Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Notices 1665

Consent Agenda—Markets, Tariffs and

Rates—Gas

CAG–1.

DOCKET# RP97–406, 027, DOMINION

TRANSMISSION, INC.

OTHER#S RP01–74, 002, DOMINION

TRANSMISSION, INC.

CAG–2.

OMITTED

CAG–3.

DOCKET# RP00–241, 002, PUBLIC

UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. EL PASO

NATURAL GAS COMPANY, EL PASO

MERCHANT ENERGY–GAS, L.P. AND

EL PASO MERCHANT ENERGY

COMPANY

OTHER#S RP00–241, 000, PUBLIC

UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. EL PASO

NATURAL GAS COMPANY, EL PASO

MERCHANT ENERGY–GAS, L.P. AND

EL PASO MERCHANT ENERGY

COMPANY

RP00–241, 001, PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA V. EL PASO NATURAL

GAS COMPANY, EL PASO MERCHANT

ENERGY–GAS, L.P. AND EL PASO

MERCHANT ENERGY COMPANY

CAG–4.

OMITTED

CAG–5.

OMITTED

CAG–6.

DOCKET# RP01–44, 002, IROQUOIS GAS

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, L.P.

OTHER#S RP01–44, 001, IROQUOIS GAS

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, L.P.

CAG–7.

DOCKET# RP01–87, 000, FITCHBURG

GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY V.

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY

CAG–8.

DOCKET# RP00–622, 001, EL PASO

NATURAL GAS COMPANY

CAG–9.

DOCKET# RP99–301, 008, ANR PIPELINE

COMPANY

Consent Agenda—Miscellaneous

CAM–1.

DOCKET# RM01–2, 000,

SUBDELEGATIONS

Consent Agenda—Energy Projects—Hydro

CAH–1.

DOCKET# P–184, 074, EL DORADO

IRRIGATION DISTRICT

CAH–2.

DOCKET# P–2984, 036, S.D. WARREN

COMPANY

CAH–3.

DOCKET# P–1267, 039, GREENWOOD

COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

CAH–4.

DOCKET# P–11634, 001, CONTINENTAL

LANDS, INC.

Consent Agenda—Energy Projects—

Certificates

CAC–1.

OMITTED

CAC–2.

DOCKET# CP00–447, 000, DISTRIGAS OF

MASSACHUSETTS LLC

CAC–3.

OMITTED

CAC–4.

OMITTED

CAC–5.

DOCKET# CP00–456, 000, MONTANA

POWER COMPANY, AND 3698157

CANADA LTD.

CAC–6.

DOCKET# CP00–457, 000, CANADIANMONTANA PIPE LINE CORPORATION

AND 3698157 CANADA LTD.

CAC–7.

DOCKET# CP01–19, 000, CHINOOK

PIPELINE COMPANY

CAC–8.

DOCKET# CP01–23, 000, NORTH BAJA

PIPELINE, LLC

CAC–9.

DOCKET# CP01–41, 000, EL PASO

NATURAL GAS COMPANY

CAC–10.

DOCKET# CP00–383, 000, NORTENO

PIPELINE COMPANY

OTHER#S CP00–384, 000, NORTENO

PIPELINE COMPANY AND SOUTHERN

TRANSMISSION COMPANY

CP00–385, 000, NORTENO PIPELINE

COMPANY AND SOUTHERN

TRANSMISSION COMPANY

CAC–11.

OMITTED

CAC–12.

OMITTED

CAC–13.

DOCKET# CP96–711, 001, DISCOVERY

PRODUCERS SERVICES LLC

OTHER#S CP96–712, 001, DISCOVERY

GAS TRANSMISSION LLC

CP96–719, 001, DISCOVERY GAS

TRANSMISSION LLC

Energy Projects—Hydro Agenda

H–1.

RESERVED

Energy Projects—Certificates Agenda

C–1.

RESERVED

Markets, Tariffs and Rates—Electric Agenda

E–1.

RESERVED

Markets, Tariffs and Rates—Gas Agenda

G–1.

RESERVED

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–613 Filed 1–4–01; 4:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6931–5]

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur

Dioxide); Availability of Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing today

the following actions: The availability of

new information on 5-minute average

sulfur dioxide (SO2) concentrations in

the ambient air; The status of EPA’s

ongoing activities to characterize and

address 5-minute peak SO2 levels that

may pose risk to sensitive individuals

with asthma, including plans to

consider taking final action on the

proposed intervention level program

(ILP) for the reduction of SO2 emissions

published on January 2, 1997 and to

respond to the remand of the final

decision on the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for SO2

published on May 22, 1996; The

solicitation of comments on the new air

quality information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before March 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to Susan Lyon Stone, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (MD–

15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;

email stone.susan@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Lyon Stone at the same address;

e-mail stone.susan@epa.gov; telephone

(919) 541–1146.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 5,

1998, EPA announced its plans for

responding to a remand of its final

decision not to revise the SO2 NAAQS

(61 FR 25566, May 22, 1996) and for

final action on the proposed ILP (62 FR

210, January 2, 1997); identified interim

actions that we planned to take to

address 5-minute peak SO2 levels that

may pose risk to sensitive individuals;

and solicited new information and

analyses on 5-minute peak SO2 levels

(63 FR 24782). The sensitive population

for the effects of 5-minute peaks of SO2

consists of children, adolescents and

adults with mild or moderate asthma

who are physically active outdoors. As

discussed in this 1998 notice, the

primary issue in our SO2 NAAQS

decision was whether a new 5-minute

NAAQS was appropriate to protect

sensitive individuals with asthma from

the risk posed by exposure to 5-minute

SO2 levels of 0.6 ppm or above. Given

the available health effects information;

information as to the localized,

infrequent, and site-specific nature of

the risk involved; and the advice of the

Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee (CASAC), the Administrator

concluded that short-term (i.e., 5-

minute) peak concentrations of SO2 do

not constitute a public health problem

for which the establishment of a

NAAQS would be appropriate.

Consistent with our final SO2 NAAQS

decision, and to supplement the

protection provided by the existing SO2

1666 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Notices

1Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation, to S. William Becker, Executive

Director, STAPPA/ALAPCO, June 30, 2000; Robert

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, Regions

I–X, June 30, 2000.

2For example, in our preliminary review, we

have noted that a number of recorded values appear

to have been automatically flagged by the data

loggers as reflecting monitor malfunctions and

calibration measurements.

3Prior assessments were done as part of our 1996

review of the SO2 NAAQS and are available in the

docket for that rulemaking (Docket No. A–84–25).

4Five-minute peak concentrations are taken to be

the maximum 5-minute block average within each

hour.

NAAQS, we subsequently proposed an

ILP to assist States in determining

whether 5-minute peak concentrations

of SO2 posed a significant health risk in

the local population, and if so, to

identify appropriate remedial measures.

A key element of the proposed ILP was

the establishment of a concern level of

0.6 parts per million (ppm), 5-minute

average SO2 concentration, and an

endangerment level of 2.0 ppm, 5-

minute average. The proposed ILP

would require that State and tribal plans

contain the authority to take whatever

action is necessary to prevent further

exceedances of such concern and

endangerment levels when the State/

tribe determines that intervention is

appropriate. The proposed ILP includes

factors that the State/tribe should

consider in making such

determinations, including the

magnitude and frequency of peak

concentrations exceeding these levels,

the history and nature of any citizen

complaints, available information on

potential exposure of sensitive

individuals with asthma, and

information about the source(s) causing

the peak SO2 concentrations. Based on

these factors, the proposed ILP provides

for flexibility for the State/tribe to

determine the nature and degree of

intervention that is warranted in any

area and to relocate existing SO2

monitors to areas where 5-minute peak

concentrations may be of concern.

On January 30, 1998, the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

issued a decision in a case brought by

the American Lung Association (ALA)

and the Environmental Defense Fund,

American Lung Association v. Browner,

No. 134 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (ALA)

that challenged our decision not to

establish a new 5-minute SO2 NAAQS.

The court found that we had failed to

provide an adequate explanation for our

determination that no revision to the

SO2 NAAQS was appropriate, and

remanded the decision to us to more

fully explain our decision. id. In the

absence of any court-established

deadline for EPA action, EPA agreed

with ALA to finalize our response to the

remand by the end of the year 2000 (63

FR 24782). Subsequently, in light of a

decision by the court in another case

relating to EPA’s 1997 revisions of the

NAAQS for ozone and particulate

matter, American Trucking Associations

v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 195 F.3d 4, cert.

granted 120 S. Ct. 2003 (U.S. May 22,

2000) (No. 9901257) (ATA), the ALA

agreed to extend the time for us to

respond to the remand of the SO2

NAAQS decision to accommodate our

need for additional time and pending

additional court action in the ATA case.

In conjunction with extension of this

schedule, we committed to take a

number of actions, building upon the

actions discussed in our 1998 notice (63

FR 24782). These ongoing actions focus

on broadening our efforts to collect and

analyze data on 5-minute average SO2

concentrations, providing further

guidance to States on monitoring 5-

minute SO2 concentrations around

industrial sources, and addressing

specific situations relating to short-term

SO2 exposures that are of concern in

local communities. c

Availability of Information on 5-Minute

SO2 Concentrations

This section discusses new

information that is now available on 5-

minute SO2 concentrations, and

includes descriptions of the nature of

such data in EPA’s Aerometric

Information Retrieval System (AIRS)

and data in other formats, and analyses

that we have conducted of these data.

Our 1998 solicitation of new

information and analyses on 5-minute

peak SO2 levels (63 FR 24782) resulted

in the submission of relatively little

additional 5-minute SO2 monitoring

data. On June 30, 2000, we directly

requested the assistance of EPA’s

Regional Offices and the State and

Territorial Air Pollution Program

Administrators/Association of Local Air

Pollution Control Officers (STAPPA/

ALAPCO) in obtaining any additional 5-

minute SO2 monitoring data that may

have been collected but not submitted to

AIRS.1 In response to this request, we

have received from nine States

additional 5-minute SO2 monitoring

data from more than 48 monitoring

sites, recorded during the period 1994–

2000. We note, however, that the newly

submitted data generally have a number

of limitations, such that neither EPA nor

the States express any opinions about

the validity of these data at this time.

More specifically, much of the data has

been provided to us in a variety of

formats not directly compatible with

AIRS; only one State and the District of

Columbia submitted their additional

data into AIRS. Most of the data files

lacked information on monitor location

and type, or nearby source types, and a

number of States have warned us that

the data have not been subjected to

appropriate quality assurance/quality

control (QA/QC) procedures.2 To the

extent possible and appropriate, we are

working with States to address these

limitations. However, at this time, we

do not believe it is appropriate to

disseminate or rely on these data. At

such time as the data are validated, they

will be available to the public in AIRS.

To supplement prior assessments 3

and improve our understanding of the

frequency, magnitude, and number of

locations at which high 5-minute

concentrations of SO2 may be occurring,

we have undertaken analyses of the data

in AIRS that include the following

activities:

(1) We have evaluated monitoring

data from 83 monitoring sites reporting

5-minute concentrations in 14 States to

determine the frequency of peak

concentrations greater than or equal to

0.6 ppm, the variations of such

frequencies across locations, whether

there are industrial sources located

nearby that may be contributing to

measured peak concentrations, and the

size of the surrounding population

within a 5-km radius of the monitor.

(2) Since we have AIRS data from far

more monitoring sites (695) recording 1-

hour average concentrations than from

monitors recording 5-minute

concentrations, we have constructed

and applied mathematical models to aid

in estimating the potential for the

occurrence of 5-minute peak

concentrations at and above 0.6 ppm

SO2 at locations where only 1-hour

average concentrations are available.

These models are based on determining

the relationships of 5-minute peak

concentration distributions 4 to 1-hour

mean concentration distributions and

evaluating the statistical strength of

these relationships.

Although we intend to extend these

analyses to include additional data to

the extent they become certified for

inclusion in AIRS, we have

substantially completed the analyses

described above. A draft report

summarizing our preliminary findings

has been placed on EPA’s website at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic.

Status of Ongoing Activities

This section discusses the status of

our ongoing activities to characterize

and address 5-minute peak SO2 levels

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Notices 1667

1Although we are in the process of considering

whether to move forward with an ILP during the

same time that we continue to consider our

response to the remand in the ALA case, it is

important to note that we view our ILP activities

and our response to the ALA remand as

independent actions. Our consideration of taking

final action on the proposed ILP is not intended as

a substitute for a decision on the ALA remand, nor

is it intended to indicate that we have reached any

particular outcome regarding the need for a revised

SO2 NAAQS. Regardless of our decision in response

to the ALA remand, we believe that it is appropriate

at this time to consider taking final action on an ILP

to provide any supplementary protection from

exposures of concern to short-term SO2 peaks that

may be appropriate.

that may pose risk to sensitive

individuals with asthma. These

activities include: (1) Efforts to obtain

State certification of newly submitted 5-

minute SO2 monitoring data and related

information, to be followed by analysis

of this additional certified data, as

appropriate; (2) development of

guidance on monitoring 5-minute SO2

concentrations; (3) additional 5-minute

SO2 air quality monitoring, in

coordination with States’ and industry’s

monitoring activities; (4) consideration

of taking final action on the proposed

ILP; and (5) consideration of our

response to the remand of our 1996 SO2

NAAQS decision.

We are now in the process of working

with States who submitted new 5-

minute SO2 monitoring data to facilitate

their certification of the data. We are

also working to obtain related

information, as appropriate, such as

monitor location, nearby source types,

and surrounding population. To the

extent that such information warrants

further analysis, we intend to extend the

analyses discussed above to include

these data, and to complete these

analyses by mid-2001.

In a separate but related effort, we are

evaluating our ambient air monitoring

regulations and approaches. As part of

a broad, integrated monitoring strategy

for all the criteria pollutants, which we

expect to propose late Spring 2001, we

also expect to propose regulatory

changes necessary to reflect current data

needs, which in part will involve SO2

monitoring. We initially proposed

revisions to regulations at 40 CFR parts

53 and 58 to modify reference and

equivalent methods for SO2 and to

revise the minimum requirements for

ambient monitoring in compliance with

the SO2 NAAQS in order to facilitate

additional monitoring of 5-minute

concentrations (60 FR 58959, March 7,

1995). We will consider the input

received from the earlier proposal in

developing these changes.

In addition, we also intend to issue a

guideline specifically on SO2

monitoring. We have already developed

a draft guideline, which is intended to

assist State and local air pollution

control agencies in evaluating their

networks and the appropriateness of

revising those networks to better

address the potential for 5-minute

concentrations of concern. The draft

guideline provides relevant background

information, summarizes recommended

procedures for network review,

suggested procedures for review of

available ambient data to determine the

potential for high 5-minute

concentrations, and recommendations

for short-term monitoring network

design, including cost estimation

procedures to help assess the costs of

network revisions. This draft document

may be obtained at EPA’s website at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic. In

addition to these efforts, we will work

with the States to facilitate

implementation of the SO2 monitoring

guideline and the broader integrated

monitoring strategy.

We are also starting to develop plans

for collecting additional 5-minute SO2

air quality monitoring data. We intend

to work with States and industry to

elicit their support and participation in

this project, which we expect will

provide important new information as

to the likelihood and nature of 5-minute

peak SO2 concentrations that may now

be occurring around various types of

industrial facilities. We anticipate that

this project will take approximately two

years, including planning, coordination,

data collection and analysis. We expect

that this information will help inform

our response to the remand of the SO2

NAAQS decision as well as the next

periodic review of the SO2 NAAQS.

In our consideration of taking final

action on the proposed ILP (62 FR 210,

January 2, 1997), we will take into

account comments received in response

to this notice as well as comments

received on our 1997 proposed action.

We received 62 comments on the

proposed ILP, of which 11 comments

were from State and local agencies and

a related organization, 38 comments

were from individual industry

commenters and trade groups, four were

from public advocacy groups, and four

comments were from private citizens.

Many commenters supported the

proposed ILP and its flexible

implementation strategy, while others

commented that States already have

sufficient regulatory authority to deal

with sources emitting high 5-minute

peaks of SO2 that may pose a risk to the

health of asthmatic individuals living

nearby, and therefore an additional

regulatory program is not necessary. The

commenters disagreed about the

significance of the health effects

associated with exposure to short-term

peaks of SO2, particularly at the concern

level (0.6 ppm SO2, 5-minute average).

Some expressed the view that the health

effects associated with exposures at this

level are not significant enough to

warrant remedial action, while others

expressed the view that this level was

not sufficiently health protective and

urged us to set the concern level at a

lower concentration (e.g., 0.3 ppm SO2,

5-minute average). Many commenters

expressed concern about the costs

associated with implementing the

proposed ILP, especially when

compared to the relatively small size of

the sensitive population (i.e.,

individuals with asthma who are active

outdoors) that might be affected. In

addition, some State and local agency

commenters expressed concern about

the costs associated with the additional

source-based monitoring (e.g., for

monitor purchase, monitor relocation,

or additional staff members) that might

be needed to implement the proposed

ILP.

With regard to moving forward with

a final ILP, we note that the results of

the data analyses completed to date

continue to suggest that there may be a

number of locations in the country

where repeated exposures to 5-minute

peak SO2 levels of 0.60 ppm and above

could pose a risk of significant health

effects. Taking into account this

information, the results of planned

additional analyses, and public

comments, we will consider taking final

action on an ILP. We anticipate reaching

a final decision on an ILP by the

summer of 2001, as a separate matter

from our consideration of our response

to the remand of the 1996 SO2 NAAQS

decision.5

Since the court decision in the ALA

case, remanding our decision not to

revise the SO2 NAAQS, we have

continued to take a number of actions

relating to 5-minute SO2 peaks of 0.6

ppm or greater, including the

solicitation and review of additional

information and analyses described

above. Although we continue to

evaluate this and other information in

light of the ALA remand, the ruling of

the Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit in the ATA case, and

its subsequent appeal to the United

States Supreme Court, has created

potential uncertainty regarding the

appropriate framework for decisions

under section 109. As a result, we

believe that the better course of action

is to await a decision from the Supreme

Court, which is expected during the

spring of 2001, before responding to the

ALA remand of our SO2 NAAQS

decision. This will better enable us to

1668 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Notices

review and assess all relevant

information, including the court’s

opinion and any additional analyses

and technical information, that could

shed additional light on the appropriate

response to the remand. We intend to

publish our schedule for considering the

relevant information and responding to

the remand by mid-2001.

Request for Comments

We are soliciting comments on the

data analyses and preliminary findings

in our draft report that is now available,

to better inform future actions to reduce

the health risk that may be posed by

potential exposures of exercising

asthmatics to short-term peaks of SO2.

More specifically, we solicit comments

on the following: the appropriateness of

using 1-hour average SO2 monitoring

data as one element in our efforts to

estimate the potential for 5-minute peak

concentrations greater than or equal to

0.6 ppm SO2; the usefulness of these

types of analyses in identifying the need

for additional monitoring or other

actions and the sources likely to

contribute to high 5-minute SO2

concentrations; and, for the purpose of

assessing the need for additional

monitoring around SO2 sources, the

appropriateness of using just the hourly

maximum 5-minute average SO2

concentrations, rather than all the 5-

minute averages in an hour, including

any relevant data storage and

management considerations. We will

consider this information in the context

of taking final action on the proposed

ILP, conducting future analyses of 5-

minute SO2 air quality data, responding

to the ALA remand and conducting the

next periodic review of the SO2

NAAQS.

Dated: January 3, 2001.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 01–565 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6931–2]

Underground Injection Control

Program; Hazardous Waste Injection

Restrictions; Petition for Exemption—

Class I Hazardous Waste Injection;

MERISOL USA LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Final Decision on a No

Migration Petition Reissuance.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that an

exemption to the land disposal

restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous

and Solid Waste Amendments to the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act has been granted to MERISOL USA

LLC (Merisol) for a Class I injection well

located at Houston, Texas. As required

by 40 CFR part 148, the company has

adequately demonstrated to the

satisfaction of the Environmental

Protection Agency by the petition and

supporting documentation that, to a

reasonable degree of certainty, there will

be no migration of hazardous

constituents from the injection zone for

as long as the waste remains hazardous.

This final decision allows the

underground injection by Merisol, of the

specific restricted hazardous wastes

identified in the exemption, into a Class

I hazardous waste injection well No.

WDW–319 at the Houston, Texas

facility, until December 31, 2010, unless

EPA moves to terminate the exemption

under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. As

required by 40 CFR 148.22(b) and

124.10, a public notice was issued

October 30, 2000. The public comment

period closed on December 7, 2000. No

comments were received. This decision

constitutes final Agency action and

there is no Administrative appeal.

DATES: This action is effective as of

December 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and

all pertinent information relating thereto

are on file at the following location:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Water Quality Protection

Division, Source Water Protection

Branch (6WQ–S), 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/

UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone

(214) 665–7165.

Joan Brown,

Acting Division Director, Water Quality

Protection Division (6WQ).

[FR Doc. 01–572 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6565–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–66282; FRL–6761–3]

Notice of Receipt of Requests to

Voluntarily Cancel CertainPesticide

Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

6(f)(1) of the FederalInsecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), as amended,EPA is issuing a

notice of receipt of requests by

registrants tovoluntarily cancel certain

pesticide registrations.

DATES: Unless a request is withdrawn by

July 9, 2001, unless indicated otherwise,

orders will be issued canceling all of

these registrations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: James A. Hollins, Office of

Pesticide Programs (7502C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location

for commercial courier delivery,

telephone number and e-mail address:

Rm. 224, Crystal Mall No. 2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202, (703) 305–5761; e-mail address:

hollins.james@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. Although thisaction may be

of particular interest to persons who

produce or usepesticides, the Agency

has not attempted to describe all

thespecific entities that may be affected

by this action. If you haveany questions

regarding the information in this notice,

consult theperson listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information or Copies of Support

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies ofthis document and

certain other related documents that

might be availableelectronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page athttp://

www.epa.gov. To access this document,

on the Home page select ‘‘Laws and

Regulations’’ ‘‘Regulations and

Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up the

entry for this document under the

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listing at (http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/).

2. In person. Contact James A. Hollins

at 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal

Mall 2, Rm. 224, Arlington, VA,

telephonenumber (703) 305–5761.

Available from 7:30 a.m. to 4:45

p.m.,Monday thru Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This notice announces receipt by the

Agency of applicationsfrom registrants

to cancel some 31 pesticide products

registeredunder section 3 or 24(c) of

FIFRA. These registrations are listedin

sequence by registration number (or