			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 8, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2001-9738

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Vensecar International C.A.						Date Filed:  September 16,
2003

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to conduct
scheduled foreign air transportation of property

and mail between a point or points in Venezuela and Miami, Fl, and
all-cargo charters pursuant to 14 CFR 212 of

the Department’s regulations; using aircraft wet leased from a duly
authorized and properly supervised carrier.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  Notice of Action Taken
dated September 18, 2002, in this docket

Applicant representative:  Bruce Rabinovitz<PHONE_NUMBER>		DOT analyst:
Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  October 8, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  October 8, 2003 – October 8,
2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  U.S.-Venezuela
Air Transport Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

_X_ Standard exemption conditions (attached)        __ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order   -  -  )

  X    Special conditions:  The conditions contained in the Notice of
Action Taken dated September 18, 2002, in this docket.  Vensecar may not
conduct U.S. operations with its own aircraft and crews without further
order of the Department.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that  (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 We note that Vensecar sought authority for a two-year period.  However,
as is our usual practice in conferring authority in the circumstances
presented, we are limiting the term of authority to one year.  Vensecar
may, of course, seek renewal of this authority in accordance with the
Department’s regulations.

 Venezuela is currently a Category 2 country under the FAA’s
International Aviation Safety Assessment Program.

08/2003


[Federal Register: May 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 28965-28966]
[DOCID:fr23my07-58]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0409; FRL-8131-9]

The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials /State
FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
(AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) will
hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on June 25, 2007 and ending June 26,
2007. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and
sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 25, 2007 from 8.30 a.m. to 5
p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on June 26, 2007.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at USEPA 2777 South Crystal Dr.,
One Potomac Yards (South Bldg.) 4th Floor Conference Center/South

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgia McDuffie, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Grier Stayton, SFIREG
Executive Secretary, P.O. Box 466, Milford, DE 19963; telephone number:
(302) 422-8152; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: ``grier stayton''
<<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are
interested in SFIREG information exchange relationship with EPA
regarding important issues related to human health, environmental
exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process
are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as
appropriate. '' Potentially affected entities may include, but are not
limited to: Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing
of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

     Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0409 Publicly available

docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Tentative Agenda

    1. Soil Fumigant Cluster Review.
    2. Rodenticide Reregistration Decisions.
    3. New Mosquitocide Labeling on Droplet Sizes.
    4. Cause Marketing.
    5. Process for State Lead Agencies to Obtain Data Reviews and
Registration Related Data .
    6. Mold Issues and Policy.
     7. HVAC Product Labeling.
    8. Endangered Species Enforcement Issues.
    9. Worker Protection Standards and Certification Rule Revision.
    10. Update on 25(b) Petition.
    11. Chemigation Issue Paper.
    12. Working Committee Reports.
    13. Regional Reports.
    14. Tribal Pesticide Program Council Update.
    15. Association of American Pesticide Safety Educators Update.
    16. EPA Updates:
    a. Office of Pesticide Programs Update.
    b. Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance Update.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticide and pest.

    Dated: May 15, 2007.
W. R. Diamond,
Director, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-9913 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


DRAFT  1 Impact of Selected Federal and Local Measures on Predicted 8 hour Design Values in the Eastern U. S.

Executive Summary.

EPA staff conducted an illustrative analysis regarding 8 hour ozone concentrations in 2010 for areas in the eastern United States. Two scenarios are analyzed. One scenario looks at predicted ozone concentrations in 2010 without additional local measures or the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). The other scenario looks at the consequences of a set of targeted local control measures. This report summarizes that illustrative analysis. While there are significant limitations, this illustrative analysis finds that:

° Current state & federal regulations reducing ozone precursors are extremely beneficial. Ninety two of 108 areas with design values above the standard today are predicted to be in attainment in 2010.

° Additional locally targeted controls provide significant further air quality gains. In particular, 10 of the 16 non attainment areas are projected to come into attainment or be within 3ppb of the standard in 2010 with the simulated strategy consisting of stationary and area source control measures. Furthermore, the analyzed strategy yields predicted air quality improvements in all 16 non attainment areas. Six major metropolitan areas are projected to remain above the standard after applying the targeted local control measures.

° The locally targeted control measures will have positive effects beyond local ozone reductions. They will reduce PM2.5 as well as ozone concentrations, and controls in one non attainment area can reduce ozone concentrations in downwind ozone non attainment areas.

° Monetized air quality benefits and costs of the analyzed local control strategy are each roughly $ 2 billion.

° There are many gaps in the illustrative analysis, the major one being a more complete assessment of emission reduction possibilities and emission reduction targets. The control measures menu in this analysis was not comprehensive ( e. g., no state fuels or mobile source measures were considered). The analysis does not reflect emissions reductions that will occur as a result of CAIR. The result is an upward bias in the estimated amount of additional emission reductions required for attainment.

° Other gaps include no consideration of the effect of any bottlenecks, scale effects, learning curves, or emerging technologies on the cost of the analyzed local control strategy.

° The assessment of estimated benefits is incomplete. Incomplete coverage of DRAFT 1The original designations appeared in the Federal Register on April 30, 2004 ( Volume 69, Number 84) on pages 23857 23951. There were some subsequent revisions to the original classifications for some Subpart 2 areas. The current classifications can be found at http:// www. epag. gov/ air/ oaqps/ greenbook/ gntc. html. This is the web address for the EPA green book of nonattainment areas.

 2 effects categories and air quality modeling to support the impacts of VOC and NOx emission reductions on PM2.5 concentrations are two examples.

This limited analysis is not a substitute for the more detailed and comprehensive analyses to be conducted by the states and regional planning groups as part of the state implementation planning process. Such analyses will have more refined local emissions inventory projections and emissions reduction targets, and an expanded set of control measure possibilities. Based on those analyses, the states will make judgments concerning control needs, control options, and the practicality of attainment deadlines and reflect them in their state implementation plan submittals to EPA.

If states ultimately determine that certain areas cannot practicably attain on time, the Clean Air Act provides ways for an area to receive more time through bump up to a higher classification ( e. g. from moderate to serious) Bump up means that certain additional requirements apply as areas put in place measures needed to attain the standard. However, due to 1 hour requirements previously adopted by these areas and projected emission reductions from federal rules, many requirements of a higher classification might already be satisfied by these areas. Existing federal rules are projected to achieve further emissions reductions over time. In addition, the history of the Clean Air Act has repeatedly demonstrated that new, cleaner technologies developed to help in meeting clean air goals, and the large number of emerging technologies with potential to reduce emissions indicates that the historical trend will continue.

Methodology: Emission Reduction and Air Quality Impacts.

This illustrative analysis includes information on the designated 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas, air quality simulations of base case conditions for the CAIR rule, additional air quality simulations to establish emission reduction targets and verify the results of local control strategies, and application of an air quality control strategy design model to identify emission reduction targets for each non attainment areas.

Designations of Areas for the 8 hour Ozone NAAQS. In April 2004, EPA published nonattainment attainment, and unclassifiable designations for the 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. Nationwide, there were 126 areas with design values above the standard. 1 One hundred and eight of those areas are in the Eastern United States. The other 18 areas are in California, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. DRAFT 2Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule: Air Quality Modeling Analysis; Appendix E: 8 hour Ozone: Average Ambient and Projected 2010 Base and CAIR. The document can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ pdfs/ finaltechn07. pdf  3 Table 1. Summary of Designation Information for Eastern & Western Areas with 8 hour Design Values above the NAAQS Designation* Eastern Areas Western Areas Subpart 1 ( non EAC) 62 9 Subpart 1 ( EAC) 12 1 Subpart 2 Marginal ( non EAC) 13 2 Subpart 2 Marginal ( EAC) 1 0 Subpart 2 Moderate 20 2 Subpart 2 Serious 0 3 Subpart 2 Severe 17 0 __ 0_

* Subpart 1 Clean Air Act provisions for non attainment areas less prescriptive. Subpart 2 provisions are more prescriptive. EAC areas are early action compact areas. The effective designation date for these areas was deferred.

Base Case Conditions. As part of the development of the CAIR rule, EPA developed a base case projection of emissions to 2010 and a simulation using CAM x of predicted ozone design values. 2 That base case projection of emissions and air quality simulation indicated that 92 of 108 non attainment areas were expected to have 8 hour ozone design values at or below the standard in 2010. By using that base case, we were to compare the impacts of the local control strategy with a base case that was well understood. However, in adopting that approach we precluded consideration of air quality improvements resulting from CAIR in formulating a hypothetical local control strategy.

Selection of Emission Reduction Targets. To develop illustrative emission reductions targets for each area expected to be in non attainment in 2010, six air quality simulations were conducted using the CAM x model. These predicted the impact of ozone levels of reducing nonattainment area emissions by 10%, 25%, and 50% for NOx only and for NOx as well as VOC emissions, relative to the 2010 base case. These results together with linear interpolation enabled the development of emission reduction targets for each of the areas projected to be in non attainment in 2010 under base case conditions.

These emission reduction targets were quite varied. Eight of 16 areas had emission reduction targets ranging from 5% to 20% reductions in VOC or NOx, relative to 2010 base case emissions. The other 8 areas had targets ranging from 25% in NOx only to a 50% reduction in both VOC and NOx emissions, relative to the 2010 base case.

Selection of Local Controls for Analysis. AirControlNET is a PC based relational data base tool for conducting control strategy and costing analyses. It overlays a detailed control measures data base of limited scope on EPA emissions inventories to compute source and pollutant specific emissions DRAFT 3U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AirControlNET version 4.0. Control Measure Documentation Report. Prepared by E. H. Pechan and Associates. April 2005.

4These areas are within state but not more than 100 km for VOC emissions and no more than 200 km for NOx emissions.

 4 reductions and associated costs at various geographic levels. 3 As used in this analysis, AirControlNET included a broad menu of stationary source control measures ( e. g., add on control technologies and combustion controls) but did not provide a comprehensive menu of existing controls known to be available for all types of sources. For example, due to model limitations, the analysis did not consider state strategies to reduce emissions from fuels, highway vehicles, or non road engines. The model also is limited in terms of the control measures considered in area emissions sectors.

Emission reduction possibilities are considered within and nearby the non attainment area. 4 The controls are presented on a cost per ton of VOC or NOx reduced and put in ascending order. Controls are selected until the emission reduction target is met or until a cost per ton level of $ 10,000 is reached. This limitation was used in this analysis to avoid large upward biases in the control cost in view of the limited number of control measures considered for selection in the local control strategy.

Examples of the NOx controls selected for some of the NOx emissions sources in some of the analyzed areas include combustion optimization, low NOx burners, low excess air, and other combustion controls; selective catalytic reduction; selective non catalytic reduction; combinations of SCR and SNCR with additional control methods, steam injection, natural gas reburn, and other measures.

Examples of the VOC measures selected for some of the VOC sources in some of the analyzed areas include measures to reduce emissions from solvents, adhesives, paints and coatings used by various sectors, consumer products, landfill gas collection and other measures.

After the slate of stationary and area source controls was developed, EPA conducted an air quality simulation to estimate the air quality impact of those controls.

Emission Reduction and Air Quality Impacts of Analyzed Local Control Strategy The analyzed local control strategy results in annual NOx emission reductions of nearly 485 thousand tons and nearly 292 thousand tons VOC emission reductions. In the base case, 16 areas had design values in excess of the standard. With the local control strategy, 10 of the 16 areas have 2010 design values that are projected to meet the standard or come to within 3 ppb of the standard.

Areas Projected to Meet or Approach the Standard Through Analyzed Local Strategy. Of the original 16, the areas projected to meet the standard with the local control strategy include Beaumont DRAFT  5 Port Arthur, Detroit Ann Arbor, Kent Queen Anne Cos., Providence, and Washington, D. C. Interestingly, both Beaumont Port Arthur and Providence benefit from the local control strategy emission reductions in upwind non attainment areas.

In addition, another 5 areas, Atlanta, Buffalo Niagara, Cleveland Akron Lorain, Dallas Fort Worth, and Sheboygan come within 1 to 3 ppb of the standard with the analyzed local controls. Note that actual SIP demonstrations typically include not only modeling but other types of information in a " weight of evidence" analysis to help determine emission reduction needs for attainment; such considerations are beyond the scope of this analysis. If needed, further emissions reductions to assist attainment in these areas could come from measures in AirControlNET and other measures not in AirControlNET.

Table 2 provides examples of emission reducing measures not included in the analysis.

Table 2. Examples of Measures Not Included in the Analysis: Cleaner Gasoline Measures: Use of lower RVP or other cleaner gasolines Cleaner Vehicle Measures: Compressed natural gas and clean diesel buses Use of hybrid vehicles or clean fueled vehicles for fleets Incentives for purchase of new cleaner vehicles Re powering and retrofit for on road diesel vehicles In use highway vehicle emissions Truck idle reduction/ truck stop electrification OBD based I/ M for motor vehicles I/ M for heavy duty vehicles Remote emissions sensing Non road engine emissions early replacement, repowering, and retrofit of non road diesel equipment Non road diesel idle reduction ( e. g., locomotives) Cleaner gasoline for non road engines Lawnmower rebates and gas can replacement programs Other mobile measures Smartway/ improve truck and rail freight efficiency Port emissions reductions ( e. g., diesel engines) Airports ( e. g., ground support equipment, ground transport)

Stationary source measures Most process changes Fuel switching Energy efficiency improvements in any sector Urban heat island reduction Other Areas. The remaining 6 areas include Baltimore, Chicago Gary Lake Co., Houston Galveston Brazoria, Milwaukee Racine, New York City Long Island, and Philadelphia Wilmington Atlantic City. Based on 2001 2003 data, these six areas had 8 hour design values ranging from 101 ppb to 106 ppb. In the base case air quality model simulation for 2010, the projected design values improve, ranging from 91.3 to 100.5 ppb. With the analyzed local control strategy, ozone levels further improve but remain above the standard, ranging from 89.7 ppb to 97.7 ppb. DRAFT 5Less than 15 months ago the additional NOx control efficiency gained by combustion controls was thought to be 40%. Today, that control efficiency figure is 70%.

 6 The analysis suggests that the analyzed set of controls would not bring these areas into attainment by 2010. However, as noted above, the strategies considered in this analysis were not comprehensive, and the impacts of CAIR were not reflected. Further work remains to be done in assessing attainment strategies for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas. As part of the state implementation planning process, the states and regional planning groups will conduct more detailed local emissions inventory projections and modeling to more precisely estimate emission reduction needs, and comprehensively consider potential control measures. In addition, factoring in updated improvements in control technologies could foster air further decreases in the projected post strategy design values. 5 Based on those analyses, the states and EPA will make judgments concerning control needs, control options, and practicable attainment deadlines as part of the SIP process.

In the event an area cannot practicably attain by the maximum date for its classification, the Clean Air Act provides the opportunity for more time. An area regulated under subpart 2, such as the six areas discussed above, can receive a later attainment date through a state request to bump up to a higher classification ( e. g. from moderate to serious). The Act requires EPA to grant state requests for an area to receive a higher classification; the state plan still must have an attainment date that is as expeditious as practicable. Although bump up means that certain additional specified requirements apply, an area may already be meeting most or all of these specified requirements due to controls previously adopted to implement the 1 hour ozone standard. This is because these areas had 1 hour classifications that were more restrictive than their 8 hour classification, and because the Phase 1 final implementation rule for the 8 hour O3 NAAQS contains anti backsliding provisions generally requiring continued implementation of the measures required for the 1 hour classification. Another consequence of bump up is further reasonable further progress requirements; preliminary analyses indicate that already required control measures ( e. g., motor vehicle and nonroad engine rules, CAIR, etc.) may largely or fully fulfill reasonable further progress requirements for many areas. Minimum federal new source review requirements would be more stringent due to bump up ( NSR requirements for 1 hour classifications were not retained under antibacksliding provisions). However, EPA did not require states to repeal their 1 hour NSR requirements, so an area by area examination is necessary to determine whether bump up would affect state nonattainment NSR rules already in place for that area.

More time could help such an area attain because emissions of ozone precursors, and ozone levels, are projected to decline in the eastern United States for the next decade and beyond as a result of existing federal rules ( e. g., motor vehicle and non road engine emission standards, CAIR). In addition, additional time could allow for implementation of innovative measures and emerging technologies that could achieve additional pollution reductions. Our experience over the past 30 years, and the promise of numerous cleaner technologies emerging today, strongly suggest that technological innovation and " learning by doing" will continue to produce new, cleaner processes and performance improvements that reduce air pollution at reasonable cost. The Clean Air Act itself has spurred such advances, as innovative companies have responded to the challenges of the Act with great success, producing breakthroughs such as alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals and new super performing catalysts for automobile emissions, as well as improvements in control efficiency and cost for technologies such as scrubbers and SCR. EPA DRAFT  7 is compiling many examples of emerging or developing technologies that may help in meeting air quality goals in the short or medium term. Cost Estimates.

The estimated cost of the local control strategy is $ 2.0 billion in year 2000 dollars. However, the estimated cost of control is not distributed evenly across the 16 areas. This geographic variation in cost is the result of different emission reduction targets, source emissions inventories, and control measures applicable to that area. See Table 3 regarding the variations in total cost and Table 4 for the variations in marginal cost ( the cost of the highest dollar control measure selected in the local strategy).

Table 3. Variations in Total Cost Across Non attainment Areas Range* of Annual Cost Areas with Total Local Control Strategy Cost within that Range $ 20 thousand to $ 3.3 million Kent Queen Anne Cos.; Beaumont Port Arthur; Sheboygan; Providence Atlanta $ 14 million to $ 61 million Cleveland Akron Lorain; Washington DC MD VA; Buffalo Niagra; Detroit Anne Arbor; Milwaukee Racine; Dallas Fort Worth; Baltimore $ 290 million to $ 650 million Chicago Cook & Lake Cos.; Houston Galveston Brazoria; Philadelphia Wilmington Atlantic City, New York City Long Island * The ranges do represent discrete and connecting ranges. This is done to avoid overstating the variations in marginal cost. For example, there are no areas that have estimated local control strategy costs ranging from $ 3.4 to $ 13 million. Hence, the range is not artificially expanded to go from $ 3.4 million to $ 61 million.

Table 4. Variations in the Marginal Cost of Control Across the Non attainment Areas Range* of Marginal Cost Areas with Local Control Strategy Marginal Cost within that $' s per ton Range 60 to 1000 Kent Queen Anne Cos.; Beaumont Port Arthur; Sheboygan; Atlanta; Cleveland Akron Lorain; Washington DC MD VA 1700 to 3400 Buffalo Niagra Falls; Dallas Fort Worth; Detroit Ann Arbor; Providence 5600 to 7300 Baltimore, Milwaukee Racine; Chicago Cook & Lake Cos.

8700 to 10,000 Philadelphia Wilmington Atlantic City; New York City Long Island; Houston Galveston Brazoria * The ranges do not represent connecting intervals amongst the areas. This is done to avoid overstating the variations in marginal cost. For example, there are no areas with marginal cost range from $ 1100 to $ 1600 per DRAFT  8 ton. Hence, that range is not artificially expand to go from $ 60 to $ 1600 per ton.

With consideration of available local control measures not considered in this analysis, some areas may be able to achieve the standard at lower costs while other areas may achieve further emission reductions and air quality improvements for additional costs.

Benefits ( the next draft will contain 7% estimates as well as 3%)

The simulated local control strategy resulted in 485 thousand tons of NOx reductions and 292 thousand tons of VOC reductions. NOx is a precursor to both fine particulate matter ( PM2.5) as well as ozone. VOC reductions may include some constituents which are classified as toxic air pollutants while also being a precursor to fine particulate matter and ozone. The benefits of these reductions should include the net gains to human health and welfare effects as a result of changes in concentrations of PM2.5, ozone, and air toxics.

The quantified and monetized benefit estimates are the result of a multi step procedure. For example, in the case of ozone, ozone concentrations are predicted for certain episodes in 2010 using the base case emissions inventory and CAM x. Those resulting values are then extended to the entire ozone season. With the local control strategy NOx and VOC emission reductions, there is a different 2010 emission inventory reflecting the controls. The control strategy inventory is used in another simulation of the CAM x model. The outputs of the two simulations are differences in ozone concentrations between the base case and local control strategy emissions inventories. These ozone concentrations changes are then used in concentration response models to predict changes in an endpoint ( e. g. premature mortality, hospital admissions, etc.). These endpoints are then monetized.

In the case of particulate matter related benefits, there are fewer steps. Because of the similarity in the geographic area covered by the CAIR, the anticipated reduction as a result of NOx emission reductions from electrical generating units, the emissions to air quality relationships developed there are used in this assessment by scaling quantified and monetized benefits in terms of tons in the CAIR rule versus tons reduced in the local control strategy simulation. This is used in term to estimate the benefits of reduced NOx from the non EGU sector.

Scope of the Benefit Assessment. The benefit estimates provided in the local control strategy assessment are incomplete. Additional air quality analysis would be needed to more fully characterize the benefits. Even then, there are categories of benefits which EPA is not yet able to quantify or monetize. See Table 5.

Table 5. Only Some Potential Benefits of the Local Control Strategy Quantified & Monetized Emission Reductions Potential Categories of Benefits from the Local Strategy Ozone Health Ozone Welfare PM2.5 Health PM2.5 Welfare Toxics DRAFT  9 NOx Reductions From EGUs* Estimated Not Covered Estimated Not Covered Not Applicable From non EGUs Estimated Not Covered Estimated Not Covered Not Applicable VOC Reductions Estimated Not Covered Not Covered Not Covered Not Covered * EGU are electrical generating units.

Ozone Benefits. The quantified and monetized benefit estimates are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Estimated Annual Health Benefits in 2010 as a Result of Ozone Change Due to the Local Control Strategy.

End Point Reduced Incidences Economic Value ( 106 year 2000 $' s) Premature Mortality 180 1,100 Adult Hospital Admissions Respiratory 570 10 Children Hospital Admissions Respiratory 530 4.1 Emergency Room Visits   Asthma 130 0.04 School Absences 260,000 20 Minor Restricted Activity Days 280,000 15 Outdoor Worker Productivity * 5.7 Estimated Economic Value for Health Changes 1,200 * For this endpoint, the economic value directly estimated.

Quantified and monetized ozone mortality estimates based on more recent peer reviewed and published studies regarding mortality concentration/ response relationships are identified in Table 7. Reliance on 3 of the 4 studies in Table 7 would yield higher benefit estimates for this endpoint than that shown in Table 6.

Table 7. Sensitivity Analysis: O3 Premature Mortality Estimates Using Other Studies Study Reduced Incidences Economic Value ( 106 year 2000 $' s) Bell et al. ( 2004) 60 360 Bell et al. ( 2005) 210 1,300 Ito et al. ( 2005) 240 1,400 Levy et al. ( 2005) 250 1,500 PM Benefits. The estimated PM health benefits for the reductions in NOx emissions from EGU which are part of the local control strategy are presented in Table 7. Recognize that Table 7 does not included the health benefits associated with PM2.5 resulting from NOx and VOC reductions from other sources of emission reductions in the local control strategy.

Table 8. Estimated PM Annual Health Benefits in 2010 as a Result of NOx Reductions from EGU as Part of the Local Control Strategy End Point Reduced Incidences* Economic Value ( 106 year 2000 DRAFT  10 $' s) Premature Mortality Long Term Exposure   Adults > 30 yrs** 69 360 Long Term Exposure Infants < 1 yr 0 0.91 Chronic Bronchitis Adults > 26 yrs 37 13 Non fatal Myocardial Infarctions, adults > 18 yrs** 91 7.5 Hospital Admissions Respiratory all ( ages) *** 23 0.17 Hospital Admissions Cardiovascular > 17 yrs**** 20 0.43 Emergency Room Visits for Asthma < 18 yrs 53 0.02 Acute Bronchitis Children 8 12 years 85 0.03 Lower Respiratory Symptoms   Children 7 14 years 1,012 0.02 Upper Respiratory Symptoms asthmatic children 9 11yrs 799 0.02 Asthma Exacerbations 1,279 0.05 Work Loss Days Adults 18 65 yrs 7,459 0.96 Minor Restricted Activity Days Adults 18 65 yrs 43,157 2.1 Estimated Economic Value of Reduced Incidences 380 * Reduced incidences and values rounded to 2 significant digits ** Economic value calculated using a 3% discount rate NEED TO ADD IN 7% FIGURE IN NEXT DRAFT *** Includes Admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and asthma **** Includes total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias and heart failure There are also monetized PM benefits from local control strategy NOx reductions in the non EGU sector. Emission reductions from this sector accounts for about two thirds of the Nox emission reductions from the local control strategy. These reductions come from sources such as industrial boilers, cement kilns, and gas turbines. If the estimated health benefits per ton of NOx reduction were half as much as that for the EGU reductions, the total would be $ 340 million. If the benefits were equivalent, the estimate would be $ 680 million. Without corresponding air quality modeling to undergird these estimates there is uncertainty. Clearly, the PM health benefits for these non EGU NOX reductions are not zero. The average of these two estimates is chosen for purposes of this illustrative analysis. We are assuming that emission reductions from these boilers are on a benefit per ton basis 75% of that seen with reductions from EGU on a per ton basis.

Total Estimate for the Local Control Strategy Benefits. The estimated PM health benefits associated with NOX reductions of the local control strategy and the ozone health benefits associated with the NOX and VOC reductions are presented in Table 8. That total is $ 2.045 Billion in year 2000 dollars.

Table 8. Estimates for the Local Control Strategy Benefits: O3 & PM ( NOX reductions only) Health Category Estimate ( millions year 2000 $) O3 Health 1,155 PM Health ( NOX) EGU Sector 380 Non EGU Sectors 510 Total Estimated Benefits 2,045 Limitations. The incomplete coverage of benefits is a source of uncertainty. However, there are DRAFT  11 also other sources of uncertainty. These include the following: ° Omissions of benefits. ° Lack of local control strategy specific air quality modeling regarding PM2.5 changes from NOX and VOC emission reductions. ° Several sources of uncertainty which may affect the benefits estimates ( and not necessarily the costs) ° baseline incidence rates for the effects ° mortality function and associated lags ° economic valuation and aggregation of endpoints ° averting and mitigating behavior 3. Emission reductions for the benefit analysis include 4631 and 5378 more tons of NOX and VOC respectively. This would cause the benefits to be slightly overestimated relative to the costs.

Comparison of Total Benefits and Costs Based on the above estimates, estimated monetized benefits of the analyzed local control strategy appear to be about the same as the costs. A summary of the total benefits and costs are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Estimates of Total Benefits and Costs ( millions of 2000 $)

3% 7%

Benefits $ 2045 Costs $ 2000


           Conference Call with EPA and Fairbanks Environmental Ltd                                December 14, 2011

Attendees: EPA OUST - Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Tim Smith  Fairbanks Environmental Ltd  -  Bob Conlin, Mimi Masinja

EPA participated in a conference call concerning the proposed changes to the UST regulations with Fairbanks Environmental Ltd, who is based in the UK.  The company provided an overview of the SIR services they provide in several European countries.  Their MS Powerpoint presentation is attached below.  OUST answered general EPA proposed reg. related questions applicable to SIR.  The company is planning to submit comments to EPA during the proposed reg. comment period.


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

Branch Chief (Acting): Tawanda Maignan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
703-308-8050

TEMPLATE:

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4)

Petition #: 8E8684

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP#: 8E8684) from the INTERREGIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT No. 4 (IR-4), RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, 500 COLLEGE ROAD EAST, SUITE 201W, PRINCETON, NJ  08540 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.585

   	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of 	the herbicide, pyraflufen-ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in the commodities below. Compliance with the plant commodity tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the sum of the parent pyraflufen-ethyl, ethyl 2-[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]-4-fluorophenoxy] acetate, and its acid metabolite, E-1, 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyraflufen-ethyl in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Hop, dried cones at 0.02  parts per million (ppm); Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A at 0.01 ppm; and Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm.

   Upon approval of the aforementioned tolerances, it is proposed that 40 CFR 180.585 be amended to remove the established tolerances for the residues of the herbicide, pyraflufen-ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in the commodities below. Compliance with the plant commodity tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the sum of the parent pyraflufen-ethyl, ethyl 2-[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]-4-fluorophenoxy] acetate, and its acid metabolite, E-1, 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyraflufen-ethyl in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm, Potato at 0.02 ppm, Pistachio at 0.01 ppm, Grape at 0.01 ppm, Olive at 0.01 ppm and Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.04 ppm.

   EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residues of Pyraflufen-ethyl in Hop, dried cones is adequately understood.  The metabolism of Pyraflufen-ethyl has been studied in cotton, wheat, potato, and mandarin oranges.  Metabolism in the plant involves ester hydrolysis, de-methylation on the pyrazole ring and further degradation of the phenoyxyacetate moiety to bound polar metabolites.  The nature of the residue is adequately understood and the residues of concern are the parent, Pyraflufen-ethyl, and the acid metabolite, E-1, only.

	2. Analytical method. Residues of Pyraflufen-ethyl and E-1 metabolite were extracted from crop matrices with acetonitrile:1N HCL.  Following extraction, an aliquot of the extract was partitioned against ethyl acetate:hexane and cleaned up by SCX solid phase extraction.  The resulting extract was derivatized with diazomethane to convert E-1 to E-15.  The derivatized extract was then purified by NH2 and graphitized carbon black solid phase extraction.  The purified extract is concentrated to dryness, reconstituted in toluene, and then submitted to GC-MS analysis.  Lowest level of method validation (LLMV) is 0.010 ppm and limit of detection (LOD) is 0.0045 ppm.

	3. Magnitude of residues in Hop, dried cone. -- Residue trials were conducted in Hop, dried cone to satisfy the required EPA region locations.  There were no residues of Pyraflufen-ethyl and E-1 metabolite found in any Hop, dried cone sample greater than the LLMV of 0.01 ppm. Based on these data, it is proposed that the Agency establish new tolerances in Hop, dried cone at 0.02 ppm, which is the sum of Pyraflufen-ethyl and E-1 metabolite at their respective LLMV values of 0.01 ppm.

Magnitude of the residue in animals. -- Ruminants. The results of the meat and milk 28-day feeding study conclude that no finite residues of the parent, Pyraflufen-ethyl or the metabolites E-9, and E-15 can be detected in milk at a dose level of 10 ppm, and no residues of either Pyraflufen-ethyl, E-5, or E-9, are detected in muscle, liver or fat tissues, and low-level residues of 0.0534 ppm were detected in kidney tissues.  These results concur with those of an earlier ruminant metabolism study (MRID 45283005) at a dose of 10 ppm.  Although the results of this livestock feeding study indicate that no finite residues are detected in meat and milk commodities from the anticipated dietary burdens, an anticipated residue value in milk calculated to be of 0.007 ppm is being used.  Poultry. The maximum poultry dietary burden from a diet comprised of cotton meal, corn grain, corn milled byproducts, soybean seed, soybean meal, soybean hulls, wheat grain, and wheat milled byproducts results in a total dietary burden that is significantly lower than the levels that would require tolerances in poultry and poultry byproducts.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  See below.

	2. Genotoxicty. See below.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. See below.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. See below.

	5. Chronic toxicity. See below.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data on Pyraflufen-ethyl and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk.  EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.  Specific information on the nature of the adverse effects caused by Pyraflufen-ethyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document "Pyraflufen-ethyl: Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Registration of New Food Uses on Hops and Peanuts," at page 18 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1002.

	6. Animal metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residues of Pyraflufen-ethyl and its acid metabolite, E-1, in animals is adequately understood. Pyraflufen-ethyl is rapidly absorbed, metabolized, and excreted to feces and urine, with greater than 90% of the administered dose excreted within 24 hours in rats. Based on metabolism studies with goats, hens, and rats, there is no reasonable expectation that measurable Pyraflufen-ethyl-related residues will occur in meat, milk, poultry, or eggs from the proposed use.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. No toxicologically significant metabolites were detected in animal metabolism studies or plant metabolism studies on cotton, potatoes, and mandarin oranges.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Chronic, lifespan, and multigenerational
bioassays in mammals and acute and subchronic studies on aquatic organisms and wildlife did not reveal any endocrine effects for Pyraflufen-ethyl.  Any endocrine related effects would have been detected in this comprehensive series of required tests.  The probability of any such effect due to agricultural uses of Pyraflufen-
ethyl is negligible.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.  No such effects attributable to a single exposure (dose) were observed in oral toxicity studies, including the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits conducted with Pyraflufen-ethyl; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is not necessary.  Chronic dietary risk analyses were conducted using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model Software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID).  These dietary exposure assessments used the following assumptions:  100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues for Pyraflufen-ethyl on all treated crops except corn, cottonseed, potato, soybean, wheat, pome fruit, stone fruit, pomegranate, olive, grape, tree nuts, and pistachio for which one half of the combined Levels of Quantification (LOQs) for the parent and the metabolite were used since all field trial residue levels were less than the LOQ.  Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) were calculated using PRZM/EXAMS (surface water) and SCI-GROW (groundwater).

	i. Food. Using the exposure assumptions listed above, chronic exposure to Pyraflufen-ethyl from food including the proposed new uses utilize <1% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.2 mg/kg/day for all population groups and subgroups, including children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed population subgroup.

	ii. Drinking water.  Tier 2 EDWCs of Pyraflufen-ethyl residues for surface water were calculated using the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM-EXAMS).  The EDWC for ground water was calculated using SCI-GROW.  EDWCs were 0.295 ppb and 0.268 ppb for the chronic and cancer dietary exposure assessment, respectively.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. EPA calculated non-dietary exposure scenarios as listed in the Federal Register May 12, 2004 (69 FR 26305) (FRL-7358-2).  Pyraflufen-ethyl is registered in several non-food sites, including airports, commercial plants, nurseries and ornamental plantings; established ornamental turf; railroad, roadside, and utility rights-of-ways, and other similar non-crop areas.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Pyraflufen-ethyl belongs to the protox inhibitor class of compounds, and chemically is a 3-phenylpyrazole.  The herbicidal activity of protox inhibitors is due to the inhibition of protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase.  Chemicals with a similar mode of action, i.e., the protox inhibitors, have different chemical structures compared to Pyraflufen-ethyl.  Although other protox inhibitors have a similar herbicidal mode of action, there is no information available to suggest that these compounds exhibit a similar toxicity profile in the mammalian system.  Current available data and information does not indicate or suggest that Pyraflufen-ethyl has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.  Therefore, for the purposes of this Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) document, assessment of cumulative risk is not required.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. i.  Acute risk. No adverse effect attributable to a single exposure (dose) of Pyraflufen-ethyl was observed in the oral toxicity studies, including the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.  Therefore, an acute reference dose (RfD) was not established and no acute risk is expected.  ii. Chronic Risk.  Based on the chronic toxicity data, the cPAD for Pyraflufen-ethyl is considered to be 0.2 mg/kg/day.  This value is based on the NOAEL of 20 mg/kg/day observed in a chronic dietary rat study and a safety (uncertainty) factor of 100.  A worse case estimate, using proposed tolerance values, of chronic dietary exposure of Pyraflufen-ethyl will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health.  The complete toxicity data set and the conservative chronic exposure assumptions support the conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from dietary (food) exposure to Pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite residues.  Moreover, as exposure to residues of Pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite via water is negligible, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to Pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite residues.  iii.  Cancer Risk.  There is essentially no incremental cancer risk associated with Pyraflufen-ethyl treated hops and the conversion of crop groups.  Cancer risk was calculated by EPA as listed in the Federal Register May 12, 2004 (69 FR 26305) (FRL-7358-2) for both food and water.  This assessment substantially overstates risk because it is based on the assumption that all commodities covered by Pyraflufen-ethyl tolerances contain tolerance level residues.  The cancer risk estimate was in the range of 1 in 1 million and does not exceed the Agency's level of concern for exposure from either food or water sources.

	2. Infants and children. The chronic dietary exposure of Pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for children (1-6 years).  Exposure to potential residues in drinking water is expected to be negligible.  In the Federal Register May 12, 2004 (69 FR 26305) (FRL-7358-2) after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EDWCs for surface and ground water, it is not expected the aggregate exposure to children will exceed the Agency's level of concern.

There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental studies with Pyraflufen-ethyl.  There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of young rats in the reproduction study with Pyraflufen-ethyl.  There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or post-natal exposure.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no Canadian, Codex, or EU maximum residue levels (MRLs) established for residues of Pyraflufen-ethyl and the acid metabolite, E-1 for Hops.  However, when a U.S. tolerance is established, it will be requested that the established tolerance is harmonized with Canada, Codex, and the EU.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 128 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39894-39895]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to

respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record
communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited
communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The
Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that
fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a
prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all
parties listed on the official service list for the applicable
proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. In addition to
publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the
Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/
or print the contents of this document via the internet through the
Commission's Home Page ( http://ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Presenter or
            Docket Nos.                File date          requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. EL14-9-000, EL14-8-000,           6-10-2020  Gregory Swecker.
     EL18-48-000.
    2. EL20-42-000................       6-12-2020  Mass Mailings.\1\
    3. EL20-42-000................       6-15-2020  Mass Mailings.\2\
    4. EL20-42-000................       6-16-2020  Mass Mailings.\3\
    5. EL20-42-000................       6-17-2020  Mass Mailings.\4\
    6. CP15-558-000, CP19-78-000,        6-17-2020  Aurelle Sprout.
     CP19-78-001, CP20-47-000.
    7. EL20-42-000................       6-18-2020  Mass Mailings.\5\
    8. EL20-42-000................       6-18-2020  Nancy Acopine.
    9. ER20-1541-000, ER20-1542-         6-22-2020  Dentons Associates.
     000, ER20-1543-000, ER20-1545-
     000, ER20-1547-000, ER20-1548-
     000.
    10. EL20-42-000...............       6-25-2020  Mass Mailings.\6\
Exempt:
    1. RP20-859-000...............       5-27-2020  U.S. Congress \7\
    2. P-2197-127.................       6-11-2020  U.S. Congress.\8\
    3. P-190-105..................       6-12-2020  State of Utah
                                                     Department of
                                                     Environmental
                                                     Quality.
    4. EL20-42-000................       6-15-2020  U.S. Congress.\9\
    5. CP16-9-000.................       6-18-2020  U.S. Senate.\10\
    6. EC20-70-000................       6-19-2020  U.S. Congress.\11\
    7. EL20-42-000................       6-23-2020  Commonwealth of
                                                     Virginia House of
                                                     Delegates.\12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Emailed comments of Lois Clement and 57 other individuals.
\2\ Emailed comments of Evan Rosenberg and 90 other individuals.
\3\ Emailed comments of Andrew Causey and 229 other individuals.
\4\ Emailed comments of Marcia Kane and 7 other individuals.
\5\ Emailed comments of Gilbert Nicolson and 1 other individual.
\6\ Emailed comments of Alysha Pennachio and 243 other individual.
\7\ U.S. Senators John Hoeven, Kevin Cramer, and U.S. Representative
  Kelly Armstrong.
\8\ U.S. Senators Richard Burr, Thom Tillis, and Congressmen Richard
  Hudson, and Ted Budd.
\9\ Representatives Chellie Pingree, Louie Gohmert, Mike Quigley, Mark
  Pocan, Andy Biggs, Jared Golden, Paul Tonko, Chip Roy, Chris Pappas,
  Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S., Peter Welch, David Schweikert, Ann McLane
  Kuster, and Deb Haaland.
\10\ U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey.
\11\ U.S. Senators Shelley Moore Capito, Joe Manchin III, and
  Representative David B. McKinley, P.E.
\12\ Delegates Alfonso Lopez, Jennifer Carroll Foy, Sam Rasoul, Chris
  Hurst, Danica Roem, Elizabeth Guzman, David Reid, Kathleen Murphy,
  Mark Keam, Kenneth Plum, David Bulova, Kaye Kory, Vivian Watts, Daniel
  Helmer, Kathy Tran, and Mark Sickles.

    Dated: June 26, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14279 Filed 7-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P