Yield ( seedling) per Hectare  Tree 281,507 267,431 273,062 273,062 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.63 $ 0.63 $ 0.63 $ 0.63 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 82.5%) $ 145,539.00 $ 138,262.05 $ 141,172.83 $ 141,172.83 Yield ( shrub) per Hectare  Shrub Seedling 259,032 246,081 251,261 251,261 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ shrub) $ 0.37 $ 0.37 $ 0.37 $ 0.37 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 12.5%) $ 11,872.30 $ 11,278.69 $ 11,516.14 $ 11,516.14 Yield per Hectare  Forb Root Stock 369,683 351,199 358,592 358,592 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ root stock) $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 5%) $ 739.37 $ 702.40 $ 717.18 $ 717.18 Yield ( kilograms) per Hectare  Forb Seed 669 635 649 649 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ kilogram) $ 87.08 $ 87.08 $ 87.08 $ 87.08 Gross Revenue per Proportion $ 58,238.57 $ 55,326.64 $ 56,491.41 $ 56,491.41 = Aggregate Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 216,389.24 $ 205,569.78 $ 209,897.56 $ 209,897.56  Fixed Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 46,233.38 $ 53,883.26 $ 53,883.26 $ 53,883.26 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 170,155.86 $ 151,686.52 $ 156,014.30 $ 156,014.30 LOSS MEASURES 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S $) $ 0 $ 18,469.34 $ 14,141.56 $ 14,141.56 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 70.12 $ 53.69 $ 53.69 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 9% 7% 7% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 11% 8% 8%

REGION D  WEYERHAEUSER SOUTH  TABLE E. 4: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES REGION D  WEYERHAEUSER SOUTH Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3%

Yield ( seedling) per Hectare 586,621 557,290 569,022 569,022 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 = Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 27,289.61 $ 25,925.13 $ 26,470.92 $ 26,470.92  Fixed Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 15,509.50 $ 16,421.86 $ 16,400.54 $ 16,320.23 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 11,780.11 $ 9,503.28 $ 10,070.38 $ 10,150.69 LOSS MEASURES 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 2,276.84 $ 1,709.73 $ 1,629.42 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 27.08 $ 20.34 $ 19.38 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 8% 6% 6%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 19% 15% 14% Page 59 REGION E  WEYERHAEUSER WEST  TABLE E. 5: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES REGION E  WEYERHAEUSER WEST Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3% Yield ( seedling) per Hectare 62,634 59,502 60,755 60,755 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 $ 0.30 = Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 18,790.12 $ 17,850.62 $ 18,226.42 $ 18,226.42  Fixed Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 9,445.43 $ 11,250.12 $ 11,250.12 $ 9,844.09 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 9,344.69 $ 6,600.50 $ 6,976.30 $ 8,382.33 LOSS MEASURES 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 2,744.20 $ 2,368.40 $ 962.37 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 31.32 $ 27.03 $ 10.98 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 15% 13% 5% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 29% 25% 10%

REGION F  NORTHEASTERN FOREST & CONSERVATION NURSERY ASSOCIATION  TABLE E. 6: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES Region F  Northeastern Forest & Conservation Nursery Association Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3% Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedling 1 0 247,105 234,750 239,692 239,692 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 8%) $ 3,887.79 $ 3,693.40 $ 3,771.15 $ 3,771.15 Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedling 2 0 185,329 176,062 179,769 179,769 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 $ 0.20 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 4%) $ 1,457.92 $ 1,385.02 $ 1,414.18 $ 1,414.18 Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedling 3 0 123,553 117,375 119,846 119,846 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.28 $ 0.28 $ 0.28 $ 0.28 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 14%) $ 4,900.92 $ 4,655.87 $ 4,753.89 $ 4,753.89 Yield per Hectare Deciduous Tree Seedling 1 0 123,553 117,375 119,846 119,846 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 55%) $ 16,988.48 $ 16,139.06 $ 16,478.83 $ 16,478.83 Yield per Hectare Deciduous Tree Seedling 2 0 123,553 117,375 119,846 119,846 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 $ 0.31 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 9%) $ 3,410.05 $ 3,239.55 $ 3,307.75 $ 3,307.75 Yield per Hectare Decid. Shrub Seedling 1 0 123,553 117,375 119,846 119,846 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 10%) $ 2,841.71 $ 2,699.62 $ 2,756.46 $ 2,756.46 = Aggregate Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 33,486.87 $ 31,812.52 $ 32,482.26 $ 32,482.26  Fixed Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 23,535.53 $ 30,009.19 $ 29,077.80 $ 29,077.80 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 9,951.34 $ 1,803.33 $ 3,404.46 $ 3,404.46 Loss Measures 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 8,148.00 $ 6,546.88 $ 6,546.88 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 47.75 $ 38.37 $ 38.37 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 24% 20% 20% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 82% 66% 66% Page 60 REGION G  MICHIGAN SEEDLING ASSOCIATION  TABLE E. 7: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES Region G  Michigan Seedling Association Methyl Bromide Dazomet 1,3 D + Chloropicrin Metam Sodium + Chloropicrin Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% 3% 3% Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedlings 535,395 508,625 519,333 519,333 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 60%) $ 51,397.87 $ 48,827.98 $ 49,855.94 $ 49,855.94 Yield per Hectare Conifer Transplants 74,132 70,425 71,908 71,908 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ transplants) $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 10%) $ 4,447.89 $ 4,225.50 $ 4,314.46 $ 4,314.46 Yield per Hectare Deciduous Transplants 329,474 313,000 319,589 319,589 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ transplants) $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 30%) $ 49,421.03 $ 46,949.98 $ 47,938.40 $ 47,938.40 = Aggregate Gross Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 105,266.80 $ 100,003.46 $ 102,108.80 $ 102,108.80  Fixed Costs per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 88,948.96 $ 89,095.00 $ 91,778.48 $ 88,919.97 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 16,317.84 $ 10,908.46 $ 10,330.31 $ 13,188.83 Loss Measures 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 5,168.20 $ 6,228.70 $ 2,887.84 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 57.64 $ 69.46 $ 32.21 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 5% 6% 3% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 33% 37% 19%

REGION H  MICHIGAN HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS  TABLE E. 8: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES Region H  Michigan Herbaceous Perennials Methyl Bromide Various Alternatives** Yield Loss (%) 0% 5% Yield per Hectare Conifer Seedlings 144,942 137,694 * Price per Unit ( U. S. $/ seedling) $ 0.96 $ 0.96 Gross Revenue per Proportion ( 60%) $ 139,838 $ 132,846 = Operating Cost per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 38,310 $ 59,677 = Net Revenue per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 101,528 $ 73,169 Loss Measures 1. Loss per Hectare ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 28,359 2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide ( U. S. $) $ 0 $ 145 3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%) 0% 20% 4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Revenue (%) 0% 28% ** The category Various Alternatives includes physical removal and sanitation, the use of artificial media, and soil treatment with 1,3 D + chloropicrin.

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY An economic assessment was made for three technically feasible in kind ( chemical) alternatives for the forest seedlings sector: dazomet, 1 3 D + chloropicrin, and metam sodium + chloropicrin. The economic assessment of feasibility for pre plant uses of methyl bromide included an evaluation of economic losses from three basic sources: ( 1) yield losses, referring to reductions in the quantity produced, ( 2) quality losses, which generally affect the price received for the goods, and ( 3) increased production costs, which may be due to the higher cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/ or resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices. Page 61 The economic reviewers then analyzed crop budgets for pre plant sectors to determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were unavailable. Various measures were used to quantify the impacts, including the following:

( 1) Losses as a percent of gross revenues. 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.

( 2) Absolute losses 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.

( 3) Losses per kilogram of methyl bromide requested. This measure indicates the value of methyl bromide to crop production but is also useful for structural and post harvest uses.

( 4) Losses as a percent of net cash revenues. 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.

( 5) Changes in profit margins. We define profit margin to be profits as a percentage of gross revenues, where profits are gross revenues minus all fixed and operating costs. 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.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users, who are forest seedling 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.

Economic reviewers analyzed potential economic losses from using dazomet, 1 3 D + chloropicrin, and metam sodium + chloropicrin because they are currently considered technically feasible alternatives for nursery seedlings production.

Total losses are similar for both 1 3 D + chloropicrin, and metam sodium + chloropicrin. Quantifiable losses originate from yield losses and cost increases. Dazomet has slightly higher yield losses than 1 3 D + chloropicrin, and metam sodium + chloropicrin, but similar treatment costs. Indirect yield losses occurred due to lengthening of the production cycle, which resulted in less land in production and more in fallow or longer time for seedlings to reach appropriate size. Additional losses may also arise due to a shift from high quality Grade # 1 seedlings to lower quality Grade # 2, which causes a loss of about 30 percent of value, and more seedlings Page 62 that must be culled. Unfortunately, data were lacking to measure this shift. Thus, total losses are underestimated.

Tables E. 1 ~ E. 8 provides a summary of the estimated economic losses. A measure of operating profit loss may not be completely accurate partly because many nurseries are publicly owned and seedling prices or production costs are subsidized. Although attempts were made to appropriately value the seedlings at a true market price, losses as a percentage of gross revenues and of net cash returns should be viewed with caution. Direct yield losses are similar across the regions, mainly because the same studies were used to predict impacts. The range of losses in the studies is rather large because both dazomet and metam sodium provide inconsistent pest control. Indirect losses arising from shifts in the production cycle were only quantified for the Northern region where the impact is expected to be more pronounced due to cooler temperatures and longer time required for production of a seedling crop. Changes in production costs arise due to differences between the costs of methyl bromide and the alternatives, shifts in the production cycle ( increasing the frequency of fumigation or lengthening the fallow period) and additional expenses such as supplementary irrigation. These costs vary across regions and within the Western region, which is highly diverse, because of differences in pests, production systems and regional differences in costs of water and labor. Costs are higher in the South, in part because warmer temperatures increase pest pressure.

Michigan Herbaceous Perennials Michigan herbaceous perennials, labeled Region H above, comprises three categories of production systems with numerous plant varieties grown within each category. These categories are 2 year seeded ( 6% of plants), 2 year transplanted ( 29% of plants), and 3 year transplanted ( 65% of plants). To represent growing conditions on a typical hectare of production, and to account for the fact that each category has different revenues and costs of production, the above measures were calculated using representative revenues and costs for each category; these were weighted by the proportion of total production. In addition, various combinations of alternative pest control measures would need to be employed to accomplish the most effective and lowest cost pest control without MB. These various alternative pest control measures include physical removal and sanitation, the use of artificial media, and soil treatment with 1,3 D + chloropicrin.

Using alternatives to MB would lead to an estimated yield loss of 5% and an approximate 100% increase in operating costs. This will result in losses as a percent of gross and net revenue of 20% and 28%, respectively. If growers switch to MB alternatives, their losses, in terms of MB per kilogram no longer used, will be approximately $ 145. Based on the economic impact of switching to MB alternatives, the U. S. believes that currently, alternatives to MB are not economically feasible and growers of herbaceous perennials have a critical need for MB. Page 63 PART F. FUTURE PLANS 23. WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS CROP?

Because of high costs associated with forest seedlings considerable resources have been spent examining methods to reduce costs and improve efficiency in seedling production. The Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative includes commercial interests, has spent $ 1.2 million on MB alternatives since 1992. This is significant, considering several of the nurseries are publicly owned and have limited resources for independent research. Research has included trials conducted to assess the effectiveness of the most likely chemical and non chemical alternatives ( two year cover crops   see International Paper request CUE 03 0007) to MB, including some potential alternatives that are not currently listed by MBTOC, including combinations of chemicals such as 1,3 D, chloropicrin, metam sodium, and methyl iodide ( not currently registered in the U. S.). Development of technologies to improve efficacy of alternatives are underway and include work with deep injection application methods, soil moisture management by improving drip technologies, and trials with VIF to increase efficacy and decrease emissions while allowing reasonable cost effectiveness. Even where MB is considered critical, an improvement in efficient delivery techniques will result in reduction of MB use requirements. The Michigan Field Grown Herbaceous Perennial Growers is currently assisting in field trials with Michigan State University in research supported in part by the USDA MB Alternatives Grant Program. For 2002 2004, $ 68,979 has been allocated for weed and nematode studies and $ 370,701 has been granted for a study that runs from 2003 2006. This work is a large investment in identifying alternatives for Michigan growers. 9 One difficulty in identifying alternatives to MB is the problem of applicability of information obtained from research plots to large scale commercial production requirements. Fumigants applied to small plots may not exhibit similar effects when applied to commercial seedling beds. Overall, especially under high pest pressure, alternative chemicals have not demonstrated consistently effective results compared to MB. Continued research into methods adaptable to large scale application will shift the industry to MB alternatives.

Weyerhaeuser Corporation, one of the largest growers of forest seedlings, suggested their preference for MB alternatives ( in descending order): 1) chloropicrin, 340 kg/ ha; 2) 1,3 D at 260 kg/ ha + chloropicrin at 140 kg/ ha; 3) metam sodium, ( 485 kg/ ha) and chloropicrin ( 115 kg/ ha); 4) dazomet, 400 kg/ ha; 5) non chemical treatments such as steam; 6) biological control agents. Page 64 24. ARE THERE PLANS TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE CRITICAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

Plans to reduce MB in formulations to 50% mixed with chloropicrin are already underway, even though nurseries currently use MB only once in three to four years on a particular bed. Weed management is the issue of most concern by most nurseries and work is ongoing to study the strategic use of herbicides ( e. g., $ 370,701 USDA grant for methyl bromide alternatives research by Michigan State University that will test numerous herbicides and other weed control methods). Also cultural practices are being examined to increase mechanical cultivation and/ or soil amendments and fertilizers to maximize productivity and reduce reliance on MB. Development of predictive models to strategically determine when fumigation is appropriate can reduce overall use of fumigants ( e. g., Fraedrich and Dwinell, 1998). As stated in Section 23, minimizing use of MB can be achieved through the development of technologies to improve efficacy of alternatives such as deep injection methods, soil moisture management by improving drip technologies, experience with virtually impermeable films to increase efficacy and decrease emissions, and still have reasonable cost effectiveness. Even where MB is considered critical, an improvement in efficient delivery techniques will result in reduction of MB use requirements.

25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION?

The methyl bromide critical use exemption nomination for Forest Seedlings has been reviewed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U. S. Department of Agriculture and meets the guidelines of The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. This use is considered critical because there are conditions in some nurseries within this sector with high pest pressure where no feasible alternatives or substitutes are currently effective. While some alternatives appear to offer an alternative to MB for some pests in some research trials, the high production nursery industry demands a consistent and reliable pre plant fumigation treatment that can allow production goals to be met. Currently MB is the only consistent provider of this requirement.

26. CITATIONS Barnett, J. P. and McGilvrary, J. M. 1997. Practical guidelines for producing longleaf pine seedlings in containers. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS 14. Asheville, NC. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 28 p. http:// www. bugwood. org/ container/ guidelines. html Campbell, S. J. and Kelpsas, B. R. 1988. Comparison of three soil fumigants in a bareroot conifer nursery. Tree Planters' Notes 39 ( 4): 16 22.

Carey, W. A. 2000. Fumigation with chloropicrin, metham sodium, and EPTC as replacements for methyl bromide in southern pine nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 24: 135 139. Page 65 Carey, W. A. 1996. Testing alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation at the Winona Nursery. Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative Research Report 96 2.

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

Charron, C. S. and Sams, C. E. Macerated Brassica leaves suppress Pythium ultimum and Rhizoctonia solani mycelial growth. see CUE 0066 request Michigan Field Grown Herbaceous Perennial Growers consortium in 2003 submission.

Cram, M. M. and Fraedrich, W. 1997. Survey of southern forest nurseries: fumigation practices and pest management concerns. www. epa. gov/ spdpublic/ mbr/ airc/ 1997/ 096cram. pdf Darrow, K. 2002. Personal communication ( see Appendix A)

Elmore, C. L., Stapleton, J. J., Bell, C. E., DeVay, J. E. 1997. Soil Solarization. Univ. California, Div. Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publ. 21377. Oakland, CA. pp. 13.

Enebak, S. A., Palmer, M. A., and Blanchette, R. A. 1990. Managing soilborne pathogens of white pine in a forest nursery. Plant Disease 74: 195 198.

Federal Register, February 5, 1998, 40 CFR, part 82. Control of methyl bromide emissions through use of tarps. http:// frwebgate5. access. gpo. gov/ cgibin waisgate. cgi? WAISdocID= 826484320000+ 6+ 0+ 0& WAISaction= retrieve.

Fraedrich, S. W. and Dwinell, L. D. 1998. Evaluation of fumigants for pest management and seedling production in southern pine nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1998). http:// mbao. org/

Gan, J. and Yates, S. R. 1998. Ammonium thiosulfate fertilizer reduces methyl bromide emissions from soil. Methyl Bromide Alternatives, USDA, ARS. vol 4 ( 3), July, 1998. http:// www. ars. usda. gov/ is/ np/ mba/ july98/ ammonium. htm Hardie I. W. and Parks, P. J. 1991. Individual choice and regional acreage response to costsharing in the South, 1971 1981. Forest Science 37( 1) 175 190.

Iver, J. G. (?). Nursery fertility and related problems   yellowing of white pine. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources State Nursery Managers ( cooperators). in CUE 03 0032 application.

James, R. L., Stone, J. K., Hildebrand, D. M., Frankel, S. M., and Gemandt, D. S. 1997. Alternatives to chemical soil fumigation in western federal bareroot conifer nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1997). http:// mbao. org/ Page 66 James, R. L., Stone, J. K., Hildebrand, D. M., Frankel, S. M., and Harris, J. L. 2001. Alternatives to pre plant soil fumigation in western bareroot forest nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2001). http:// mbao. org/

Landis, T. D. and Campbell, S. J. 1989. Soil fumigation in bareroot tree nurseries. In: Landis, T. D., ( tech. coord.), Proc. Intermountain Forest Nursery Association, Bismarck, ND. USDA, Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO. http:// www. fcnanet. org/ proceedings/ 1989/ landis. pdf Lantz, C. W. 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide in southern forest tree nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1997). http:// mbao. org/

Lowerts, G. 2003. Personal communication.

Mc Nabb, K. and VanderSchaaf, C. 2003. A survey of forest tree seedling production in the South for the 2003 2003 planting season. Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative Technical Note 03 02.

Moulton, R. J. and Hernandez, G. 2000. Tree planting in the United States, 1998. Tree Planters Notes V49( 2). USDA Forest Service. pp 1 36.

Royer, J. P. 1987. Determinants of reforestation behavior among southern landowners. Forest Science 33( 3) 654 667.

Stone, J. K., Hildebrand, D. M., James, R. L., Frankel, S. M. 1998. Alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation for control of soil borne diseases in bareroot forest nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 1998). http:// mbao. org/

USDA APHIS ( Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), Plant Protection and Quarantine. 2002. Sudden Oak Death. http:// www. aphis. usda. gov/ ppq/ ispm/ sod/

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 2 ( Bonanza Nursery, Molin, Oregon). 1980. MBchloropicrin ( spring and fall), Vorlex ( MITC+) and Vapam ( metam sodium) trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 3 ( Mima Nursery, Olympia, Washington). 1984 1987. MB chloropicrin, Basamid ( dazomet) trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 4 ( Mima Nursery, Olympia, Washington). 1985 1987. MB chloropicrin, Basamid ( dazomet), soil preparation trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 5 ( Mima Nursery, Olympia, Washington). 1985 1987. MB chloropicrin, Basamid ( dazomet) rate trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 6 ( Aiken Nursery, Aiken, South Carolina). 1992. MBchloropicrin Basamid ( dazomet), Busan ( metam sodium) trial. 2002 CUE request package. Page 67 Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 7 ( Fort Towson Nursery, Ft. Towson, Oklahoma). 1994 1996. MB chloropicrin alternatives trial. 2002 CUE request package.

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

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 9 ( G. H. W. Nursery, Washington, North Carolina). 1994 1995. Basamid ( dazomet) trial. 2002 CUE request package.

Weyerhaeuser In house Research Study 10 ( G. H. W. Nursery, Washington, North Carolina). 1994 1996. Alternative fumigant trial. 2002 CUE request package. Page 68 APPENDIX A. Estimated Costs Of Converting A Loblolly Forest Tree Seedling Nursery From Soil Based To Containerized Soilless Culture1 The costs below are based on the conversion of a 10 million bareroot seedling, soil based, nursery [ typical nurseries in the southern U. S. can produce 20 60 million bareroot seedlings] to a container, soilless, nursery for the raising of Loblolly pine seedlings in the southern USA. The cost estimates include estimates of additional expenditures ( over and above $. 04 per seedling cost for soil based system) for:

A. Capital Infrastructure B. Operating Costs Limitations of analysis: There are also expected to be additional shipping costs, due to the larger size and weight of containerized plants, but estimating these costs were beyond the scope of this analysis. Economy of scale can be significant and regional costs vary, making it difficult to provide a precise cost.

Additional note: The capital costs associated with conversion from a soil based to a soilless nursery are much less than the capital costs of establishing a new soilless nursery. All of the basic infrastructure and much of the equipment would already be in place with a soil based nursery.

A. Capital Infrastructure: Many of the facilities required for the operation of a soil based seedling nursery are required for a soilless nursery, so conversion costs and the conversion costs are Conversion cost: Water supply $ 0 Power $ 0 Buildings $ 0 Landscaping/ leveling/ roads $ 0 Equipment  assuming no trade ins $ 100,000 Nursery structures + irrigation $ 130,000 B. Operating costs: Working capital requirements are greater in a soilless nursery than a soil based nursery as more labor is used. The cost of conversion from a soil based nursery to a soilless nursery should include the need for additional working capital.

Working capital: Additional container system cost $ 150,000 ( Over and above ~$ 50,000 cost for soil based system) Containers $ 410,000 Page 69 C. Land The soil based nursery requires 13.3 hectares exclusive of buildings, storage and administrative area. The soilless nursery requires 4 hectares for the same production.

Assuming the soil based nursery owner is able to sell or exchange the surplus land, the change from soil based to soilless will be a source of revenue. A review of land prices in the southern USA, in localities where forest tree nurseries are situated reveals an average of $ 12,350 per hectare.

Land Savings: Land ( 9.3 hectares at $ 12,350 per hectare) ($ 114,855)

D. Analysis of Net Costs: Converting 10 million Seedling Nursery from Bareroot to Containerized, Soilless Culture Capital Cost Years of Use* Annual Cost Cost per Seedling EQUIPMENT $ 100,000 10 $ 11,723 $ 0.0012 Nursery Structures $ 130,000 10 $ 15,240 $ 0.0015 Running Container System $ 150,000 $ 0.015 Containers $ 410,000 $ 0.041 Total Additional Cost** $ 586,963 $ 0.059 Land rent savings*** ($ 3,450) ($ 0.0003)

Net additional cost $ 0.0583 Base production cost ( for bareroot and soilless system) $ 0.04 Total Cost per Seedling $ 0.0983 * Incorporates real interest cost at 3% per year. ** Does not include additional cost of shipping due to larger and heavier containers. *** Using land capitalization rate of 3%.

Conclusion: Converting to a soilless containerized system would increase the cost of production by approximately 250%, and could be higher when the increased cost of shipping containerized seedlings is included.

1 Based on communication with Kevin Darrow, Sept. 2002 Page 70 APPENDIX B. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 2001 & 2002 Average % of Average not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 87,348 233 375 64%

13,455 54 250 61%

1,911 7 263 55%

8,981 27 336 50%

7,943 34 236 69%

12,970 38 341 60%

4,477 17 263 51%

2,381 6 392 50%

139,882 415 337 63%

63% 62%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 375 375 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 250 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 263 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 336 336 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 236 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 341 341 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 269 263 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 392 392 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 MB Use /

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MB (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 3,056 $ 33 $ 9% 19%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 3,695 $ 59 $ 11% 20%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 14,142 $ 54 $ 7% 8%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes  No 1,710 $ 20 $ 6% 15%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 2,368 $ 27 $ 13% 25%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 6,547 $ 38 $ 20% 66%

No Yes Yes Tarp Yes 0 No 5,988 $ 67 $ 6% 37%

No Yes Yes Tarp N/ A No Notes: Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% Combined Impacts (%)

HIGH 100% 100% not available MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%) Marginal Strategy 100% 100% LOW 100% 100%

not available not available not available not available Regional Hectares**

% of Requested Hectares not available not available not available not available 1 Acre = 0.404686 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 0.453592 * International Paper and Weyerhaeuser ( SE) were included in the Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative, therefore they were removed from the Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt. Coop.

Application as double counting. 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Weyerhaeuser ( SE)

Weyerhaeuser ( NW)

NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc.

Michigan Seedling Association Michigan Herbaceous Perennials Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop.

International Paper Illinois Department of Natural Resources Michigan Seedling Association Michigan Herbaceous Perennials Weyerhaeuser ( SE)

Weyerhaeuser ( NW)

NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Weyerhaeuser ( SE)

Weyerhaeuser ( NW)

NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc.

Michigan Seedling Association Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop.

International Paper Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2006 Nomination Options TOTAL OR AVERAGE REGION REGION REGION Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop.

International Paper Other Considerations Adjustments to Requested Amounts % Reduction from Initial Request Nomination Amount Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic 3 ~ 5% Yield Loss metam/ Pic or 1,3 D/ Pic Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Economic Analysis Southern Forest Nursery Mgmt Coop.

International Paper Illinois Department of Natural Resources Weyerhaeuser ( SE)

Weyerhaeuser ( NW)

NE Forest & Conservation Nursery Assoc.

Michigan Seedling Association (%) Key Pest Distribution Regulatory Issues (%) Unsuitable Terrain (%) Cold Soil Temp (%)

Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 139,467 0% 19% 25% 25% 63% 63% 63%

2,381 2,381 2,381 139,467 139,467 374,159 302,823 280,926 278,933 4,763    12,970 12,970 12,970 9,144   191 4,477 4,477 4,477 32,455  6,514  8,981 8,981 8,981 25,358  7,669 1,803 7,943 7,943 7,943 17,962

4,264  442  1,911 1,911 1,911 13,455 13,455 13,455 34,181  7,271  () QPS HIGH LOW 246,032 71,336   87,348 87,348 87,348 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

411,704 1,147 323 50%

374,159 1,100 311 34 263 50%

4,763 12 392 50,723 129 392 50%

9,144 34 269 8,954 67 236 50%

32,455 95 341 26,558 76 349 50%

25,358 96 263 15,886 15 263 50%

17,962 53 336 22,970 63 367 50%

4,264 16 263 3,822 656 375 50%

34,181 137 250 36,759 108 341 50%

246,032 656 375 246,032 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)

REGION 2%

Date: 2/ 26/ 2004 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Average Hectares in the US: 51,506 Sector: FOREST SEEDLINGS 2006 Methyl Bromine Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) % of Average Hectares Requested: Page 71 Footnotes for Appendix B: 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 72 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 73 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 74 APPENDIX C. 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 75 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: September 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 50203-50205]
[DOCID:fr30se09-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0095; FRL-8435-4]

Registration Review; New Biopesticides Dockets Opened for Review
and Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the
pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA
is opening the public comment period for these registration reviews.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information
that will assist the public in understanding the types of information
and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of
registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID numbers listed
in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticides you are commenting on.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For pesticide-specific information
contact: The Regulatory Action Leader (RAL) identified in the table in
Unit III.A. for the pesticide of interest.
    For general information contact: Kevin Costello, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: costello.kevin @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

 A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide-specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this
document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations
for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of
FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of
pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a),
a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it
meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section

3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly
recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended
function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that
is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human
dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in
or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

 A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they
continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, they
can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the
Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review
case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present,
EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in
the following table.

                Table--Registration Review Dockets Opening
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical Review
  Registration Review Case Name                         Manager or RAL,
           and Number              Docket ID Number    Telephone Number,
                                                        E-mail Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verbenone & 4-Allyl Anisole       EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-05  Raderrio Wilkins,
 (case 6031)                       11<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      wilkins.raderrio@e
                                                       pa.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood oils and gums (case 3150)    EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-02  Sadaf Shaukat,
                                   58<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      shaukat.sadaf@epa.
                                                       gov
                                                      ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metarhizium anisopliae (case      EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-05  Stuart Schussel,
 6024)                             10<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                      schussel.stuart@ep
                                                       a.gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streptomyces griseoviridis (case  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-05  Anna Gross,
 6066)                             09<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Docket Content

    1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain
information that the Agency may consider in the course of the
registration review. The Agency may include information from its files
including, but not limited to, the following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
     Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the Agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    2. Other related information. More information on these cases,
including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the
registration review schedule on the Agency's website at http://
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm. Information on
the Agency's registration review program and its implementing
regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_
review.
     3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
     As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review
docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through
the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all
actions required in the final decision on the registration review case
have been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Metarhizium anisopliae, Pesticides and
pests, Streptomyces griseoviridis, Verbenone & 4-Allyl Anisole, Wood
oils and gums.

    Dated: September 21, 2009.
 Keith A. Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-23453 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S