UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Initial Examination of Maximum Residue Levels on Exported Fruit for Selected Insecticide Alternatives to Azinphos methyl FROM: Stephen Smearman, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

Nikhil Mallampalli, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

Timothy Kiely, Acting Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

TO: Diane Isbell/ Margaret Rice Special Review & Reregistration Division ( 7508P)

Summary The Special Review and Reregistration Division ( SRRD) requested that BEAD explore the maximum residue levels ( MRL) allowed for export crops for various alternatives to azinphos methyl ( AZM) if AZM is no longer available to US growers. This document presents a brief summary of the export value and the MRL status for alternatives for AZM for four of the ten sites under consideration for reregistration in Group 3. These four are apples, pears, blueberries, and cherries. Also included are tables for each of these crops that illustrate the top five export countries ( in terms of value) to which these crops are marketed. BEAD notes that not all export market countries have MRL values established. However, they may follow the Codex Alimentarius ( an institution affiliated with the United Nations) or European Union ( EU) values for pesticides for which they have not established their own MRLs. Some MRL values are more restrictive than the US and are shown in the tables below. 2 Background There are ten sites or uses in Group 3 ( as defined in the Memorandum of Agreement on AZM, signed in 2001 by EPA and the AZM registrants). These include: apples/ crabapples, pears, blueberries ( highbush and lowbush, cherries ( sweet and tart), parsley, almonds, pistachios, walnuts, Brussels sprouts and nursery stock. BEAD searched the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service ( FAS) MRL data base, the Northwest Horticultural Council website and other sources to determine the MRL status for key insecticide alternatives to AZM for four crops within the Group 3 crops that were considered to have significant export value to growers. These four sites are apples, cherries, pears, blueberries ( listed in order of monetary value of exports). The key AZM alternatives, listed in the tables below, are those that were discussed in detail in BEAD's 2005 assessments of AZM use. These assessments were released for public comment in late 2005 and are already part of the AZM docket. The tables below show MRL values ( or lack thereof) separately for each crop, along with summaries of export statistics for the top 5 countries to which each crop is exported from the USA.

In terms of AZM use on crops, apples are a major component, with 76% of AZM total pounds applied allocated to apples. For all ten sites combined, the estimated value of direct yield and quality losses if AZM is no longer available is estimated to be $ 71.5 million. The total export value for apples, cherries, pears and blueberries is estimated to be $ 560.8 million, nearly 8 times the value of the estimated direct yield and quality losses if AZM is no longer available. If we consider only those countries that do not have an MRL for all of the listed alternatives to AZM, the potential worst case loss scenario for the export markets ranges from $ 290 million to $ 333 million ( this excludes Mexico's imports of apples and pears, and Japan's imports of cherries since these markets have MRLs for all key AZM alternatives and is dependent upon more restrictive MRL assumptions). Compared to the estimated direct yield and quality losses of $ 71.4 million in domestic markets if AZM is no longer available ( derived from BEAD's 2005 assessments of AZM use), this estimated potential worst case loss scenario for the export markets is nearly 4 times the loss associated with yield and quality on the low end of the range to 4.6 times on the high end of the range.

BEAD cautions the reader that this document is an initial examination of the MRLs for AZM alternatives, which is based on a few prominent information sources. Further, MRLs change over time at different paces in different countries, and individual nations provide varying levels of access to specific MRLs they currently use. Therefore, the information in this document is subject to change, and BEAD welcomes any verifiable corrections regarding MRLs.

Apples Apples are the most valuable export crop of the Group 3 crops. Apple exports for the top five countries are valued at $ 289.1 million or approximately 16 percent of total US apple production value. Table 1 shows the MRL status of key AZM alternatives for the top 5 apple export market nations. Table 2 below illustrates the top five export market countries in terms of export value, export value as percent of total exports, and as a percent of total US production value. Apple exports to the top five countries out of 105 reported export countries ( listed in the USDA MRL database) account for 59 percent of the total apple export market. 3 Table 1. Apples: Availability of MRLs for selected alternatives to AZM * AZM alternatives discussed in detail in BEAD's 2005 AZM reassessments Country Phosmet Acetamiprid Novaluron Thiacloprid Mexico 10 1 2 0.3 Canada 10 1 a proposed   Taiwan 2a 1 a   Hong Kong 10    Malaysia 10 a

US 10 1 2 0.3 Codex c 10  { 3} b  Sources: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services ( FAS), Agricultural and Tropical Products Division ( www. mrldatabase. com); Northwest Horticultural Council ( www. nwhort. org). Notes: a From Northwest Horticultural website. b Proposed as per the Canadian PMRA Website http:// www. pmra arla. gc. ca/ english/ legis/ max re e. html. c From the Codex Alimentarius website: http:// www. codexalimentarius. net/ mrls/ pestdes/ jsp/ pest_ q e. jsp. {} = under development according to the Report of the Thirty Eighth Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, Fortaleza Brazil, 3 8 April, 2006. Available at http:// www. codexalimentarius. net.  = MRL not listed. * MRL figures shown are in parts per million ( ppm), except for Codex values, which are in mg/ kg.

Table 2. Apples: Top 5 Export Countries in Term of Value for US Fresh Apple Producers 2005*

Country Export Value ($ 1,000)** As % of Total US Exports Export Value as a % of US Production Value by Country of Destination 1. Mexico 99,651 20 5.6 2. Canada 92,716 19 5.2 3. Taiwan 44,231 9 2.5 4. Hong Kong 27,235 6 1.5 5. Malaysia 25,306 5 1.4 Total ( Top 5) 289,139 59% 16.2% Total Export Value as a Percent of Total US Production Value: 28% Export Quantity of Crop as a Percent of Total US Production: 20%

Sources: US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics; USDA NASS Agricultural Statistics, 2005; www. fas. usda. gov/ ustrdscripts/ USReport. exe, US Apple 2006. Notes: * Top 5 destinations out of 105 reported countries.

** Total Value of US Apple Exports in 2005: $ 492.7 million. Total Value of US Apple Production in 2004: $ 1.758 Billion.

Cherries ( sweet)

Sweet cherries are the second most valuable export crop, after apples. Tart cherries are 4 also exported for processing but are a fraction of the sweet cherry market value. Table 3 shows the MRL status of key AZM alternatives for the top 5 cherry export market nations. Table 4 illustrates the top five export market countries in terms of export value and export value as percent of total exports and total US production value. Cherry exports for the top five countries are valued at $ 167.7 million or approximately 38 percent of total US sweet cherry production value. Sweet cherry exports to the top five out of 56 reported export countries listed in the USDA MRL data base account for 90 percent of the total sweet cherry export market.

Table 3. Cherries ( sweet and tart): Availability of MRLs for selected alternatives to AZM * AZM alternatives discussed in detail in BEAD's 2005 AZM reassessments Country Phosmet Lambda Cyhalothrin Imidacloprid Spinosad Thiamethoxam Japan 0.1 0.5 3 0.2 5 Canada 7  3 0.1b 0.02b Taiwan 2 a     UK 2d   0.2 a  Australia 1 a 0.1 0.5 a 1.0a

US 10 0.5 3 0.2 0.5 Codex c 10  { 0.5} 0.2 Sources: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services ( FAS), Agricultural and Tropical Products Division ( www. mrldatabase. com); Northwest Horticultural Council ( www. nwhort. org). Notes: a From Northwest Horticultural website only. b Proposed per PMRA Website http:// www. pmra arla. gc. ca/ english/ legis/ max re e. html. c From the Codex Alimentarius website: http:// www. codexalimentarius. net/ mrls/ pestdes/ jsp/ pest_ q e. jsp. d EU MRL {} = under development according to the Report of the Thirty Eighth Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, Fortaleza Brazil, 3 8 April, 2006. Available at http:// www. codexalimentarius. net.  = MRL not listed in the databases examined. * MRL figures shown are in parts per million ( ppm), except for Codex values, which are in mg/ kg.

Table 4. Cherries: Top 5 Export Countries in Terms of Value for US Sweet Cherries Producers 2004*

Country Export Value ($ 1,000)** As % of Total US Exports Export Value as a % of US Production Value by Country of Destination 1. Japan $ 82,605 46 18.9 2. Canada $ 44,398 25 10 3. Taiwan $ 19,503 11 4.5 4. UK $ 10,856 6 2.4 5. Australia $ 10,402 5.8 2.3 Total ( Top 5) $ 167,764 89.7% 38.1% Total Export Value as a Percent of Total US Production Value: 43% Export Quantity of Crop as a Percent of Total US Production: 10% Sources: US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics; USDA NASS Agricultural Statistics, 2005; www. fas. usda. gov/ ustrdscripts/ USReport. exe. * Top 5 destinations out of 56 reported countries. 5 ** Total Value of US Fresh and Processed Cherry Exports in 2004: $ 186.8 million. Total Value of US Sweet Cherry Production in 2004: $ 435.7 million.

Pears Pear exports for the top five countries are valued at $ 95.9 million or approximately 33 percent of total US pear production value. Pear exports to the top five out of 60 export countries account for 83 percent of the total pear exports. Table 5 shows the MRL status of key AZM alternatives for the top 5 pear export market nations. Table 6 illustrates the top five countries in terms of export value and export value as percent of total exports and total US production value.

Table 5. Pears: Availability of MRLs for selected alternatives to AZM * AZM alternatives discussed in detail in BEAD's 2005 AZM reassessments Country Phosmet Acetamiprid Novaluron Methoxyfenozide Mexico 10 1 2 1.5 Canada 10 1 a proposed  1.5 Brazil     Sweden 2c    Russia

US 10 1 2 1.5 Codex b 10  { 3} d 2 Sources: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services ( FAS), Agricultural and Tropical Products Division ( www. mrldatabase. com); Northwest Horticultural Council ( www. nwhort. org). Notes: a From Northwest Horticultural website only. b From the Codex Alimentarius website: http:// www. codexalimentarius. net/ mrls/ pestdes/ jsp/ pest_ q e. jsp. c EU MRL d Proposed per PMRA Website http:// www. pmra arla. gc. ca/ english/ legis/ max re e. html {} = under development according to the Report of the Thirty Eighth Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, Fortaleza Brazil, 3 8 April, 2006. Available at http:// www. codexalimentarius. net.  = MRL not listed. * MRL figures shown are in parts per million ( ppm), except for Codex values, which are in mg/ kg.

Table 6. Pears: Top 5 Export Countries in Terms of Value for US Fresh Pear Producers 2004*

Country Export Value ($ 1,000)** As % of Total US Exports Export Value as a % of US Production Value by Country of Destination 1. Mexico $ 44,967 40 16 2. Canada $ 41,480 35 15 3. Brazil $ 3,940 3.4 1.3 4. Sweden $ 3,006 2.6 1.0 5. Russian ( fed) $ 2,558 2.2 0.009 Total ( Top 5) $ 95,951 83% 33.3% Total Export Value as a Percent of Total US Production Value: 40% Export Quantity of Crop as a Percent of Total US Production: 10% Sources: US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics; USDA NASS Agricultural Statistics, 2005; www. fas. usda. gov/ ustrdscripts/ USReport. exe; USAPears. com 2006. 6 * Top 5 destinations out of 60 reported countries.

** Total Value of US Pear Exports in 2004: $ 115.3million. Total Value of US Pear Production in 2004: $ 282.1 million Blueberries Of the Group 3 uses, fresh, frozen blueberries are the fourth most valuable export crop. Blueberry exports for the top five countries are valued at $ 8 million or approximately 2.5 percent of total US blueberry production value. Blueberry exports to the top five out of 26 reported export countries listed in the USDA MRL data base account for 94 percent of the total blueberry export market. Table 7 shows the MRL status of key AZM alternatives for the top 5 blueberry export market nations. Table 8 illustrates the top five export market countries in terms of export value and export value as percent of total exports and total US production value.

Table 7. Blueberries ( lowbush and highbush): Availability of MRLs for selected alternatives to AZM * AZM alternatives discussed in detail in BEAD's 2005 AZM re assessments Country Phosmet Esfenvalerate Tebufenozide Japan 10  3 Canada 5   Australia    Korea    UK

US 10 3b 3 Codex a 10 1c 3 Sources: USDA Foreign Agricultural Services ( FAS), Agricultural and Tropical Products Division ( www. mrldatabase. com). Notes: UK defers to EU MRL levels for pesticides if the country has not set its own MRL. In the same context, Korea defers to CODEX MRL levels. Australia follows only its own MRL levels.  = MRL not listed. a From the Codex Alimentarius website: http:// www. codexalimentarius. net/ mrls/ pestdes/ jsp/ pest_ q e. jsp. b Listed in CFR but not in FAS. c Expressed as fenvalerate in CODEX database. * MRL figures shown are in parts per million ( ppm), except for Codex values, which are in mg/ kg. 7 Table 8. Blueberries, Cultivated, Frozen: Top 5 Export Countries in Terms of Value for US Blueberry Producers 2004*

Country Export Value ($ 1,000)** As % of Total US Exports Export Value as a % of US Total Production Value by Country of Destination 1. Japan $ 3,860 45 1.3 2. Canada $ 2,790 33 1.0 3. Australia $ 652 7.6 0.002 4. Korea $ 380 4.4 0.001 5. UK $ 327 3.8 0.001 Total ( Top 5) $ 8,009 94% 2.9% Total Export Value as a Percent of Total US Production Value: 3% Export Quantity of Crop as a Percent of Total US Production: n/ a Sources: US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics; USDA NASS Agricultural Statistics, 2005; www. fas. usda. gov/ ustrdscripts/ USReport. exe * Top 5 destinations out of 26 reported countries.

** Total Value of US Cultivated Blueberry Exports in 2004: $ 8.5 million. Total Value of US Cultivated Blueberry Production in 2004: $ 275.9 million.

Total Value of Apple, Cherries, Pears and Blueberry Exports for the Top Five Selected Countries for Each Site The total value for the apple, cherries, pears and blueberry exports for the top five countries for each site as listed above is $ 560.8 million. Table 9 below shows the summary value of total exports for apples, cherries, pears and blueberries, based on data presented in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8.

While it is difficult and speculative to predict a worst case loss scenario for the export market in the absence of AZM, looking at those circumstances where relatively few alternatives exist with an MRL in the export country, can provide some sense of what a potential worst case scenario might look like were AZM not available. In the absence of AZM, the export market for certain crops in certain countries could be lost if MRLs have not been established for sufficient alternative pesticides to AZM. While MRLs have been established for phosmet for most of the Group 3 crops in most of the major export countries listed above, the same cannot be said for many of the newer alternatives to AZM listed in the tables above. This will likely change in the coming years as MRLs are established for many of the newer pesticides.

If we consider only those countries that do not have an MRL for all of the listed alternatives to AZM, the potential worst case loss scenario for the export markets ranges from $ 290 million to $ 333 million ( this excludes Mexico's imports of apples and pears, and Japan's imports of cherries since these markets have MRLs for all key AZM alternatives and is dependent upon more restrictive MRL assumptions such as Canada's cherry MRL levels). Compared to the estimated direct yield and quality losses of $ 71.4 million in domestic markets if AZM is no longer available ( derived from BEAD's 2005 assessments of AZM use), this 8 estimated potential worst case loss scenario for the export markets rnages from nearly 4 times the loss associated with yield and quality on the low end to 4.6 times on the high end of the range.

In the short term, while BEAD expects that in most cases phosmet will still be an available, efficacious alternative to AZM for most of these crops, the loss of AZM would leave phosmet as the single cost effective alternative pest control option for some crops intended for certain export markets. That scenario presents a risk that an export market could largely be lost should phosmet become unavailable. These concerns existed for the domestic market at the time EPA issued the 2001 AZM IRED ( and led in part to EPA's time limited determination that the benefits at that time outweighed the risks) and they appear to remain to some degree for the export market today.

However, several important caveats to the above theoretical worst case loss scenarios must be kept in mind. The amount of export value is dependent upon the number of crops a particular country imports and the relative value of those crops. The estimated impacts may be higher if all export countries were included in this analysis. This analysis assumes an upperbound loss and that 100% of the export market in some of these countries for some of the Group 3 crops would be lost, as a worst case scenario in which no fruit treated with AZM alternatives can be exported. However, as described in the tables above, most export market countries have appear to have MRLs for at least one of the alternatives listed. Furthermore, some countries use EU, CODEX, or US MRLs as default values for some pesticides and many MRLs are under development. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the entire export market value for these crops in the circumstances described above would be lost if AZM alternatives are used.

Table 9. Summary of the Total Export Value for Apple, Pear, Cherry and Blueberries by Country and Comparison to AZM Yield and Quality Losses. Top 10 Countries Rank in $ Export Value* Total Value of Exports ($ 1,000)

1. Australia 8 11,054 2. Brazil 9 3,940 3. Canada 1 181,384 4. Hong Kong 5 27,235 5. Japan 3 86,465 6. Korea 12 380 7. Malaysia 6 25,306 8. Mexico 2 144,618 9. Russian Fed 11 2,558 10. Sweden 10 3,006 11. Taiwan 4 63,734 12. UK 7 11,183 Estimated total value of US exports: $ 560,863,000   Rank is for illustration purposes and applies only to this analysis.


[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25875-25876]
[DOCID:fr10my10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1885-DR;

Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1885-DR), dated March 9, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 4, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of March 9, 2010.

    Coffey, Douglas, Geary, Leavenworth, Montgomery, and Rooks
Counties for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-10976 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9105]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, DFW Airport, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request of Release for Permanent Easement of Airport
Property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
request for permanent easement at the Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0650.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Jeff Fegan, Chief Executive Office, at the
following address: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Executive
Office, P.O. Box 619428, DFW Airport, Texas 75261.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rodney Clark, Senior Program
Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development
Office, ASW-651, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0650,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax: (817) 222-
5989.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21. On October 1, 2012, the FAA
determined that the request for permanent easement at Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport, submitted by the Airport, met the procedural
requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may
approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than March 31, 2013.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport requests the release
for permanent easement of 20.9048 acres of non-aeronautical airport
property. The land was acquired by the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth
for use as an airport. The funds generated by the release will be used
to improve public access to the Airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, telephone number (972) 973-
5200.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on January 31, 2013.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-02737 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 3134]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1062]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0970; FRL-9254-7]

Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a
document in the Federal Register of January 12, 2011, announcing the
January 26, 2011 public meeting of the Human Studies Review Board. The
document contained incorrect Docket ID Number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lu-Ann Kleibacker,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 12, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-625,
on page 2107, in the title, correct the ``Docket ID No.'' to read EPA-
HQ-ORD-2010-0970.
    On page 2108, in the first column, correct the ``Docket ID No.'' to
read EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0970.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0970:
    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
ORD Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA
Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building,
located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail the ORD Docket at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for instructions.
Updates to Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2010-0970. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
withoutgoing through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    On page 2109, in the first column, correct the ``Docket ID No.'' to
read EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0970:

 D. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0970 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.

    Dated: January 13, 2011.
Paul T. Anastas,
EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-1062 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


2015 Ozone Transport FIP Meeting Title:	AF&PA Spring Meeting  -  2015 Ozone Transport Session Date/Time: May 12, 2022 (1:00 PM ET) Agenda/Meeting Summary:	 AF&PA wanted to understand what information (data/analysis) would help inform the final rule, such as, emission inventory updates for boilers, updates of modeling assessment, reviews of control technologies, like SCR, including their cost and cost effectiveness, and possible CMAX modeling. AF&PA also shared information with EPA on the boilers within the Pulp and Paper Industry and indicated this information would be provided in public comment. Participants/Affiliations: Name Affiliation Tim Hunt AF&PA Amy Marshall AF&PA Vipin Varma AF&PA John Bird AF&PA Zach Emerson AF&PA Traylor Champion AF&PA Amber Rand AF&PA Annabeth Reitter AF&PA Melissa Antoine AF&PA Lisa Bauer Lotto AF&PA Brittany Robinson AF&PA Shannon Broome AF&PA Chuck Rollins AF&PA Clayton Steele AF&PA Corey Brandt AF&PA Laura DeVaudreuil AF&PA Driessen Tracey AF&PA Furqan Shaikh AF&PA Rich Garber AF&PA Ryan Gesser AF&PA Glenn Rives AF&PA Jason Young AF&PA Jim Balik AF&PA Paula LaFleur AF&PA Sandy Lee AF&PA Scott Matchett AF&PA Michael Holmes AF&PA Paul Noe AF&PA Patrick Stevens AF&PA Russel Schwarts AF&PA Russell Strader AF&PA Tony Owens AF&PA Mark Turner AF&PA Michelle Vinson AF&PA Mayesha Choudhury U.S. EPA John Evans U.S. EPA Morgan Hagood U.S. EPA Katie Hanks U.S. EPA Rosemary Kaban U.S. EPA Robin Langdon U.S. EPA Cyrus Ma U.S. EPA Scott Mathias U.S. EPA Katherine Riley U.S. EPA Kelley Spence U.S. EPA Karen Wesson U.S. EPA Robin Dunkins U.S. EPA