[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25396-25401]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10316]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132; FRL-9384-3]

Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
glyphosate in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number
4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 1, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 1, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-9367; email address<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 an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 1, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 2, 2012 (77 FR 25954) (FRL-9346-1),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E7979)
by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.364 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide glyphosate N-(phosphonomethyl)
glycine in or on the raw agricultural commodity teff, forage and teff,
hay at 100 parts per million (ppm) and oilseed crops, group 20 at 40
ppm. The petition also requested amendments to the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.364 as follows: Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar
beet, from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 0.2 ppm to

vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.2 ppm; okra at 0.5 ppm; vegetable,
fruiting, group 8 at 0.1 ppm to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.1
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.5 ppm to fruit, citrus, group 10-10
at 0.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.2 ppm to fruit, pome, group 11-
10 at 0.2 ppm; cranberry, grape, juneberry, kiwifruit, lingonberry,
salal, strawberry, and berry group 13 at 0.2 ppm to berry and small
fruit, group 13-07 at 0.2 ppm. That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Monsanto, the registrant, which is available
in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some
commodities as well as the crops for which tolerances are being
established. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for glyphosate including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with glyphosate follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data 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.
    A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic
effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food
consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ
weights, and histopathology). A second chronic feeding/carcinogenicity
study in rats tested at higher dietary levels, and a lowest-observed-
adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was identified at 20,000 ppm
(approximately 940 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) based on
decreased body-weight gains in females and increased incidence of
cataracts and lens abnormalities, decreased urinary pH, increased
absolute liver weight, and increased relative liver weight/brain weight
in males. No evidence of carcinogenicity was found in mice or rats. In
a chronic toxicity study in dogs, no systemic effects were found in all
examined parameters.
    There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in
developmental studies. A focal tubular dilation of the kidneys was
observed in an older 3-generation reproductive study on rats at the 30-
mg/kg/day level (highest dose tested (HDT)); however, a 2-generation
reproductive study on rats did not observe the same effect at the 1,500
mg/kg/day level (HDT), nor were any adverse reproductive effects
observed at any dose level. A clear NOAEL was established and the
chronic reference dose (cRfD) was set at a level well below this
effect. Neurotoxicity has not been observed in any of the acute,
subchronic, chronic, developmental, or reproductive studies performed
with glyphosate.
    Neurotoxicity screening battery tests and an immunotoxicity study
have been submitted to the Agency. Given the timing of the submission
of these studies, the Agency has conducted preliminary reviews of these
studies. The preliminary reviews show no effects up to the HDT for both
the acute and subchronic durations for the neurotoxicity studies and no
effects up to the HDT in the immunotoxicity study. EPA does not believe
that further review will result in different conclusions concerning the
neurotoxic or immunotoxic potential of glyphosate.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by glyphosate as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL
from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the document entitled ``Glyphosate. Section 3 Registration Concerning
the Application of Glyphosate to Carrots, Sweet Potato, Teff, and
Oilseeds (Crop Group (CG) 20) and to Update the CG Definitions for Bulb
Vegetable (CG 3-07), Fruiting Vegetable (CG 8-10), Citrus Fruit (CG 10-
10), Pome Fruit (CG 11-10), and Berry (CG 13-07). Human-Health Risk
Assessment'' on pp. 26-28 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD--and a safe margin of exposure
(MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the
risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for glyphosate used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of April 8, 2011 (76 FR 19701) (FRL-
8866-8).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to glyphosate, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing

glyphosate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364. EPA assessed dietary exposures
from glyphosate in food as follows:
    i. Acute 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 were identified in the toxicological studies for
glyphosate; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used food consumption information from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This
dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) for both proposed and existing commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for glyphosate. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used both a
screening level water exposure model (surface water) as well as
monitoring data (ground water) in the dietary exposure analysis and
risk assessment for glyphosate in drinking water. The simulation model
takes into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of glyphosate. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and monitoring data from the National Water-Quality
Assessment Program (NAWQA), the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of glyphosate for chronic exposures are estimated to be 8.11
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.03 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 8.11 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Glyphosate is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf (including golf courses and
residential lawns) and for aquatic application. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions:
    Based on the registered residential use patterns, there is a
potential for short-term dermal and inhalation exposures to homeowners
who mix and apply products containing glyphosate (residential
handlers). However, since short- and intermediate-term dermal or
inhalation endpoints were not selected, a quantitative exposure risk
assessment was not completed.
    Based on the registered use patterns, children 1-2 years old may
have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from hand-
to-mouth behavior on treated lawns and swimmers (adults and children 3-
6 years old) may have short-term post-application incidental oral
exposures from aquatic uses. Based on the soil half-life for
glyphosate, intermediate-term soil ingestion was also considered for
children 1<2 years old. The incidental oral scenarios for the turf
assessment (i.e., hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion)
should be considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur
interspersed amongst each other across time. Combining these scenarios
would be overly conservative because of the conservative nature of each
individual assessment. Therefore, none of the incidental oral scenarios
were combined.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found glyphosate to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and glyphosate does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
glyphosate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit
fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. A focal tubular
dilation of the kidneys was observed in an older 3-generation
reproductive study on rats at the 30-mg/kg/day level (HDT); however, a
2-generation reproductive study on rats did not observe the same effect
at the 1,500 mg/kg/day level (HDT), nor were any adverse reproductive
effects observed at any dose level. A clear NOAEL was established and
the cRfD was set at a level well below this effect. Therefore, the
endpoints selected for risk assessment are protective of the effects
seen in the 3-generation rat reproduction study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for glyphosate is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that glyphosate is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there is no evidence that
glyphosate results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or
rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to glyphosate in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application incidental oral
exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by glyphosate.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
glypyhosate is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
glyphosate from food and water will utilize 13% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
glyphosate is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Glyphosate is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to glyphosate.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 2,000 for the
general U.S. population and 450 for children 1-2 years old. Because
EPA's level of concern for glyphosate is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Glyphosate is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure to children 1-2 years old, and
the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential
exposures to glyphosate.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 770 for children 1-2 years old, the population
subgroup of concern. Because EPA's level of concern for glyphosate is a
MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, glyphosate is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to glyphosate residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for glyphosate in or on cotton seed
at 40 ppm, sunflower seed at 7 ppm, and rape seed at 20 ppm. The MRL
for cotton seed is the same as the oilseed crop group tolerance and the
MRL for rape seed is the same as the canola seed tolerance being
established by this document. Based on the oilseed residue data,
harmonization with the Codex sunflower seed tolerance is not possible.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency has revised the petitioned-for tolerances as follows:
    The proposed increase in tolerance for vegetables, root and tuber,
group 1, except sugar beet from 0.2 ppm to 6 ppm cannot be done at this
time due to inadequate residue data. Instead, the Agency is
establishing individual tolerances for carrot at 5.0 ppm and sweet
potato at 3.0 ppm and modifying the existing tolerance on vegetables,
root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at 0.20 ppm to read as
``vegetables, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet, carrot, and
sweet potato.''
    The petition requested a tolerance at 40 ppm on the oilseed group
20. In order to maintain harmonization with both Canada and Codex the
Agency is establishing a tolerance on the oilseed crop group 20, except
canola at 40 ppm and is maintaining the existing canola seed tolerance
at 20 ppm.
    The petition requested that the current tolerance for vegetable,
fruiting, group 8 be updated to the new vegetable, fruiting, group 8-
10. Okra is part of the new crop group, however,

and the currently established tolerance in or on crop group 8 is 0.1
ppm, whereas the okra tolerance is 0.5 ppm. Due to this difference, the
Agency is updating crop group 8 to read ``vegetable, fruiting, group 8-
10, except okra'' and maintaining the existing okra tolerance at 0.5
ppm.
    Lastly, several of the tolerance values on the crop group
conversions are being revised to reflect Agency policy concerning
significant figures.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of glyphosate N-
(phosphonomethyl) glycine in or on the raw agricultural commodity teff,
forage at 100 ppm; teff, hay at 100 ppm; oilseeds, group 20, except
canola at 40 ppm; vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except carrot,
sweet potato, and sugar beet at 0.20 ppm; carrot at 5.0 ppm; sweet
potato at 3.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.20 ppm; vegetable,
fruiting, group 8-10 (except okra) at 0.10 ppm; fruit, citrus, group
10-10 at 0.50 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.20 ppm; and berry and
small fruit, group 13-07 at 0.20 ppm.
    In addition, due to the establishment of the tolerances in this
document, the following tolerances are being removed as unnecessary:
Vegetables, root and tuber, crop group 1, except sugar beet; vegetable,
bulb, group 3; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; fruit, citrus, group 10;
fruit, pome, group 11; berry group 13; borage, seed; cotton, undelinted
seed; crambe, seed; flax, meal; flax, seed; jojoba seed; lesquerella,
seed; meadowfoam, seed; mustard seed; rapeseed, seed; safflower, seed;
sesame, seed; sunflower, seed; cranberry; grape; juneberry; kiwifruit;
lingonberry; salal; and strawberry.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 19, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.364:

0
a. Add alphabetically to the table in paragraph (a)(1) the following
commodities.
0
b. Remove from the table in paragraph (a)(1), the commodities berry
group 13; borage, seed; cotton, undelinted seed; crambe, seed;
cranberry; flax, meal; flax, seed; fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit,
pome, group 11; grape; jojoba seed; juneberry; kiwifruit; lesquerella,
seed; lingonberry; meadowfoam, seed; mustard seed; rapeseed, seed;
safflower, seed; salal; sesame, seed; strawberry; sunflower, seed;
vegetable, bulb, group 3; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; vegetable, root
and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.364  Glyphosate; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Berry and small fruit, group 13-07......................            0.20

                                * * * * *
Carrot..................................................            5.0

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..............................            0.50
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................            0.20

                                * * * * *
Oilseeds, group 20, except canola.......................           40

                                * * * * *
Sweet potato............................................            3.0

                                * * * * *
Teff, forage............................................          100

                                * * * * *
Teff, hay...............................................          100

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07.............................            0.20

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 (except okra)...........            0.10

                                * * * * *
Vegetables, root and tuber, group 1, except carrot,                 0.20
 sweet potato, and sugar beet...........................

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2013-10316 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 69678-69679]
[DOCID:fr10de07-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 4, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-183.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits a
negotiated rate agreement with Coral energy Resources LP.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-147.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America submits
Original Sheet 414A.12 to FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, to
become effective 1/1/08 with JP Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-445-020.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Alliance Pipeline LP submits Fourteenth Revised Sheet
11 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become
effective 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP02-361-066.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC's Original Sheet
8.02g et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective on 12/1/
07.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-479-003.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corp's First Revised Sheet
540A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, effective on
6/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0250.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-507-003.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corp submits its Third
Revised Sheet 207 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
1, effective on 5/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0249.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-91-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
its Annual Report of Penalty Revenue Credits to its FERC Gas Tariff,
Sixth Revised Volume 1 which covers the period the twelve month
reporting period ended 7/31/07.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-92-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits 109th
Revised Sheet 9 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1, to
become effective 12/1/07.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-93-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits Eleventh
Revised Sheet 43 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1,
effective on 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-94-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 307 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, effective
on 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-95-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits
Thirteenth Revised Sheet 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1-
A, effective on 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0262.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-96-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corp submits its final
annual fuel charge adjustment in compliance with Paragraph 37 of terms
& conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0261.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-97-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Eighteenth Revised Sheet
570 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 2, effective on 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0260.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-98-000.

    Applicants: Mojave Pipeline Company.
    Description: Mojave Pipeline Company submits Nineteenth Revised
Sheet 11 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to become
effective on 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0259.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-99-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 374 to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A, effective on
1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0258.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-100-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Co submits their Third Revised
Sheet 29.01 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A,
effective on 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0257.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-101-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co submits their September 2006
through August 2007 Cash out Report.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-102-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Co, LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet 222 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1,
effective on 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0256.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-103-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Co, LLC submits a firm
transportation service agreement with Coral Energy Resources, LP.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0254.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-104-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Co. submits their Fuel
Reimbursement Percentage Filing.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071203-0253.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23849 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 31744-31745]
[DOCID:fr02jy09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1841-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 2 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 Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1841-DR), dated May 29, 2009,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
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 Commonwealth of Kentucky 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 May 29, 2009.

    Estill and Fulton 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. E9-15677 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56119-56121]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24522]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84534; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-070]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Renew
the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program

November 5, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 2, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to renew an existing pilot program until May 6, 2019. Under the
existing pilot program, the Exchange is permitted to list P.M.-settled
options on broad-based indexes that expire on: (a) Any Monday,
Wednesday, or Friday (``Weekly Expirations'') and (b) the last trading
day of the month (``End of Month Expirations'' or ``EOMs'').
(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Cboe Exchange, Inc. Rules [sic]

* * * * *
Rule 24.9. Terms of Index Option Contracts
    (a)-(d) (No change).
    (e) Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program
    (1)-(2) (No change).
    (3) Duration of Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program. The
Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program shall be through [November 5,
2018] May 6, 2019.
    (4) (No change).
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.14 (No change).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On September 14, 2010, the Commission approved a Cboe Options
proposal to establish a pilot program under which the Exchange is
permitted to list P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to expire
on (a) any Friday of the month, other than the third Friday-of-the-
month, and (b) the last trading day of the month.\5\ On January 14,
2016, the Commission approved a Cboe Options proposal to expand the
pilot program to allow P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to
expire on any Wednesday of month, other than those that coincide with
an EOM.\6\ On August 10, 2016, the Commission approved a Cboe Options
proposal to expand the pilot program to allow P.M.-settled options on
broad-based indexes to expire on any Monday of month, other than those
that coincide with an EOM.\7\ Under the terms of the Nonstandard
Expirations Pilot Program (``Program''), Weekly Expirations and EOMs
are permitted on any broad-based index that is eligible for regular
options trading. Weekly Expirations and EOMs are cash-settled and have
European-style exercise. The proposal became effective on a pilot basis
for a period of fourteen months that commenced on the next full month
after approval was received to establish the Program \8\ and was
subsequently extended.\9\ The Program is scheduled to expire on
November 5, 2018. The Exchange believes that the Program has been
successful and well received by its Trading Permit Holders and the
investing public during that the time that it has been in operation.
The Exchange hereby proposes to extend the Program until May 6, 2019.
This proposal does not request any other changes to the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 62911 (September 14,
2010), 75 FR 57539 (September 21, 2010) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2009-075).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 76909 (January 14,
2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (order approving SR-CBOE-2015-
106).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 78531 (August 10, 2016),
81 FR 54643 (August 16, 2016) (order approving SR-CBOE-2016-046).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 65741 (November 14,
2011), 76 FR 72016 (November 21, 2011) (immediately effective rule
change extending the Program through February 14, 2013). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release 68933 (February 14, 2013), 78 FR
12374 (February 22, 2013) (immediately effective rule change
extending the Program through April 14, 2014); 71836 (April 1,
2014), 79 FR 19139 (April 7, 2014) (immediately effective rule
change extending the Program through November 3, 2014); 73422
(October 24, 2014), 79 FR 64640 (October 30, 2014) (immediately
effective rule change extending the Program through May 3, 2016);
76909 (January 14, 2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (extending
the Program through May 3, 2017); 80387 (April 6, 2017), 82 FR 17706
(April 12, 2017) (extending the Program through May 3, 2018); and
83165 (May 3, 2018), 83 FR 21316 (May 9, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-038)
(extending the Program through November 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the order approving the establishment of the Program,
two months prior to the conclusion of the pilot period, Cboe Options is
required to submit an annual report to the Commission, which addresses
the following areas: Analysis of Volume & Open Interest, Monthly
Analysis of Weekly Expirations & EOM Trading Patterns and Provisional
Analysis of Index Price Volatility. The Exchange has submitted, under
separate cover, the annual report in connection with the present
proposed rule change. Additionally, the Exchange will provide the
Commission with any additional data or analyses the Commission requests
because it deems such data or analyses necessary to determine whether
the Program is consistent with the Exchange Act. The Exchange is in the
process of making public on its website data and analyses previously
submitted to the Commission under the Program, which it expects to
complete in the fourth quarter of 2018, and will make public any data
and analyses it submits to the Commission under the Program in the
future.

    If, in the future, the Exchange proposes an additional extension of
the Program, or should the Exchange propose to make the Program
permanent (which the Exchange currently intends to do), the Exchange
will submit an annual report (addressing the same areas referenced
above and consistent with the order approving the establishment of the
Program) to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration
date of the Program. Any positions established under the Program will
not be impacted by the expiration of the Program.
    The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and
demand in the Program to warrant its extension. The Exchange believes
that the Program has provided investors with additional means of
managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment
objectives. Furthermore, the Exchange has not experienced any adverse
market effects with respect to the Program.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Program
will not have an adverse impact on capacity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the Program has been
successful to date and states that it has not encountered any problems
with the Program. The proposed rule change allows for an extension of
the Program for the benefit of market participants. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that there is demand for the expirations offered
under the Program and believes that that Weekly Expirations and EOMs
will continue to provide the investing public and other market
participants increased opportunities to better manage their risk
exposure.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Program, the proposed
rule change will allow for further analysis of the Program and a
determination of how the Program shall be structured in the future. In
doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote
regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the
marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that
such waiver will allow the Exchange to extend the pilot program prior
to its expiration on November 5, 2018, and maintain the status quo,
thereby reducing market disruption. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest as it will allow the pilot program to
continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding investor confusion that could
result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this
reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-070 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-070. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2018-070, and should be submitted on or before November 30, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24522 Filed 11-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38672-38675]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16772]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; FRL-9981-92-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Eureka Mills Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Eureka Mills Superfund Site (Site)
located in Eureka, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance and five-year reviews (FYR), have been completed. However,
this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2002-0001 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Armando Saenz, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-
1129.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2002-0001. The http://www.regulations.gov website 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket

materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: Eureka City Hall, 255 W Main
Street, Eureka, UT 84628; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); Hours: M-Fri: 8:30
a.m.--5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Armando Saenz, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR,
Denver, CO 80202,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Eureka Mills
Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105
of CERCLA of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the
NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future
conditions warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Eureka Mills Superfund Site
and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures in not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The State of Utah, through the UDEQ, has concurred with
deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in the
local Eureka Review Newsletter. The newspaper notice announces the 30-
day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
Site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The 450-acre Eureka Mills Superfund Site (UT0002240158) encompasses
much of Eureka. The town is situated in a southwest trending valley on
the west side of the East Tintic Mountains in Juab County about 80
miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah. The town was founded in 1870
upon the discovery of a high-grade mineralized outcrop containing
silver, lead, gold, copper and arsenic. The area was extensively mined
until 1958. Because of extensive mining activities, numerous mine waste
piles were formed and spread throughout the town (including residential
areas).
    Investigations of the impacts from historic mining activities in
Eureka began in 2000. Based on the results of initial blood lead
testing and soil sampling, EPA and the State initiated an extensive
blood lead testing program for Eureka residents in the summer of 2000.
In addition, EPA's Emergency Response Program initiated an extensive
soil sampling program of residential properties and mine waste areas.
    During the 2001 and 2002 construction seasons, EPA's Emergency
Response Program conducted an emergency removal action on 69
properties. The action consisted of removing and replacing up to 18
inches of soil high in lead content on each property. The properties
were selected based on soil lead levels greater than 3000 ppm and/or a
child living in the home with a blood lead level greater than 10 [mu]g/
dL. The Site was proposed

for the NPL on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32287) and finalized on September
5, 2002 (67 FR 56757).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The RI/FS began in 2000 and was completed in 2002. Samples
confirmed that metals were present in mine waste piles, residential/
non-residential soils and within the interiors of some residences/
commercial buildings. Over 4,205 soil samples were collected from 505
residential/commercial properties. One hundred residential properties
contained surface soil lead in concentrations greater than 3,000 ppm.
An additional 350 residential properties showed surface soil lead
concentrations at levels between 231 and 2,999 ppm. Samples were also
collected from mine waste piles and areas with future development
potential. Lead concentrations within the waste pile material ranged
from 1,000 ppm to 47,806 ppm. Lead in areas with future development
potential ranged from 325 ppm to 15,000 ppm.
    The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA) was completed in
2002 and evaluated the current/future risks to human health associated
with elevated concentrations of metals in soils and mine waste within
the Site. Lead was found to be the primary soil contaminant of concern
(COC) and other soil COCs (antimony, arsenic, mercury, silver and
thallium) were found to be co-located with lead.

Selected Remedy

    An interim ROD (September 2002) for Operable Unit (OU) 00 addressed
the public health actions to reduce the immediate exposure of residents
(particularly, children under the age of 7 years) to lead from soil/
dust in the environment prior to the implementation of the final remedy
for the soils and mine wastes. Five OUs were designated for the Site:
00--Entire Site including the residential/commercial areas
01--May Day Shaft, Godiva Shaft and the Godiva Tunnel
02--Bullion Beck Mine/Mill and Gemini Mine Waste Piles
03--Central Eureka Mining Areas
04--Ecological Risk Assessment, Groundwater and Surface Water
    With the completion of the BHHRA and RI/FS in 2002, EPA issued the
final Site remedy for the soils and mine waste areas found to pose an
imminent/substantial endangerment to public health in the September
2002 ROD for OUs 00-03. Lead was found to be the primary soil COC and
other soil COCs (antimony, arsenic, mercury, silver and thallium) were
co-located with lead. The health based clean-up levels specified in the
ROD were 231 ppm lead in soils for residential use and 735 ppm lead in
soils for recreational use.
    The Remedial Action Objectives were:
     Prevent exposure of children to lead in surface soil
within current residential properties, vacant properties interspersed
among residential properties, and commercial properties at the Site
where soil is determined to be the source of lead and the ingestion of
soil is predicted to result in a greater than 5% chance that an
individual child or a group of similarly exposed children will have a
blood lead level greater than 10 [mu]g/dL.
     Prevent exposure of adolescents/adults engaging in
recreational activities to lead in surface soil within discrete mine
waste piles and non-residential properties (areas currently used for
recreation but could be proposed for future development) where
ingestion of soil is predicted to result in a greater than 5% chance
that an individual or a similarly exposed group will have a blood lead
level greater than 11.1 [mu]g/dL.
     The final remedy included the following components:
     Cleanup of 691 residential and commercial properties with
lead in soil concentrations greater than the action level. The cleanup
generally consisted of removal of 18 inches of soil, placement of a
marker barrier at 18 inches to define contaminated soil below and
construction of an 18-inch cap consisting of soil with a vegetative
cover or rock materials;
     Capping of 13 mine waste piles near Eureka that posed a
human health risk with an 18-inch cap of vegetated soil or rock;
     Construction of a disposal cell (open cell) for
contaminated soils that may be excavated during future development
activities;
     Implementation of institutional controls in the form of
(1) proprietary controls in the form of easements or environmental
covenants and; (2) local governmental ordinances to control excavation
activities that could disturb contaminated materials; and,
     Conducting public health actions, including information
programs, periodic blood lead testing of children, and a program for
evaluating sources of indoor lead exposure.
    The 2002 ROD for OUs 00-03 did not address the groundwater, surface
water and ecological pathways because of the urgency to address actual
exposures to lead contaminated soils evident in blood lead tests Eureka
children. EPA conducted an RI for the surface water/groundwater from
2007 to 2009. Analysis of surface water samples collected during the RI
met the Utah State Criteria for agricultural and recreational use. No
groundwater impacts were found from historical mining that presented a
concern for human health. In addition, samples from drinking water
wells showed consistently high-quality water with no metals exceeding
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). An ecological risk assessment
(conducted from 2009 to 2010) concluded that, while there was a small
risk to certain avian species, addressing the associated contamination
would result in the destruction of valuable habitat for other avian
species/wildlife not at risk. A No Action ROD for OU O4 was issued in
September 2011 for the groundwater, surface water and ecological
pathways.
    In summary, the three RODs for the Site are as follows: (1) Early
Interim Action ROD for Operable Unit 00 at the Eureka Mills Site
(September 30, 2002); (2) ROD for Lead-Contaminated Soil, Operable Unit
00-03 at the Eureka Mills NPL Site (September 30, 2002); and (3) Eureka
Mills OU 4 Groundwater, Surface Water and Ecological Risk ROD
(September 21, 2011).

Response Actions

    The remedial design (RD) was completed in May 2003 and the remedial
action (RA) began in August 2003 and was completed in October 2010.
Most of the RA activities were performed by EPA with the assistance
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under an
interagency agreement. The USACE oversaw all work performed by its
contractors and provided monthly progress reports. The monthly progress
reports documented the work completed, problems encountered and their
resolution, upcoming work and invoices submitted for payment during the
reporting period. Potentially responsible parties (mine owners/
operators) performed portions of the RA and provided materials and
resources for other RA tasks.
    Because the duration of the RA extended over an eight-year period
with multiple parties performing the RA work, pre-final/final
inspections were conducted throughout the remedial action as specific
portions of the Site were completed. Each PRP prepared a RA report
after its work which was then reviewed by EPA and UDEQ and approved by
EPA. EPA prepared annual RA reports documenting the work completed
during the year which were reviewed and concurred on by UDEQ.
    The OU 00 RA for residential cleanup began in August 2004, and was

completed in September 2010. EPA and UDEQ conducted inspections of the
residential cleanup on a continual basis during each construction
season from 2004 through 2010. Punch list items identified during the
residential inspections were minor and immediately addressed. The
remedial activities of the residential cleanup were summarized in each
annual RA report.
    The surface runoff control features were designed to conform to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) revised Flood Insurance
Rate Map. The initial hydrologic studies for the mapping were jointly
conducted by FEMA and EPA in 2003. Following the completion of the RA
and the surveying of the constructed drainages, EPA (on behalf of
Eureka) submitted a letter to FEMA requesting revisions to the 2004
Flood Insurance Rate Map. FEMA approved the revisions in a letter dated
May 12, 2011.
    Construction completion for the Site was achieved with the signing
of the Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR) and RA Report on September
21, 2011.

Operation and Maintenance

    The O&M Plan and O&M Manual for the Site were approved on July 31,
2009 as attachments to the amended State Superfund Contract (SSC). The
O&M Plan outlines the responsibilities of UDEQ and the City of Eureka
for the O&M of the remedy at the Site including the implementation of
ICs and operation of the open cell. The remedy was determined to be
Operational and Functional on July 18, 2011 by EPA and the State of
Utah assumed responsibility for O&M pursuant to the O&M Plan.
    The O&M Manual defines the maintenance tasks--inspection schedule,
operation of the open cell and any material specifications for erosion
repairs, etc. The O&M Manual includes the ``as-built'' drawings of the
Response Action Structures (RASs) and individual inspection sheets for
each RAS. In addition, the O&M Manual includes the survey descriptions
and drawings of the RASs attached to the environmental covenants filed
on each affected parcel.
    The final remedy requires ICs because contaminated materials remain
at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The ICs at the Site include environmental covenants and a
local excavation ordinance.
    Environmental covenants (ECs) were filed for each land parcel
wholly or partially within the footprint of each RAS. RASs include the
capped mine waste piles, drainage control features (sedimentation
ponds/constructed drainages) and access roads. Filed by the property
owner (usually a PRP), the ECs limit the type of land uses on RASs.
Uses that could compromise the integrity of the remedy are prohibited.
The ECs prohibit any disturbance or alteration of the RASs without
prior approval by EPA/UDEQ and require compliance with Eureka's
excavation ordinance. Future property owners will have to comply with
the requirements of the ECs given that the ECs run with the land.
    In October 2010, Eureka adopted a local ordinance that governs
excavation activities in areas that have been remediated but not
developed. Undeveloped areas were not remediated at the time of the RA
because of thick vegetation (and limited exposure to contaminated
soils). The 00-03 ROD determined that the most appropriate time to
remediate undeveloped areas would be during development. The ordinance
requires property owners to obtain a permit for certain excavation
activities defined as ``restricted activities.'' All contaminated
materials displaced during excavation must either be disposed at the
open cell or be capped with 18 inches of clean topsoil/road base
material or capped with a structure or paved surface (minimum 2-inch
hard cover surface). UDEQ provides technical/financial support to
Eureka for the administration and enforcement of the ordinance through
a funding agreement.

Five-Year Review

    Statutory Five-Year Reviews (FYR) of the Site are required because
hazardous substances remain on-Site above levels which allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The last FYR Report was signed
on July 17, 2018 and found that, because the remedial actions at all
OUs are protective, the remedy implemented at the Site is protective of
human health and the environment. There were no issues/recommendations.
The next five-year review is scheduled to be completed by July 2023.

Community Involvement

    Since the implementation of the final Site remedy, there has not
been any significant public/congressional interest. There have been no
expressions of health/environmental concerns with the remedy.
    Community involvement activities associated with the most recent
FYR included a public notice published in the Eureka Review Newsletter
on March 1, 2018 and stakeholder interviews to discuss the review and
address concerns or issues with the Site. The interviews were conducted
from March 1 through April 15, 2018 and included representatives from
the Eureka City Council, Eureka City Officials and surrounding property
owners.
    None of the interviewees expressed any health or environmental
concerns with the remedy and felt the remedy remains protective. The
City of Eureka expressed concerns about issues that are not remedy-
related such as problems with sewer/water lines, roads, drainage areas
and historic head frames. Property owners either approved of the
necessity of a cleanup for a healthy community or disapproved of the
rock appearance extensively used for cover of mine waste areas. The
interviewees approved of EPA's proposal and State concurrence to delete
the Site from the NPL by the end of the federal fiscal year 2018.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion

    This Site meets all the completion requirements as specified in the
OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, Close Out Procedures for National Priorities
List Sites. All remedial activities at the Site are consistent with
agency policy and guidance. The only remaining CERCLA activities to be
performed at the Site are O&M and five-year reviews. No further
Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the
environment at the Site.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Utah, has determined that all required
response actions have been implemented and no further response action
is appropriate.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: July 30, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-16772 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P