METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE NOMINATION FOR PREPLANT SOIL USE FOR TOBACCO TRANSPLANT SEED BEDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY: DATE RECEIVED BY OZONE SECRETARIAT:

YEAR: CUN:

NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America ( U. S.)

BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Tobacco Transplant Seed Beds NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS Contact Person: John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Title: International Affairs Officer Address: Office of Environmental Policy U. S. Department of State 2201 C Street N. W. Room 4325 Washington, DC 20520 U. S. A. Telephone: ( 202) 647 9799 Fax: ( 202) 647 5947 E mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Following the requirements of Decision IX/ 6 paragraph ( a)( 1), the United States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market disruption.

X Yes

No CONTACT OR EXPERT( S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS Contact/ Expert Person: Tina E. Levine, Ph. D. Title: Division Director Address: Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 7503C Washington, DC 20460 U. S. A. ii Telephone: ( 703) 308 3099 Fax: ( 703) 308 8090 E mail: levine. tina@ epa. gov LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION PACKAGE List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating Party to the Ozone Secretariat 1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Paper Documents and Appendices Number of Pages Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat 2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Electronic Files Size of File ( kb) Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 5 1. Nominating Party _________________________________________________________ 5 2. Descriptive Title of Nomination______________________________________________ 5 3. Crop and Summary of Crop System___________________________________________ 5 4. Methyl Bromide Nominated _________________________________________________ 5 5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use ___________________ 6 6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible______________________________ 7 7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide ______________________________ 7 8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use ___________________________ 9 9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity Nominated for Each Region____________________________________________________________________ 9 Tobacco Transplant Beds  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE........ 11 Tobacco Transplant Beds  10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request _________________________________ 11 Tobacco Transplant Beds  11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate_________ 11 Tobacco Transplant Beds  12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/ or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested___________________ 13 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION.............................................. 14 Tobacco Transplant Beds  13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible ____________ 14 Tobacco Transplant Beds  14. List and Discuss Why Registered ( and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 15 Tobacco Transplant Beds  15. List Present ( and Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives _____________________________________________ 16 Tobacco Transplant Beds  16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested ___________________________________________________________ 16 Tobacco Transplant Beds  17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide? ______________ 17 Tobacco Transplant Beds  Summary of Technical Feasibility _______________________ 17 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 18 19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions in the Particular Use ________________________________________________________ 18 20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State Reasons_____________________ 18 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT............................................................................................... 20 21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period____________ 20 22. Gross and Net Revenue___________________________________________________ 20 Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives _____________________ 21 Summary of Economic Feasibility _____________________________________________ 21 PART F. FUTURE PLANS ............................................................................................................. 24 24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the Critical Use in the Future? __________________________________________________________________ 24 iv 25. Additional Comments on the Nomination ____________________________________ 25 26. Citations ______________________________________________________________ 26 Citations Reviewed but Not Applicable _________________________________________ 26 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS ___________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF TABLES PART A: SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated ....................................................................................... 5 Table A. 1: Executive Summary................................................................................................... 6 Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide.................................................... 7 Tobacco Transplant Beds  Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use ... 9 Table A. 3: 2005 Sector Nomination.......................................................................................... 10 Table A. 3: 2006 Sector Nomination.......................................................................................... 10 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE.......... 11 Tobacco Transplant Beds  Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request............................................................................................................... 11 Tobacco Transplant Beds  Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System ............................. 11 Tobacco Transplant Beds  Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule ............... 12 Tobacco Transplant Beds  Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide ................... 13 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION ................................................... 14 Tobacco Transplant Beds   Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible ................ 14 Tobacco Transplant Beds   Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion............ 15 Tobacco Transplant Beds   Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives .................. 16 Tobacco Transplant Beds   Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives   Phytophthora parasitica nicotianae ......................................................................................................................... 16 Tobacco Transplant Beds   Table C. 1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary ........................ 17 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL....................................................................................................... 18 Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions ................................ 18 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................................. 20 Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period................ 20 Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue ............................................................................... 20 Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue ............................................................................... 20 Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue ............................................................................... 20 Tobacco Transplant Beds  Table E. 1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives....... 21 PART F. FUTURE PLANS .............................................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). .................................. 28 Page 5 PART A: SUMMARY 1. NOMINATING PARTY:

The United States of America 2. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Tobacco Transplant Seed Beds 3. CROP AND SUMMARY OF CROP SYSTEM Tobacco is seeded into soil beds or cold frames and later transplanted to the production field when plants reach a height of five to seven inches. Seedling beds are located on well drained sites that have been well cleared of weeds and trash. Sloping beds on southern exposure produce the strongest transplants. The seedling bed should be manured the previous fall, shallow tilled, and planted to a cover crop if possible. This cover crop should be incorporated in early spring, well in advance of seeding.

Most farms have moved to floating transplant tray seedling production, however, not all farms have adopted transplant tray seedling production and others have returned to soil bed production after encountering serious disease losses in the float system. Fall seed bed fumigation with methyl bromide is recommended for better disease control, but is impractical due to the serious problem of recontamination of the beds with the long period between fumigation and seeding.

4. METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED TABLE 4.1: METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED YEAR NOMINATION AMOUNT ( KG) NOMINATION AREA ( HA) 2006 16,431 27 Page 6 5. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE Methyl bromide is still important for tobacco transplant seedbeds to ensure pathogen free crop production. Registered alternative fungicides are not effective against the full range of pathogens common for tobacco production. In addition, use of alternative fungicides during transplant production could potentially limit usefulness in field production due to fungicide resistance issues. Loss of methyl bromide would undermine integrated pest management strategies aimed at resistance management. The registered alternative soil fumigants have constraints that could jeopardize production. If used late season, after harvest, soil borne pathogens have very high potential to re infect the treated area through the uncontrollable actions of wind, rain, and wildlife. Use of the same soil fumigants immediately prior to seeding is compromised by cold soil temperature. Due to the long aeration period required when using the alternative soil fumigants, early transplant dates are not possible ( a critical tool in yield and disease management). Even under the best of conditions, spring use of alternatives will delay seeding date compared with methyl bromide by three weeks and almost insures a June transplanting date rather than a May transplanting date. Delayed seeding and transplanting results in crop exposure to higher disease pressure and drought conditions.

TABLE A. 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Region Tobacco Transplant Beds Amount of Nomination 2006 Kilograms 16,431 Application Rate ( kg/ ha) 611 Area ( ha) 27 Amount of Applicant Request 2005 Kilograms 16,431 Application Rate ( kg/ ha) 611 Area ( ha) 27 2006 Kilograms 16,431 Application Rate ( kg/ ha) 611 Area ( ha) 27 Economics Marginal Strategy Metam Sodium Yield Loss (%) 46 Loss per hectare ( US$/ ha) 4,612 Loss per kg Methyl Bromide ( US$/ kg) $ 1,371.62 Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%) 45%

Loss as % of Net Revenue (%) 71% Page 7 6. SUMMARIZE WHY KEY ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT FEASIBLE:

Most of these are small farms without other economically, sustainable cropping options. Spring applications of dazomet and metam sodium are not acceptable for early transplanting dates due to long aeration periods. If spring applications of alternative fumigants are made, the seeding date may be shifted as far as April in most growing regions and as far as June in Kentucky. The later the crop is transplanted the greater risk from drought and diseases. Fall fumigation with most products gives better control of some pests, and would be desirable if not for the recontamination issue with pathogens that have rapid rates of reproduction ( eg. black shank pathogen). Consequently, growers need to fumigate using methyl bromide within a week of seeding the bed to reduce the chance of recontamination. Spring weather in much of the production area during many seasons provides only short windows for soil conditions to favor fumigation and seeding. Therefore, the short interval between fumigation opportunity and seeding opportunity ( 2 days to a week) requires materials with a short fumigation aeration period to fit into practical farming operations.

7. ( i) PROPORTION OF CROPS GROWN USING METHYL BROMIDE ( if particular agricultural or political regions only use methyl bromide, provide local data as well as national figures):

TABLE 7.1: PROPORTION OF CROPS GROWN USING METHYL BROMIDE REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED TOTAL CROP AREA 2001 AND 2002 AVERAGE ( HA)) PROPORTION OF TOTAL CROP AREA TREATED WITH METHYL BROMIDE (%)

Tobacco Transplant Beds Not available. Not available because of overlapping use of field and tray grown transplants.

NATIONAL TOTAL: Not available. Not available.

7. ( ii) IF ONLY PART OF THE CROP AREA IS TREATED WITH METHYL BROMIDE, INDICATE THE REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NOT USED IN THE OTHER AREA, AND IDENTIFY WHAT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ARE USED TO CONTROL THE TARGET PATHOGENS AND WEEDS WITHOUT METHYL BROMIDE THERE.

Methyl bromide is only used to eliminate pathogens in transplant seedbeds. A typical farm is 4 acres in size with only 0.06 acres of transplant beds treated with methyl bromide. Only seedbeds are fumigated to ensure healthy seedlings for transplant into production fields. Since 1990 the burley and dark tobacco industry has been transitioning transplant production from traditional ground beds to containerized production in a float system. Page 8 7. ( iii) WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO EXPAND THE USE OF THESE METHODS TO COVER AT LEAST PART OF THE CROP THAT HAS REQUESTED USE OF METHYL BROMIDE? WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THIS?

Even if there were no restrictions on methyl bromide use, traditional plant beds use would have already completely disappeared and been replaced with containerized transplants if the increased disease potentials were not already a serious threat to the sustainability of that method of transplant production. Some growers that abandoned plant beds for the float system are returning to ground beds for all or a portion of the crop. The industry is still trying to sort this issue out, while under going serious economic pressures unrelated to the issue of fumigation and transplants. Therefore, if acceptable methods are developed to greatly reduce the greater disease potential of containerized transplants produced in the float system while maintaining the feasibility of the float system, the traditional ground beds should disappear as a production method. Page 9 8. AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE REQUESTED FOR CRITICAL USE TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  TABLE 8.1: AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE REQUESTED FOR CRITICAL USE REGION: Tobacco Transplant Beds YEAR OF EXEMPTION REQUEST 2005 2006 KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 16,431 16,431 USE: FLAT FUMIGATION OR STRIP/ BED TREATMENT Bed Bed FORMULATION ( ratio of methyl bromide/ chloropicrin mixture) TO BE USED FOR THE CUE 98/ 2 98/ 2 TOTAL AREA TO BE TREATED WITH THE METHYL BROMIDE OR METHYL BROMIDE/ CHLOROPICRIN FORMULATION ( m2 or ha) 27 ha 27 ha APPLICATION RATE* ( kg/ ha) FOR THE FORMULATION 623 623 DOSAGE RATE* ( g/ m2) OF FORMULATION USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 62.3 62.3 APPLICATION RATE ( KG/ HA) FOR THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT 611 611 DOSAGE RATE* ( G/ M2) OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 61.1 61.1 * For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may be the same.

9. SUMMARIZE ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE METHYL BROMIDE QUANTITY NOMINATED FOR EACH REGION:

The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the U. S. was calculated as follows:

  Only the acreage experiencing one or more of the following impacts were included in the nominated amount: moderate to heavy key pest pressure and cold soil temperatures in limited production regions.   All other adjustments to the methyl bromide nominated amount ( e. g., growth, regulatory impacts, etc.) did not apply to this sector. Page 10 TABLE A. 2: 2005 SECTOR NOMINATION*

2005 ( Sector) Nomination Tobacco Transplant Beds Requested Hectares ( ha) 27 Requested Application Rate ( kg/ ha) 611 Applicant Request for 2005 Requested Kilograms ( kg) 16,431 * See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated. TABLE A. 3: 2006 SECTOR NOMINATION*

2006 ( Sector) Nomination Tobacco Transplant Beds Requested Hectares ( ha) 27 Requested Application Rate ( kg/ ha) 611 Applicant Request for 2006 Requested Kilograms ( kg) 16,431 Nominated Hectares ( ha) 27 Nominated Application Rate ( kg/ ha) 611 CUE Nominated for 2006 Nominated Kilograms ( kg) 16,431 Overall Reduction (%) 0% 2006 Sector Nomination Totals Total 2006 U. S. Sector Nominated Kilograms ( kg) 16,431 * See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated. Page 11 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  10. KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  TABLE 10.1: KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS AND REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED KEY DISEASE( S) AND WEED( S) TO GENUS AND, IF KNOWN, TO SPECIES LEVEL SPECIFIC REASONS WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED Tobacco Transplant Beds Phytophthora parasitica nicotianae Pythium spp.

Rhizoctonia spp. No effective fungicides registered*

* Mefenoxam containing fungicides which were used in seedbeds for many years to aid in Phytophthora and Pythium control were removed from the labels in recent years due to resistance issues.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Transplant production ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual ( 1 year)

TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Not Applicable SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Medium organic sandy loam FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) Yearly OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: Growers normally prepare the bed site only a few days prior to fumigating, plant within a week, and harvest transplants 6 12 weeks later, depending upon growing conditions. This is done to reduce the risk of contaminating the seedbed due to a relatively long interval between fumigation and seeding. Page 12 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN CLIMATIC ZONE USDA plant hardiness zone 5a 8b.

RAINFALL ( mm) 60.7 34.8 192.5 134.1 109.0 68.7 44.7 74.2 138.2 165.6 126.7 103.6 OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C) 3.2 3.2 6.9 14.3 16.2 23.6 26.2 25.6 22.3 13.3 5.9 2.0 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE X PLANTING SCHEDULE X X X * Kentucky data provided as representative of the growing region TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS   11. ( ii) INDICATE IF ANY OF THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS IN 11. ( i) PREVENT THE UPTAKE OF ANY RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES?

The cold temperatures during February through April constrain the use of metam sodium and dazomet as soil fumigants. Cold soil temperature prevents early transplanting dates due to the long aeration period required for full activity and to avoid major phytotoxicity issues with residual fumigant. Spring application of metam sodium and dazomet shifts seeding date from February to April. The later the crop is transplanted, the greater the risk from drought and diseases. Page 13 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS 12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 AREA TREATED ( hectares) 427 204 122 52 37 30 RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION METHYL BROMIDE USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED 100 % Bed 100 % Bed 100 % Bed 100 % Bed 100 % Bed 100 % Bed AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kilograms) 260,815 124,738 74,843 31,751 22,680 18,144 FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 METHOD BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED ( e. g. injected at 25cm depth, hot gas) Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas APPLICATION RATE OF FORMULATIONS IN kg/ ha* 623 623 626 623 626 617 ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF FORMULATIONS ( g/ m2)* 62.3 62.3 62.6 62.3 62.6 61.7 APPLICATION RATE ( KG/ HA) FOR THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT 611 611 611 612 611 610 ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT ( g/ m2)* 61.1 61.1 61.1 61.2 61.1 61   For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may be the same. Page 14 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS   TABLE 13.1: REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES 1,3 D Chloropicrin Effective against nematodes but not pathogens associated with U. S. tobacco production. Only effective when used in combination. No Dazomet ( Basamid) Fall use allows for recontamination before the following spring. Spring application delays seeding due to the extended aeration period. Delayed planting can result in greater disease and drought conditions. No Chloropicrin Chloropicrin would control the fungal pathogens involved, and in combinations with methyl bromide give superior control. However, chloropicrin also has a long fumigation and waiting interval equal to Basamid and metam sodium and therefore the same limitations. No Metam sodium Fall use allows for recontamination before the following spring. Spring application delays seeding due to the extended aeration period. Delayed planting can result in greater disease and drought conditions. No Dithane No feasible as only provides mild suppression of Rhyzocontia spp. No NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Biofumigation Not applicable as still experimental. No Solarization of soil No consistent effectiveness as is dependent upon meteorological conditions. There is inadequate sunlight during the period immediately preceding seedbed establishment, so solarization must be done the previous summer/ fall and recontamination issue are equal or worse than those with fall fumigation. No Steam sterilization of soil Not readily available for farm use and the equipment is expensive. No Biological Control Not applicable as still experimental. No Cover crops and Mulching Not applicable due to the soil borne nature of the pathogens No Page 15 Crop rotation/ fallow Is strongly recommended and usually practiced, which is why the list of soil borne pathogens is not larger. However, it alone is not adequate to control Pythium and Rhizoctonia spp. as rotated sites also become recontaminated. The population of these pathogens must still be reduced to near zero immediately ahead of seeding. No Endophytes Not applicable. No Organic amendments/ Compost Not applicable due to the soil borne nature of the pathogens. No Physical removal/ sanitation Not applicable as completely disease free beds are required for crop production. No Resistant cultivars Already used but not sufficient disease control by themselves against any of the key pathogens in a seed situation. In fact, using resistant varieties for this purpose could result in widespread field development of the disease by harboring the pathogens at low levels in a hidden state. It is more desirable for black shank to appear prior to transplanting so that infected plants will not be transferred into the production fields. No Non soil culture Already used but methyl bromide is still needed to sterilize trays. No Substrates/ Plug plants Already used but methyl bromide is still needed to sterilize trays. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES 1,3 D, Brush burning Not applicable. No * Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  14. LIST AND DISCUSS WHY REGISTERED ( and Potential) PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE CONSIDERED NOT EFFECTIVE AS TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE:

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS   TABLE 14.1: TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION There are no available alternatives for the control of fungal pathogens. Page 16 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES:

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS   TABLE 15.1: PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS OF ALTERNATIVES NAME OF ALTERNATIVE PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS REGISTRATION BEING CONSIDERED BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES? ( Y/ N)* DATE OF POSSIBLE FUTURE REGISTRATION:

Iodomethane Not registered Y Unknown Fosthiazate Not registered Y Unknown Furfural Not registered Y Unknown Sodium azide Not registered, no request submitted to US N Unknown Propargyl bromide Not registered, no request submitted to US N Unknown Diallyl sulfide Registered to control Sclerotinia fungus, but not on tobacco seed beds. N Unknown * Pesticide companies are not interested in labeling pesticides on tobacco for disease control due to economic and image issues.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  16. STATE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC KEY TARGET PESTS AND WEEDS FOR WHICH IT IS BEING REQUESTED DITHANE IS RECOMMENDED FOR RHIZOCTONIA CONTROL IN PLANT BEDS ( U KY)

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS   TABLE 16.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES   Phytophthora parasitica nicotianae KEY PEST: Phytophthora parasitica nicotianae AVERAGE DISEASE % OR RATING AND YIELDS IN PAST 3~ 5 YEARS METHYL BROMIDE FORMULATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ( include dosage rates and application method) # OF TRIALS DISEASE (% OR RATING) # OF TRIALS ACTUAL YIELDS ( T/ HA) CITATION Methyl bromide 100 1 Nesmith* Vapam ( Metam sodium) fumigation 54 1 * Nesmith, W. 1992/ 93. On Farm Test in Powell County, Ky. Not published. Page 17 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS   TABLE C. 1: ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS Metam Sodium ( Vapam) Fumigation pathogens 46 46 OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 46 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  17. ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES UNDER DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO REPLACE METHYL BROMIDE?

No. The tobacco market is not sufficiently large to support labeling products and liability is high. Further, minor crop funding is not allowed for tobacco. Pesticide companies are not interested in labeling pesticides on tobacco for disease control due to economic and public perception issues.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?

No. While most of the larger operations have moved to soil less media float bed transplant production, methyl bromide is still essential to ensure healthy transplants.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY Methyl bromide is still essential to ensure healthy transplants for field production of tobacco. While there are other fumigants registered, dazomet and metam sodium, their use is compromised by field conditions whether applied in the fall or spring. Until float tray production of seedlings in small farm operations can be guaranteed to produce pathogen free seedlings or acceptable alternative fumigants are registered for use on tobacco, methyl bromide is essential to field tobacco transplant production. KEY PEST: Pythium spp. AVERAGE DISEASE % OR RATING AND YIELDS IN PAST 3~ 5 YEARS Page 18 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL 19. TECHNIQUES THAT HAVE AND WILL BE USED TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS IN THE PARTICULAR USE: ( State % adoption or describe change)

TABLE 19.1: TECHNIQUES TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS TECHNIQUE OR STEP TAKEN VIF OR HIGH BARRIER FILMS METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE REDUCTION INCREASED % CHLOROPICRIN IN METHYL BROMIDE FORMULATION LESS FREQUENT APPLICATION WHAT USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION METHODS ARE PRESENTLY ADOPTED? Currently some growers use HDPE tarps. No No No WHAT FURTHER USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION STEPS WILL BE TAKEN FOR THE METHYL BROMIDE USED FOR CRITICAL USES? The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try high barrier films. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try lower dosage rates. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try increasing chloropicrin percentages. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try less frequent applications.

OTHER MEASURES ( please describe) Not available. Examination of promising but presently unregistered alternative fumigants, alone or in combination with nonchemical methods, is planned Not available. Research is underway to develop float bed transplant production systems which will ensure pathogen free seedlings 20. IF METHYL BROMIDE EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNIQUES ARE NOT BEING USED OR ARE NOT PLANNED FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE NOMINATION STATE REASONS:

In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, each party is required to describe ways in which it strives to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. The use of methyl bromide in the growing of tobacco seedlings in plant beds in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide has, for the last 40 years, been regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used by certified applicators that 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 Page 19 to the lowest level possible, methyl bromide application is most often machine injected into soil to specific depths.

As methyl bromide has become scarcer, 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 95% methyl bromide and 5% 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, at low to moderate levels of infestation, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown.

Tarpaulin ( high density polyethylene) is also used to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide.

Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, cultural practices, and the extensive use of tarpaulins 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 for the uses described in this nomination. Page 20 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 21. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD:

TABLE 21.1: COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD ALTERNATIVE YIELD* COST IN YEAR 1 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 2 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 3 ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide 100% $ 84 $ 84 $ 84 Floating Trays 100% $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 Metam Sodium 54% $ 84 $ 84 $ 84 * As percentage of typical or 3 year average yield, compared to methyl bromide.

22. GROSS AND NET REVENUE:

TABLE 22.1: YEAR 1 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 1 ALTERNATIVES GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide 10,210 6,477 Floating Trays 10,210 6,568 Metam Sodium 5,514 1,865 TABLE 22.2: YEAR 2 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 2 ALTERNATIVES GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide 10,210 6,477 Floating Trays 10,210 6,568 Metam Sodium 5,514 1,865 TABLE 22.3: YEAR 3 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 3 ALTERNATIVES GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide 10,210 6,477 Floating Trays 10,210 6,568 Metam Sodium 5,514 1,865 Page 21 MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS  TABLE E. 1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS METHYL BROMIDE FLOATING TRAYS METAM SODIUM ( VAPAM) YIELD LOSS (%) 0% 0% 46%

YIELD PER HECTARE 2,316 2,316 1,250 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) 4.41 4.41 4.41 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) 10,210 10,210 5,514  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) 3,733 3,642 3,649 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) 6,477 6,568 1,865 Loss Measures 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 +$ 91 4,612 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 +$ 27.12 $ 1,371.62 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% + 1% 45%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% + 1% 71%

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The economic analysis compared the costs of two alternative control scenarios to the baseline costs for controlling tobacco pests with methyl bromide to determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were unavailable. The two alternatives are floating trays and Vapam or metam sodium. Various measures were used to quantify the impacts, including the following:

( 1) Loss per Hectare. For crops, this measure is closely tied to income. It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to interpret in isolation.

( 2) Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide. This measure indicates the nominal marginal value of methyl bromide to crop production.

( 3) Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue. This measure has the advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over some unit, e. g., a hectare of land or a storage operation. However, high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also entail high costs. Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity.

( 4) Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue. We define net cash revenues as gross revenues minus operating costs. This is a very good indicator as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the owners or operators of an enterprise. However, operating costs can often be difficult to measure and verify. Page 22 ( 5) Operating Profit Margin. We define operating profit margin to be net operating revenue divided by gross revenue per hectare. This measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of the loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult, therefore fixed costs were not included in the analysis.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users, who are producers in this case. Because producers ( suppliers) represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we interpret the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide. The economic measures provide the basis for making that determination. Several methodological approaches will help interpret the findings. Economic estimates were first calculated in pounds and acres and then converted to kilograms and hectares. Costs for alternatives are based on market prices for the control products multiplied by the number of pounds of active ingredient that would be applied. Baseline costs were based on the average number of annual applications necessary to treat tobacco beds with methyl bromide.

Net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating costs. This is a good measure as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the users. It should be noted that net revenue does not represent net income to the users. Net income, which indicates profitability of an operation of an enterprise, is gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs. Net income should be smaller than the net revenue measured in this study. Fixed costs were not included because they are difficult to measure and verify.

One of the issues tobacco beds growers are facing is whether or not it will be financially prudent to convert from a bed system that requires fumigation of the soil to a floating tray system. A floating tray system uses trays floating in shallow pools to grow seedlings. After the seedlings are removed the trays are fumigated, stored and reused again. Although it is seen as an alternative, seedling producers using the floating tray system are starting to move back to soil beds for a couple of reasons. For starters, if the water becomes contaminated the entire stock of seedlings is lost as pathogens spread unabated. Secondly, there is virtually no insurance crop available as growers cannot keep seedlings floating in trays beyond transplant maturity whereas with a bed system growers can maintain insurance or back up stock. In fact, some seedling producers are now converting from floating trays back to beds even though the management costs are higher. This analysis considers the floating tray system and fumigation with Vapam as alternatives to fumigation with methyl bromide.

The costs for the first alternative are based on using a floating tray system to minimize pathogen transfer while the costs for the second alternative is based on the cost of applying and metam sodium ( Vapam) in place of methyl bromide. The baseline costs were based on the average number of applications to treat tobacco beds with methyl bromide per year ( one) with 3 pounds methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet.

The loss per hectare measures the value of methyl bromide based on changes in operating costs and/ or changes in yield. The loss as a percentage of the gross revenue is based on the ratio of the loss to the gross revenue. Likewise for the loss as a percentage of net revenue. The profit Page 23 margin percentage is the ratio of net revenue to gross revenue per hectare.

The differences in the cost of production were primarily from the cost of the capital investments and/ materials costs for the floating tray system when compared to a bed system using methyl bromide. The basis for the fumigation alternative costs and differences in net revenue are from the estimated yield loss if metam sodium is used in place of methyl bromide. Labor was assumed to cost $ 6.50 per hour. Yield losses ranged from 0% to 46%.

Under Alternative 1 ( floating tray system), yield losses were estimated to be 0% compared to methyl bromide. Operating costs in U. S. dollars per hectare were estimated to be $ 3,643 per year. The estimated net revenue was $ 6,568 per hectare. The gain per hectare is estimated to be $ 91 due to the estimated reduced cost of a tray system compared to soil fumigation with methyl bromide. The gain per kilogram of methyl bromide in U. S. dollars is estimated to be $ 27.12 per kilogram. If growers are going from floating tray systems back to seedbeds because of performance problems, the economic consequence of using a system that doesn't work is that revenue falls to zero in some cases for seedling growers that experience pathogen problems as their entire stock is lost. The probability of this loss is not known but converting to a different production technology is an indication that the risk of loss is too great. It is understood that in some cases floating trays do work, but the economic consequences of float tray failure impacts and the financial risk avoidance can be measured by the cost of converting back to seedbeds. Conversion costs were not available for this analysis.

Under alternative 2 Vapam ( metam sodium), yield losses were estimated to be 46% compared to methyl bromide. Operating costs in U. S. dollars per hectare were estimated to be $ 3,649 per year. The estimated net revenue was $ 1,865 per hectare. The loss per hectare is estimated to be $ 4,612. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in U. S. dollars is estimated to be $ 1,371.62 per kilogram. Page 24 PART F. FUTURE PLANS 23. WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS CROP?

Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the U. S. EPA currently has more applications pending in its registration review queue than the resources to evaluate them, U. S. EPA prioritizes the applications. 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 U. S. EPA to initiate its review.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency 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, Agency scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide 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. This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's US$ 15 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also U. S. EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals each year for USDA's US$ 2.5 million per year methyl bromide alternatives research has further ensured close coordination between the U. S. government and the research community.

24. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE CRITICAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

The U. S. wants to note that our usage rate is among the lowest in the world in requested sectors and represents efforts of both the government and the user community over many years to reduce use rates and emissions. We will continue to work with the user community in each sector to identify further opportunities to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions. Page 25 25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION?

While most tobacco producers have moved to the float tray system for seedling transplant production, methyl bromide is still critical to ensure pathogen free seedlings. In recent years, a number of producers have abandoned the float tray system and returned to small plot field production of tobacco transplants. This move has occurred due to the greater potential for disease production in the greenhouse float tray system. This indicates that float tray systems still have problems which must be eliminated before they can be considered a viable alternative for seedling production in the United States. Page 26 26. CITATIONS Nesmith, W. 1992/ 93. On Farm Test in Powell County, Ky. Not published.

Gutierrez, WA, HD Shew and TA Melton. 1997. Sources of Inoculum and Management for Rhizoctonia solani Damping off on Tobacco Transplants under Greenhouse Conditions. Pla. Science 81: 604 606 CITATIONS REVIEWED BUT NOT APPLICABLE Hensley Sr., R and DJ Fowlkes. The Float System for Producing Tobacco Transplants.

Bateman K. 2002. Tobacco Greenhouse Float Tray Sanitation. NC State University Cooperative Extension Service. http:// www. utextension. utk. edu/ tobaccoinfo/ 2002TOC. htm Reed, TD. 1998. Float Greenhouse Tobacco: Transplant Production Guide. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication Number 436 051. http:// www. ext. vt. edu/ pubs/ tobacco/ 436 051/ 436 051. html Vani Muller, J J. 2000. Brazilian Tobacco Growers Choose Floating Seed Trays as Methyl Bromide Replacement. RUMBA April 2000. http:// www. uneptie. org/ ozonaction/ compliance/ rumba/ 00april. html Dimock, WJ, CS Johnson, TD Reed, PJ Semtner, RL Jones and MJ Weaver. 2001. Crop Profile for Tobacco in Virginia. USDA/ NASS. http:// cipm. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/ docs/ vatobacco. html Mulrooney, B. 1998. Weekly Crop Update   Sanitation of Greenhouse Trays. University of Delaware Cooperative Extension. Volume 1, Issue 1 March 13, 1998. http:// www. rec. udel. edu/ Update98/ upd31398. html Hensley, DD. Disease Management in Transplant Production.

Nesmith, W. 1995. New Harvest  Disinfect Planter Flats and Materials for Growing Transplants. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. http:// www. ext. vt. edu/ news/ periodicals/ commhort/ 1995 07/ commhort 35. html Salles, LA, DA Sosa and A Valeiro. 2001. Alternatives for the Replacement of Methyl Bromide in Argentina. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, No. 166: 3 11. http:// fao. org/ DOCREP/ 004/ Y1809E/ y1809e02. htm Page 27 Salles, LA. 2001. Effective Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Brazil. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, No. 166: 13 24. http:// fao. org/ DOCREP/ 004/ Y1809E/ y1809e02. htm The mentioned articles were reviewed but not cited because either they contained material only outlining the production methodology or did not include relevant scientific methods and data in support of the conclusions. Page 28 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average not available not available not available not available Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 16,431 27 611 0%

16,431 27 611 0%

0% 0%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 611 611 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use /

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MeBr (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Yes No ? Yes Yes + No ?

Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare Marginal Strategy 54% Metam Sodium Combined Impacts (%)

HIGH 100% LOW 100%

Regional Hectares**

% of Requested Hectares MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE not available not available TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS REGION TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues 0.453592 1 Acre = 0.404686 Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)

REGION REGION REGION TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS TOBACCO TRANSPLANT BEDS Cold Soil Temp (%)

Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Economic Analysis (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%)

(%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 0% 0% 0% 0%

% Reduction from Initial Request 0% 0% 0% 16,431 16,431 16,431 16,431 Nomination Amount 16,431 16,431 16,431 () QPS HIGH LOW 16,431     16,431 16,431 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

0%

33 611 0%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 16,431 27 611 20,412 33 611 16,431 27 611 20,412 2006 Amount of Request 2001 & 2002 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) not available Date: 2/ 26/ 2004 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Average Hectares in the US: not available Sector: TOBACCO BEDS 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) % of Average Hectares Requested: Page 29 Footnotes for Appendix A: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Hectares in the US   Average Hectares in the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2. % of Average Hectares Requested  Percent (%) of Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 3. 2006 Amount of Request   The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares   Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the Georgia Acreage estimates. 7. Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %  Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 8. 2006 Nomination Options   2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while their consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then Page 30 multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2006 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. (%) Karst topography   Percent karst topography is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues. Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to its karst topography. 17. (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones   Percentage of the acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure. 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge. 19. Regulatory Issues (%)  Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use. 20. Unsuitable Terrain (%)   Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and coverage problems. 21. Cold Soil Temperatures   Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to produce the normal ( one or two) number of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of the season. 22. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key pests and an additional 25% ( 50% of 50%) affected by karst topography. 23. Qualifying Area  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 24. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate. 25. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 26. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 27. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 28. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 29. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 30. Strip Bed Treatment   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. 31. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. Page 31 32. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 33. Tarps/ Deep Injection Used   Because all pre plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes on the value ` tarp' when tarps are used and ` deep' when deep injection is used. 34. Pest free cert. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 35. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 36. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. 37. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 38. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 39. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 40. Loss per Hectare   This measures the total loss per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 41. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 42. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 43. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 44. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 45. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Page 32 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already well characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors. Examples of the former include significant additional country ( cured, uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage production in Florida and California (` Ornamentals') and a group of structures and process foods that we have termed ` Post Harvest NPMA' which includes processed ( generally wheat based foods), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field grown tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991 U. S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40% for pre plant uses and 60% for postharvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U. S. baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre plant and post harvest sector.

Applicant Name 2005 U. S. CUE Nomination ( lbs)

California Cut Flower Commission 400,000 National Country Ham Association 1,172 Wayco Ham Company 39 California Date Commission 5,319 National Pest Management Association 319,369 Michigan Pepper Growers 20,904 Michigan Eggplant Growers 6,968 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Transplant Trays 2,254 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Field Grown 28,980 Virginia Tobacco Growers  Transplant Trays 941 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,200 Page 33 Ozark Country Hams 240 Nahunta Pork Center 248 American Association of Meat Processors 296,800 Total lbs 1,087,434 Total kgs 493,252


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 64496]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4673-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4673-DR), dated September 29, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 29, 2022.

    Orange, Osceola, Polk, and Seminole Counties for Individual
Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures
[Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).
    Orange, Osceola, Polk, and Seminole Counties for debris removal
[Category A] (already designated for emergency protective measures
[Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-23148 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 66125]
[DOCID:fr14de09-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI10-4-000]

Madison Farms; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

December 4, 2009.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI10-4-000.
    c. Date Filed: December 1, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Madison Farms.
    e. Name of Project: Madison ASR Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Madison ASR Hydroelectric Project will be
located near the town of Echo, Umatilla County, Oregon, affecting T. 3
N, R. 27 E, Williamette Meridian.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Kent Madison, 29299 Madison Road, Echo, OR
9826; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail: http://
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or E-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: January
4, 2010.
    Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(l)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``eFiling'' link.
If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To
paper-file, an original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to
submit these types of filings, please go to the Commission's Web site
located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    Please include the docket number (DI10-4-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Madison ASR Hydroelectric
Project contains an existing system collecting ground water,
approximately 20 feet below ground, which is piped into a 4-foot-
diameter, 25-foot-deep shallow well. The water in the shallow well is
pumped into the irrigation system, as needed. Excess water is pumped
through an 8-inch-diameter pipe into a second deeper 750-foot-deep
basalt well, containing a 100-horsepower line-shaft turbine pump. It is
expected that approximately 37 kW will be created, to be sold on the
interstate grid.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the Docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--All filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
Motion to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29618 Filed 12-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42447-42449]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89261; File No. SR-MIAX-2020-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Temporarily Extend Filing Deadlines for Certain
Supervision-Related Reports

July 8, 2020.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on July 2, 2020, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 1308,
Supervision of Accounts, to temporarily extend the filing requirements
for certain supervision-related reports, currently given an extension
to June 30, 2020, to July 31, 2020.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Given current market conditions, the Exchange proposes to provide
its members temporary relief from filing certain supervision-related
reports pursuant to Exchange Rule 1308 (Supervision of Accounts).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that MIAX Rule 1308 is incorporated by
reference into the rulebooks of MIAX PEARL, LLC (``PEARL'') and MIAX
Emerald, LLC (``Emerald''). As such, the amendments to MIAX Rule
1308 proposed herein will also impact PEARL and Emerald Rules 1308.
The Exchange initially filed the proposal on June 1, 2020 (SR-MIAX-
2020-14). On June 4, 2020, the Exchange withdrew that filing and
submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has been closely monitoring the current situation
regarding the novel coronavirus (``COVID-19'') pandemic. The Exchange
understands COVID-19 has placed stress on market participants'
information technology infrastructure and the required deployment of
significant resources, including to implement and continuously adapt
business continuity plans. On March 11, 2020, the World Health
Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic.\4\ To slow the
spread of the disease, federal and state officials implemented social-
distancing measures, placed significant limitations on large
gatherings, limited travel, and closed non-essential businesses. These
measures have affected the U.S. markets.\5\ In the United States, Level
1 market wide circuit breaker halts were triggered on March 9, March
12, March 16, and March 18, 2020. While markets have seen significant
declines, governments around the world are undertaking efforts to
stabilize the economy and assist affected companies and their
employees.\6\ While many state governments recently relaxed some social
distancing measures and permitted the limited reopening of non-
essential businesses, many State governments have now paused the
reopening of non-essential businesses due to increased infection rates.
Significant uncertainty remains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See WHO Director-General's Opening Remarks at the Media
Briefing on COVID-19 (March 11, 2020), available at https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarksat-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020.
    \5\ ``Analysts showed that we saw the fastest `correction' in
history (down 10% from a high), occurring in a matter of days. In
the last week of February, the Dow fell 12.36% with notional trading
of $3.6 trillion.'' See Phil Mackintosh, Putting the Recent
Volatility in Perspective, available at https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/putting-the-recent-volatility-in-perspective2020-03-05.
    \6\ See, e.g., the list of actions undertaken by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System at https://www.federalreserve.gov/covid-19.htm. See also Families First
Coronavirus Response Act, Public Law 116-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amidst this continued and unprecedented market uncertainty, the
Exchange sought to address potential challenges that members may face
in timely meeting their obligations to submit to the Exchange annual
supervision-related reports under Rule 1308(g) and (h) (``Supervision
Reporting Requirements''), especially in light of unforeseen and
uncertain demands on resources required to respond to COVID-19. By way
of background, Exchange Rule 1308(g) requires each Exchange member that
conducts a non-member customer business to submit to the Exchange a
written report on the member's supervision and compliance effort during
the preceding year and on the adequacy of the member's ongoing
compliance processes and procedures. Each member that conducts a public
customer options business is also required to specifically include its
options compliance program in the report.\7\ The Exchange Rule 1308(g)
report is due on April 1 of each year. Exchange Rule 1308(h) requires
that each member submit, by April 1 of each year, a copy of the Rule
1308(g) report to one or more control persons or, if the member has no
control person, to the audit committee of its board of directors or its
equivalent committee or group.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The report shall include, but not be limited to, the
information set out in Exchange Rule 1308(g)(1)-(6).
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 1308(h) for the meaning of the term
``control person'' and requirements in the case of a control person
that is an organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On each of March 31, 2020 and June 4, 2020, the Exchange filed a
proposal to temporarily extend the filing requirements for these annual
supervision-related reports from April 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 and from
June 1,

2020 to June 30, 2020, respectively.\9\ However, as COVID-19 remains an
ongoing pandemic, to meet the current June 1 deadlines in Rule 1308,
member personnel would have to divide their efforts and resources that
are otherwise necessary to address continued disruptions and stresses
as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to provide additional, temporary relief for members from the
Supervision Reporting Requirements by further extending the June 30,
2020 filing deadlines described above to July 31, 2020. The Exchange
believes that this additional, temporary relief will permit those
members who have been unable to submit their annual supervision-related
reports to continue to focus on running their businesses and the health
crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including its impact on their
employees, customers, and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88543 (April 2,
2020), 85 FR 19788 (April 8, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-06); and 89093
(June 18, 2020), 85 FR 37986 (June 24, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that in response to COVID-19, the Financial
Industry Reporting Authority (``FINRA'') recently reissued temporary
relief for member firms by, among other things, extending the deadline
for submitting its supervision-related reports (FINRA Rule 3120 Report
and FINRA Rule 3130 certification) from its second extension deadlines
of June 30, 2020 \10\ to July 31, 2020.\11\ The Exchange notes, too,
that at least one other options exchange that had twice previously
extended the supervisory report deadlines from April 1 to June 1 and
then from June 1 to June 30 for its members,\12\ also other exchanges
either plan to or have already submitted a similar filing to, again,
extend its deadlines through July 31, 2020.\13\ In light of these
deadline extensions, the Exchange believes that a consistent regulatory
approach is important and therefore that extending its deadline would
avoid unnecessary confusion and added burden among entities that are
members of both the Exchange and FINRA because the deadline to submit
supervisory reports would remain uniform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 20-08 (March 9, 2020) available
at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/20-08.
    \11\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 20-08, FAQs, Supervision (June
29, 2020) available at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/covid-19/faq#supe.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act No. 88528 (March 31, 2020), 85
FR 19196 (April 6, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-029).
    \13\ See SR-Phlx-2020-35 and SR-ISE-2020-26 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule will
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities. The proposed rule change will
allow the Exchange to extend temporary relief to its members by issuing
another extension of certain supervisory reporting deadlines from June
30, 2020 to July 31, 2020 in light of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. The
Exchange understands this pandemic has caused, and continues to cause,
stress on market participants' information technology infrastructure
and the deployment of significant resources to address ongoing
disruptions and continued stresses. By allowing the Exchange to re-
extend the deadlines for filing certain supervision related reports in
Rule 1308, the Exchange believes the proposed rule will allow member
personnel, who would normally be tasked with organizing and compiling
such reports, to focus their attention on maintaining critical
operations and sustainable business continuity plans, and otherwise
adjusting their trading operations in line with evolving market
conditions and initiatives in response to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because, as noted above, FINRA has also re-
extended the time for their members to file supervision-related reports
from June 30, 2020 to July 31, 2020.\17\ Additionally, as indicated
above, other options exchanges that had previously extended the
supervisory report deadlines to June 30, 2020 for their members, plan
to submit similar filings to re-extend their deadlines through July 31,
2020.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 11.
    \18\ See supra notes 12 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule would impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
Act, because the additional June 30, 2020 extension for supervision-
related reports in Rule 1308 will apply equally to all members. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on intermarket competition because it relates only to the
extension of the filing deadline for supervision-related reports.
Additionally, and as stated above, FINRA has recently notified its
members that the filing deadline for their supervision-related reports
has again been extended to July 31, 2020,\19\ and other options
exchanges have filed or plan to file for the same relief through July
31, 2020, as well.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.
    \20\ See supra notes 12 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \21\ and

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission has waived this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \23\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \24\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The
Commission notes that the proposed rule change would allow the
Exchange, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, to provide temporary
relief for members by extending the deadlines in paragraphs (g) and (h)
of Exchange Rule 1308 (Supervision of Accounts) from June 30, 2020, to
July 31, 2020. This is consistent with extensions for certain
supervision-related reports provided by other exchanges.\25\ The
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 89246 (July 8,
2020) (ISE-2020-28); 89247 (July 8, 2020) (SR-PHLX-2020-35); and
89248 (July 8, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-063).
    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2020-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2020-24. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2020-24 and should be submitted on
or before August 4, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15116 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P