(
Submitted
March
2004)

HIGH
LOW
Commodities
116,230
80,629
80,629
80,629
80,629
20
80,649
82,916
Cucurbits
1,362,231
1,187,120
801,139
529,933
746,898
941
747,839
753,202
Eggplants
150,069
148,914
111,333
81,845
100,812
433
101,245
106,626
Forest
Seedlings
374,159
157,694
157,694
157,694
157,694
­
157,694
139,882
Ham
170,123
169,678
169,678
169,678
135,742
­
135,742
169,246
Orchard
Replant
1,285,707
1,095,445
899,874
677,030
826,336
1,658
827,994
859,923
Fruit,
Nut,
&
Flower
Nursery
484,382
63,022
63,022
63,022
63,022
1,506
64,528
64,731
Ornamentals
226,796
198,447
198,447
198,447
158,757
4,060
162,817
230,856
Peppers
2,000,136
1,856,978
1,634,263
1,221,518
1,495,686
2,844
1,498,530
1,572,181
Strawberry
Fruit
2,563,155
2,331,225
1,983,093
1,779,850
1,916,023
2,377
1,918,400
1,615,339
Strawberry
Nursery
484,884
55,837
55,837
55,837
55,837
454
56,291
56,291
Structures­
Food
Facilities
603,504
505,982
505,982
505,982
505,982
­
505,982
529,604
Tobacco
Beds
16,431
16,431
16,431
16,431
13,145
­
13,145
16,431
Tobacco
Trays
10,942
4,112
4,112
4,112
3,750
­
3,750
4,112
Tomatoes
4,653,353
4,516,161
3,023,666
2,465,541
2,839,484
5,501
2,844,985
2,937,380
Turf
680,388
137,949
137,949
96,564
129,672
1,928
131,600
131,600
Post
Harvest
Use
(
NPMA)
198,117
188,811
181,079
181,079
144,863
­
144,863
181,079
TOTAL
15,380,609
12,714,434
10,024,226
8,285,191
9,374,331
21,722
9,396,053
9,451,399
PERCENT
(%)
OF
1991
BASELINE
60.3%
49.8%
39.3%
32.5%
36.7%
0.1%
36.8%
37.0%

1991
BASELINE
25,527,550
KILOGRAMS
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
2006
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
­
REFINED
NOMINATION
SECTOR
2006
APPLICANT
REQUEST
(
KGS)
INCLUDING
SUBTRACTIONS
FROM
REQUEST
(
KGS)
COMBINED
IMPACTS
ADJUSTMENT
(
KGS)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
(
KGS)

for
applicants
2006
Original
Nomination
(
KGS)

RESEARCH
AMOUNT
(
KGS)

for
research
2006
TOTAL
REFINED
NOMINATION
(
KGS)

August
12,
2004
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
#
Term
Definition
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
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.

Definition
of
Terms
­
Preplant
#
Term
Definition
Definition
of
Terms
­
Preplant
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
Most
Likely
Impact
Value
Most
Likely
Impact
Value
is
the
computational
algorithm
to
estimate
the
most
likely
value
of
the
High
and
Low
combined
impacts.

24
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Kilograms
(
kg)
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Kilograms
(
kgs)
is
calculated
by
using
a
weighted
percentage
of
the
High
and
Low
Combined
Impact
Adjustment.

25
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
is
the
adjustment
made
to
the
sectors
with
new
applicants
that
did
not
apply
in
the
2005
round
of
nominations.

25
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Hectares
(
ha)
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Hectares
(
ha)
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Kilograms
by
the
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Use
Rate.

26
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Use
Rate
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Use
rate
is
the
lower
of
requested
use
rate
for
2006
or
the
historic
average
use
rate.

27
CUE
Nominated
amount
CUE
nominated
amount
is
calculated
by
multiplying
the
qualifying
area
by
the
use
rate.

28
Percent
Reduction
Percent
reduction
from
initial
request
is
the
percentage
of
the
initial
request
that
did
not
qualify
for
the
CUE
nomination.

29
Sum
of
CUE
Nominations
in
Sector
Self­
explanatory.

30
Total
US
Sector
Nomination
Total
U.
S.
sector
nomination
is
the
most
likely
estimate
of
the
amount
needed
in
that
sector.

31
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.

32
Strip
Bed
Treatment
Strip
bed
treatment
is
`
yes'
if
the
applicant
uses
such
treatment,
no
otherwise.

33
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.

34
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.

35
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.

36
Pest­
free
Certification
Required
This
variable
is
a
`
yes'
when
the
product
must
be
certified
as
`
pest­
free'
in
order
to
be
sold
37
Other
Issues
Other
issues
is
a
short
reminder
of
other
elements
of
an
application
that
were
checked
38
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.
#
Term
Definition
Definition
of
Terms
­
Preplant
39
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.

40
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.

41
Economic
Analysis
Provides
summary
economic
information
for
the
applications.

42
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.

43
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.

44
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.

45
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.

46
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.

47
Marginal
Strategy
This
is
the
strategy
that
a
particular
methyl
bromide
user
would
use
if
not
permitted
to
use
methyl
bromide.
#
Term
Definition
1
Average
Volume
in
the
U.
S.
Average
Volume
in
the
U.
S.
is
the
average
of
2001
and
2002
total
volume
fumigated
with
methyl
bromide
in
the
U.
S.
in
this
sector
(
when
available).

2
%
of
Average
Volume
Requested
Percent
(%)
of
Average
Volume
Requested
is
the
total
volume
in
the
sector's
request
divided
by
the
Average
Volume
in
the
U.
S.
(
when
available).

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
volume
of
methyl
bromide
use,
and
application
rate
in
pounds
active
ingredient
of
methyl
bromide
per
thousand
cubic
feet.
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
U.
S.
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
kilograms
active
ingredient
of
methyl
bromide,
total
volume
of
methyl
bromide
use,
and
application
rate
in
kilograms
active
ingredient
of
methyl
bromide
per
thousand
cubic
meters.
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)
is
the
percentage
(%)
of
the
applicant's
requested
amount
subject
to
QPS
treatments.

6
Regional
Volume,
2001
&
2002
Average
Volume
Regional
Volume,
2001
&
2002
Average
Volume
is
the
2001
and
2002
average
estimate
of
volume
of
methyl
bromide
used
within
the
defined
region
(
when
available).

7
Regional
Volume,
Requested
Volume
%
Regional
Volume,
Requested
Volume
%
is
the
volume
in
the
applicant's
request
divided
by
the
total
volume
fumigated
with
methyl
bromide
in
the
sector
in
the
region
covered
by
the
request.

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
a
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
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
volume.

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
Use
Rate
kg/
1000
m3
2006
Use
rate
in
pounds
per
thousand
cubic
feet,
2006,
is
the
use
rate
requested
by
the
applicant
as
derived
from
the
total
volume
to
be
fumigated
divided
by
the
total
amount
(
in
pounds)
of
methyl
bromide
requested.

17
Use
Rate
kg/
1000
m3
low
Use
rate
in
pounds
per
thousand
cubic
feet,
low,
is
the
lowest
historic
use
rate
reported
by
the
applicant.
The
use
rate
selected
for
determining
the
amount
to
nominate
is
the
lower
of
this
rate
or
the
2006
use
rate
(
above).

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
structures/

food
facilities
and
commodities,
key
pests
are
assumed
to
infest
100%
of
the
volume
for
the
specific
uses
requested
in
that
100%
of
the
problem
must
be
eradicated.

19
Adopt
New
Fumigants
(%)
Adopt
new
fumigants
(%)
is
the
percent
(%)
of
the
requested
volume
where
we
expect
alternatives
could
be
adopted
to
replace
methyl
bromide
during
the
year
of
the
CUE
request.
Definition
of
Terms
­
Post
Harvest
#
Term
Definition
Definition
of
Terms
­
Post
Harvest
20
Combined
Impacts
(%)
Total
combined
impacts
are
the
percent
(%)
of
the
requested
area
where
alternatives
cannot
be
used
due
to
key
pest,
regulatory,
and
new
fumigants.
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).

21
Most
Likely
Impact
Value
Most
Likely
Impact
Value
is
the
computational
algorithm
to
estimate
the
most
likely
value
of
the
High
and
Low
combined
impacts.

22
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Kilograms
(
kg)
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Kilograms
(
kgs)
is
calculated
by
using
a
weighted
percentage
of
the
High
and
Low
Combined
Impact
Adjustment.

23
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
is
the
adjustment
made
to
the
sectors
with
new
applicants
that
did
not
apply
in
the
2005
round
of
nominations.

24
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Volume
(
1000
m3)
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Volume
(
1000
m3)
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Kilograms
by
the
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Use
Rate.

25
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Use
Rate
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
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
volume
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
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.

31
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.

32
Pest­
free
Market
Required
This
variable
is
a
`
yes'
when
the
product
must
be
pest­
free
in
order
to
be
sold
either
because
of
U.
S.
sanitary
requirements
or
because
of
consumer
acceptance.

33
Other
Issues
Other
issues
is
a
short
reminder
of
other
elements
of
an
application
that
were
checked
34
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.

35
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.

36
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.

37
Economic
Analysis
Provides
summary
economic
information
for
the
applications.

38
Loss
per
1000
m3
This
measures
the
total
loss
per
1000
m3
of
fumigation
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,
such
as
longer
time
spent
in
the
fumigation
chamber.
It
is
measured
in
current
U.
S.
dollars.

39
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
U.
S.
dollars.

40
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
U.
S.
dollars.

41
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
U.
S.
dollars.
This
item
is
also
called
net
cash
returns.

42
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.

43
Marginal
Strategy
This
is
the
strategy
that
a
particular
methyl
bromide
user
would
use
if
not
permitted
to
use
methyl
bromide.
Date:
not
available
Sector:
not
available
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
2001
Volume
%
of
Volume
20,412
850
24
18,218
773
24
0%

4,990
238
21
5,262
201
26
0%

87,362
1,435
61
72,121
1,501
48
20%

3,467
167
21
3,016
145
21
0%

116,230
2,689
43
98,617
2,620
38
5%

2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
Amount
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
%
Reduction
20,412
­
1,839
355
­
18,218
18,218
18,218
773
24
11%

4,990
­
772
­
­
4,217
4,217
4,217
201
21
15%

87,362
­
­
18,390
13,794
55,178
55,178
55,178
1,148
48
37%

3,467
­
452
­
­
3,016
3,016
3,016
145
21
13%

116,230
116,230
113,168
94,423
80,629
80,629
80,629
80,629
2,267
36
31%

0%
0%
3%
19%
31%
31%
31%
31%
16%
18%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
HIGH
LOW
24
24
100
100
0
0
100%
100%
84
DAYS
21
21
100
100
0
0
100%
100%
84
DAYS
61
48
100
100
0
0
100%
100%
84
DAYS
21
21
100
100
0
0
100%
100%
84
DAYS
Currently
Use
Alternatives?
Research
/

Transition
Plans
Pest­
free
Market
Requirement
Change
from
Prior
CUE
Request
(+/­)
Verified
Historic
MeBr
Use
/
State
Frequency
of
Treatment
/
Yr
Loss
per
1000
m3
(
US$/
1000m)
Loss
per
Kg
of
MeBr
(
US$/
kg)
Loss
as
a
%
of
Gross
Revenue
Y
Y
Y
0
N
2/
year
13,436
$
560
$
28%

Y
Y
Y
+
N
2/
year
222,051
$
10,524
$
28%

Y
Y
Y
0
N
2/
year
96,793
$
975
$
28%

Y
Y
Y
new
N
2/
year
61,498
$
2,957
$
28%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
0.453592
Kilograms
1,000
cu
ft
=
0.028316847
1,000
cubic
meters
DATES
404%

PISTACHIOS
133%

WALNUTS
559%

COMMODITY
TYPE
Loss
as
a
%
of
Net
Revenue
DRIED
FRUIT
131%

DATES
Phosphine
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
PISTACHIOS
Phosphine
WALNUTS
Phosphine
Time,
Quality,
or
Product
Loss
Marginal
Strategy
COMMODITY
TYPE
DRIED
FRUIT
Phosphine
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
(%)
Adopt
New
Fumigants
(%)
Combined
Impacts
DATES
Nomination
Amount
%
Reduction
Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
COMMODITY
TYPE
DRIED
FRUIT
PISTACHIOS
WALNUTS
TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
not
available
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
WALNUTS
not
available
DATES
not
available
DRIED
FRUIT
not
available
PISTACHIOS
not
available
2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Volume
COMMODITY
TYPE
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
7/
7/
04
Average
Volume
in
the
US:

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
COMMODITIES
%
of
Average
Volume
Requested:

9/
7/
044:
02
PM
181,552
5%

2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&

2002
Average
8,114
7%

21,489
24%

25,191
11%

54,794
16%

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
27,656
574
48
0%

461,257
3,071
150
50%

257,985
1,718
150
36%

746,898
5,363
139
45%

45%
43%
3%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
48
48
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%

150
150
0%
0%
0%
0%
66%
42%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

150
150
8%
8%
0%
0%
64%
42%
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
Kg
of
MeBr
(

US$/

kg)
Loss
as
a
%

of
Gross
Revenue
Loss
as
a
%

of
Net
Revenue
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
2,232
$
46
$
12%
55%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
+
Yes
1/
year
$
2,883
19
$
23%
70%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
+
Yes
1/
year
4,108
$
27
$
33%
99%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
7,230
$
48
$
21%
52%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
10,871
$
72
$
31%
79%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
*
Georgia
rotates
crops
with
solanaceous
crops
therefore
we
had
to
balance
the
distribution
with
the
other
sectors
in
Georgia's
application.
44%
Yield
Loss
Metam­
Sodium
+
Pic
0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
44%
Yield
Loss
Metam­
Sodium
+
Pic
GEORGIA
29%
Yield
Loss
1,3­
D
+
Pic
MICHIGAN
6
%
Yield
Loss
1,3­
D+
Pic
SOUTHEASTERN
US
29%
Yield
Loss
1,3­
D
+
Pic
GEORGIA
*
68%
46%

Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/

Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
REGION
MICHIGAN
100%
100%

SOUTHEASTERN
US
66%
42%

Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
13%
13%
41%
61%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
13%
1,187,120
1,187,120
801,139
529,933
Nomination
Amount
1,362,231
1,362,231
1,187,120
­
­
276,049
185,728
GEORGIA
405,837
­
61
­
­
497,434
316,549
SOUTHEASTERN
US
928,739
­
175,050
­
­
27,656
27,656
MICHIGAN
27,656
­
­
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
11%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
1,362,231
9,460
144
1,231,094
8,589
143
0%
17%

430,696
2,868
150
0%

GEORGIA
405,837
2,702
150
7%

SOUTHEASTERN
US
928,739
6,184
150
772,531
5,144
150
0%
29%

Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
MICHIGAN
27,656
574
48
27,867
578
48
0%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
CUCURBITS
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
7/
6/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
2,197
48%

2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&

2002
Average
497
64%

647
113%

1,145
99%

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)*
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
26,591
26,591
177
150
46%

3,951
3,161
66
48
20%

71,061
71,061
473
150
27%

101,602
100,812
716
141
33%

32%
33%
32%
1%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
HIGH
LOW
150
150
8
8
0
0
58
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
62%
43%

48
48
0
0
0
0
75
75
0
0
0
0
100
100
100%
100%

150
150
40
40
1
1
58
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
80%
59%

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
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
7,593
$
51
$
18%
72%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
10,985
$
73
$
26%
105%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
1,674
$
35
$
5%
18%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
5,252
$
35
$
24%
82%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
7,796
$
52
$
36%
122%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
*
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
is
the
adjustment
made
to
the
sectors
with
new
applicants
that
did
not
apply
in
the
2005
round
of
nominations.
44%
yield
loss
+
planting
delay
Metam­
Sodium
+
Pic
0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
MICHIGAN
6%
Yield
Loss
1,3­
D+
Pic
FLORIDA
29%
yield
loss
+
planting
delay
1,3­
D
+
Pic
GEORGIA
29%
yield
loss
+
planting
delay
1,3­
D
+
Pic
44%
yield
loss
+
planting
delay
Metam­
Sodium
+
Pic
Economic
Analysis
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/
Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
REGION
FLORIDA
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
GEORGIA
MICHIGAN
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
1%
1%
26%
45%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
1%
148,914
148,914
111,333
81,845
Nomination
Amount
150,069
150,069
148,914
­
­
77,800
57,378
FLORIDA
97,250
­
­
­
­
3,951
3,951
MICHIGAN
3,951
­
­
­
­
29,582
20,517
GEORGIA
48,868
­
1,155
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
100%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
150,069
1,055
142
166,317
1,129
147
0%
92%

114,623
728
157
0%

FLORIDA
97,250
647
150
65%

MICHIGAN
3,951
82
48
3,981
83
48
0%
not
available
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
GEORGIA
48,868
325
150
47,713
318
150
0%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
EGGPLANT
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
6/
9/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
Average
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
87,348
233
375
64%

21,528
86
250
37%

1,911
7
263
55%

14,370
43
336
20%

12,709
54
236
50%

12,970
38
341
60%

4,477
17
263
51%

2,381
6
392
50%

157,694
484
326
58%

58%
56%
4%

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
1x/
4years
3,056
$
33
$
9%
19%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
­
No
1x/
4years
3,695
$
59
$
11%
20%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
0
No
1x/
year
14,142
$
54
$
7%
8%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
­
No
1x/
4years
1,710
$
20
$
6%
15%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
0
No
1x/
3years
2,368
$
27
$
13%
25%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
0
No
1x/
1­
3years
6,547
$
38
$
20%
66%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
0
No
1x/
3­
4years
5,988
$
67
$
6%
37%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
N/
A
No
1x/
2­
3years
28,359
$
145
$
20%
28%

Notes:
Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
*
International
Paper
and
Weyerhaeuser
(
SE)
were
included
in
the
Southern
Forest
Nursery
Management
Cooperative,
therefore
they
were
removed
from
the
Southern
Forest
Cooperative
application
as
double
counting.

0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
Michigan
Seedling
Association
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
Michigan
Herbaceous
Perennials
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
Weyerhaeuser
(
NW)
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
NE
Forest
&
Conservation
Nursery
Assoc.
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
Weyerhaeuser
(
SE)
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
Southern
Forest
Nursery
Mgmt
Coop.
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
International
Paper
3
~
5%
Yield
Loss
metam/
Pic
or
1,3­
D/
Pic
REGION
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/

Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Michigan
Seedling
Association
100%
100%

Michigan
Herbaceous
Perennials
100%
100%

Weyerhaeuser
(
NW)
100%
100%

NE
Forest
&
Conservation
Nursery
Assoc.
100%
100%

Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources
100%
100%

Weyerhaeuser
(
SE)
100%
100%

Southern
Forest
Nursery
Mgmt
Coop.
100%
100%

International
Paper
100%
100%

Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
25%
58%
58%
58%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
19%
25%
278,933
157,694
157,694
157,694
Nomination
Amount
374,159
302,823
280,926
­
2,381
2,381
2,381
Michigan
Herbaceous
Perennials
4,763
­
­
191
4,477
4,477
4,477
Michigan
Seedling
Association
9,144
­
­
­
12,970
12,970
12,970
NE
Forest
&
Conservation
Nursery
Assoc.
32,455
­
6,514
1,803
3,177
12,709
12,709
Weyerhaeuser
(
NW)
25,358
­
7,669
­
3,592
14,370
14,370
Weyerhaeuser
(
SE)
17,962
­
­
­
1,911
1,911
1,911
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources
4,264
­
442
­
5,382
21,528
21,528
International
Paper
34,181
­
7,271
­
87,348
87,348
87,348
Southern
Forest
Nursery
Mgmt
Coop.
246,032
71,336
­
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
not
available
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
411,704
1,147
359
39%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
374,159
1,100
340
not
available
50,723
129
392
50%
not
available
8,954
Michigan
Herbaceous
Perennials
4,763
12
392
34
263
50%

Michigan
Seedling
Association
9,144
34
269
not
available
NE
Forest
&
Conservation
Nursery
Assoc.
32,455
95
341
26,558
76
349
50%
not
available
15,886
67
236
20%

Weyerhaeuser
(
NW)
25,358
96
263
not
available
Weyerhaeuser
(
SE)
17,962
53
336
22,970
63
367
20%
not
available
3,822
15
263
50%

Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources
4,264
16
263
not
available
International
Paper
34,181
137
250
36,759
108
341
20%
not
available
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
Southern
Forest
Nursery
Mgmt
Coop.
246,032
656
375
246,032
656
375
50%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
51,506
2006
Methyl
Bromine
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
FOREST
SEEDLINGS
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:
2%

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
7/
6/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&

2002
Average
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
10,952
47
235
78%

20,167
61
328
90%

31,903
95
336
86%

63,022
203
310
87%

87%
86%
5%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
253
235
0
0
0
0
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
337
328
0
0
0
0
100
100
44
31
0
0
0
0
336
336
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
No
No
Yes
Tarp
Yes
+
Yes
2­
3
yr
No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
­
Yes
3­
5
yr
No
No
Yes
Tarp
Yes
0
Yes
3­
5
yr
Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
REGION
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/
Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
Western
Raspberry
Nursery
Consortium
Not
included
as
there
is
no
technically
feasible
alternative.

CA
Rose
Growers
CA
Assoc.
­
Fruit
&
Nut
Tree
Growers
CA
Assoc.
­
Fruit
&
Nut
Tree
Growers
100%
100%

Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Western
Raspberry
Nursery
Consortium
100%
100%

CA
Rose
Growers
100%
100%

Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
9%
87%
87%
87%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
7%
441,735
63,022
63,022
63,022
Nomination
Amount
484,382
484,382
449,655
­
180,786
31,903
31,903
CA
Assoc.
­
Fruit
&
Nut
Tree
Growers
224,528
­
11,839
5,782
181,500
20,167
20,167
CA
Rose
Growers
209,975
­
2,526
2,137
16,427
10,952
10,952
Western
Raspberry
Nursery
Consortium
49,879
­
20,363
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
not
available
441,735
1,364
324
78%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
484,382
1,487
326
not
available
CA
Assoc.
­
Fruit
&
Nut
Tree
Growers
224,528
668
336
212,689
633
336
85%
not
available
60%
not
available
CA
Rose
Growers
209,975
622
337
201,667
615
328
90%

Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
Western
Raspberry
Nursery
Consortium
49,879
197
253
27,379
117
235
not
available
2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
FRUIT,
NUT,
&
FLOWER
NURSERY
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:

Date:
6/
9/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
not
available
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
Date:

Sector:

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
Volume
1,696
68
25
1,250
68
18
0%

145
7
20
163
7
23
0%

168,283
7,004
24
0%

170,123
7,079
24
1,413
75
19
0%

2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
Amount
(
kgs)
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
*
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m
3)
%
Reduction
1,696
­
­
446
­
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,000
54
18
41%

145
­
­
­
­
145
145
145
116
6
20
20%

168,283
­
­
­
­
168,283
168,283
168,283
134,626
5,609
24
20%

170,123
170,123
170,123
169,678
169,678
169,678
169,678
169,678
135,742
5,670
24
20%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
20%
0%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
HIGH
LOW
25
18
100
100
0
0
100%
100%

20
20
100
100
0
0
100%
100%

24
24
100
100
0
0
100%
100%

Currently
Use
Alternatives?
Research
/

Transition
Plans
Pest­
free
Market
Requirement
Change
from
Prior
CUE
Request
(+/­)
Verified
Historic
MeBr
Use
/
State
Frequency
of
Treatment
/
Yr
Loss
per
1000
m3
(
US$/
1000m)
Loss
per
Kg
of
MeBr
(
US$/
kg)
Loss
as
a
%
of
Gross
Revenue
?
?
Yes
0
No
7x
/
year
?
?
Yes
0
No
4x
/
year
?
?
Yes
0
No
4x
/
year
Notes
Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
0.453592
Kilograms
0.02831685
1,000
cubic
meters
*
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
is
the
adjustment
made
to
the
sectors
with
new
applicants
that
did
not
apply
in
the
2005
round
of
nominations.

1,000
cu
ft
=

HAM
ASSOCIATION
Loss
as
a
%
of
Net
Operating
Revenue
NATIONAL
COUNTRY
HAM
ASSOCIATION
No
information
was
provided.

NAHUNTA
PORK
CENTER
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
OF
MEAT
PROCESSORS
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Marginal
Strategy
HAM
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL
COUNTRY
HAM
ASSOCIATION
No
information
was
provided.

NAHUNTA
PORK
CENTER
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
OF
MEAT
PROCESSORS
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
(%)
Adopt
New
Fumigants
(%)
Combined
Impacts
Time,
Quality,
or
Product
Loss
Nomination
Amount
%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)

HAM
ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL
COUNTRY
HAM
ASSOCIATION
NAHUNTA
PORK
CENTER
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
OF
MEAT
PROCESSORS
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
OF
MEAT
PROCESSORS
not
available
not
available
TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
not
available
NATIONAL
COUNTRY
HAM
ASSOCIATION
not
available
NAHUNTA
PORK
CENTER
not
available
2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Volume
HAM
ASSOCIATION
2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
HAM
%
of
Average
Volume
Requested:
not
available
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
6/
9/
04
Average
Volume
in
the
US:
not
available
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&

2002
Average
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
530,745
1,578
336
26%

71,993
203
354
57%

119,329
426
280
47%

104,268
286
364
41%

826,336
2,494
331
36%

36%
35%
1%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
336
336
0
0
0
0
60
35
8
2
0
0
50
35
382
354
0
0
0
0
35
35
8
2
0
0
50
35
280
280
0
0
0
0
85
85
8
2
0
0
50
35
364
364
0
0
0
0
50
35
8
2
0
0
50
35
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
Y+
N
Yes
Yes
Deep
No
0
Yes
1
/
20
No
Yes
Yes
Deep
No
0
Yes
1
/
20
No
Yes
Yes
Deep
No
0
Yes
1
/
40
Y+
N
Yes
Yes
Deep
No
+
3
Yes
1
/
20
Alternatives
1,3­
D
may
not
be
suitable
due
to
soil
type,
pests
or
township
caps
Notes
1
2
3
Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
*
Due
to
the
nature
of
these
applications,
the
historical
reported
data
varies
greatly
from
year
to
year.
Therefore
an
average
of
the
usage
from
1997
through
2001
were
used.

CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Stone
Fruit
requested
8100
acres
but
only
65%
of
those
acres
are
fumigated
due
to
strip
bed
treatment,
therefore
the
acreage
was
adjusted
downward.

CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Stone
Fruit
reported
historical
use
rates
that
were
grossly
underestimated
for
normal
fumigation
use.
A
use
rate
of
300
pounds
ai/
acre
was
multiplied
by
the
reported
acreage
to
reflect
a
more
accurate
estimate
of
methyl
bromide
used.

This
applicant
only
replanted
every
20
years,
so
change
from
2002
is
not
necessarily
relevant
since
replant
in
2002
reflects
status
of
market
in
~
1982,
which
was
less
than
planting
in
1970s
that
are
now
being
replanted.

CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Stone
Fruits
Not
included
as
there
is
no
technically
feasible
alternative.

CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Grapes
CA
Walnut
Commission
Almond
Hullers
&
Processors
Association
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
CA
Walnut
Commission
100%

Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/

Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
REGION
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
92%

Almond
Hullers
&
Processors
Association
77%
58%

CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Stone
Fruits
82%
58%

CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Grapes
70%
58%

Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Unsuitable
Soil
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
15%
15%
30%
47%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
14%
1,095,445
1,095,445
899,874
677,030
Nomination
Amount
1,285,707
1,285,707
1,104,082
­
­
113,511
85,502
Almond
Hullers
&
Processors
Association
176,901
­
29,483
­
­
122,564
112,759
CA
Walnut
Commission
226,796
­
104,232
8,637
­
76,310
63,229
CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Grapes
165,561
­
47,910
­
­
587,488
415,540
CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Stone
Fruits
716,449
­
­
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
not
available
TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
1,285,707
3,859
333
1,516,785
4,507
337
0%
not
available
not
available
85%

Almond
Hullers
&
Processors
Association
176,901
486
364
546,618
1,471
372
0%
not
available
90%

CA
Walnut
Commission
226,796
809
280
90,817
437
208
0%
not
available
90%

CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Grapes
165,561
433
382
109,015
308
354
0%

Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
CA
Grape
&
Tree
Fruit
League
­
Stone
Fruits
716,449
2,131
336
770,335
2,291
336
0%

2006
Amount
of
Request
1997~
2001
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
not
available
2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
ORCHARD
REPLANT
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:
not
available
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
6/
9/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
2000
Data
%
of
2000
Data
10,702
11%

10,702
11%

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
*
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
198,447
158,757
463
343
30%

198,447
158,757
463
343
30%

13%
30%
20%
13%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
392
343
0
0
0
0
100
100
44
31
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
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
Varies
4,980
$
11
$
19%
43%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
*
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
is
the
adjustment
made
to
the
sectors
with
new
applicants
that
did
not
apply
in
the
2005
round
of
nominations.

0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
REGION
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/

Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
CUT
FLOWERS
AND
FOLIAGE
20%
Metam­
Sodium
CUT
FLOWERS
AND
FOLIAGE
100%
100%

Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
13%
13%
13%
13%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
0%
198,447
198,447
198,447
198,447
Nomination
Amount
226,796
226,796
226,796
28,350
­
198,447
198,447
CUT
FLOWERS
AND
FOLIAGE
226,796
­
­
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
5%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
226,796
578
392
60,747
150
404
0%
5%

Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
CUT
FLOWERS
AND
FOLIAGE
226,796
578
392
60,747
150
404
0%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
not
available
2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
ORNAMENTALS
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:
not
available
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
6/
9/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&
2002
Average
9,854
9%

3,581
25%

2,554
89%

8,215
103%

749
44%

24,954
51%

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)

**
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
159,659
159,659
890
179
12%

77,711
77,711
517
150
65%

242,761
242,761
1,616
150
30%

1,006,074
1,006,074
6,699
150
18%

11,852
9,482
197
48
40%

1,498,057
1,495,686
9,919
151
25%

25%
25%
26%
­
1%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
179
179
0
0
0
0
100
100
26
17
0
0
0
0
150
150
0
0
0
0
80
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
150
8
8
0
0
80
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
150
40
40
1
0
80
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
48
0
0
0
0
75
75
0
0
0
0
75
75
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
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
1,194
$
8
$
6%
29%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
+
Yes
1/
year
8,954
$
60
$
29%
76%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
+
Yes
1/
year
11,429
$
76
$
37%
97%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
+
Yes
1/
year
7,368
$
49
$
21%
112%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
+
Yes
1/
year
10,453
$
70
$
30%
160%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
6,724
$
45
$
23%
73%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
9,637
$
64
$
33%
105%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
N/
A
Yes
1/
year
933
$
19
$
4%
­
14%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
*
CA
average
of
1997­
2001
**
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
is
the
adjustment
made
to
the
sectors
with
new
applicants
that
did
not
apply
in
the
2005
round
of
nominations.

0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
44%
Metam­
Sodium
MICHIGAN
6%
1,3­
D
+
Pic
44%
Metam­
Sodium
FLORIDA
29%
1,3­
D
+
Pic
44%
Metam­
Sodium
GEORGIA
29%
1,3­
D
+
Pic
CALIFORNIA
6%
1,3­
D
+
Pic
SOUTHEASTERN
US
29%
1,3­
D
+
Pic
MICHIGAN
75%
75%

Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/

Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
REGION
GEORGIA
82%
51%

FLORIDA
89%
67%

CALIFORNIA
100%
100%

SOUTHEASTERN
US
80%
47%

Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
7%
7%
18%
39%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
7%
1,856,978
1,856,978
1,634,263
1,221,518
Nomination
Amount
2,000,136
2,000,136
1,856,978
­
­
11,852
11,852
MICHIGAN
15,803
­
­
­
­
1,095,431
824,651
FLORIDA
1,230,822
­
­
­
­
277,363
172,507
GEORGIA
347,183
­
8,935
­
­
89,956
52,849
SOUTHEASTERN
US
224,891
­
112,445
­
­
159,659
159,659
CALIFORNIA
181,437
­
21,778
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
44%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
2,000,136
13,343
150
2,014,313
12,832
157
0%
53%

15,924
330
48
0%

MICHIGAN
15,803
328
48
90%

FLORIDA
1,230,822
8,195
150
1,360,776
8,468
161
0%
100%

342,716
2,282
150
0%

GEORGIA
347,183
2,312
150
10%

SOUTHEASTERN
US
224,891
1,497
150
135,238
900
150
0%
42%

Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Requested
Hectares
%

CALIFORNIA*
181,437
1,012
179
159,659
852
187
0%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares
REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
36,007
2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
PEPPERS
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:
37%

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
6/
9/
2004
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
Date:

Sector:

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
Volume
93,523
3,892
24
89,861
3,740
24
0%

9,938
414
24
5,869
244
24
0%

85,393
3,554
24
76,899
3,200
24
0%

503
21
24
643
27
24
0%

3,856
160
24
3,596
150
24
0%

4,905
204
24
4,352
181
24
0%

198,117
8,245
24
181,219
7,542
24
0%

2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
Amount
(
kgs)
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
*
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
%
Reduction
93,523
­
3,663
­
­
89,861
89,861
89,861
71,889
2,992
24
23%

9,938
­
4,069
­
­
5,869
5,869
5,869
4,695
195
24
53%

85,393
­
8,494
­
­
76,899
76,899
76,899
61,519
2,560
24
28%

503
­
­
­
­
503
503
503
402
17
24
20%

3,856
­
260
­
­
3,596
3,596
3,596
2,876
120
24
25%

4,905
­
553
­
­
4,352
4,352
4,352
3,482
145
24
29%

198,117
198,117
188,811
188,811
188,811
181,079
181,079
181,079
144,863
6,029
24
27%

0%
0%
5%
5%
5%
9%
9%
9%
27%
27%
0%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
HIGH
LOW
24
24
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%

24
24
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%

24
24
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%

24
24
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%

24
24
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%

24
24
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%

Currently
Use
Alternatives?
Research
/

Transition
Plans
Pest­
free
Market
Requirement
Change
from
Prior
CUE
Request
(+/­)
Verified
Historic
MeBr
Use
/

State
Frequency
of
Treatment
/
Yr
Loss
per
1000
m3
(
US$/
1000m)
Loss
per
Kg
of
MeBr
(
US$/
kg)
Loss
as
a
%
of
Gross
Revenue
Y
Y
Y
0
N
2­
3
Y
Y
Y
+
N
2
Y
Y
Y
0
N
1/
5
yr
Y
Y
Y
+
N
2
Y
Y
Y
0
N
1/
5
yr
Y
Y
Y
­
N
2.5
Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
0.453592
Kilograms
1,000
cu
ft
=
0.028316847
1,000
cubic
meters
*
Most
Likely
Impact
Value,
Amended
Adjustment
(
kgs)
is
the
adjustment
made
to
the
sectors
with
new
applicants
that
did
not
apply
in
the
2005
round
of
nominations.

FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
Loss
as
a
%
of
Net
Revenue
Processed
Foods
Not
provided
by
applicant.

Spices
and
Herbs
Cocoa
Dried
Milk
Cheese
Processing
Plants
Other
Commodity
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Cheese
Processing
Plants
Heat
Other
Commodity
Heat
FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
Processed
Foods
Unknown
Heat
Spices
and
Herbs
Heat
Cocoa
Heat
Dried
Milk
Heat
(%)
Adopt
New
Fumigants
(%)
Combined
Impacts
Time,
Quality,

or
Product
Loss
Marginal
Strategy
%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
djustments
to
Requested
Amou
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Dried
Milk
Cheese
Processing
Plants
Other
Commodity
Nomination
Amount
FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
Processed
Foods
Spices
and
Herbs
Cocoa
TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
not
available
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
Cheese
Processing
Plants
not
available
Other
Commodity
not
available
Cocoa
not
available
Dried
Milk
not
available
Processed
Foods
not
available
Spices
and
Herbs
not
available
2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Volume
FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
2006
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
POST
HARVEST
USE
(
NPMA)
%
of
Average
Volume
Requested:
not
available
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Proce
6/
9/
04
Average
Volume
in
the
US:
not
available
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
19,486
68%

2001
&
2002
Average
Requested
Hectares
%

11,109
73%

2,873
100%

13,982
95%

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
1,452,732
7,422
196
11%

152,294
1,010
151
57%

310,997
1,682
185
46%

1,916,023
10,114
189
25%

25%
24%
2%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
202
196
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
82
15
15
0
0
151
151
0
0
40
40
40
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
202
185
40
40
1
1
40
30
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
Kilogram
of
MeBr
(

US$/

kg)
Loss
as
a
%

of
Gross
Revenue
Loss
as
a
%

of
Net
Revenue
No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
53
$
15%
79%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
+
Yes
1/
year
47
$
14%
­
128%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
0
Yes
1/
year
62
$
18%
42%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
1
Buffer
Zones
were
reduced
from
300
feet
to
100
feet,
therefore
the
impact
estimate
has
been
reduced
from
90%
to
40%.

2
The
Regulatory
Issues
impact
estimate
has
been
adjusted
for
California.
Their
original
request
already
reflected
Regulatory
Issues
impacts.

3
Combined
Impacts
were
revised
on
3/
31/
04
due
to
the
above
mentioned
adjustments.

0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
FLORIDA
9,319
$
14%
Yield
Loss
1,3­
d+
pic
EASTERN
US
8,661
$
14%
Yield
Loss
1,3­
d+
pic/
Metam+
Pic
CALIFORNIA
10,732
$
14%
Yield
Loss
Metam­
Sodium
+
Pic
REGION
Loss
per
Hectare
(

US$/

ha)
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/
Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
FLORIDA
64%
58%

Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
CALIFORNIA
95%
85%

EASTERN
US
64%
58%

Combined
Impacts
(%)
3
REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
2
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones1
9%
9%
23%
31%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
5%
2,331,225
2,331,225
1,983,093
1,779,850
Nomination
Amount
2,563,155
2,563,155
2,425,520
45,586
­
320,925
290,839
FLORIDA
579,691
­
32,659
­
­
157,156
142,423
EASTERN
US
350,534
­
104,977
48,709
­
1,505,011
1,346,589
CALIFORNIA
1,632,931
­
­
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
94%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
2,563,155
13,284
193
2,382,379
12,747
187
0%
91%

501,446
2,711
185
0%

FLORIDA
579,691
2,873
202
74%

EASTERN
US
350,534
2,317
151
278,967
1,851
151
0%
not
available
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
2001
&
2002
Average
CALIFORNIA
1,632,931
8,094
202
1,601,966
8,184
196
0%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
STRAWBERRIES
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
6/
9/
2004
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:

9/
7/
044:
02
PM
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&

2002
Average
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
53,751
204
263
88%

2,086
5
413
95%

55,837
209
267
88%

88%
88%
2%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
263
263
0
0
0
0
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
413
413
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
No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
+
Yes
years
2~
5
7,208
$
27
$
18%
61%

No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
+
Yes
years
2~
5
5,469
$
13
$
13%
46%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
CALIFORNIA
10%
1,3­
D
+
Pic
SOUTHEASTERN
US
10%
1,3­
D
+
Pic
REGION
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/
Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
CALIFORNIA
100%
100%

SOUTHEASTERN
US
100%
100%

Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
22%
88%
88%
88%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
22%
377,301
55,837
55,837
55,837
Nomination
Amount
484,884
484,884
377,301
­
16,878
2,086
2,086
SOUTHEASTERN
US
41,453
­
22,489
­
304,587
53,751
53,751
CALIFORNIA
443,432
­
85,094
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
not
available
393,544
1,455
270
87%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
484,884
1,784
272
not
available
SOUTHEASTERN
US
41,453
100
413
28,499
69
413
89%
not
available
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
CALIFORNIA
443,432
1,683
263
365,045
1,386
263
85%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
not
available
2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
STRAWBERRY
NURSERY
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:
not
available
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
6/
9/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
Date:
not
available
Sector:
not
available
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
Volume
202,756
6,173
33
142,881
4,587
31
20%

23,814
1,206
20
29,937
1,529
20
0%

48,081
2,209
22
48,264
2,215
22
0%

328,854
16,990
19
340,194
16,990
20
0%

603,504
26,578
23
561,277
25,322
22
5%

2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
Amount
(
kgs)
Volume
(
1000m3)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
%
Reduction
202,756
­
52,084
7,790
28,576
114,305
114,305
114,305
3,670
31
44%

23,814
­
9,072
­
­
14,742
14,742
14,742
753
20
38%

48,081
­
­
­
­
48,081
48,081
48,081
2,209
22
0%

328,854
­
­
­
­
328,854
328,854
328,854
16,990
19
0%

603,504
603,504
542,348
534,558
505,982
505,982
505,982
505,982
23,622
21
16%

0%
0%
10%
11%
16%
16%
16%
16%
11%
6%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
HIGH
LOW
33
31
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
17
Days
20
20
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
9
Days
22
22
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
1
Day
19
19
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
9
Days
Currently
Use
Alternatives?
Research
/

Transition
Plans
Pest­
free
Market
Requirement
Change
from
Prior
CUE
Request
(+/­)
Verified
Historic
MeBr
Use
/
State
Frequency
of
Treatment
/
Yr
Loss
per
1000
m3
(
US$/
1000m)
Loss
per
Kg
of
MeBr
(
US$/
kg)
Loss
as
a
%
of
Gross
Revenue
Y
Y
Y
0
N
2­
3
2,023
$
62
$
18%

Y
Y
Y
+
N
2
7,513
$
381
$
8%

Y
Y
Y
0
N
1/
5
yr
2,776
$
128
$
3%

Y
Y
Y
­
N
2.5
12,439
$
616
$
14%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
0.453592
Kilograms
1,000
cu
ft
=
0.02831685
1,000
cubic
meters
NORTH
AMERICAN
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
57%

BAKERIES
58%

PET
FOOD
INSTITUTE
46%

FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
Loss
as
a
%
of
Net
Revenue
RICE
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
138%

NORTH
AMERICAN
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
Heat
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
BAKERIES
Heat
PET
FOOD
INSTITUTE
Heat
Time,
Quality,

or
Product
Loss
Marginal
Strategy
FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
RICE
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
Heat
Use
Rate
(
kg/
1000m3)
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
(%)
Adopt
New
Fumigants
(%)
Combined
Impacts
NORTH
AMERICAN
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
Nomination
Amount
%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
RICE
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
BAKERIES
PET
FOOD
INSTITUTE
TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
not
available
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
PET
FOOD
INSTITUTE
not
available
NORTH
AMERICAN
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
not
available
RICE
MILLER'S
ASSOCIATION
not
available
BAKERIES
not
available
2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Volume
FOOD
FACILITY
TYPE
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
6/
9/
04
Average
Volume
in
the
US:

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUN
STRUCTURES
­
FOOD
FACILITIES
%
of
Average
Volume
Requested:

9/
7/
044:
02
PM
Date:
Sector:
2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&

2002
Average
%
of
Request
749
88%
88%

15,479
6%
6%

29,672
97%
101%

45,900
67%
69%

Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
10,746
223
48
66%

102,058
971
105
0%

2,726,680
18,161
150
40%

2,839,484
19,355
147
39%

39%
39%
0%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
HIGH
LOW
48
48
0%
0%
0%
0%
34%
34%
0%
0%
0%
0%
34%
34%
34%
34%

105
105
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
1%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%

150
150
32%
32%
0%
0%
50%
29%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
66%
53%

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
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
4,730
$
98
$
12%
50%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
8,618
$
82
$
10%
26%

Yes
Yes
Yes
Tarp
No
­
Yes
1/
year
5,708
$
38
$
14%
39%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
Southeastern
US
21%,
6.2%
Yield
Loss
+
14.8%
delay
1,3­
D+
Pic+
herbicide
0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
Michigan
22%,
6%
Yield
Loss
+
16%
delay
1,3­
D
+
Pic
California
15%
Yield
Loss,
Range
15
to
20%
Metam­
Sodium
Economic
Analysis
Quality/
Time/
Market
Window/
Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
REGION
Southeastern
US
Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
Michigan
California
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
3%
3%
35%
47%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
3%
4,516,161
4,516,161
3,023,666
2,465,541
TOTAL
4,653,353
4,653,353
4,516,161
­
­
2,910,861
2,352,736
Southeastern
US
4,519,688
­
137,191
­
­
102,058
102,058
California
102,058
­
­
­
­
10,746
10,746
Michigan
31,606
­
­
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)

4,584,953
30,537
150
0%

TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
4,653,353
31,731
147
4,442,326
28,887
154
0%

Southeastern
US
4,519,688
30,104
150
0%

California
102,058
971
105
110,779
990
112
0%

Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)

Michigan
31,606
656
48
31,848
661
48
2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
TOMATOES
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:
62%

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
6/
9/
2004
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
51,506
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
131,971
1%

2001
&
2002
Average
%
of
2001
&

2002
Average
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
Reduction
129,672
432
300
81%

129,672
432
300
81%

81%
69%
38%

2006
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
480
300
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
No
Yes
Yes
Tarp
Yes
0
No
1
/
3
years
6,634
$
14
$
34%
64%

Conversion
Units:
1
Pound
=
Kilograms
Hectare
0.453592
1
Acre
=
0.404686
REGION
Quality/
Time/

Market
Window/

Yield
Loss
(%)
Marginal
Strategy
Turfgrass
Producers
International
25%
Dazomet
Turfgrass
Producers
International
100%
70%

Other
Considerations
Dichotomous
Variables
(
Y/
N)
Other
Issues
Economic
Analysis
Combined
Impacts
(%)

REGION
HIGH
LOW
(%)
Key
Pest
Distribution
Regulatory
Issues
(%)
Unsuitable
Terrain
(%)
Cold
Soil
Temp
(%)

Adjustments
to
Requested
Amounts
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
(%)
Karst
Topography
(%)
100
ft
Buffer
Zones
59%
80%
80%
86%

%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
0%
0%
42%
275,897
137,949
137,949
96,564
Nomination
Amount
680,388
680,388
394,139
118,242
137,949
137,949
96,564
Turfgrass
Producers
International
680,388
­
286,249
USA
2006
NOMINATION
AMOUNT
­

MOST
LIKELY
IMPACT
VALUE
REGION
2006
Request
(­)
Double
Counting
(­)
Growth
or
2002
CUE
Comparison
(­)
Use
Rate
Difference
(­)
QPS
HIGH
LOW
2006
Nomination
Options
Subtractions
from
Requested
Amounts
(
kgs)
Combined
Impacts
Adjustment
(
kgs)
not
available
TOTAL
OR
AVERAGE
680,388
1,416
480
388,041
821
473
50%
not
available
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
%
of
Requested
Hectares
Turfgrass
Producers
International
680,388
1,416
480
388,041
821
473
50%

2006
Amount
of
Request
2001
&
2002
Average
Use*
Quarantine
and
Pre­
Shipment
Regional
Hectares**

REGION
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
Kilograms
(
kgs)
Hectares
(
ha)

2006
Methyl
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
Sector:
TURF
%
of
Average
Hectares
Requested:

Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Exemption
Process
Date:
7/
6/
04
Average
Hectares
in
the
US:
9/
7/
044:
02
PM
