[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29666-29668]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0422; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; Model A340-200
and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of wing tip brakes (WTBs) losing
their braking function in service due to heavy wear on the brake discs.
WTBs are designed to stop and hold the mechanical transmission of slats
and flaps in certain failure cases. This proposed AD would require
repetitive operational tests of certain WTB pressure-off-brakes (POBs)
for performance on the flap and slat systems, and replacement of any
affected WTB with a new or serviceable part if the test fails. This
proposed AD would also require eventual replacement of all affected
WTBs with a new part, which would terminate the repetitive tests. We
are proposing this AD to prevent loss of the WTB braking function, and
consequent inability of the flap or slat system to be stopped and held
in position during operation, which could result in loss of control of
the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Accomplishment Instructions for
submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0422;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-097-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0082, dated May 15, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Several wing tip brakes (WTB) have lost their braking function
in service. Inspection by the manufacturer of these units revealed
that the drive shaft was found free to rotate and the braking discs
worn. Investigations are still on-going to determine the exact root
cause.
    The WTB is a Pressure-Off-Brake (POB) with a multi-plate
friction device operated by a spring pack. In operation, the brakes
are released by dual hydraulic pistons controlled by electro-
hydraulic solenoid valves, energized by the Slat Flap Control
Computers (SFCC). The purpose of the WTBs (4 per aeroplane) is to
stop and hold the mechanical transmission in position in some
specific failure cases. In such cases, the SFCCs de-energize their
WTB solenoids, which remove the hydraulic pressure and lead to the
application of the brakes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could, in some
specific failure cases, result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2010-0267 to
require a one-time Operational Test of the WTB/POB performance on
the flap and slat systems to detect any dormant failure and,
depending on findings, applicable corrective actions. This AD also
required the reporting of findings, including none, to the TC
holder.
    Since issuance of EASA AD 2010-0267, additional occurrences have
been reported. The results of the investigations revealed that WTB
fitted with brake plates manufactured by JURID (Part Number (P/N)
1007A0000-03, P/N 1007A0000-04, or P/N 1007A0000-05) are more
sensitive to wear than those manufactured by MIBA (P/N 1007A0000-06
or P/N 1007B0000-01).
    For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements
of EASA AD 2010-0267, which is superseded, and requires:
     a repetitive Operational Test of the WTB/POB
performance on the flap and slat systems, and
     embodiment of the terminating action which consists in
the installation of WTB standard build on brake plates manufactured
by MIBA.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A27L001-12, Revision
01, dated April 27, 2012.
    The actions described in the service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 65 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $11,050, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $9,987 (per unit--
four units per airplane), for a cost of $10,327 per product. We have no
way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; 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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed 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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-0422; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
097-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 5, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
243, -223F, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes; Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313
airplanes; and Model A340-541 and Model A340-642 airplanes;
certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of wing tip brakes (WTBs) losing
their braking function in service due to heavy wear on the brake
discs. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the
WTB and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Part Number Determination

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect to
determine the part number (P/N) of the four WTBs of the flap and
slat systems, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A27L001-12, Revision 01, dated April
27, 2012. A review of the Airbus airplane inspection report (AIR) or
airplane maintenance records is acceptable to identify the part
number of the WTB installed, provided that part number can be
conclusively determined from that review.

(h) Repetitive Operational Tests

    For any WTB having P/N 1007A0000-03, P/N 1007A0000-04, or P/N
1007A0000-05, as determined by paragraph (g) of this AD: At the
later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this
AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours,
perform an operational test of the WTB on the affected flap and/or
slat systems in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus AOT
A27L001-12, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2012.
    (1) Within 1,000 flight hours since the last accomplishment of
A330/A340 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) tasks 27.50.00/14
and 27.80.00/10, or since first flight of the airplane, whichever
occurs later.
    (2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Replacement of WTBs That Fail the Operational Test

    If any WTB operational test fails, before further flight,
replace the affected WTB with a serviceable WTB, in accordance with
the Instructions of Airbus AOT A27L001-12, Revision 01, dated April
27, 2012. Installation of a WTB having P/N 1007A0000-03, P/N
1007A0000-04, or P/N 1007A0000-05, does not constitute terminating
action for the repetitive tests required by paragraph (h) of this
AD.

(j) Replacement of WTBs

    Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
each WTB having P/N 1007A0000-03, P/N 1007A0000-04, or P/N
1007A0000-05 with a WTB having P/N 1007A0000-06, in accordance with
the Instructions of Airbus AOT A27L001-12, Revision 01, dated April
27, 2012. Accomplishing the replacement required by this paragraph
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive operational tests
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(k) Optional Installation

    As an alternative to accomplishing the replacement required by
paragraph (j) of this AD, installation of a WTB having P/N
1007B0000-01, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus AOT
A27L001-12, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2012, is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD and
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive operational tests
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(l) Parts Installation Prohibition and Limitation

    (1) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 43512 has been
embodied in production: As of the effective date of this AD,
installing a WTB having P/N 1007A0000-03, P/N 1007A0000-04, or P/N
1007A0000-05 is not allowed.
    (2) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 43512 has not
been embodied in production: Installing a WTB having P/N 1007A0000-
03, P/N 1007A0000-04, or P/N 1007A0000-05 is allowed; provided that
after its installation the operational test is performed before
further flight, and passed successfully, in accordance with the
Instructions of Airbus AOT A27L001-12, Revision 01, dated April 27,
2012.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD, if those actions
were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT
A27L001-12, dated April 26, 2012, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

(n) Reporting to Airbus

    Submit a report of the initial identification of the part
numbers of the WTBs required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and a
report of the findings of each operational test required by
paragraph (h) of this AD (both positive and negative), to Airbus,
Customer Services, Engineering and Technical Support, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France, Attn: Daniel Lopez-
Fernandez, SEEL6; fax: (+33) 5 61 93 04 52; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the action was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after accomplishing the
action.
    (2) If the action was done before the effective date of this AD:
Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD.

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing Instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information,
European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0082,
dated May 15, 2012; and Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A27L001-
12, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2012, for related information.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued In Renton, Washington, on May 13, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12076 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 129 (Friday, July 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43335-43336]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-58-000.
    Applicants: ONEOK Field Services Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: OFS Cost of Service Rate
Filing to be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-854-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Northern to
Direct Energy 2902 eff 7-1-23 to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230629-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-855-000.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--SoCal
to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230629-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-856-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Conoco July 2023) to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230629-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-857-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various
Releases eff 7-1-23 to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230629-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-858-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Equitrans Clean-Up Filing--
June 2023 to be effective 8/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-859-000.
    Applicants: Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Cove Point--2023 Penalty Revenue
Distribution to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-860-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: EGTS--2023 Overrun and Penalty
Revenue Distribution to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-861-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Amendment--
Macquarie 279977-2 to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-862-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TETLP EPC AUG 2023 FILING to
be effective 8/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-863-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TGP Powerserve to be effective
8/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-864-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Various July
1 2023 Releases to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-865-000.
    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amended NRA #2--BP Energy Co
to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-866-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20230630 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-867-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement--BP
Energy 283150 to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-868-000.
    Applicants: MIGC LLC.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Requirements of Annual Fuel
Retention Percentage Tracker of MIGC LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-869-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--Replacement Shippers--Jul 2023 to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-870-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: SOC Linepack Level Update to
be effective 8/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-871-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmts
(FPL 41618, 41619 eff 7-1-23) to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-872-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Agmts re Permanent
Capacity Release (Panda 624) to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-873-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Osaka
46429 to Texla 56401) to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1001-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: EGTS--Operational Gas Sales Report--
2023 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230630-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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>. 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: June 30, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14346 Filed 7-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 12365-12368]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an

opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements contained in the regulations implementing
the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 (PDMA) (Public Law 100-
293).

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by May 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA 305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987; Administrative Procedures,
Policies, and Requirements; 21 CFR Part 203 (OMB Control Number 0910-
0435)--Extension

    FDA is requesting OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 USC 3501-3520) for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
contained in the regulations implementing the PDMA. PDMA was intended
to ensure that drug products purchased by consumers are safe and
effective and to avoid an unacceptable risk that counterfeit,
adulterated, misbranded, subpotent, or expired drugs are sold.
    PDMA was enacted by Congress because there were insufficient
safeguards in the drug distribution system to prevent the introduction
and retail sale of substandard, ineffective, or counterfeit drugs, and
that a wholesale drug diversion submarket had developed that prevented
effective control over the true sources of drugs.
    Congress found that large amounts of drugs had been reimported into
the United States as U.S. goods returned causing a health and safety
risk to U.S. consumers because the drugs may become subpotent or
adulterated during foreign handling and shipping. Congress also found
that a ready market for prescription drug reimports had been the
catalyst for a continuing series of frauds against U.S. manufacturers
and had provided the cover for the importation of foreign counterfeit
drugs.
    Congress also determined that the system of providing drug samples
to physicians through manufacturers' representatives had resulted in
the sale to consumers of misbranded, expired, and adulterated
pharmaceuticals.The bulk resale of below-wholesale priced prescription
drugs by health care entities for ultimate sale at retail also helped
to fuel the diversion market and was an unfair form of competition to
wholesalers and retailers who had to pay otherwise prevailing market
prices.
    FDA is requesting OMB approval for the following reporting and
recordkeeping requirements:

                         REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.11         Applications for reimportation to provide
                       emergency medical care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.30(a)(1)   Drug sample requests (drug samples distributed by
 and (b)               mail or common carrier).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR                Drug sample receipts (receipts for drug samples
 203.30(a)(3),(a)(4)   distributed by mail or common carrier).
 and (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.31(a)(1)   Drug sample requests (drug samples distributed by
 and (b)               means other than the mail or a common carrier).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR                Drug sample receipts (drug samples distributed by
 203.31(a)(3),(a)(4)   means other than the mail or a common carrier).
 and (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.37(a)      Investigation of falsification of drug sample
                       records.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.37(b)      Investigation of a significant loss or known theft
                       of drug samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.37(c)      Notification that a representative has been
                       convicted of certain offenses involving drug
                       samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.37(d)      Notification of the individual responsible for
                       responding to a request for information about
                       drug samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.39(g)      Preparation by a charitable institution of a
                       reconciliation report for donated drug samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.23(a) and  Credit memo for returned drugs.
 (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.23(c)      Documentation of proper storage, handling, and
                       shipping conditions for returned drugs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.30(a)(2)   Verification that a practitioner requesting a drug
and 21 CFR             sample is licensed or authorized by the
 203.31(a)(2)          appropriate State authority to prescribe the
                       product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.31(d)(1)   Contents of the inventory record and
 and (d)(2)            reconciliation report required for drug samples
                       distributed by representatives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.31(d)(4)   Investigation of apparent discrepancies and
                       significant losses revealed through the
                       reconciliation report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.31(e)      Lists of manufacturers' and distributors'
                       representatives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.34         Written policies and procedures describing
                       administrative systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.37(a)      Report of investigation of falsification of drug
                       sample records.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.37(b)      Report of investigation of significant loss or
                       known theft of drug samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.38(b)      Records of drug sample distribution identifying
                       lot or control numbers of samples distributed.
                       (The information collection in 21 CFR 203.38(b)
                       is already approved under OMB Control Number 0910-
                       0139).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.39(d)      Records of drug samples destroyed or returned by a
                       charitable institution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.39(e)      Record of drug samples donated to a charitable
                       institution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.39(f)      Records of donation and distribution or other
                       disposition of donated drug samples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.39(g)      Inventory and reconciliation of drug samples
                       donated to charitable institutions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.50(a)      Drug origin statement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.50(b)      Retention of drug origin statement for 3 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 CFR 203.50(d)      List of authorized distributors of record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting and recordkeeping requirements are intended to help
achieve the following goals:
    (1) To ban the reimportation of prescription drugs produced in the
U.S., except when reimported by the manufacturer or under FDA
authorization for emergency medical care;
    (2) To ban the sale, purchase, or trade, or the offer to sell,
purchase, or trade, of any prescription drug sample;
    (3) To limit the distribution of drug samples to practitioners
licensed or authorized to prescribe such drugs or to pharmacies of
hospitals or other health care entities at the request of a licensed or
authorized practitioner;
    (4) To require licensed or authorized practitioners to request
prescription drug samples in writing;
    (5) To mandate storage, handling, and recordkeeping requirements
for prescription drug samples;
    (6) To prohibit, with certain exceptions, the sale, purchase, or
trade of, or the offer to sell, purchase, or trade, prescription drugs
that were purchased by hospitals or other health care entities, or
which were donated or supplied at a reduced price to a charitable
organization;
    (7) To require unauthorized wholesale distributors to provide,
prior to the wholesale distribution of a prescription drug to another
wholesale distributor or retail pharmacy, a statement identifying each
prior sale, purchase, or trade of the drug.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         No. of       Annual  Frequency     Total Annual        Hours per
  21 CFR Section      Respondents        per Response        Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.11                             1                  1                  1                 .5                0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.30(a)(1) and              61,961                 12            743,532                .06             44,612
 (b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.30(a)(3),                 61,961                 12            743,532                .06             44,612
 (a)(4) and (c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.31(a)(1) and             232,355                135         31,367,925                .04          1,254,717
 (b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.31(a)(3),                232,355                135         31,367,925                .03            941,038
 (a)(4) and (c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.37(a)                         50                  4                200                .25                 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

203.37(b)                         50                 40              2,000                .25                500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.37(c)                          1                  1                  1                  1                  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.37(d)                         50                  1                 50                .08                  4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.39(g)                          1                  1                  1                  1                  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total              .................  .................  .................  .................       2,285,535.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

                               Table 2.--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Annual Frequency
  21 CFR Section         No. of              per            Total Annual    Hours per  Record     Total Hours
                     Recordkeepers      Recordkeeping         Records
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.23(a) and (b)             31,676                  5            158,380                .25             39,595
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.23(c)                     31,676                  5            158,380                .08             12,670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.30(a)(2) and               2,208                100            220,800                .50            110,400
 203.31(a)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.31(d)(1) and               2,208                  1              2,208                 40             88,320
 (d)(2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.31(d)(4)                     442                  1                442                 24             10,608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.31(e)                      2,208                  1              2,208                  1              2,208
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.34                            90                  1                 90                 40              3,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.37(a)                         50                  4                200                  6              1,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.37(b)                         50                 40              2,000                  6             12,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.39(d)                         65                  1                 65                  1                 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.39(e)                      3,221                  1              3,221                .50              1,610
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.39(f)                      3,221                  1              3,221                  8             25,768
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.39(g)                      3,221                  1              3,221                  8             25,768
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.50(a)                          0                  0                  0                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.50(b)                          0                  0                  0                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203.50(d)                          0                  0                  0                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total              .................  .................  .................  .................            324,092
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: March 17, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-6394 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: March 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 14870-14871]
[DOCID:fr19mr08-130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit.

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permit.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Request of modifications of special permits
(e.g., to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging design
changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described in
footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request.
    Their applications have been separated from the new application for
special permits to facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2008.
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC or at http://dms.dot.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 51I7(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2008.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Regulation(s)        Nature of special
   Application No.           Docket No.             Applicant            affected            permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MODIFICATION SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5493-M..............  ......................  Marsulex, Inc.       49 CFR 173.314(c)..  To modify the special
                                               North York, ON.                           permit to authorize a
                                                                                lower minimum loading
                                                                                temperature.

11602-M.............  ......................  East Tennessee Iron  49 CFR 172.101;      To modify the special
                                               & Metal, Inc.        172.301(c);          permit to authorize the
                                               Rogersville, TN.     173.22a; 173.241;    addition of class 9
                                                                    173.242; Part 107,   hazardous material.
                                                                    Subpart B,
                                                                    Appendix B.
13325-M.............  RSPA-16599              Air Products &       49 CFR               To modify the special
                                               Chemicals, Inc.      173.301(f)(3);       permit to authorize an
                                               Allentown, PA.       180.205(c)(4).       increase in service
                                                                                life of certain DOT
                                                                                specification
                                                                                cylinders.
14318-M.............  ......................  Lockheed Martin      49 CFR 173.315.....  To modify the special
                                               Corporation                               permit to authorize
                                               (Former Grantee:                          multiple tanks of the
                                               Lockheed-Martin                           same commodity to be
                                               Technical                                 transported in
                                               Operations)                               dedicated enclosed
                                               Vandenberg AFB, CA.                       metal sided box vans or
                                                                                trucks.
14418-M.............  ......................  Department of        49 CFR 172.301;      To modify the special
                                               Defense Ft.          172.400;             permit to authorize the
                                               Eustis, VA.          172.504(a).          transportation in
                                                                                commerce of an
                                                                                additional Division 4.3
                                                                                hazardous material.
14638-M.............  ......................  Teledyne Energy      49 CFR 173.213.....  To reissue the special
                                               Systems, Inc. Hunt                        permit originally
                                               Valley, MD.                               issued on an emergency
                                                                                basis for the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce of up to two
                                                                                pressure vessels
                                                                                containing Magnesium or
                                                                                Magnesium alloys under
                                                                                an Argon blanket
                                                                                further packaged in a
                                                                                non-DOT specification
                                                                                wooden box capable of
                                                                                meeting the performance
                                                                                requirements for PG II
                                                                                and to remove the one
                                                                                time restriction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-5472 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin, Metam-Sodium, and Methyl Bromide in Eggplant Production
(DP# 337490)

FROM:	Angel Chiri, Ph.D., Entomologist

Biological Analysis Branch

		David Donaldson, Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Timothy Kiely, Chief,

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		John Leahy

Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

BEAD Product Review Panel date:	 4 April 2007

Summary

This assessment measures the benefit of chloropicrin, metam-sodium, and
methyl bromide use in eggplant production in California and the
Southeastern states of Florida and Georgia.  These eggplant production
regions account for two thirds of U.S. eggplant acreage and the vast
majority of eggplant fumigant use in the U.S.  Eggplant is grown in open
fields, on raised beds, under organic mulch and plastic tarps, often
followed by non-solanaceous vegetable crops.  In Florida and Georgia,
chloropicrin, in combination with methyl bromide, is applied to over
2,000 acres of eggplant, which is about 80% of the acres grown.  In
California about 20% of eggplant acreage is fumigated with methyl
bromide and chloropicrin or metam-sodium.  In total, nearly half of U.S.
eggplant production (2,500 acres) is fumigated.  Fumigants are used to
control a mix of nematodes, plant pathogens, and weeds.  Without
fumigants, these target pests may reduce yields by 5 to 20 percent in
California and 29 to 55 percent in Georgia and Florida.  Given the
severity of the estimated benefits of fumigation, BEAD anticipates that
half of U.S. eggplant acreage may be unable to continue eggplant
production without their use.  We estimate the benefit of the use of
fumigants in U.S. eggplant production to be approximately $20 million.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

As part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants as
a group:  chloropicrin, metam-potassium, metam-sodium, and methyl
bromide.  This document presents the assessment of the benefits to
eggplant production that is provided by these soil fumigants.
Conceptually, the benefits of a pesticide like a soil fumigant are
comprised of the improvements in production and/or reductions in cost
resulting from the pesticide use.  The social benefits of a pesticide
are divided between the users of the pesticide, e.g., eggplant
producers, and consumers of eggplants and eggplant-containing products.
Consumers benefit because higher production and/or lower costs translate
into a cheaper and more abundant supply of eggplant. The impact of
fumigant regulation on this consumer benefit is not explicitly evaluated
in this document.

In evaluating the benefits of soil fumigants, this document compares the
current situation in which fumigants are available for use, subject to
existing label restrictions, to the situation that is estimated to occur
were the fumigants not available.  This is somewhat different from other
BEAD assessments of the impacts of regulation, in that no specific
regulatory scheme is considered.

BACKGROUND

Eggplant producing states as surveyed by the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) are described in Table 1.  There are
approximately 5,800 acres of eggplant harvested for the fresh market
each year in the U.S.  Yield, price, value of production, harvested
acres, and total production volume are given by state and for the U.S.

Table 1.  Eggplant: Yield, Price, Production Value, Acres Harvested, and
Total Production, for the Fresh Market, by State and U.S. Total, 2000
and 2001 Average.

State	Yield (CWT) 1	Price ($/CWT) 	Value Of Production ($1,000)	Acres
Harvested	Total Production (1,000 CWT)

California2	490	33	8,541	1,500	329

Connecticut	105	33	418	115	13

Florida	255	32	13,627	1,700	434

Georgia	533	19	7,176	775	383

Hawaii	200	73	1,090	75	15

Massachusetts	110	35	193	50	6

New Jersey	225	21	3,852	800	180

New York	205	40	4,289	520	107

North Carolina	135	21	839	305	41

United States	258	27	40,022	5,840	1,506

Sources:  Crop Summary (USDA NASS, 2001-2002); Agricultural Prices (USDA
NASS, 2001-2002).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Create_Federal_All.jsp"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Create_Federal_All.jsp .

1. A CWT is equal to 100 pounds.

2. California yield and price based on “Sample Costs to Produce
Eggplant, 2005,” University of California Cooperative Extension, Page
4,   HYPERLINK
"http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/eggplantam
vs2005.pdf"
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_return_articles/eggplantamv
s2005.pdf .

Note, NASS discontinued collection of eggplant production data in 2002.

Fumigant Use

The following section provides a summary of our understanding of the use
of fumigants in eggplant production.  In preparing this summary, we
referred to the available pesticide use data for the period 2000 to
2005.  Our estimates of fumigant use in California eggplant production
are based on California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide
Use Reports (PUR).  Fumigant use in other states is based on the
CropLife 2002 Pesticide Use Database, and submissions for Critical Use
of Methyl Bromide under the Montreal Protocol.

Pesticide use data from the CropLife 2002 Pesticide Use Database and
from the submissions for Critical Use of Methyl Bromide are not
collected using standard survey methods.  For this reason, we are unable
to gauge the accuracy of the data, but have reviewed each of the sources
carefully and have used what we concluded to be the most appropriate and
accurate information.  Thus, the data provided below reflects an element
of professional judgment.  It may therefore be difficult to
independently calculate the same estimates of fumigant use.
Nonetheless, the information is intended to provide an indication of the
scale of regulatory impacts, not to calculate the exact values of these
impacts.

As shown in Table 2, eggplants are fumigated with chloropicrin, methyl
bromide, metam-sodium, and 1,3-dichloropropene.  Applied in combination,
chloropicrin and methyl bromide are applied to 11% of the eggplant crop
in California, 90% in Florida, and 70% in Georgia. An estimated 16% of
the  eggplant crop in California is treated with metam-sodium, and less
than 5% of the California crop is treated with 1,3-dichloropropene,
either alone or in combination with chloropicrin.

Over 500 thousand pounds of fumigants are used on eggplant per year in
the U.S.  In total, almost 50% of the U.S. eggplant crop is treated with
one or more fumigant.

Table 2.  Fumigant Use on Eggplant.

Active Ingredient	% Acres Treated1	Acres Treated	Pounds Applied

California

Chloropicrin 	11	150	15,000

Dichloropropene	<5	50	5,000

Metam-sodium	16	250	40,000

Methyl Bromide	10	150	30,000

Florida

Chloropicrin 	90	1,500	260,000

Methyl Bromide	90	1,500	100,000

Georgia

Chloropicrin 	70	550	75,000

Methyl Bromide	70	550	35,000

Source: Data for California is based on the California PUR   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm ). Data for Florida and
Georgia are based on the CropLife 2002 Pesticide Use Database and
submissions for Critical Use of Methyl Bromide under the Montreal
Protocol.

Note that percent crop treated data were taken from the above data
sources.  Total area treated and pounds applied are calculated using
acreage from Table 1.

Based on crop production regions and the fumigant use patterns, in this
document we assess the benefit of fumigant use on eggplant grown in
California and the Southeast U.S. (Florida and Georgia).

FUMIGATION CHARACTERISTICS

Target Pests

As shown in Table 3, fumigants are used in California and the
Southeastern States of Florida and Georgia to control several nematodes,
weeds, and diseases in eggplant production.  In California, methyl
bromide, metam-sodium, and, to a lesser extent, 1,3-dichloropropene are
applied pre-plant to control primarily root-knot and stubby-root
nematodes.  Heavy infestations of root-knot nematodes can cause
significant reduction in crop stand and in the growth and yield of
plants, while stubby-root nematode can reduce growth and yield.  In the
low desert region, some fields are fumigated with methyl bromide to
control root diseases. The fumigation also controls most of the weed
problems, obviating the need to use herbicides (Crop Profile for Bell
Peppers in California, 2000).  This information is primarily based on
California peppers, a closely related vegetable production system with a
similar life history and pest vulnerability.  In Florida and Georgia,
methyl bromide and chloropicrin are applied, at least two weeks prior to
planting transplants, for control of soil insects, pathogens, nematodes
and weeds (especially nutsedges), all of which are major pests in
eggplant production (Crop Profile for Eggplant in Florida, 2000).

Table 3. Key diseases, Pests, and weeds

Region 	Key diseases, Pests and weeds

California	Crown and root rots caused by soil-borne fungi, particularly
Phytophthora capsici, P. parasitica, Rhizoctonia spp, Verticillium spp,
and Pythium spp.

Plant-parasitic nematodes, primarily root knot (Meloidogyne spp.)

Florida and Georgia	Yellow and purple nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, C.
rotundus), nightshade (Solanum spp.), white clover (Trifollium repens),
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia);

Plant-parasitic nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita; Pratylenchus sp.);

Pythium root and collar rots (P.irregulare, P. myriotylum, P. ultimum,
P. aphanidermatum); crown and root rot (Phytophthora capsici), Southern
blight (Sclerotium rolfsii); damping-off  (Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium
spp.), white mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum)

Use Characteristics

Tables 4 and 5 provide information characterizing typical fumigant use
in eggplant production.

Table 4.  Fumigant Application Information Eggplant Grown In California

Application Rate 	chloropicrin

(lb ai/acre)1		dichloropropene

			metam-sodium

			methyl bromide	50 to 100 pounds per acre

100 pounds per acre

160 pounds per acre

200 pounds per acre

Acres Treated per Day	10 to 40 acres per tractor

Time of Fumigation	Oct – Dec

Application Method	Primarily shank injected under tarp

Application Type	Primarily strip treated with 60% of area treated?

Tarps or Water Caps	HDPE tarp

Typical application rate range, based on California Department of
Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Use Reporting,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm"
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm .

Table 5.  Fumigant Application Information Eggplant Grown In Georgia and
Florida

Application Rate 	chloropicrin

(lb ai/acre)	             methyl bromide 	50 to 75 pounds per acre

125 to 175 pounds per acre

Acres Treated per Day 	10 to 40 acres per tractor

Time of Fumigation	GA – July

FL – Aug. – Jan.

Application Method	Shank injected under tarp

Application Type	Primarily strip with 58 % of area treated

Tarps or Water Caps	LDPE with some HDPE and metalized tarps

PEST CONTROL PRACTICES

Chemical Control Practices

Methyl bromide/chloropicrin fumigation has been the preferred method of
disease and nematode control in Florida eggplant production (Mossler and
Nesheim, 2003).  Fungicides, especially maneb, sulfur, and copper
hydroxide, are also applied to eggplant.  Maneb and copper hydroxide are
used to control blotches, blights, spots, and rots.  Other fungicides
that may be used in eggplant production include copper sulfate,
chlorothalonil, acibenzolar, azoxystrobin, copper octanoate, and
trifloxystrobin.

Cultural Control Practices

Planting in well-drained soils and avoiding planting in fields with
large amounts of decomposed plant debris are recommended cultural
controls for damping-off.  Management practices for Phytophthora in
transplant production areas include the use of pathogen-free and
fungicide-treated seeds and sterile potting media.  Flats, plug trays,
benches, seeding equipment, and plant house structures should be
disinfected using a sodium hypochlorite solution or other disinfectant.
Steam sterilization of flats and plug trays may also be useful.
Transplant trays with infected plants should be removed immediately from
production sites. Workers should disinfest their hands after contact
with infected plants.  Planting sites should be well drained and free of
low-lying areas.  Field drainage areas should be kept free of
solanaceous weeds and volunteer crop plants (Mossler and Nesheim, 2003).

Cultural control practices, while highly useful, by themselves seldom
provide technically or economically effective control of key pest
problems.  Many pests are long lived and crop rotation is not an
economic alternative.  A totally organic production system is not
feasible for areas with moderate to high pest pressure.  In 2005 only
4.6% of U.S. vegetable production was grown organically (USDA ERS 2006).
 Crop rotation is not effective for managing Phytophthora capsici
because this pathogen can survive several years in the soil and infect
more than 50 plant species.  Research at Cornell (Jahn 2004), funded by
the California Pepper Commission from 2001 through 2004, has shown that
it may be possible to breed resistance to Phytophthora capsici into
pepper plants that already have crown blight and root rot tolerance.
While this research was not conducted on eggplant specifically, the
results are from a closely related vegetable production system with a
similar life history and pest vulnerability.

BENEFITS OF FUMIGATION

Yield and Quality

The following pepper trials describe yield and quality impacts that
would likely result if chloropicrin, metam-sodium, and methyl bromide
were no longer available in California and Southeastern U.S. eggplant
production.  In the absence of useful crop loss data for eggplant, this
assessment relies to a large extent on relevant information available
for peppers, a closely related  vegetable production system with a
similar life history and pest vulnerability.  Table 8 summarizes the
expected impacts.

California

In 1999 researchers in California conducted six weed control trials
(Smith & Mullen 1999).  The standard combination of napropamide plus
bensulide was compared to s-metolachlor, halosulfuron, and rimsulfuron.
S-metolachlor (1.27 to 1.59 lb ai/acre) provided good control of
nightshade, shepherdspurse, sow thistle, and yellow nutsedge.
Halosulfuron (0.031 to 0.062 lb ai/acre) provided good weed control but
was phytotoxic to peppers in all trials in which it was tested.

A field experiment was conducted in New Mexico in 1995 and 1996 to
examine the effects of different irrigation methods on yields and
Phytophthora root rot disease of chile pepper plants (Capsicum annum New
Mexico ‘6-4’) (Xie et al., 1999).  Three irrigation methods, daily
drip, 3-day drip, and alternate row furrow irrigation, were applied to
plots infested with P. capsici and uninfested plots.  For both years,
the drip irrigation (either daily or 3-day) created higher marketable
green pepper yields than the alternate row furrow irrigation (p <0.05),
and the yields between the daily and 3-day drip irrigation were
statistically similar.  The effect of irrigation on marketable combined
yields was similar to that on green chile yields.  In 1995, root rot
disease incidence in the infested plots was significantly higher under
alternate row furrow irrigation than for daily and 3-day drip
irrigation.  There was no disease development in the uninfested plots
regardless of the irrigation method.  The disease decreased green chile
yield by 55% (p <0.1), and combined yield (green + red chile) by 36% (p
<0.1) in 1995 compared to that in uninfested plots in alternate row
furrow irrigation.  In 1996, however, no disease occurred in any
treatment.  The results suggested that drip irrigation increases chile
yield through providing either favorable soil moisture conditions or
unfavorable conditions for Phytophthora propagation.

Southeast U.S.

Nematode problems in eggplant are similar to those in tomato and pepper,
where root damage leads to reduced rooting volume and reduced water and
nutrient uptake.  Eggplant varieties produced in Florida are susceptible
to sting, stubby-root, and root-knot nematode (Crop Profile for Eggplant
in Florida, 2000).  On peppers, for instance, fruit size and numbers per
plant can be greatly reduced, and yield losses of 30 to 80 percent are
not unusual in soils heavily infested with Meloidogyne iincognita
(Mossler et al., 2006 and Noling 2005).

Yellow nutsedge, a weed commonly present in Florida vegetable fields,
may substantially reduce crop yields when not controlled.  Soil
fumigation with methyl bromide effectively controls nutsedges, but
methyl bromide is being phased out of production and use in the United
States.  An experiment was conducted during four seasons (spring and
fall of 1999 and 2000) to determine the tolerance of bell pepper grown
at two in-row spacings (23 and 31 cm) to interference resulting from
planted yellow nutsedge tuber densities (0 to 120 tubers/m2).  Relative
to yields with no nutsedge, pepper fruit yields in each season were
reduced 10% with fewer than 5 nutsedge tubers/m2.  Yield losses
increased more rapidly with an increase in initial nutsedge density from
0 to 30 than from 30 to 120 tubers/m2.  With 30 nutsedge tubers/m2,
large fruit yield was reduced 54 to 74% compared to that with no
nutsedge.  Nutsedge shoots overtopped the pepper plants as early as 6
weeks after treatment when, with 15 tubers/m2, nutsedge interference
reduced pepper plant biomass by 10 to 47%. In the absence of methyl
bromide, weed control strategies with high efficacy against yellow
nutsedge will be needed for bell pepper production.

Table 6.  Eggplant Yield Loss Data1

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

1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin	Nutsedges, fungal pathogens - FL	20 -
100	29 %

Metam-sodium (with or without chloropicrin)	Nutsedges, fungal pathogens
- FL	30 - 55	44 %

No fumigation	Nutsedge in Florida (Motis, 2003)	54 to 74	64 %

No fumigation	Phytophthora root rot in New Mexico(Xie et al.,  1999)	36
- 55 	45 %

No fumigation but with mefenoxam Fungicide	Phytophthora root rot in
Michigan (Hausbeck, 2006)	5 - 42

20% with mefenoxam	5 to 20 %

No fumigation	Phytophthora capsici in California (Cal Pepper, 2005)	49 %
49 %

No fumigation	Weeds in Connecticut (Ashley, 1999)	0.5 - 97	49 %

No fumigant	Meloidogyne incognita in Florida (Noling, 2005)	30 - 80	55 %

Overall Loss Estimate for All Alternatives to Pests	California 5 to 49 %

Southeast 29 to 44 %

1Data extrapolated from yield loss data available for peppers.

Economic Benefits

In the following section we value the benefit of fumigant use in
eggplant production. This is done by comparing current eggplant
production to eggplant production without the use of fumigants, the
result of which is reduced yields and changed production costs.

BEAD’s estimates of the benefits of the soil fumigants, conceptually,
are the improvements in production and/or reductions in cost resulting
from the pesticide’s use.  The benefits of a fumigants use are shared
between users of the pesticide, i.e., eggplant producers, and consumers
of eggplant and eggplant products.  Consumers benefit because higher
production and/or lower costs may translate into a cheaper and more
abundant supply of eggplant.

BEAD uses a partial budget analysis to estimate the impacts of changes
in yields and production costs.  That is, we evaluate the consequences
on a typical acre of the crop grown, rather than attempt to assess the
impacts in the context of a whole enterprise, which could include
multiple crops under cultivation.  This approach allows the Agency to
compare losses to net operating revenue, which is defined as the
difference between gross revenue and variable operating costs, on a
per-acre basis.  The analysis ignores fixed costs, which are highly
dependent on land ownership and the size and diversity of the grower’s
operation, and therefore difficult to define on a per-acre basis.  As
such, this analysis may understate the impacts as a percentage of the
grower’s income.

In the absence of yield loss data specific to eggplant, yield loss data
used in this analysis has been extrapolated from yield loss data
available for peppers. This represents an uncertainty in the analysis.
The estimated benefits of fumigant use in California and southeastern
states of Florida and Georgia eggplant production are summarized in
Tables 7 and 8.

California

Without the use of metam-sodium, California eggplant producers would
switch to a combination of 1,3-dichloropopene and chloropicrin.  This
would lead to yield losses of between 5 and 20% and losses in net
revenues of between 9 and 35%.  Higher losses would affect those fields
with higher pest infestation levels. Growers experiencing these upper
bound losses would likely not be able to sustain eggplant production.
If chloropicrin is also no longer available, growers would experience
yield losses of 49% and 78% of net revenue.  This is an unsustainable
loss that would lead growers to cease the production of eggplant.  These
conclusions apply to that part of the California eggplant acreage that
is treated with one or more of the fumigants, about 20% or 300 acres
(Table 2).

If eggplant is no longer produced on these acres, the lost value of
production would be about $5 million and 150 thousand CWT of eggplant
production annually (Table 2).  Given that eggplant acreage can be put
to a different use, such as producing a different crop, these losses may
ultimately be somewhat less.

Table 7.  Per Acre Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net Operating
Revenues, for Metam-sodium and Alternatives Use on California Eggplant,
Fresh Market.

	Metam-sodium	1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin	No Fumigation

Yield (CWT)	490	466 – 392	250

Price  per CWT	$33 	$33 	$33

Gross Revenue  	$15,925	$15,129 - $12,740 	$8,122

Fumigation Costs	$175	$200	$0

Estimated Yield Loss	0%	5% - 20%	49%

Growing Period Costs  	$2,168 	$2,193 	$1,993v

Harvest Costs  	$10,671 	$10,137 - $8,537	$5,442

Total Operating Costs  	$12,839	$12,330 - $10,730 	$7,435

Net Operating Revenue  	$3,086	$2,798 - $2,010	$7,435

Percentage Change in Net Operating Revenue	0%	9% – 35%	78%

Source:  U.C. Cooperative Extension, 2005 Sample Costs to Produce
Eggplant, San Joaquin Valley , Prepared by Richard Molinar, et al.,
HYPERLINK "http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/"
http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/ .

1. Includes the cost of fumigant and labor.

Southeast U.S.

Without the use of methyl bromide plus chloropicrin, Florida and Georgia
eggplant producers would switch to a combination of 1,3-dichloropopene,
chloropicrin, and two herbicide applications.  In south Florida, growers
are using an initial application of metam potassium followed by oxamyl
chemigation, later in the season (PMSP, 2004).  This would lead to yield
losses of between 29 and 55% and losses in net revenues of greater than
100%.  Higher losses would affect those fields with higher pest
infestation levels. Growers experiencing these losses would not likely
be able to sustain eggplant production.  If chloropicrin is also no
longer available, growers would experience even greater yield losses.
These conclusions apply to that part of the Florida and Georgia eggplant
acreage that is treated with one or more of the fumigants, about 80% or
2,000 acres (Table 2).

If eggplant is no longer produced on these acres, lost annual production
would be valued at about $16 million and be approximately 500 thousand
CWT of eggplant (Table 2).  Given that eggplant acreage can be put to a
different use, such as producing a different crop, these losses may
ultimately be somewhat less.

Table 8. Per Acre Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net Operating
Revenues for Methyl Bromide Plus Chloropicrin and Alternatives Use on
Southeastern U.S. Eggplant, Fresh Market.

	Methyl bromide + chloropicrin	1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin +

s-metolachlor + halosulfuron1	s-metolachlor + halosulfuron

(no Fumigation) 1

Yield (CWT)	255	181 – 115	92

Price  per CWT	$32 	$32	$32

Gross Revenue  	$8,160	$5,794 - $3,672	$2,938

Fumigation Costs, Weeds and Soil Borne Disease	$736 	$303	$303

Non-Fumigant Alternatives Costs	$0 	$50	$50

Estimated Yield Loss	0%	29% - 55%	64%

Growing Period Costs  	$4,715 	$4,332  	$4,029

Harvest Costs  	$3,990 	$2,833 -

$1,796  	$1,436

Total Operating Costs  	$8,705 	$7,165 - $6,127 	$5,465

Net Operating Revenue  	($545)	($1,371) - ($2,455) 	($2,528)

Percentage Change in Net Operating Revenue	0%	152% - 351%	364%

Source:  University of Georgia, Economic Analysis of Pepper Production,
Marketing and Management in Georgia, September 2005,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/agecon/"
www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/agecon/ ; Florida, Georgia, and Southeast
U.S. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination, 2006.

1. Does not include additional costs of application for s-metolachlor +
halosulfuron.

Note, Cost data from Florida is used as a proxy for the Southeast U.S.
eggplant production region as a whole.  Eggplant production in the
Southeast U.S. is typically followed by a second crop, which also
derives benefit from fumigation.  This second crop is not represented in
this table.

National Impacts

There are over 5,800 acres of eggplant grown in the U.S. annually.  If
fumigants are no longer available to eggplant producers who currently
rely on them for disease, weed and nematode control, given the magnitude
of expected yield losses, U.S. eggplant production would be severely
impacted.  Approximately one half of eggplant producing acres would be
impacted, potentially reducing U.S. eggplant production by 50%, or by
approximately $20 million annually.  Again, eggplant acreage could be
put to a different use, such as producing a different crop, so these
losses could be somewhat less.

Given that fumigants are needed in eggplant production for up to 50% of
eggplant acreage, it is likely that consumer prices for eggplant would
increase.  This increase in consumer prices might offset some of the
impacts on growers.  We are unable to quantify this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment measures the benefit of chloropicrin, metam-sodium, and
methyl bromide use for the control of nematodes, weeds, and soil borne
disease in U.S. eggplant production.  Fumigants are used in Florida and
Georgia, where chloropicrin in combination with methyl bromide is
applied to over 2,000 acres of eggplant, which is about 80% of the acres
grown.  Approximately 20% of California eggplant acreage is fumigated
with methyl bromide and chloropicrin or metam-sodium.  In total, nearly
half of U.S. eggplant production (2,500 acres) is fumigated.  These
target pests may cause yield losses of 5 to 20 percent in California and
29 to 55 percent in Georgia and Florida without the benefit of
fumigation.  Given these losses, BEAD anticipates that the total value
of U.S. eggplant production would decrease by about 50% or $20 million.

Limitations to assessment

This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided by the
soil fumigants in the production of eggplant.  The following are
limitations of this analysis:

The assessment does not account for transition to new agronomic
practices such as a conversion to greenhouse production, introduction of
new growing areas, or the introduction of newer as yet unregistered
fumigants.

The assessment is based on partial budget analysis and does not account
for price or income distribution effects resulting from changes in
supply.

Because there are no available crop loss data specific to eggplant, this
assessment is based on crop loss estimates available for pepper
production, which represents an uncertainty in the assessment.

REFERENCES

Ashley, R. A.  1999. Action Thresholds for Weeds in Peppers.  Presented:
New England Vegetable & Berry Growers Conference. 1999. Sturbridge, MA.
Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.hort.uconn.edu/IPM/veg/htms/wdactthrppr.htm"
http://www.hort.uconn.edu/IPM/veg/htms/wdactthrppr.htm

California Minor Crops Council.  2004.   A Pest Management Strategic
Plan for Pepper Production in California.  Available at:  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/CAPepper.pdf"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/CAPepper.pdf

California Pepper Commission.  2005  Yield loss due to Phytophthora
capsici root rot, Red Bell Pepper Yield Loss, Deardorff Jackson Farms,
Ventura CA. 2005.  Letter in support of 2009 California Critical Use
Exemption Request for Peppers.

Crop Profile for Bell Peppers in California.  2000.  Available at:
HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/CAbellpepper.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/CAbellpepper.html

Crop Profile for Eggplant in Florida.  2000.  Available at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLeggplant_.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLeggplant_.html

Crop Profile for Peppers (Bell) in Florida.  2006.  Available at:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLbellpepper.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLbellpepper.html

Hausbeck, M. and B. Cortright.  2004.  Comparing Fumigants for the
Control of Control of Phytophthora capsici in Vegetable Crops in
Vegetable Crops.  Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach presentation in
2004.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2004/PowP/039Cortright%20%2039.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2004/PowP/039Cortright%20%2039.pdf

Hausbeck, M.  2006.  Vegetable Crop Advisory Team Alert newsletter.
Vol. 21, No. 13, July 19, 2006.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://ipm.msu.edu/cat06veg/v07-19-06.htm #3"
http://ipm.msu.edu/cat06veg/v07-19-06.htm #3

Jahn, M.  2004.  Improving Phytophthora tolerance in open-pollinated
pepper varieties for California production.  2004 Research Report, Dept.
of Plant Breeding, Cornell Univ. to California Pepper Improvement
Foundation, California Pepper Commission..  Methyl Bromide Critical Use
Exemption for 2009 - CA Pepper Attachment 1.2.

Mossler, M., M. and O. N. Nesheim.  2003.  Florida Crop/Pest Management
Profile: Eggplant.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI045"  http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI045

Mossler, M., M. J. Aerts, and O. N. Nesheim.  2006.  Florida Crop/Pest
Management Profile: Bell Peppers.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI040"  http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI040 .

Motis T.N., S.J. Locascio, J.P. Gilreath, J.P., W.M. Stall.  2003.
Season-Long Interference of Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with
Polyethylene-Mulched Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum). Weed Technology
Volume: 17 : 543-549.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://wssa.allenpress.com/wssaonline/?request=get-document&issn=0890-0
37X&volume=017&issue=03&page=0543"
http://wssa.allenpress.com/wssaonline/?request=get-document&issn=0890-03
7X&volume=017&issue=03&page=0543

Noling, J.W.  2005.    HYPERLINK "http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/NG032" \t
"_top"  Nematode Management in Tomatoes, Peppers and Eggplant , ENY-032.
 Entomology & Nematology Department,  Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida.  Available at:    HYPERLINK "http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/NG032"
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/NG032

Eggplant Pest Management Strategic Plan (PMSP).  2004.  Fort Lauderdale,
FL.  Available at:

	  HYPERLINK "http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/Eggplant.pdf"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/Eggplant.pdf

Smith, R. and R. Mullen.  1999.  Weed Control Trials in Peppers.  Final
Report to California Pepper Commission, 1999.  Methyl Bromide Critical
Use Exemption for 2009.  CA Pepper Attachment 1.1

USDA NASS.  2002-2006.  Crop Production, Summary.  National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, January.  Available
at:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=
1047.

USDA NASS.  2005.  Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2004 Field Crops
Summary.  National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, May.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2005/Agri
ChemUsFC-05-18-2005.pdf"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2005/AgriC
hemUsFC-05-18-2005.pdf .

USDA ERS.  2006.  Organic Production.  USDA, Economic Research Service.
2006.  Available at :    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/Organic/"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/Organic/

Xie, J., E. S. Cardenas, T. W. Sammis, M. M. Wall, D. Lindsey, and L. W.
Murray. 1999. Effects of irrigation method on chile pepper yield and
Phytophthora root rot incidence.  Ag. Water Management 42:127-142.
Available at
http://weather.nmsu.edu/nmcrops/chile/Chile-phytophthora.htm

 PAGE

Page  PAGE   2


[Federal Register: November 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 216)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57978]
[DOCID:fr10no09-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0783; FRL-8972-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, and nitrogen oxides emission limitations and related
requirements for a Warrick County electrical generating unit. The
provisions, which will be added for the Southern Indiana Gas and
Electric Company's F.B. Culley Generating Station, are contained in a
Federal consent decree. Indiana requested revising its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to include the provisions on September 11,
2008. Adding these limitations will strengthen the Indiana SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0783, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: October 13, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-26950 Filed 11-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P