Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
SweetPotato Propagative Hot Beds Grown in Open Fields and Protected with
Row Covers – Related to the Use Recommended by MBTOC for 2005

For Administrative Purposes Only:

Date received by Ozone Secretariat:

YEAR:                              CUN:

Nominating Party:	The United States of America

Brief Descriptive Title of Nomination:	Methyl Bromide Critical Use
Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Sweet Potato Propagative Hot Beds
Grown in Open Fields and Protected with Row Covers – Related to the
Use Recommended by MBTOC for 2005 (Prepared in 2006 for 2008)

Nominating Party Contact Details

Contact Person:	John E. Thompson, Ph. D.

Title:

	Address:	Office of Environmental Policy

	U.S. Department of State

	2201 C Street N.W. Room 4325

	Washington, DC 20520

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1), the United
States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this
Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of
methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market
disruption.

( Yes                                  ( No

Signature

Name

Date

Title:

Contact or Expert(s) for Further Technical Details

Contact/Expert Person:	Richard Keigwin

Title:	Acting Director

Address:	Biological and Economic Analysis Division

	Office of Pesticide Programs

	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

	Mail Code 7503C

	Washington, DC 20460

	U. S. A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

List of Documents Sent to the Ozone Secretariat in Official Nomination
Package

List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating
Party to the Ozone Secretariat

Paper Documents:

Title of Paper Documents and Appendices	Number of Pages	Date Sent to
Ozone Secretariat

electronic copies of all paper documents:

Title of Electronic Files	Size of File (kb)	Date Sent to Ozone
Secretariat

CUN2006 Sweet Potato Propagative Photos	2,205

Table of Contents

  TOC \f \h \z    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819833"  Part A: Summary
PAGEREF _Toc125819833 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819834"  1. Nominating Party	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819834 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819835"  2. Descriptive Title of Nomination
PAGEREF _Toc125819835 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819836"  3. Crop and Summary of Crop System
PAGEREF _Toc125819836 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819837"  4. Methyl Bromide Nominated	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819837 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819838"  Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated
PAGEREF _Toc125819838 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819839"  5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl
Bromide as a Critical Use	  PAGEREF _Toc125819839 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819840"  Table A.1: Executive Summary	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819840 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819841"  6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are
Not Feasible	  PAGEREF _Toc125819841 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819842"  7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using
Methyl Bromide	  PAGEREF _Toc125819842 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819843"  8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested
for Critical Use	  PAGEREF _Toc125819843 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819844"  9. Summarize Assumptions Used to
Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity Nominated for Each Region	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819844 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819845"  Region A - Part B: Crop Characteristics
and Methyl Bromide Use	  PAGEREF _Toc125819845 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819846"  Region A - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds
for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this
Request	  PAGEREF _Toc125819846 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819847"  Region A - 11. Characteristics of
Cropping System and Climate	  PAGEREF _Toc125819847 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819848"  Region A - 12. Historic Pattern of Use
of Methyl Bromide, and/or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which
an Exemption Is Requested	  PAGEREF _Toc125819848 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819849"  Region A - Part C: Technical Validation
 PAGEREF _Toc125819849 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819850"  Region A - 13. Reason for Alternatives
Not Being Feasible	  PAGEREF _Toc125819850 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819851"  Region A - 14. List and Discuss Why
Registered (and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819851 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819852"  Region A - 15. List Present (and
Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential
Alternatives	  PAGEREF _Toc125819852 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819853"  Region A - 16. State Relative
Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for
the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested
 PAGEREF _Toc125819853 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819854"  Region A - 17. Are There Any Other
Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to
Replace Methyl Bromide?	  PAGEREF _Toc125819854 \h  14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819855"  Region A - 18. Are There Technologies
Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide?
 PAGEREF _Toc125819855 \h  14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819856"  California - Summary of Technical
Feasibility	  PAGEREF _Toc125819856 \h  14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819857"  Part D: Emission Control	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819857 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819858"  19. Techniques That Have and Will Be
Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions in the Particular Use
 PAGEREF _Toc125819858 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819859"  20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction
Techniques Are Not Being Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances
of the Nomination, State Reasons	  PAGEREF _Toc125819859 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819860"  Part E: Economic Assessment	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819860 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819861"  21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to
Methyl Bromide Over 3-Year Period	  PAGEREF _Toc125819861 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819862"  22. Gross and Net Revenue	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819862 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819863"  Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl
Bromide Alternatives	  PAGEREF _Toc125819863 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819864"  Summary of Economic Feasibility
PAGEREF _Toc125819864 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819865"  Part F. Future Plans	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819865 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819866"  23. What Actions Will Be Taken to
Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for This Crop?	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819866 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819867"  24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use
of Methyl Bromide for the Critical Use in the Future?	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819867 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819868"  25. Additional Comments on the
Nomination	  PAGEREF _Toc125819868 \h  17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819869"  26. Citations	  PAGEREF _Toc125819869 \h
 17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819870"  APPENDIX A.  2008 Methyl Bromide Usage
Numerical Index (BUNNI).	  PAGEREF _Toc125819870 \h  18

List of Tables

  TOC \f F \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819890"  Part A:
Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc125819890 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819891"  Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown
Using Methyl Bromide	  PAGEREF _Toc125819891 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819892"  Region A - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl
Bromide Requested for Critical Use	  PAGEREF _Toc125819892 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819893"  Region A - Part B: Crop Characteristics
and Methyl Bromide Use	  PAGEREF _Toc125819893 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819894"  Region A - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and
Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request	  PAGEREF _Toc125819894 \h
9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819895"  Region A - Table 11.1: Characteristics
of Cropping System	  PAGEREF _Toc125819895 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819896"  Region A - Table 11.2 Characteristics of
Climate and Crop Schedule	  PAGEREF _Toc125819896 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819897"  Region A - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern
of Use of Methyl Bromide	  PAGEREF _Toc125819897 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819898"  Region A - Part C: Technical Validation
 PAGEREF _Toc125819898 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819899"  Region A – Table 13.1: Reason for
Alternatives Not Being Feasible	  PAGEREF _Toc125819899 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819900"  Region A – Table 14.1: Technically
Infeasible Alternatives Discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc125819900 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819901"  Region A – Table 15.1: Present
Registration Status of Alternatives	  PAGEREF _Toc125819901 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819902"  California – Table 16.1: Effectiveness
of Alternatives – Nematodes	  PAGEREF _Toc125819902 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819903"  Region A – Table C.1: Alternatives
Yield Loss Data Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc125819903 \h  14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819904"  Part D: Emission Control	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819904 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819905"  Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize
Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions	  PAGEREF _Toc125819905 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819906"  Part E: Economic Assessment	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819906 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819907"  Part F. Future Plans	  PAGEREF
_Toc125819907 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc125819908"  APPENDIX A.  2008 Methyl Bromide Usage
Numerical Index (BUNNI).	  PAGEREF _Toc125819908 \h  18

Part A: Summary  TC "Part A: Summary" \f F \l "1"    TC "Part A:
Summary" \f C \l "1"

1. Nominating Party  TC "1. Nominating Party" \f C \l "2"  :

The United States of America

2. Descriptive Title of Nomination  TC "2. Descriptive Title of
Nomination" \f C \l "2"  :

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Sweet
Potato Propagative Hot Beds Grown in Open Fields and Protected with Row
Covers – Related to the Use Recommended by MBTOC for 2005.  Prepared
in 2006 for use in 2008.

3. Crop and Summary of Crop System  TC "3. Crop and Summary of Crop
System" \f C \l "2"  :

Sweet potatoes are transplanted from plant propagules called slips that
are transplanted between late April and late May.  The majority of sweet
potatoes are harvested in early November.  They are a warm-season crop
and are sensitive to even a light frost and must be planted and
harvested during seasons where there is no chance of frost.  Sweet
potato production generally occurs in sandy to loamy sand soils since
heavy soils affect yield and root quality.  Currently, cover crops, such
as rye, or a wheat/barley forage mix, are typically planted in December
after fields are fumigated and plowed, prior to the planting of sweet
potatoes (4-5 month period).

Sweet potato growers use methyl bromide for two purposes: fumigating
transplants in a greenhouse-like setting and fumigating open fields
planted with sweet potatoes.  California sweet potato growers have
transitioned away from using methyl bromide for open field pre-plant
soil fumigation.  In 2001 and 2002, California sweet potato producers
used no methyl bromide on their open fields.  Due to the recent price
increases on methyl bromide, growers limited methyl bromide use to
fumigating transplants.  For open field use, they relied on 1,3
dichloropropene which has satisfactory efficacy in areas of sweet potato
production where there is no greater than moderate pest pressures.
However, because 1,3 dichloropropene is a suspected carcinogen, it is
subject to township caps (the cap is the maximum amount that can be used
within the boundary of a township) in California, as established by the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation.  One township is equal to
an area of 93 square kilometers.  In Merced County, there is an
especially high concentration of crops that require fumigation,
particularly almonds, nectarines, peaches, and grapes.  Therefore, an
open-field option other than 1,3 dichloropropene must be available to
sweet potato growers when township caps are exceeded.  The MBTOC list of
alternatives for sweet potatoes is limited to fallow/crop rotation and
flooding/water management.

California growers produce their transplants (slips) for propagation in
open fields and initially cover plants with clear plastic row covers
supported by hoops.  Typically individual fields to be planted were
either fallowed or planted to rye or sweet potatoes the previous season.
 The transplants (slips) must be watered during establishment and the
low rainfall amounts and public water restrictions that exist in the
production areas make it imperative that fields are situated near
private irrigation wells, which significantly limits the land available
for growing transplants.

4. Methyl Bromide Nominated:   TC "4. Methyl Bromide Nominated" \f C \l
"2"  :

Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated  TC "Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide
Nominated" \f \l "1"

Year	Nomination Amount (kg)	Nomination Area (ha)

2008

5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use  TC
"5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use" \f C
\l "2"  ::

The US nomination is for growers who may be denied the use of Telone
plus chloropicrin as a result of Telone township caps being met.
Additionally, growers and crop specialists are uncertain of the pest
control suitability of a Telone plus chloropicrin product for pests
other than nematodes, especially weeds and diseases.

Table A.1: Executive Summary  TC "Table A.1: Executive Summary" \f \l
"1"

Region	Sweet Potato Council of California

Amount of Applicant Request

2008	Kilograms	18,144

Amount of Nomination *

2008	Kilograms

	*See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount
was calculated.

6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible  TC "6. Summarize Why
Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible" \f C \l "2"  :

The key alternative is thought to be a Telone plus chloropicrin
combination product.  This combination of active ingredients is highly
rated for control of nematodes and certain diseases, respectively.  This
is based upon years of grower experiences on other crops using the
respective ingredients alone and in combinations..  This combination
does not control weeds and may not control diseases that are not listed
on chloropicrin labels.  This request, however, is for those growers who
cannot use Telone due to regulatory constraints (township caps).  Unless
and until the township caps are increased growers cannot be assured of
having available the main alternative to methyl bromide fumigation.
Even were the caps to be increased, telone fumigation is not legal in
California during the month of January when significant fumication for
sweet potato slips need to take place.

7. (i) Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide  TC "7. Proportion
of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide" \f C \l "2"    (if particular
agricultural or political regions only use methyl bromide, provide local
data as well as national figures):

Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide  TC "Table
7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide" \f F \l "1"

Region where Methyl Bromide use is requested	Total crop area in 2002
(ha)	Proportion of total crop area treated with methyl bromide in 2002
(%)

Sweet Potato Council of California	81	80-90 %

National Total:	81	80-90

7. (ii) If only part of the crop area is treated with methyl bromide,
indicate the reason why methyl bromide is not used in the other area,
and identify what alternative strategies are used to control the target
pathogens and weeds without methyl bromide there.

Organic sweet potato growers do not use methyl bromide, or any other
fumigants, in their transplant beds.  It has been observed that fewer
and less vigorous transplants result.  Since data are not available to
address these options, the extent of these differences cannot be
quantified.  In addition, in order to produce their crops, organic
producers of sweet potatoes must use significant amounts of hand
weeding.  Current costs are not available, however, the State of
California has recently acted to significantly restrict hand weeding and
to mandate that hoes must be at least 4 feet (1.2 meters) in length.
The new regulations allow only a few hours of hand weeding per day.
This regulatory action effectively eliminated hand weeding for
commercial scale operations; it is only feasible in situations such as
organic production, where the scale of operation is small and where
growers can command a premium price..

7. (iii) Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods to
cover at least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl
bromide?  What changes would be necessary to enable this?

The Telone township cap limitation effectively limits the amount of
telone that can be used on a sliding scale.  This scale is a function of
amount, method of fumigation, and time of year.  To the extent that
telone or a telone chloropicrin mixture can be used, it is being used.
California growers prefer to use telone when possible (where the key
pests are controlled and where the township caps are not binding) as it
is less costly than mixtures using methyl bromide  The US nomination is
for growers who may be denied the use of Telone alone or in combination
with chloropicrin as a result of Telone township caps.  SOlarization is
undergoing evaluation, however, it is not likely that solarization can
completely replace fumigation.  Land for sweet potato operation si often
leased.  Solarization can only take place during the same time period as
cropping (the non-cropping season is not warm enough to allow soils to
reach the temperatures necessary to kill key pests to the required soil
depths.

8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use  TC "8. Amount of
Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use" \f C \l "2"  :

California - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical
Use  TC "Region A - Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for
Critical Use" \f F \l "1"

Region:  Sweet Potato Council of California

Year of Exemption Request	2008

Kilograms of Methyl Bromide	18,144

Use: Broadacre or Strip/Bed Treatment	Broadcast

Formulation (ratio of methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixture) to be used
for the CUE	57:43

Total Area to be treated with the methyl bromide or methyl
bromide/Chloropicrin formulation (m2 or ha)	81ha

Application rate* (kg/ha) for the formulation [ACTIVE INGREDIENT]	392

Application rate (kg/ha) for METHYL BROMIDE	224

Dosage rate* (g/m2) of formulation [ACTIVE INGREDIENT] used to calculate
requested kilograms of methyl bromide	39.2

Dosage rate (g/m2) of METHYL BROMIDE	22.4

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

9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity
Nominated for Each Region  TC "9. Summarize Assumptions Used to
Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity Nominated for Each Region" \f C \l "2"
 :

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

The percent of regional hectares in the applicant’s request was
divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by
the request.

Hectares counted in more than one application or rotated within one year
of an application to a crop that also uses MeBr were subtracted.  There
was no double counting in this sector.

 Growth or increasing production (the amount of area requested by the
applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was
subtracted.  There was no growth in this sector.

There was a small adjustment for use rate in one of the applications.

Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) hectares are not relevant to this
request because the plants are grown for planting on the same facility,
thus not triggering quarantine regulations.

 California - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use  TC
"Region A - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide Use" \f F \l
"1"    TC "Region A - Part B: Crop Characteristics and Methyl Bromide
Use" \f C \l "1"

California - 10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is
Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request  TC " Region A - 10. Key
Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific
Reasons for this Request" \f C \l "2"   (List only those target weeds
and pests for which methyl bromide is the only feasible alternative and
for which CUE is being requested):

California - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl
Bromide Request  TC "Region A - Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and
Reason for Methyl Bromide Request" \f F \l "1"

Region where methyl bromide use is requested	Key disease(s) and weed(s)
to genus and, if known, to species level	Specific reasons why methyl
bromide is needed

(e.g. Effective herbicide available, but not registered for this crop;
mandatory requirement to meet certification for disease tolerance)

Sweet Potato Council of California	Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne
incognita)	Township caps likely to be reached and prevent use of the
best available alternative Telone C-35

	Fungal Diseases: Pox (Streptomyces ipomea); Scurf (Monilochaetes
infuscans); Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum); Black rot (Ceratocystis
fimbriata)

Weeds: pigweed (Chenopodium spp.); crabgrass (Digitaria spp.)

Grubs (Scarabid beetles)

Wireworms (Limonius spp.)

California - 11. (i) Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate  TC
" Region A - 11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate" \f C \l
"2"

California - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System  TC " Region
A - Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System" \f F \l "1"

Characteristics	California

Crop Type: (e.g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings)	Development of
transplants (slips) from tubers

Annual or Perennial Crop: (# of years between replanting) 	Propagative
beds are used annually

Typical Crop Rotation (if any) and use of methyl bromide for other crops
in the rotation: (if any)	Land used the previous year could have been
fallow, rye, or sweetpotatoes;  many consecutive sweetpotato hotbed
plantings are possible

Soil Types:  (Sand, loam, clay, etc.)	Light soil with 0-2% organic
matter

Frequency of methyl bromide Fumigation:

(e.g. every two years)	Annually

Other relevant factors:	No other relevant factors were identified.

California - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule  TC
" Region A - Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule" \f
F \l "1"

Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan

Climatic Zone	USDA climate zone 10b

Soil Temp. ((C)

Rainfall (mm)	300mm per year; private wells must be available to
supplement the low rainfall rate

Outside Temp. ((C) Madera 	15/

3.1	19.1/ 4.6	21.3/6.1	26.8/

10.1	30.4/

12.6	33.2/

15.1

16.1/

3.3	12/

2.2	11.4/

1.8

Fumigation Schedule

X	X	X

Plant Hot Beds	X	X

Harvest Slips & Plant Field Beds

	X	X	X	X

Outside temperature data ((C) for Madera County, CA (High/Low) for 2000
– 2005.

California – 11. (ii) Indicate if any of the above characteristics in
11. (i) prevent the uptake of any relevant alternatives?

Due to the low rainfall and water restrictions preventing the use of
public water for crop irrigation prior to April, it is difficult to
rotate land used for hotbeds because they need to be situated close to
private water sources (e.g., wells).

California - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested
TC "Region A - 12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/or
Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested"
\f C \l "2"

California - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide  TC
"Region A - Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide" \f F
\l "1"

Years	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2008 Request

Area Treated (hectares)	1,214	934 	71 	81 	121 	Not Available	121

ratio of broadacre methyl bromide use to strip/bed use if strip
treatment is used	100% Broadcast	100% Broadcast	100% Broadcast	100%
Broadcast	100% Broadcast	100% Broadcast	100% Broadcast

Amount of methyl bromide active ingredient used

(total kilograms)	  202,180 	 153,523 	 15,876 	 18,144 	 27,216 	Not
Available	Not Available

formulations of methyl bromide

(e.g. methyl bromide /chloropicrin)	57:43	57:43	57:43	57:43	57:43	57:43
57:43

Method by which methyl bromide applied )	Shanked to 45.7 cm depth &
tarped	Shanked to 45.7 cm depth & tarped	Shanked to 45.7 cm depth &
tarped	Shanked to 45.7 cm depth & tarped	Shanked to 45.7 cm depth &
tarped	Shanked to 45.7 cm depth & tarped	Shanked to 45.7 cm depth &
tarped

Application rate [active ingredient kg/ha]	224	224	224	224	224	224	224

dosage rate of active ingredient (g/m2)*	22.4	22.4	22.4	22.4	22.4	22.4
22.4

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

California – Part C: Technical Validation  TC "Region A - Part C:
Technical Validation" \f F \l "1"    TC "Region A - Part C: Technical
Validation" \f C \l "1"

California - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible  TC "Region
A - 13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible" \f C \l "2"

(Give list of all relevant chemical and non chemical alternatives, and
their combinations)

Data from hotbed growing situations is not available, assessments
presented here are based on the overall experiences/data obtained from
other cropping situations

California – Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible
TC "Region A – Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible"
\f F \l "1"

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

Chemical Alternatives

Telone	Recommended by crop specialists principally for control of
nematodes; township caps; not permitted to be used in January; 1.9
application factor applied against use cap when used in December

	Metam-sodium	Recommended by crop specialists for general control of
diseases, weeds and nematodes; chemical frequently cited as providing
inconsistent efficacy; sprinkler and flood applications methods are
generally considered the most consistently effective methods of
application since the chemical is distributed more effectively in the
soil with these methods; sprinkler applications require a 500’ (152
meter) untreated buffer where occupied structures are present

	Chloropicrin	Recommended by crop specialists principally for control of
fungal diseases on various crops

	Non Chemical Alternatives

Fallowing/Crop rotation	Low rainfall and water restrictions  limit
freedom to rotate the land because hot bed sites must be near private
irrigation sources; since most land is leased fallowing is not
considered a viable option for many growers because it is an expense
only option and does not provide any income

	Solarization	Needs to be evaluated in the future to determine if it has
any utility; since most land is leased solarization is not considered a
viable option for many growers because it is an expense only option and
does not provide any income

	Combinations of Alternatives

Telone plus chloropicrin	Recommended for control of nematodes and
certain diseases; weed control generally found to be unacceptable
therefore an additional option for controlling  weeds may be necessary

California - 14. List and Discuss Why Registered (and Potential)
Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:  TC "Region A - 14. List and Discuss Why
Registered (and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not
Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide:" \f C \l "2"

California – Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives
Discussion  TC "Region A – Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible
Alternatives Discussion" \f F \l "1"

Name of Alternative	Discussion

Telone plus chloropicrin	Data lacking from hotbed situations; this
combination may/may not be a suitable alternative until several years of
hotbed data are obtained plus follow-up observations on the
productivity/quality of plants grown from these transplants.  In
addition, there are constraints on its use based on Township caps and
timing (January) of fumigation.

California - 15. List Present (and Possible Future) Registration Status
of Any Current and Potential Alternatives  TC "Region A - 15. List
Present (and Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and
Potential Alternatives" \f C \l "2"  :

California – Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives
TC "Region A – Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of
Alternatives" \f F \l "1"

Alternative	Present Registration Status

	Registration being considered? (Y/N)	Date of possible registration:

Sodium azide	No registration package has been received	No	Unknown

Propargyl bromide	No registration package has been received	No	Unknown

Iodomethane	Not registered in U.S.

Proposed uses include tomatoes, peppers, strawberries, and ornamental
crops	Yes, but not for sweet potato transplant slips	Unknown

Furfural	Not registered.  Registration package has been received.	Yes
Unknown

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

California - 16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives
Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds
for which It Is Being Requested  TC "Region A - 16. State Relative
Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for
the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested"
\f C \l "2"  :

The Sweet Potato Council of California supports university research and
collaborates extensively with the University of California Cooperative
Extension Program in Merced County.  As the sweet potato industry is
small, it is often difficult to obtain funding for alternatives, but the
Council has strong future research plans to further evaluate the use of
cover crops (i.e., radish, vetch, and barley) in conjunction with 1,3
dichloropropene, Vapam (metam-sodium), and Mocap (ethoprop). These
trials began in December 2001 and are ongoing.

Furthermore, the University of California Cooperative Extension and the
USDA Agricultural Research Service are actively engaged in numerous
research projects evaluating both chemical fumigants and cropping
systems.  Researchers have found that brassica (including both wild and
domestic plants such as mustard, kale, cabbage, rapeseed, turnips, and
radishes) residues, when incorporated into the soil, reduce the
incidence of several disease pathogens, including Pythium, Rhizoctonia,
Verticillium, and root knot nematodes.   Additional research that could
be undertaken, contingent on funding, would be:  (1) research on the
prospect of lowering 1,3 dichloropropene use rates when used in
conjunction with non-host cover crops; and (2) Use of non-host cover
crops/fallowing in conjunction with the other registered alternatives,
such as ethoprop, metam-sodium, and aldicarb.  The new
nematode-resistant potato Bienville will also be available in limited
amounts and will be tested in several fields.

Government-funded studies pertaining to U.S. sweet potato production
also include the following:

Resistance to Diseases and Nematodes in Vegetable Crops (April
2001-April 2003)

This study will describe the nature, genetics, and mechanisms of
host-resistance to major pathogens and root-knot nematodes that attack
vegetable crops in particular regions.  Durable, resistant cultivars and
environmentally compatible management practices that reliably reduce
disease losses and pesticide use will be developed.  Resistance to
root-knot nematodes is a critical component of this study.  In addition,
the USDA will cooperate with public plant breeders and seed companies to
facilitate use of identified resistance and markers in development of
resistant cultivars of vegetable crops.

The California Sweet Potato Council and the Univ. of California
Extension service did not conduct research for the sweet potato hotbeds.
 However, there is one research trial on nematicides conducted by the
Merced County, California Cooperative Extensive Service (Stoddard,
2002).  These data were generated because pest control in sweet potato
may be difficult due to township caps restricting the use of 1,3-D.  The
initial results from one study suggest that ethoprop and 1,3-D had
similar nematode control.  The study author indicated, however, that
this result might have been due to a block effect (i.e., due to the
location in the field) as opposed to the effect of the nematicides.
Also, the author noted that this result is from only one year of data
and that previous research showed marginal nematode control with
ethoprop (see Table 3 below).  In general, the USG does not regard one
trial with one year of data sufficiently robust as to serve as a basis
for transition projections.

California – Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives – Nematodes
TC "California – Table 16.1: Effectiveness of Alternatives –
Nematodes" \f F \l "1"

Treatment*	Rate

(kg ai/ha)	Root Knot Nematode

(#/250 ml soil)	Yield

(kg/ha)	Yield as % of MeBr

Control	0	925 ns	15142	53%

Metam sodium	356	963	23520	82%

Ethoprop	9.9	1350	14963	52%

MeBr	224	375	28806	100%

Stoddard, 2002

*Yield per plot, MB and metham sodium were significantly better than the
other two.  There were no significant differences between nematode
counts.

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

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

Metam sodium	Nematodes	High	18%

Telone/chloropicrin	Nematodes	0%	unknown

Overall Loss Estimate for All Alternatives to Pests	18%

Yield loss estimates for Telone/chloropicrin were not provided due to
the lack of data from hotbeds.  But, Telone/chloropicrin mixtures would
be assumed to provide nematode control comparable to methyl
bromide/chloropicrin mixtures.

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

Methyl iodide is generally considered to be a suitable alternative for
all soil uses; so far methyl iodide only has a pending registration for
uses on strawberries, peppers, tomatoes and ornamentals.

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

A small percentage of growers are able to use new land each year to
qualify as organic growers; limited feedback from one of these growers
indicates that the lack of pesticides has resulted in a decrease in the
number of plants produced per acre, an increase in plant size
variability and a significant weed problem that requires hand weeding.
As discussed (above), California has recently moved to severely restrict
hand weeding and weeding with hoes of less than 4 feet (1,2 meters) in
length.  These restrictions effectively render hand weeding an option
only for small operations where the grower can command a premium price
for the product, such as organic production.  A second difficulty is
that because of water restrictions during certain crucial months, hotbed
growing areas must be located near wells so as not to rely on irrigation
from public water sources

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

Sweet potato growers need pest free transplants (slips) for their
production fields.  Telone plus chloropicrin is an effective alternative
for nematode and disease control but is not available because of
township caps and the regulatory constraint on its use in January.  The
weaknesses associated with that treatment would continue to be weed
control and possibly disease control.  Actual data from the sweet potato
hotbeds for several consecutive years may be needed to determine a
suitable combination (possible Telone plus chloropicrin followed by
metam sodium would be as a methyl bromide alternative.

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

19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use
and Emissions in the Particular Use  TC "19. Techniques That Have and
Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions in the
Particular Use" \f C \l "2"  : (State % adoption or describe change)

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

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

What use/emission reduction methods are presently adopted?	High barrier
films	No recent change in application rate	No recent change in
formulation	No reported change

What further use/emission reduction steps will be taken for the methyl
bromide used for critical uses?	No future changes reported	No future
changes reported	No future changes reported	No future changes reported

Other measures (please describe)	1] Elimination of field production
areas from CUE	2] Growers will use Telone/chloropicrin in hotbeds, if
available

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

Further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of other
options.  In addition, practices such as deep injection and tarps are
used by sweet potato growers to reduce the MeBr rates required for
transplants (slips).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An economic analysis was not done for this sector because most of the
losses cannot be quantified.  This CUN only applies to areas where
township do not permit the use of Telone.  In such areas there are no
technically or economically feasible alternatives and losses could be as
high as 18% (Stoddard, 2002).  Sweet potato transplants (slips) that
survive are not likely to be as healthy and could lead to yield losses
in the production fields.  In addition to direct yield losses,
additional (possible) sources of loss include:

Delayed planting due to use of alternatives

Fallow

Additional use of herbicides

Losses due to weeds, insects and diseases resulting in smaller, less
attractive produce (quality loss)

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

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

Field tests in actual hotbed areas need to be initiated before a
suitable alternative can be identified.  Although Telone with
chloropicrin is thought to be the best available alternative, it may not
adequately control the full range of target pests, especially the weed,
disease and insect pests.  It should be noted that due to township caps
Telone may not always be available for use.  Due to this potential
problem another alternative needs to be identified to serve as a backup
for Telone/chloropicrin.  No additional plans, beyond dropping the field
production situations, were presented.  For further details regarding
the transition plans for this sector please consult the national
management strategy.

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

As described in Section 23.

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

The MB critical use exemption nomination for Sweet potato transplants
(slips) for the 2008 use season 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 where no feasible alternatives or substitutes are
currently available.  The loss of MB, therefore, would result in a
significant market disruption in providing clean transplants to the
industry.  The effort to avoid market disruption provides the basis for
nomination of this sector for critical use exemption of MB.

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

(Crop Production - Acreage - Supplement (PCP-BB).( Crop production -
Acreage 6-28-02. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS),
Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA. Retrieved January 21, 2003
<http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0602.pd
f>

Stoddard, C.S.  2002.  Research Progress Report: Fumigation and cover
crop trial on sweet potatoes.  University of California Cooperative
Extension Service, Merced County.

(Sweetpotato Tips.( Sweetpotato Tips Spring 2002.University of
California Cooperative Extension. Retrieved January 21, 2003
<http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/1529/2234.pdf>

Weir, Bill L. (Fumigation and Cover Crop Trial.( Sweet Potato 2000
Research Progress Report University of California Cooperative Extension
Merced County. pp. 21~23 2000.

Weir, Bill. (Sweetpotato Research Trials: 2001 Research Progress Report(
Sweet Potato Progress Report 2001 Retrieved January 21, 2003

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

Footnotes for Appendix A:

		Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 PAGE

 PAGE   v

Page  PAGE   23


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61809]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-136]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Regulation SHO; SEC File No. 270-534; OMB Control No. 3235-0589.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.

Regulation SHO

    Proposed Regulation SHO, Rule 201 (17 CFR 242.200 through 242.203)
requires each broker-dealer that effects a sell order in any equity
security to mark the order ``long,'' short,'' or ``short exempt.''
Proposed Regulation SHO, Rule 201 causes a collection of information
because the rule's requirement that each order ticket be marked either
``long,'' ``short,'' or ``short exempt'' is a disclosure to third
parties and the public imposed on ten or more persons.
    The information required by the rule is necessary for the execution
of the Commission's mandate under the Exchange Act to prevent
fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive acts and practices by broker-
dealers. The purpose of the information collected is to enable
regulators to monitor whether a person effecting a short sale is acting
in accordance with proposed Regulation SHO. Without the requirement
that each order or an equity security be marked either ``long,''
``short,'' or ``short exempt,'' there would be no means to police
compliance with Regulation SHO.
    We assume that all of the approximately 6,752 registered broker-
dealers effect sell orders in securities covered by proposed Regulation
SHO. For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Commission staff
has estimated that a total of 1,164,755,007 trades are executed
annually.
    This is an average of approximately 172,505 annual responses by
each respondent. Each response of marking orders ``long,'' ``short,''
or ``short exempt'' takes approximately .000139 hours (.5 seconds) to
complete. Thus, the total approximate estimated annual hour burden per
response). A reasonable estimate for the paperwork compliance for the
proposed rules for each broker-dealer is approximately 24 burden hours
6,752 respondents).
    The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under
Regulation SHO is three years following the trade date. The
recordkeeping requirement under this Rule is mandatory to assist the
Commission with monitoring the short sales of securities. This rule
does not involve the collection of confidential information. Please
note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/CIO, Office of

Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 10, 2006.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17397 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1730-1731]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0601; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-033-AD;
Amendment 39-17306; AD 2012-26-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (BHTI) Model 205A, 205A-1, and 205B
helicopters with certain starter/generator power cable assemblies
(power cable assemblies). This AD requires replacing the power cable
assemblies and their associated parts, and performing continuity
readings. This AD was prompted by the determination that the power
cable assembly connector (connector) can deteriorate, causing a short
in the connector that may lead to a fire in the starter/generator,
smoke in the cockpit that reduces visibility, and subsequent loss of
helicopter control.

DATES: This AD is effective February 13, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of February 13,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone
(817) 280-3391; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Shaw, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Discussion

    On June 13, 2012, at 77 FR 35306, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to BHTI Model 205A, 205A-
1, and 205B helicopters with power cable assemblies, part numbers (P/N)
205-075-902-017 and P/N 205-075-911-007, installed. That NPRM proposed
to require replacing the power cable assemblies and their associated
parts, and performing continuity readings. The proposed requirements
were intended to prevent a short in the connector that may lead to a
fire in the starter/generator, smoke in the cockpit that reduces
visibility, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 35306, June 13,
2012).

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information

    We have reviewed BHTI Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 205-07-94,
Revision A, dated December 8, 2008, for Model 205A and 205A-1
helicopters; and BHTI ASB No. 205B-08-50, dated December 8, 2008, for
the Model 205B helicopter. These ASBs describe procedures for replacing
the power cable assemblies and associated parts. The ASBs specify that
operators can obtain a starter/generator cable kit that contains the
required replacement parts.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 31 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The actions will take about 10 work-hours per helicopter to
accomplish at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required
parts will cost about $12,654

for the power cable assembly replacement kit. Based on these figures,
the cost of the AD on U.S. operators will be $13,504 per helicopter, or
$418,624 for the fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-26-11 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.: Amendment 39-17306; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0601; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-033-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (BHTI) Model
205A, 205A-1, and 205B helicopters with starter/generator power
cable assemblies (power cable assemblies), part number (P/N) 205-
075-902-017 and P/N 205-075-911-007 installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as the power cable assembly
connector (connector) deterioration, which can cause a short in the
connector potentially leading to a fire in the starter/generator. A
fire would result in smoke in the cockpit, reducing visibility, and
risking loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 13, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless accomplished
previously.

(e) Required Actions

    Within six months, replace the power cable assemblies using the
parts contained in starter/generator kit P/N CT205-07-94-1, perform
a continuity test, and connect wires to the starter generator as
follows:
    (1) For Model 205A and 205A-1 helicopters, follow the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2 through 16(c), of BHTI
Alert Service Bulletin No. 205-07-94, Revision A, dated December 8,
2008.
    (2) For the Model 205B helicopters, follow the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 2 through 16(c), of BHTI Alert Service
Bulletin No. 205B-08-50, dated December 8, 2008.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Andy Shaw, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2497, electrical
power system wiring.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. Alert Service Bulletin No. 205-
07-94, Revision A, dated December 8, 2008.
    (ii) Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. Alert Service Bulletin No.
205B-08-50, dated December 8, 2008.
    (3) For Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. service information
identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O.
Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (817)
280-6466; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/index.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 20, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-31586 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23597-23598]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0916; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-85]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Alaskan Very High Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional
Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-318; Level Island, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revoke Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-
318 in the vicinity of Level Island, AK. The FAA is proposing this
action due to the airways lack of use.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0916 and
Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-85 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System (NAS).

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may

also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the
Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

Incorporation by Reference

    Alaskan VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022 and effective September 15, 2022.
These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO
7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Background

    Alaskan Federal Airway V-318 is no longer used by air traffic
control or requested by pilots. The airway offers indirect routing
between the Level Island, AK, VOR and the Annette Island, AK, VOR. It
once offered the lowest minimum enroute altitude (MEA) on a Federal
Airway between the Level Island, AK, VOR and the Annette Island, AK,
VOR making it desirable for pilots requiring a lower altitude to avoid
inclement weather. Federal Airway V-317 offers direct routing between
the Level Island, AK, VOR and the Annette Island, AK, VOR and now has a
global navigation satellite system MEA equal to that of V-318. Pilots
no longer request V-318 because V-317 offers direct routing and has the
same MEA.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by revoking
Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-318 in its entirety. The existing Alaskan
VOR Federal Airway V-317 would mitigate the loss of Federal Airway V-
318. Federal Airway V-317 provides more economic and efficient routing
for aircraft.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(b) Alaskan VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-318 [Remove]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-07921 Filed 4-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16097-16098]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Request for Comment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and
solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR describes the
nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments
on the following information collection was published on June 6, 2013
(Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 109/pp. 34154-34156).

DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
or before April 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Block at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Behavioral Safety Research
(NTI-131), W46-499, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Block's phone number is 202-366-
6401 and his email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Type of Request: New information collection requirement.
    Title: Implementation of a Youth Traffic Safety Survey.
    Form No.: NHTSA Form 1199.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Respondents: NHTSA proposes to conduct a survey of young drivers
ages 16 through 20 concerning traffic safety issues affecting young
people in that age range. The survey would use Web as the primary
response mode and mail as a second response mode. Prior to the survey,
there will be usability tests of the Web and paper versions of the
questionnaires to identify any problems in the interface between survey
and respondent. The usability tests will be conducted with a
convenience sample of young drivers having varying demographic
characteristics. There also will be a pilot test of the survey. The
pilot test will be conducted with a sample of young drivers ages 16
through 20 drawn from the driver license database of one State that has
agreed to participate in the survey. Full administration of the survey
will be conducted with samples of young drivers ages 16 through 20
drawn from the driver license databases of eight States that have
agreed to participate in the survey.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: There will be 27 respondents
participating in the usability tests. The pilot test will use a total
drawn sample of 6,300. The response rate it will achieve is unknown,
but for purposes of burden estimation this project will assume a
response rate upper limit of 50%. The estimated total number of
respondents is therefore 3,150. For the full administration of the
survey, there will be two versions of the questionnaire in order to
limit the burden to respondents. Sufficient sample will be drawn to
obtain 8,000 completed interviews for each of the eight participating
States (4,000 per questionnaire). The estimated total number of
respondents is therefore 64,000.
    Estimated Time Per Response: Average duration per respondent for
the usability tests will be two hours. Average duration per respondent
for both the pilot test and the full administration of the survey will
be 15 minutes.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: The total estimated annual
burden for the usability tests is 27 subjects x 2 hours = 54 hours. The
total estimated annual burden for the pilot test is 6,300 sample x 50%
response rate x 15 minutes = 787.5 hours. The total estimated annual
burden for the full administration of the survey is 8 States x 8,000
respondents x 15 minutes = 16,000 hours. The total estimated annual
burden for all three information collections combined is 16,841.5
hours.
    Frequency of Collection: Respondents will participate a single time
in the usability tests, pilot test, or survey. They will not
participate in more than one of these forms of information collection.
The usability tests, pilot test, and survey will be conducted a single
time.
    Abstract: Young drivers 16- to 20-years old are especially
vulnerable to death and injury on our roadways, with traffic crashes
being the leading cause of death for teenagers in America. It is
essential that NHTSA be proactive in addressing young driver traffic
safety. As a data-driven organization, this means collecting and
analyzing quality data to identify the nature of young driver traffic
safety problems, to guide development of intervention approaches, and
to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. To that end, NHTSA
proposes to conduct a survey of young drivers ages 16 through 20
concerning traffic safety issues affecting young people in that age
range. The sample would be drawn from driver license databases of
States that choose to participate in the survey. NHTSA would seek
participation by eight States, two per Census Region. Contact with
prospective respondents would be through the mail. Young drivers would
be asked to go to a designated Web site to take the survey. Follow up
mailings would include as a second response option a paper version of
the questionnaire that respondents could fill out and mail back. NHTSA
will administer two different versions of the questionnaire, with each
respondent in the participating States receiving one of the two
versions. The questionnaires would cover topics such as general driving
behavior, driver education and graduated driver licensing, parental
oversight of driving, distraction and driving, drinking and driving,
substance use and driving, drowsy driving, seat belt use, speeding and
racing, crash experience, and traffic violations.
    The survey will first undergo developmental work prior to full
survey administration. This will include usability tests of the Web and
paper questionnaires to identify any problems in the interface between
survey and respondent. It will also include a pilot test in a single
State. The pilot test will have methodological experiments built in to
determine how different conditions will affect response rates. For
example, different configurations of monetary incentives offered for
survey participation will be tested to assess which produces the
highest response rate.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments Are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department of Transportation, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most
effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
notice.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 19, 2014.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-06335 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 45898]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2449-004.
    Applicants: Assembly Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised Rate Schedules to be
effective 10/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230710-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2218-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Correction to Amendment to ISA &
ICSA, SA Nos. 6606 & 6607; Queue No. AD1-022 to be effective 8/23/2023.
    Filed Date: 7/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230710-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2362-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Interconnection Agreement of
MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 7/7/23.
    Accession Number: 20230707-5254.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/28/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2363-000.
    Applicants: HXOap Solar One, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: HXOap Solar One, LLC--MBR
Application to be effective 8/28/2023.
    Filed Date: 7/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230710-5035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF23-1099-000.
    Applicants: Generate NB Fuel Cells, LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of Generate NB Fuel Cells, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/10/23.
    Accession Number: 20230710-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM23-6-000.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative,
Inc. to Terminate Its Mandatory Purchase Obligation under the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
    Filed Date: 7/7/23.
    Accession Number: 20230707-5253.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Dated: July 10, 2023.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: July 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15115 Filed 7-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53550-53551]
[DOCID:fr19se07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-34-003]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Filing

September 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 7, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251,
filed an abbreviated application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations to amend its Leidy to Long Island certificate issued on May
18, 2006 in Docket No. CP06-34-000, as amended by order issued on
January 11, 2007. This filing is available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Transco requests authorization to amend its certificate to (i)
adjust the estimated cost of facilities to capture increase in the
estimated cost of materials and labor for certain of the project
facilities, and (ii) revise the initial recourse rates for the project
to reflect the increased estimated cost.
    Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to Bill
Hammons, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396,
Houston, Texas 77251-1396; phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed
comment

date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA
(18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the
service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see 18 CFR 385.2001
(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the
``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.
    Comment Date: September 27, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18428 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56773]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4022-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4022-DR), dated September 1, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 1, 2011.

    Addison, Bennington, and Orange Counties for Individual
Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance, including
direct federal assistance).

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23444 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P