is no feasible alternative to methyl bromide in practice. It is often the case with certification programs that if one uses methyl bromide, one is assumed to have met the pest free standard, but if an alternative is used one must prove that the standard has been met. Proof requires testing, which has costs, and carries with it the Page 15 risk that the standard has not met which will require destruction of the entire shipment of nursery stock.

6e. Technical Feasibility of Not In Kind ( Non Chemical) Alternatives This section summarizes the analysis of the remainder of the methyl bromide alternatives identified by MBTOC for strawberry nursery production, primarily non chemical alternatives. Table 2 contains a summary of the technical assessment, which is that none of these alternatives were found to be technically feasible. Because no alternative was found to be technically feasible no economic assessment was conducted. A description of each alternative follows.

Table . Not in Kind Methyl Bromide Alternatives Identified by the MBTOC for Strawberry Nursery Production. Methyl Bromide Alternative Technically Feasible Economically Feasible Crop rotation/ fallow No No General IPM ( Integrated Pest Management) No No Biofumigation No No Solarization No No Soilless culture No No Substrates/ plug plants No No Crop Rotation/ Fallow. Crop rotation/ fallow is being used in strawberry nursery stock production, but it is not technically feasible when used alone to control target pests. In the U. S., is it common for nursery growers to rotate strawberries with other non host crops to provide non host periods of production. In California, crop rotation serves as an effective pest management technique that helps keep per hectare strawberry productivity 50% higher than that of the national average yield. In the Southeast where production areas per grower is small, rotation does not always work since easy access to fields, and more importantly, visibility of the fields from passing cars is especially important for U pick operations.

Crop rotation/ fallow are not technically feasible alternatives because they do not control nutsedge. Crop rotation and fallow are effective tool for management of weeds, diseases and nematodes, especially as part of an IPM program. However, these practices may be difficult for growers of high value crops; especially in areas were land is a limited and expensive resource. Agronomic crops are more effective competitors than vegetable crops and planting dates are difficult to adjust for vegetable crops due to marketing factors. There are registered herbicides that are effective for nutsedge control in agronomic crops. These herbicides are not available for most fruit or vegetable crops, and many of them have 12 to 26 month carryover restrictions for vegetable crops.

Crop rotation and fallow will not suppress nutsedge. Johnson & Mullinix ( 1997) showed that uninterrupted plantings of peanut, corn, or cotton, with moderate levels of weed management suppressed yellow nutsedge in Georgia. Their data also showed an increase in nutsedge densities in fallow plots, likely due to the longevity of nutsedge tubers in soil, mild winters that prevent winter kill of tubers, and the ability of tubers to regenerate with the long growing season in the southeastern Page 16 coastal plain. There are also reports of increasing populations of yellow nutsedge in fallowed fields, even when weed control/ management is performed. Since there are no herbicides registered for use on strawberry plants that will effectively control nutsedge, management of these weeds during short term rotations and fallow is not effective.

General IPM ( Integrated Pest Management). IPM, the use of pest monitoring activities coupled with chemical and non chemical management tools, has been adopted for management of weed, diseases, and nematodes on solanaceous crops. However, problematic weeds like nutsedge and nightshade, and soilborne diseases and nematodes are not effectively controlled by these practices.

General IPM is being used in strawberry nursery stock production, but it is not technically feasible alone to provide adequate pest control. IPM practices include field sanitation to limit inoculum buildup, crop rotation to provide non host periods, and breeding for resistance to pathogens.

Biofumigation. Biofumigation is not technically feasible because it does not provide adequate control of target pests to produce a certifiable strawberry nursery stock. Research conducted in Florida showed some control of plant pathogens but no control of nematodes or weeds in the soil. In cases where biofumigation have been shown to control weeds, the data are mostly for small seeded weed species that have small carbohydrate energy sources compared to nutsedge. The data on biofumigation are too limited to consider it as a practical alternative to methyl bromide.

In addition, biofumigation is not technically feasible because the quantity of Brassica crop needed to control target pests would be approximately 3 hectares for every hectare of strawberry production. Incorporation of Brassica at these levels are likely to have allelopathic effects on the target crop. In the Southeast, production field trials with cabbage residue and tomato produced inconsistent and inadequate efficacy, and poor yields in two years out of three. The yield losses could range from 0%  50%.

Solarization. Solarization is not a technically feasible alternative because it does not provide adequate control of target pests to produce certifiable strawberry nursery stock. Use of solarization is not practical due to the depth of heating required to eliminate viable weed seed, nematodes, and disease organisms. The time for solarization to raise soil temperatures to the level needed to kill soil pathogens in any strawberry nursery region is likely to also be the time when the crops themselves must complete their growth cycle. Unpredictable, stormy summer weather still creates risks and may damage mulch. In one Southeast field trial, solarization gave poor yields in two years out of three with a loss ranging from 0% to 40%.

Cover crops/ Mulching. Cover crops/ mulching is currently being used but it is not technically feasible as a complete replacement for methyl bromide to control the target pest and certify the nursery stock. The use of cover crops is a common practice to improve soil structure and suppress an array of soilborne pathogens. Cover crops and mulches have been integrated to solanaceous crop production management.

Some cover crops that have been shown to reduce weed populations also reduced or delayed crop maturity and/ or emergence, as well as yields ( Burgos et al., 1996; Galloway et al., 1996). Cowpea and sunn hemp have been shown to suppress nutsedge, but the effect is short lived, due to the weed's Page 17 capacity for rapid tuber production. Allelochemicals released by some cover crops or organic mulches can injure crops ( Johnson et al., 1993; Norsworthy, 2002).

Soilless Culture. Soilless culture is not being used and it is not technically feasible because it requires a complete transformation of the U. S. production system. There are high costs associated with this as compared to current production practices. According to data provided by The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, a greenhouse typically costs between US$ 12.5 million and US$ 20 million per hectare. Although yields obtained through greenhouse production are higher than that of California's best conventional growers, the issue of capitalization for this and other Sectors make the alternative not practically feasible as a near term strategy to reduce reliance on methyl bromide.

Substrates/ plug plants. Substrates/ plug plants are currently being produced and sold in the southeast and to a very limited extent in California but this method alone does not provide pest control and would fail to produce a pest free product. Furthermore, this method would require extensive retooling by the nursery industry.

7. Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Strawberry Nurseries The critical use exemption nomination for the strawberry nursery sector were submitted by consortia representing nurseries in two different regions in the U. S.: California and the southeastern United States ( North Carolina and Tennessee).

The actual amount requested by for California strawberry nurseries for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 on a total of 1,295 hectares is in Table 3. The application rates conform to standard nursery practices in this region.

Table 3. Methyl Bromide Usage and Request for Strawberry Nurseries in California: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 kilograms 308,860 313,200 341,230 337,604 341,022 358,400 358,400 358,400 hectares 1,128 1,153 1,267 1,283 1,295 1,360 1,360 1,360 rate ( kg/ ha) 274 272 269 263 263 264 264 264 It appears that the application rate in California may be declining which would be consistent with the fact that the applicant has changed their formulation of methyl bromide from a 98/ 2 formulation with proportions of methyl bromide/ chloropicrin to a formulation with 67/ 33 of methyl bromide/ chloropicrin.

The actual amount requested by strawberry nurseries in the southeastern for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 on behalf of growers in North Carolina and Tennessee on a total of 63 hectares is in Table 4. Application rates appear to be declining in the North Carolina and Tennessee as well. Page 18 Table 4. Methyl Bromide Usage and Request for Strawberry Nurseries in North Carolina and Tennessee: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 kilograms 18,136 18,136 12,400 15,438 18,960 22,610 18,960 18,960 hectares 41 41 41 51 63 83 63 63 rate ( kg/ ha) 439 439 300 300 300 271 300 300 The total U. S. nomination has been determined based first on consideration of the requests we received and an evaluation of the supporting material. This evaluation, which resulted in a reduction in the amount being nominated, included careful examination of issues. These issues included: proportion of the growing area infested with the key target ( economically significant) pests for which methyl bromide is required; the extent of regulatory constraints on the use of registered alternatives ( buffer zones, township caps); environmental concerns ( such as soil based restrictions due to potential drinking water contamination); and, historic use rates, among other factors.

Table 5. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Strawberry Nurseries. Year Total Request by Applicants ( kilograms) U. S. Sector Nomination ( kilograms) 2005 380,948 54,988 8. Minimizing Use/ Emissions of Methyl Bromide in the United States/ Stockpiles In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, we will now describe ways in which we strive to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. While each sector based nomination includes information on this topic, we thought it would be useful to provide some general information that is applicable to most methyl bromide uses in the country The use of methyl bromide in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide is regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used by certified applicators who are trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to achieve the needed results. In keeping with both local requirements to avoid " drift" of methyl bromide into inhabited areas, as well as to preserve methyl bromide and keep related emissions to the lowest level possible, methyl bromide is machine injected into soil to specific depths. In addition, as methyl bromide has become more scarce, users in the United States have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl bromide was typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made up of 98% methyl bromide and 2% chloropicrin, with the chloropicrin being included solely to give the chemical a smell enabling those in the area to be alerted if there was a risk. However, with the outset of very significant controls on methyl bromide, users have been experimenting with significant increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions in the level of methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown. Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, more mechanized soil injection techniques, and the extensive use of tarps to cover land treated with methyl bromide has resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that we believe is among the lowest in the world. Page 19 In terms of compliance, in general, the United States has used a combination of tight production and import controls, and the related market impacts to ensure compliance with the Protocol requirements on methyl bromide. Indeed, over the last   years, the price of methyl bromide has increased substantially. As Chart 1 in Appendix D demonstrates, the application of these policies has led to a more rapid U. S. phasedown in methyl bromide consumption than required under the Protocol. This accelerated phasedown on the consumption side may also have enabled methyl bromide production to be stockpiled to some extent to help mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with the Protocol's 2003 and 2004 70% reduction. We are currently uncertain as to the exact quantity of existing stocks going into the 2003 season that may be stockpiled in the U. S. We currently believe that the limited existing stocks are likely to be depleted during 2003 and 2004. This factor is reflected in our requests for 2005 and beyond.

At the same time we have made efforts to reduce emissions and use of methyl bromide, we have also made strong efforts to find alternatives to methyl bromide. The section that follows discusses those efforts.

9. U. S. Efforts to Find, Register and Commercialize Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Over the past ten years, the United States has committed significant financial and technical resources to the goal of seeking alternatives to methyl bromide that are technically and economically feasible to provide pest protection for a wide variety of crops, soils, and pests, while also being acceptable in terms of human health and environmental impacts. The U. S. pesticide registration program has established a rigorous process to ensure that pesticides registered for use in the United States do no present an unreasonable risk of health or environmental harm. Within the program, we have given the highest priority to rapidly reviewing methyl bromide alternatives, while maintaining our high domestic standard of environmental protection. A number of alternatives have already been registered for use, and several additional promising alternatives are under review at this time. Our research efforts to find new alternatives to methyl bromide and move them quickly toward registration and commercialization have allowed us to make great progress over the last decade in phasing out many uses of methyl bromide. However, these efforts have not provided effective alternatives for all crops, soil types and pest pressures, and we have accordingly submitted a critical use nomination to address these limited additional needs.

Research Program When the United Nations, in 1992, identified methyl bromide as a chemical that contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and the Clean Air Act committed the U. S. to phase out the use of methyl bromide, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) initiated a research program to find viable alternatives. Finding alternatives for agricultural uses is extremely complicated compared to replacements for other, industrially used ozone depleting substances because many factors affect the efficacy such as: crop, climate, soil type, and target pests, which change from region to region and even among localities within a region. Page 20 Through 2002, the USDA Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) alone has spent US$ 135.5 million to implement an aggressive research program to find alternatives to methyl bromide ( see Table below). Through the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA has provided an additional $ 11.4m since 1993 to state universities for alternatives research and outreach. This federally supported research is a supplement to extensive sector specific private sector efforts, and that all of this research is very well considered. Specifically, the phaseout challenges brought together agricultural and forestry leaders from private industry, academia, state governments, and the federal government to assess the problem, formulate priorities, and implement research directed at providing solutions under the USDA's Methyl Bromide Alternatives program. The ARS within USDA has 22 national programs, one of which is the Methyl Bromide Alternatives program ( Select Methyl Bromide Alternatives at this web site: http:// www. nps. ars. usda. gov ). The resulting research program has taken into account these inputs, as well as the extensive private sector research and trial demonstrations of alternatives to methyl bromide. While research has been undertaken in all sectors, federal government efforts have been based on the input of experts as well as the fact that nearly 80 percent of preplant methyl bromide soil fumigation is used in a limited number of crops. Accordingly, much of the federal government pre plant efforts have focused on strawberries, tomatoes, ornamentals, peppers and nursery crops, ( forest, ornamental, strawberry, pepper, tree, and vine), with special emphasis on tomatoes in Florida and strawberries in California as model crops.

Table 6. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Funding History Year Million ( US$) 1993 $ 7.255 1994 $ 8.453 1995 $ 13.139 1996 $ 13.702 1997 $ 14.580 1998 $ 14.571 1999 $ 14.380 2000 $ 14.855 2001 $ 16.681 2002 $ 17.880 The USDA/ ARS strategy for evaluating possible alternatives is to first test the approaches in controlled experiments to determine efficacy, then testing those that are effective in field plots. The impact of the variables that affect efficacy is addressed by conducting field trials at multiple locations with different crops and against various diseases and pests. Alternatives that are effective in field plots are then tested in field scale validations, frequently by growers in their own fields. University scientists are also participants in this research. Research teams that include ARS and university scientists, extension personnel, and grower representatives meet periodically to evaluate research results and plan future trials.

Research results submitted with the CUE request packages ( including published, peer reviewed studies by ( primarily) university researchers, university extension reports, and unpublished studies) include trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and non chemical alternatives to methyl bromide, including some potential alternatives that are not currently included in the MBTOC list. Page 21 Government funded studies related to U. S. strawberry nursery production that are currently on going include the following:

1. Cultural and Biological Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Strawberries ( Oct 2000  Sep 2004) Identify and characterize the cultural and biological alternatives for control of strawberry black root rot using an integrated approach. Specific alternatives to be tested include: 1) use of subsoiling and raised beds; 2) incorporation of suppressive compost; 3) use of rotation crops; 4) use of beneficial microorganisms with compost and transplant dips. 2. Alternative Fumigants for Control of Soilborne Pests: Strawberry As a Model System ( Sep 2000  Mar 2005) Evaluate the effect of methyl bromide replacement soil fumigants on pathogen control and plant health in strawberry nursery and production fields. Also will evaluate the effect of fumigants on beneficial microbes in the soil.

3. Biological Agricultural Systems in Strawberry Organic Agricultural Systems in Strawberry ( Jan 2000  Jun 2002) An organized outreach and research program will employ collaboration between farmers, PCAs, weed scientists, entomologists and plant pathologists. The group will document the efficacy and suitability of BASIS and OASIS insect, weed, pathogen, fertility and soil management. An integrated biological control system and bioherbicide will be compared to conventional production with methyl bromide and pesticide use. Work will be conducted at 10 sites this year. Plant disease and weed suppression will be documented. Treatments will be evaluated based on yield of strawberries.

4. Biological Control of Soil Borne Disease of Strawberry Using Pseudomonas Fluorescens Strain Q8r1 96 ( Feb 1999  Dec 2003) To evaluate the efficacy of applying commercially available microbial inoculant through the drip irrigation system for controlling root diseases of strawberry.

5. Weed Control Strategies for Basis: Biological Agricultural Systems in Strawberry ( Sep 2000  Sep 2002) To evaluate state of the art methods for biologically integrated weed control in conjunction with control of other pests. The control treatment in fumigated sites will be fumigation with methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. To deplete weed seedbanks in nonfumigated sites the base treatment will be: perform tillage, use ozone, hot water ( 99 degrees C) applied at 4680 L/ ha to kill shallow weed seeds and seedlings, corn gluten meal applied as part of an integrated system, and/ or weed management with colored mulches. Weed emergence counts m 2 will be taken at regular intervals throughout the stand establishment phase ( November March).

6. Develop Control Procedures for Black Root Rot, Evaluate Host Tolerance and Yield Potential ( Feb 2001  Jan 2004) Evaluate strawberry cultivars for tolerance to black root rot pathogens in field and greenhouse evaluations. Evaluate cultivar performance in the field when planted into nonfumigated soil naturally infested with these pathogens Page 22 7. Biology and Management of Diseases Caused by Phytophthora Spp. on California Strawberries ( Jul 2002  Jan 2003) 1) Characterize and assess importance of different Phytophthora spp. on California strawberries. 2) Improve genetic strategies for management of Phytophthora induced diseases on California strawberries. 3) Improve cultural strategies for management of Phytophthora induced diseases on California strawberries. 4) Improve chemical strategies for management of Phytophthora induced diseases on California strawberries.

8. Efficacy and Mode of Action of Plantpro 45 As An Alternative to Methyl Bromide ( Feb 1999  Jun 2003) Define rates for activity against root knot nematodes, Fusarium wilt, and Phytophthora capsici, and for phytoxic levels in strawberry. Determine mode of action by assessing direct effects on pathogens and plant physiology. Develop application methods compatible with commercial vegetable production systems including preplant soil disinfestation, drip application with soil solarization, foliar application, and combinations of techniques 9. Field Scale Demonstration/ validation Studies of Alternatives for Methyl Bromide in Plastic Mulch ( Apr 2000  Jun 2003) Evaluate and validate the effectiveness and economic viability of alternatives to Methyl Bromide soil fumigation for nematode disease and weed control in plastic mulch vegetable production systems in Florida. Establish alternative treatments on grower fields at a scale sufficient to allow their evaluation as components of production systems; Establish paired subplots in alternative treatments and adjacent grower standard treatments; Diagnose and monitor nematodes, soil borne diseases, and practice including grading fruit and recording weights conduct a comparative cost/ benefit analysis of the alternative treatments using the whole enterprise budget analysis method.

10. Evaluation of Fumigant Efficacy with Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) Plastic ( Sep 2002  Mar 2005) Evaluate the effect of methyl bromide replacement soil fumigants applied under standard polyethylene plastic or virtually impermeable film on pathogen control and plant health in production fields.

11. Alternatives to Pesticides for Controlling Pathogens in Strawberry & Vegetable Production Systems ( Aug 1999  Jun 2003) Develop integrated management approaches to control diseases. Investigate the basic ecology & biology of pathogens as well as the etiology of plant infection in order to target integrated control approaches. Investigate the rhizosphere ecology of crop plants grown under various cultural conditions to elucidate the influence of specific microorganisms on plant health and their ability to influence disease expression and use these organisms to augment nonfumigated soil.

12. Cultural Management of Strawberries and Grapes ( NC State University/ CSREES Oct 1998  Sep 2003) Develop alternatives to methyl bromide for soil fumigation of strawberry. Develop practices fir propagating strawberry runner tips in greenhouses. Develop fertilization practices via drip irrigation, to improve fresh fruit quality, size and shelf life of ` Camarosa' strawberry, grown in plasticulture. Page 23 Develop practices for forcing daynuetral and short day cultivars for early winter greenhouse production. 13. Evaluation of Fumigant Efficacy with Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) Plastic ( UC Davis/ CSREES Sep 2002  Sep 2004) To identify methods to maximize the effects of alternative fumigants on soil borne pests, while minimizing environmental risk. To determine the minimum effective doses of chloropicrin and 1, 3 D plus chloropicrin on soil borne pathogens, weeds and calla lily bulbs under virtually impermeable film ( VIF).

14. Alternative Fumigants for the Control of Soil Pests: Strawberry as a model system ( UC Davis/ CSREES Sep 2002  Aug 2004) To evaluate the efficacy of the alternative fumigants for the control of soil borne pests and weeds in the field. The crop production system that will be used as a model is strawberry, with trails addressing fumigant efficacy in both runner plant nurseries and commercial berry production fields, different soil types and locations in the state. Since this plant is highly susceptible to all these organisms it is a good indicator crop to use.

Based on preliminary results from research conducted in this area and largely in the area of tomatoes and strawberries, researchers believe that a mix of fumigants together with an herbicide treatment is the best possible alternative to methyl bromide. Combinations of 1,3 dichloropropene/ chloropicrin, and metam sodium/ chloropicrin are being tested for disease and weed control. Future research plans will test combinations of these fumigants with chemicals, such as halosulfuron, metolachlor, and sulfentrazone. A program to evaluate host resistance to Phytophthora root and crown rot has been implemented. Growers are starting to deploy lines identified as having both genetic resistance and acceptable horticultural qualities.

Research in application technology ( e. g., injection methods and application rates) may improve the uniformity of soil movement of chemicals, such as metam sodium. Non chemical alternatives have been incorporated and methods such as IPM, mulching, solarization, and biofumigation are being examined as part of an overall strategy to manage production in strawberry nurseries. Trials evaluating compost based systems as alternatives for chemical based fumigations are already being conducted. These trials will continue and weed ratings, disease incidence, and crop yield data will be collected.

Research by Larson and Shaw performed under nursery production conditions indicate rates of chloropicrin that are effective and should be further investigated as an alternative with companion compounds for nematode control including 1,3 dichloropropene. This research was done in 1993 1996 and does not appear to have been continued or follow up studies were not included in the literature.

Work by Duniway et al., is also focused on developing chemical alternatives for nursery production and was funded by the Strawberry Commission. This research was performed in four consecutive years on the same soil and examined the use of VIF films, fumigant application through drip irrigation, and lower rates of fumigants. They found that Verticillium was not effectively controlled with any of the alternative treatments, while some improvement in weed control was observed with alternative fumigants and mulches. These researchers are also involved in examination of Page 24 unregistered alternative fumigants with the support of the Strawberry Commission and in cooperation with the University of California, Davis and USDA, ARS. All of this work should continue to be supported.

Studies by Gordon et al., summarized research at strawberry nurseries investigating various fumigants and rotation crops for control of V. dahliae at high altitudes. They found that all the fumigants tested provided similar control of this pathogen while none of the nonchemical treatments provided acceptable control. More of these studies evaluating the secondary effects of alternatives on rotation crops such as contract onion are needed. Also, studies on plant back intervals required for alternative fumigants in combination with VIF films should be performed.

Overall, studies on alternatives for strawberry nursery production are limited. A majority of the research used to support these applications is for strawberry fruit production and may not be directly relevant to strawberry nurseries. A primary weakness in the overall research program is that most studies with alternatives have been performed on ground previously fumigated with methyl bromide. While it is stated that alternatives do not deliver the deep fumigation control obtained with methyl bromide, there is no evidence presented that alternative application techniques have been evaluated to improve fumigation at greater depths with 1,3 Dichloropicrin, chloropicrin and metam sodium products.

Quality programs and collaborative relationships are in place to facilitate research efforts for this industry and approximately US$ 800,00000 to US$ 1,200,000.00 has been spent in support of these programs. However, the industry is encouraged to be more proactive in cooperating with researchers to develop new alternatives since the availability of all chemical alternatives currently being researched is questionable. Additional research to fine tune use of alternative fumigants to maximize efficacy and yield is needed. Where nutsedge is a problem, research is needed to find a suitable pre emergent herbicide, or to find ways to get better herbicidal efficacy from available fumigants. New chemical registrations, such as Iodomethane, could hold promise as possible methyl bromide replacements. Development of more sustainable production systems should be considered an extremely high priority. Support for research on innovative methods and long term solutions for producing strawberry nursery stock, including production of transplants in soilless growing media, is crucial. Many Southeast strawberry nursery growers are converting to the use of plug transplants and it is recommended that the California nursery growers give this serious consideration.

In addition, research plans submitted by applicants for the strawberry nursery sector include ongoing research in California evaluating various studies for the alternatives Vapam and 1,3 dichloropropene. Further research evaluating chemical and non chemical alternative is planned for the future. So far, about US$ 100,000 has been spent on research.

As demonstrated by the table 6, U. S. efforts to research alternatives for methyl bromide have been substantial, and they have been growing in size as the phaseout has approached. The United States is committed to sustaining these research efforts in the future to continue to aggressively search for technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. We are also committed to continuing to share our research, and enable a global sharing of experience. Toward that end, for the past several years, key U. S. government agencies have collaborated with industry to host an annual conference on alternatives to methyl bromide. This conference, the Methyl Bromide Page 25 Alternatives Outreach ( MBAO), has become the premier forum for researchers and others to discuss scientific findings and progress in this field.

Registration Program The United States has one of the most rigorous programs in the world for safeguarding human health and the environment from the risks posed by pesticides. While we are proud of our efforts in this regard, related safeguards do not come without a cost in terms of both money and time. Because the registration process is so rigorous, it can take a new pesticide several years ( 3 5) to get registered by EPA. It also takes a large number of years to perform, draft results and deliver the large number of health and safety studies that are required for registration.

The U. S. EPA regulates the use of pesticides under two major federal statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), both significantly amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). Under FIFRA, U. S. EPA registers pesticides provided its use does not pose unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. Under FFDCA, the U. S. EPA is responsible for setting tolerances ( maximum permissible residue levels) for any pesticide used on food or animal feed. With the passage of FQPA, the U. S. EPA is required to establish a single, health based standard for pesticides used on food crops and to determine that establishment of a tolerance will result in a " reasonable certainty of no harm" from aggregate exposure to the pesticide.

The process by which U. S. EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide to determine if they are safe is called the registration process. The U. S. EPA evaluates the pesticide to ensure that it will not have any unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and non target species. Applicants seeking pesticide registration are required to submit a wide range of health and ecological effects toxicity data, environmental fate, residue chemistry and worker/ bystander exposure data and product chemistry data. A pesticide cannot be legally used in the United States if it has not been registered by U. S. EPA, unless it has an exemption from regulation under FIFRA.

Since 1997, the U. S. EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a priority. Because the U. S. EPA currently has more applications pending in its review process than the resources to evaluate them, U. S. EPA prioritizes the applications in its registration queue. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U. S. EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the EPA to initiate its review. The average processing time for a new active ingredient, from date of submission to issuance of a registration decision, is approximately 38 months. In most cases, the registrant ( the pesticide applicant) has spent approximately 7 10 years developing the data necessary to support registration.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the U. S. EPA has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the U. S. EPA's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the U. S. EPA has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application, allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, U. S. EPA scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide Page 26 alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are minimized The U. S. EPA has also co chaired the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. The work group conducted six workshops in Florida and California ( states with the highest use of methyl bromide) with growers and researchers to identify potential alternatives, critical issues, and grower needs covering the major methyl bromide dependent crops and post harvest uses.

This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and groundwater concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's $ 13.5 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals submitted to the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service methyl bromide alternatives research program of US$ 2.5 million per year has further ensured that critical registration issues are being addressed by the research community.

Since 1997, EPA has registered the following chemical/ use combinations as part of its commitment to expedite the review of methyl bromide alternatives:

1999: Pebulate to control weeds in tomatoes 2000: Phosphine to control insects in stored commodities 2001: Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus to control Indian meal moth in stored grains 2001: Terrazole to control pathogens in tobacco float beds 2001: Telone applied through drip irrigation  all crops 2002: Halosulfuron methyl to control weeds in melons and tomatoes EPA is currently reviewing several additional applications for registration as methyl bromide alternatives, with several registration eligibility decisions expected within the next year, including:

  Iodomethane as a pre plant soil fumigant for various crops   Fosthiazate as a pre plant nematocide for tomatoes   Sulfuryl fluoride as a post harvest fumigant for stored commodities   Trifloxysulfuron sodium as a pre plant herbicide for tomatoes   Dazomet as a pre plant soil fumigant for strawberries and tomatoes Again, while these activities appear promising, it must be noted that issues related to toxicity, ground water contamination, and the release of air pollutants may pose significant problems with respect to some alternatives that may lead to use restrictions since many of the growing regions are in sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to schools and homes. Ongoing research on alternate fumigants is evaluating ways to reduce emission under various application regimes and examining whether commonly used agrochemicals, such as fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors, could be used to rapidly degrade soil fumigants. For example, if registration of iodomethane or another alternative occurs in the near future, commercial availability and costs will be factors that must be taken into consideration. Page 27 It must be emphasized, however, that finding potential alternatives, and even registering those alternatives is not the end of the story. Alternatives must be tested by users and found technically and economically feasible before widespread adoption will occur. As noted by TEAP, a specific alternative, once available may take two or three cropping seasons of use before efficacy can be determined in the specific circumstance of the user. In an effort to speed adoption the United States government has also been involved in these steps by promoting technology transfer, experience transfer, and private sector training.

10. Conclusion and Policy Issues Associated with the Nomination On the basis of an exhaustive review of a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that the TEAP listed potential alternatives for the specific crops and areas covered in this nomination are not currently technically or economically viable from the standpoint of United States growers covered by this exemption request. We have also determined that the absence of methyl bromide for the nominated uses will result in a significant market disruption to the effected sectors. We have and continue to expend significant efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and that potential alternatives to the use of methyl bromide for many important uses are under investigation and may be on the horizon. Based on this analysis, we believe those requests included in this nomination meet the criteria set out by the Parties in Decision IX/ 6.

In accordance with those Decisions, we believe that the U. S. nomination contained in this document provides all of the information that has been requested by the Parties. On the basis of an exhaustive review of a large, multi disciplinary team of sector and general agricultural experts, we have determined that the MBTOC listed potential alternatives for strawberry nurseries are not currently technically or economically feasible in the management of the major pests of strawberry nursery plants, specifically on insects, weeds, nematodes, and pathogens from the standpoint of United States strawberry nursery growers covered by this exemption nomination.

Nursery stock regulations of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA) require that nursery stock for commercial farm planting be nematode free ( CDFA Code of Regulations Sections 3055 to 3055.6 and 3640). Additionally, there are specific soil treatment and handling procedures to facilitate compliance with the regulations for the Nursery Stock Nematode Control Program. Under California regulatory laws, nursery crops must be " free of especially injurious pests and disease symptoms" and " commercially clean with respect to established pests of general distribution" in order to qualify for a nursery stock certificate for interstate and intrastate shipments.

Use of methyl bromide to control pests entitles growers to the presumption that they have met the applicable standards, while use of alternative methods to control pests requires the nursery to sample the nursery stock, with all samples required to meet the standards of zero ( only non detectable levels of ) pests. Failure to meet the standard requires destruction of the nursery's entire stock. Use of an alternative, therefore, subjects the growers to the certain costs of a sampling and analysis program and the risk of the complete loss of stock relative to the situation with methyl bromide use. Strawberry nurserymen must document compliance on a monthly basis. These plants represent a 5 year investment by the nursery grower and are shipped worldwide as both nursery and production plants. Page 28 Primary countries which import strawberry nursery stock plants from California nurseries include Canada, Mexico, Spain, and several South American countries. There are wide and specific destination quarantine restrictions and international quarantine control issues involved with shipment of these plants. The need for nursery stock to be clean is absolute since there is a potential for nematodes to spread on national and international levels. For the California Strawberry Nursery Association growers, the MBTOC alternatives will not meet requirements of CDFA for nursery stock certification, either individually or in combinations. Complete crop loss can occur if the nursery stock cannot be certified as nematode free.

While the Southeast Strawberry Consortium growers do not have the strict state requirements that California does, they also must certify that their nursery stock is essentially free of pests. As a matter of social policy, society has an interest in facilitating the spread of pests, and control of pests in nursery stock is an important first step. Finally, strawberry nursery stock from California is a substitute for strawberry stock raised elsewhere. If strawberry growers can not be assured that the stock they purchase meets the same standards as nursery stock from California, they will switch producers, eliminating the strawberry nursery stock production in the southeastern U. S.

There is large potential for lost time due to alterations in production practices and increased time required for nonchemical alternatives to be effective in reducing pathogen populations which would increase production time and impact economic production windows. These plants represent a significant investment by the grower and are shipped worldwide as both nursery and production plants. There are wide and specific destination quarantine restrictions and international control quarantine issues involved with shipment of these plants.

As a consequence, both applicants have made a strong case that methyl bromide is necessary for successful and profitable strawberry nursery production in the United States. None of the MBTOC alternatives are technically feasible. In order for the U. S. strawberry nursery industry to supply the world wide demand, it is imperative that they continue to have access to the use of methyl bromide to manage Black root rot ( Rhizoctonia and Pythium spp.), Crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum), Root Knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.), Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) and Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus).

In addition to demonstrating the economic and technical issues associated with the presently available alternatives, we have demonstrated that we have and continue to expend significant efforts to find and commercialize alternatives, and that potential alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in the strawberry nursery sector may be on the horizon. That said, it must be stressed that the registration process, which is designed to ensure that new pesticides do not pose an unacceptable risk, is a long and rigorous process, and the U. S. need for methyl bromide for strawberry nurseries will be maintained for the period being requested for an exemption in this nomination.

In reviewing this nomination, we believe that it is important for the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to understand some of the policy issues associated with our request. A discussion of those follows: Page 29 a. Request for Aggregate Exemption for All Covered Methyl Bromide Uses: As mandated by Decision XIII/ 11, the nomination information that is being submitted with this package includes information requested on historic use and estimated need in individual sectors. That said, we note our agreement with past MBTOC and TEAP statements which stress the dynamic nature of agricultural markets, uncertainty of specific production of any one crop in any specific year, the difficulty of projecting several years in advance what pest pressures might prevail on a certain crop, and, the difficulty of estimating what a particular market for a specific crop might look like in a future year. We also concur with the MBTOC's fear that countries that have taken significant efforts to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions through dilution with chloropicrin may be experiencing only short term efficacy in addressing pest problems. On the basis of those factors, we urge the MBTOC and the TEAP to follow the precedent established under the essential use exemption process for Metered Dose Inhalers ( MDIs) in two key areas.

First, because of uncertainties in both markets and the future need for individual active moieties of drugs, the TEAP has never provided a tonnage limit for each of the large number of active moieties found in national requests for a CFC essential use exemption for MDIs, but has instead recommended an aggregate tonnage exemption for national use. This has been done with an understanding that the related country will ensure that the tonnage approved for an exemption will be used solely for the group of active moieties/ MDIs that have been granted the exemption. We believe that the factors of agricultural uncertainty surrounding both pest pressures in future year crops, and efficacy of reduced methyl bromide application provide an even stronger impetus for using a similar approach here. The level of unpredictability in need leads to a second area of similarity with MDIs, the essential need for a review of the level of the request which takes into account the need for a margin of safety.

b. Recognition of Uncertainty in Allowing Margin for Safety: With MDIs, it was essential to address the possible change in patient needs over time, and in agriculture, this is essential to address the potential that the year being requested for could be a particularly bad year in terms of weather and pest pressure. In that regard, the TEAP's Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates the manner in which this need for a margin of safety was addressed in the MDI area. Specifically, Chart 2 in Appendix D tracks national CFC requests for MDIs compared with actual use of CFC for MDIs over a number of years.

Chart 2 in Appendix D demonstrates several things. First, despite the best efforts of many countries to predict future conditions, it shows that due to the acknowledged uncertainty of out year need for MDIs, Parties had the tendency to request, the TEAP recommended, and the Parties approved national requests that turned out to include an appreciable margin of safety. In fact, this margin of safety was higher at the beginning   about 40% above usage   and then went down to 30% range after 4 years. Only after 5 years of experience did the request come down to about 10% above usage. While our experience with the Essential Use process has aided the U. S. in developing its Critical Use nomination, we ask the MBTOC, the TEAP and the Parties to recognize that the complexities of agriculture make it difficult to match our request exactly with expected usage when the nomination is made two to three years in advance of the time of actual use.

Chart 2 in Appendix D also demonstrates that, even though MDI requests included a significant margin of safety, the nominations were approved and the countries receiving the exemption for Page 30 MDIs did not produce the full amount authorized when there was not a patient need. As a result, there was little or no environmental consequence of approving requests that included a margin of safety, and the practice can be seen as being normalized over time. In light of the similar significant uncertainty surrounding agriculture and the out year production of crops which use methyl bromide, we wish to urge the MBTOC and TEAP to take a similar, understanding approach for methyl bromide and uses found to otherwise meet the critical use criteria. We believe that this too would have no environmental consequence, and would be consistent with the Parties aim to phaseout methyl bromide while ensuring that agriculture itself is not phased out.

c. Duration of Nomination: It is important to note that while the request included for the use above appears to be for a single year, the entire U. S. request is actually for two years   2005 and 2006. This multi year request is consistent with the TEAP recognition that the calendar year does not, in most cases, correspond with the cropping year. This request takes into account the facts that registration and acceptance of new, efficacious alternatives can take a long time, and that alternatives must be tested in multiple cropping cycles in different geographic locations to determine efficacy and consistency before they can be considered to be widely available for use. Finally, the request for multiple years is consistent with the expectation of the Parties and the TEAP as evidenced in the Parties and MBTOC request for information on the duration of the requested exemption. As noted in the Executive Summary of the overall U. S. request, we are requesting that the exemption be granted in a lump sum of 9,920,965 kilograms for 2005 and 9,445,360 kilograms for 2006. While it is our hope that the registration and demonstration of new, cost effective alternatives will result in even speedier reductions on later years, the decrease in our request for 2006 is a demonstration of our commitment to work toward further reductions in our consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses. At this time, however, we have not believed it possible to provide a realistic assessment of exactly which uses would be reduced to account for the overall decrease.

11. Contact Information For further general information or clarifications on material contained in the U. S. nomination for critical uses, please contact:

John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Office of Environmental Policy US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Rm 4325 Washington, DC 20520 tel: 202 647 9799 fax: 202 647 5947 e mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Alternate Contact: Denise Keehner, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticides Programs US Environmental Protection Agency, 7503C Washington, DC 20460 Page 31 tel: 703 308 8200 fax: 703 308 8090 e mail: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov 12. References Allen, L. H., S. J. Locascio, D. W. Dickson, D. J. Mitchell, and S. D. Nelson. 1999. Flooding ( soil anoxia) for control of pests of vegetables. Research Summary, A Specific Cooperative Agreement 58 6617 6 013.

Burgos, N. R. and R. E. Talbert. 1996. Weed control and sweet corn ( Zea mays var. rugosa) response in a no till system with cover crops. Weed Sci. 44: 355 361.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 DC will Impact Adjustment to Methyl bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3.

Carpenter, Janet and Lori Lynch. 1999. Impact of 1,3 D Restrictions in California after a Ban on Methyl Bromide. Presentation at the 1999 Annual International Conference of Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Chase, C. A., T. R. Sinclair, D. G. Shilling, J. P. Gilreath, and S. J. Locascio. 1998. Light effects on rhizome morphogenesis in nutsedges ( Cyperus spp): Implications for control by soil solarization. Weed Sci. 46: 575 580.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in California. 1999. United States Department of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in Florida. 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Crop Profile for Strawberries in Virginia. 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, NSF Center for Integrated Pest Management.

Egley, G. H. 1983. Weed seed and seedling reductions by soil solarization with transparent polyethylene sheets. Weed Sci. 31: 404 409.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service.

Florida Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Oct. 2002. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Galloway, B. A. and L. A. Weston. 1996. Influence of cover crop and herbicide treatment on weed control and yield in no till sweet corn ( Zea mays L.) and pumpkin ( Cucurbita maxima Duch). Weed Technol. 10: 341 346. Page 32 Gamini, S. and R. K. Nishimoto. 1987. Propagules of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) in soil. Weed Technol. 1: 217 220.

Georgia Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Jan. 2000. Georgia Department of Agriculture.

Gilreath, J. P., J. W. Noling, and P. R. Gilreath. 1999. Nutsedge management with cover crop for tomato in the absence of methyl bromide. Research summary., A Specific Cooperative Agreement 58 6617 6 013 Holm, L. G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The world's worst weeds: distribution and biology. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 8 24 Horowitz, M. 1972. Effects of desiccation and submergence on the viability of rhizome fragments of bermudagrass, johnsongrass, and tubers of nutsedge. Israel J. Agric. Res. 22( 4): 215 220.

Johnson, G. A., M. S. Defelice, and A. R. Helsel. 1993. Cover crop management and weed control in corn ( Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7425 430.

Norsworthy, J. 2000. Allelopathic effects of wild radish on cotton. Clemson University. Unpublished.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service.

North Carolina Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Jan. 2003. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Patterson, D. T. 1998. Suppression of purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) with polyethylene film mulch. Weed Technol. 12: 275 280.

SoilZone, 1999. Ozone Gas as a Soil Fumigant. 1998 Research Program. Electric Power Research Institute.

Sorenson, Kenneth A., W. Douglas Gubler, Norman C. Welch, and Craig Osteen. The Importance of Pesticides and Other Pest Management Practices in U. S. Strawberry Production. 1997. Special Funded Project of the United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment program. Document Number 1 CA 97.

Tennessee State Department of Agriculture. Tennessee Agricultural Statistics Service.

Tennessee Summary of Plant Protection Regulations. Apr. 2000. Tennessee Department of Agriculture.

Thullen, R. J. and P. E. Keeley. 1975. Yellow nutsedge sprouting and resprouting potential. Weed Sci. 23: 333 337. Page 33 United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP), 1998 . Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC). 1998 Assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. p. 49.

Webster, T. M. and G. E. Macdonald. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15: 771 790.

13. Appendices Appendix A. List of critical use exemption ( CUE) requests for the strawberry nursery sector in the U. S.

Southeast:

CUE 02 0038, Southeast Strawberry Consortium California: California CUE 02 0034, California Strawberry Nursery Association Appendix B. Spreadsheets Supporting Economic Analysis None of the alternatives listed by MBTOC and reviewed were found to be technically feasible for the strawberry nursery sector therefore no economic analysis was conducted.

Appendix C: U. S. Technical and Economic Review Team Members Christine M. Augustyniak ( Technical Team Leader). Christine has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1985. She has held several senior positions, both technical and managerial, including Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Chief of the Analytical Support Branch in EPA's office of Environmental Information and Deputy Director for the Environmental Assistance Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. She earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Augustyniak is a 1975 graduate of Harvard University ( Cambridge) cum laude ( Economics). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Augustyniak was a member of the economics faculty at the College of the Holy Cross ( Worcester).

William John Chism ( Lead Biologist). Bill has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. He evaluates the efficacy of pesticides for weed and insect control. He earned his Ph. D. ( Weed Science) from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ( Blacksburg), a Master of Science ( Plant Physiology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Agriculture) from California Polytechnic State University ( San Luis Obispo). Dr. Chism is a 1978 graduate of The University of California ( Davis). For ten years prior to joining the EPA Dr. Page 34 Chism held research scientist positions at several speciality chemical companies, conducting and evaluating research on pesticides.

Technical Team Jonathan J. Becker ( Biologist) Jonathan has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He has held several technical positions and currently serves as a Senior Scientific Advisor within the Office of Pesticides Programs. In this position he leads the advancement of scientific methods and approaches related to the development of pesticides use information, the assessment of impacts of pesticides regulations, and the evaluation of the benefits from the use of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Zoology) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Masters of Science ( Biology/ Zoology) from Idaho State University ( Pocatello). Dr. Becker is a graduate of Idaho State University. Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Becker worked as a senior environmental scientist with an environmental consulting firm located in Virginia.

Diane Brown Rytlewski ( Biologist) Diane is the Nursery and Landscape IPM Integrator at Michigan State University, a position she has held since 2000. She acts as liaison between industry and the university, facilitating research partnerships and cooperative relationships, developing outreach programs and resource materials to further the adoption of IPM. Ms. Rytlewski holds a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) and a Bachelor of Science ( Entomology), both from the University of Wisconsin ( Madison). She has over twenty year experience working in the horticulture field, including eight years as supervisor of the IPM program at the Chicago Botanic Garden.

Greg Browne ( Biologist). Greg has been with the Agricultural Research Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1995. Located in the Department of Plant Pathology of the University of California ( Davis), Greg does research on soilborne diseases of crop systems that currently use methyl bromide for disease control, with particular emphasis on diseases caused by Phytophthora species. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of diseases in fruit and nut crops He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from the University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from the same institution. Dr. Browne is a graduate of The University of California ( Davis). Prior to joining USDA was a farm advisor in Kern County.

Nancy Burrelle ( Biologist). Nancy Burelle is a Research Ecologist with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, currently working on preplant alternatives to methyl bromide. She earned both her Ph. D. and Master of Science degrees ( both in Plant Pathology) from Auburn University ( Auburn).

Linda Calvin ( Economist). Linda Calvin is an agricultural economist with USDA's Economic Research Service, specializing in research on topics affecting fruit and vegetable markets. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley).

Kitty F. Cardwell ( Biologist). Kitty has been the National Program Leader in Plant Pathology for the U. S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service since 2001. In this role she administrates all federally funded research and extension related to plant pathology, of the Land Grant Universities throughout the U. S. She earned her Ph. D. Page 35 ( Phytopathology) from Texas A& M University ( College Station). Dr. Cardwell is a 1976 graduate of The University of Texas ( Austin) cum laude ( Botany). For twelve years prior to joining USDA Dr. Cardwell managed multinational projects on crop disease mitigation and food safety with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Cotonou, Bénin and Ibadan, Nigeria.

William Allen Carey ( Biologist). Bill is a Research Fellow in pest management for southern forest nurseries , supporting the Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative. He is the author of numerous articles on the use of alternative fumigants to methyl bromide in tree nursery applications. He earned his Ph. D. ( Forest Pathology) from Duke University ( Durham) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology ) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville). Dr. Carey is a nationally recognized expert in the field of nursery pathology.

Margriet F. Caswell ( Economist). Margriet has been with the USDA Economic Research Service since 1991. She has held both technical and managerial positions, and is now a Senior Research Economist in the Resource, Technology & Productivity Branch, Resource Economics Division. She earned her Ph. D. ( Agricultural Economics) from the University of California ( Berkeley). Dr. Caswell also received a Master of Science ( Resource Economics) and Bachelor of Science ( Natural Resource Management) from the University of Rhode Island ( Kingston). Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Caswell was a member of both the Environmental Studies and Economics faculties at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Tara Chand Goyal ( Biology). Tara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as a plant pathologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on risk reduction. He earned his Ph. D. ( Mycology and Plant Pathology) from The Queen's University ( Belfast) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology and Mycology) from Punjab University ( Ludhiana). Dr. Chand Goyal is a graduate of Punjab University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chand Goyal was a member of the faculty of The Oregon State University ( Corvallis) and of The University of California ( Riverside). His areas of research and publication include: the biology of viral, bacterial and fungal diseases of plants; biological control of plant diseases; and, genetic manipulation of microorganisms.

Daniel Chellemi ( Biologist). Dan has been a research plant pathologist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1997. His research speciality is the ecology, epidemiology, and management of soilborne plant pathogens. He earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of California ( Davis) and a Master of Science ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Hawaii ( Manoa). Dr. Chellemi is a 1982 graduate of the University of Florida ( Gainesville) with a degree in Plant Science. He is the author of numerous articles in the field of plant pathology. In 2000 Dr. Chellemi was awarded the ARS " Early Career Research Scientist if the Year". Prior to joining USDA, Dr. Chellemi was a member of the plant pathology department of The University of Florida ( Gainesville).

Angel Chiri ( Biologist). Angel has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of California ( Riverside) and a Master of Science ( Biology/ Entomology) from California State University ( Long Beach). Dr. Chiri is a graduate of Page 36 California State University ( Los Angeles). Prior to joining EPA Dr. Chiri was a pest and pesticide management advisor for the U. S. Agency for International Development working mostly in Latin America on IPM issues.

Colwell Cook ( Biologist). Colwell has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2000. She serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs as an entomologist and specializes in analyzing the efficacy of pesticides with emphasis on benefits of pesticide use. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from Purdue University ( West Lafayette) and has a Master of Science ( Entomology) from Louisiana State University ( Baton Rouge). Dr. Cook is a 1979 graduate of Clemson University. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Cook held several faculty positions at Wabash College ( Crawfordsville) and University of Evansville ( Evansville).

Julie B. Fairfax ( Biologist) Julie has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. She currently serves as a senior biologist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, and has previously served as a Team Leader in other divisions within the Office of Pesticides Programs. She has held several technical positions specializing in the registration, re registration, special review and regulation of fungicidal, antimicrobial, and wood preservative pesticides. Ms. Fairfax is a 1989 graduate of James Madison University ( Harrisonburg, VA) where she earned her degree in Biology. Prior to joining EPA, Julie worked as a laboratory technician for the Virginia Poultry Industry.

John Faulkner ( Economist) John has been with the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency since 1989. He serves in the Office of Pesticide Programs analyzing the costs imposed by the regulation of pesticides. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from the University of Colorado ( Boulder) and holds a Master's of Business Administration from The University of Michigan ( Ann Arbor). Dr. Faulkner is a 1965 graduate of the University of Colorado ( Boulder). Prior to joining EPA was a member of the economics faculty of the Rochester Institute of Technology ( Rochester), The University of Colorado ( Boulder) and of the Colorado Mountain College ( Aspen).

Clara Fuentes ( Biologist). Clara has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection agency since 1999, working in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ( Region III) office. She specializes in reviewing human health risk evaluations to pesticides exposures and supporting the state pesticide programs in Region III. She earned her Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and a Master of Science ( Zoology) from Iowa State University ( Ames). Prior to joining EPA, Dr. Fuentes worked as a research assistant at U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) ( Beltsville), Maryland, and as a faculty member of the Natural Sciences Department at InterAmerican University of Puerto Rico. Her research interest is in the area of Integrated Pest Management in agriculture.

James Gilreath ( Biologist). Jim has been with the University of Florida Gulf Coast Research and Education Center since 1981. In this position his primary responsibilities are to plan, implement and publish the results of investigations in weed science in vegetable and ornamental crops. One main focus of the research is the evaluation and development of weed amangement programs for specific weed pests. He earned his Ph. D. ( Horticulture) from The University of Florida ( Gainesville) and a Master of Science, also in Horticulture, from Clemson University ( Clemson). Dr. Gilreath is a 1974 graduate of Clemson University ( Clemson) with a degree in Agronomy and Soils. Page 37 Arthur Grube ( Economist). Arthur has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1987. He is now a Senior Economist in the Biological and Economics Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. He earned his Ph. D. ( Economics) from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh) and a Masters of Arts ( Economics) also from North Carolina State University. Dr. Grube is a 1970 graduate of Simon Fraser University ( Vancouver) where his Bachelor of Arts degree ( Economics) was earned with honors. Prior to joining EPA Dr. Grube conducted work on the costs and benefits of pesticide use at the University of Illinois ( Urbana). Dr. Grube has been a co author of a number of journal articles in various areas of pesticide economics LeRoy Hansen ( Economist). LeRoy Hansen is currently employed as an Agricultural Economist for the USDA Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division in the Resources and Environmental Policy Branch. He received his Ph. D. in resource economics from Iowa State University ( Ames) in 1986. During his 16 years at USDA, Dr. Hansen has published USDA reports, spoken at profession meetings, and appeared in television and radio interviews.

Frank Hernandez ( Economist). Frank has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1991. He is a staff economist at the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. He holds degrees in Economics and Political Science from the City University of New York.

Arnet W. Jones ( Biologist). Arnet has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1990. He has had several senior technical and management positions and currently serves as Chief of the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Prior to joining EPA he was Senior Agronomist at Development Assistance Corporation, a Washington, D. C. firm that specialized in international agricultural development. He holds a Master of Science ( Agronomy) from the University of Maryland ( College Park).

Hong Jin Kim ( Economist). Jin has been an economist at the National Center for Environmental Economics at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) since 1998. His primary areas of research interest include environmental cost accounting for private industries He earned his Ph. D. ( Environmental and Resource Economics) from The University of California ( Davis) and holds a Master of Science from the same institution. Dr. Kim is a 1987 graduate of Korea University ( Seoul) with a Bachelor of Arts ( Economics). Prior to joining the U. S. EPA, Dr. Kim was an assistant professor at the University of Alaska ( Anchorage) and an economist at the California Energy Commissions. Dr. Kim is the author of numerous articles in the fields of resource and environmental economics.

James Leesch ( Biologist). Jim has been a research entomologist with the Agricultural Resarch Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture since 1971. His main area of interest is post harvest commodity protection at the San Joaquin Valle. He earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology/ Insect Toxicology) from The University of California ( Riverside) Dr. Leesch received a B. A. degree in Chemistry from Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA in 1965. He is currently a Research entomologist for the Agricultural Research Service ( USDA) researching Agricultural Sciences Center in Parlier, CA. He joined ARS in June of 1971. Page 38 Sean Lennon ( Biologist). Sean is a Biologist interning with the Office of Pesticide Programs of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. He will receive his M. S. in Plant and Environmental Science in December 2003 from Clemson University ( Clemson). Mr. Lennon is a graduate of Georgia College & State University ( Milledgeville) where he earned a Bachelor of Science ( Biology). Sean is conducting research in Integrated Pest Management of Southeastern Peaches. He has eight years of experience in the commercial peach industry.

Nikhil Mallampalli ( Biologist). Nikhil has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 2001. He is an entomologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, and analysis of the impacts of risk mitigation on pest management. Dr. Mallampalli earned his Ph. D. ( Entomology) from The University of Maryland ( College Park) and holds a Master of Science ( Entomology) from the samr institution. Prior to joining the EPA, he worked as a postdoctoral research fellow at Michigan State University ( East Lansing) on IPM projects designed to reduce reliance on pesticides in small fruit production.

Tom Melton ( Biologist). Tom has been a member of the Plant Pathology faculty at North Carolina State University since 1987. Starting as an assistant professor and extension specialist, Tom has become the Philip Morris Professor at North Carolina State University. His primary responsibilities are to develop and disseminate disease management strategies for tobacco. Dr. Melton earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science ( Pest Management) degree from North Carolina State University ( Raleigh). He is a 1978 graduate of Norht Carolina State University ( Raleigh) Prior to joining the North Carolina State faculty, Dr. Melton was a member of the faculty at The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign).

Richard Michell ( Biologist). Rich has been with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1972. He is a nematologist/ plant pathologist in the Herbicide and Insecticide Branch of the Biological and Economic Analysis Division. His primary duties include the assessment of pesticide efficacy in a variety of crops, with special emphasis on fungicide and nematicide use and the development of risk reduction options for fungicides and nematicides. Dr. Michell earned his Ph. D. ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Illinois ( Urbana Champaign) and holds a Master of Science degree ( Plant Pathology/ Nematology) from The University of Georgia ( Athens).

Lorraine Mitchell ( Economist). Lorraine has been an agricultural economist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service since 1998. She works on agricultural trade issues, particularly pertaining to consumer demand in the EU and emerging markets. Dr. Mitchell earned her Ph. D. ( Economics) from The University of California ( Berkeley). Prior to joining ERS, Dr. Mitchell was a member of the faculty of the School of International Service of The American University ( Washington) and a research assistant at the World Bank.