[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5946-5952]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02177]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0482; FRL-9922-06]

Flutriafol; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes, amends, and removes tolerances
for residues of flutriafol in or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this document. Cheminova A/S c/o
Cheminova, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 4, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 6, 2015, 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-2014-0482, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2014-0482 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
April 6, 2015. 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-2014-0482, 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 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 December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), 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
3F8199) by Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite
700, Arlington, VA 22209-2510. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.629 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide flutriafol, in or on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at
1.5 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A, at
1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 7.0 ppm; egg at 0.01
ppm; hog, liver at 0.05 ppm; hog, meat by products, except liver at
0.02 ppm; hog, muscle at 0.01 ppm; leaf petioles, subgroup 4B at 3.0
ppm; leafy greens, subgroup 4A except head lettuce at 10 ppm; lettuce,
head at 1.5 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; radicchio at 1.5
ppm; sorghum, grain, forage at 2.0 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 1.5
ppm and sorghum, grain, stover at 6.0 ppm. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.629 amend the current established tolerances for residues of
the fungicide flutriafol in or on cotton, gin byproducts from 0.5 ppm
to 5.0 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed from 0.35 ppm to 0.5 ppm; grain,
aspirated fractions from 2.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm. The petition also
requested that 40 CFR 180.629 delete the current established tolerances
for residues of the fungicide flutriafol in or on cotton, meal at 0.5
ppm; cotton, refined oil at 0.5 ppm; and hog, meat byproducts at 0.02
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova, Inc., the registrant, which is available
in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on
the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in
Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
issuing some tolerances that vary from what the petitioner requested.
The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

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 flutriafol including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with flutriafol 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.
    Flutriafol is categorized as having high oral acute toxicity in the
mouse. It is categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral,
dermal and inhalation routes in rats. Flutriafol is minimally
irritating to the eyes and is not a dermal irritant. Flutriafol was not
shown to be a skin sensitizer when tested in guinea pigs.
    Short-term, subchronic, and chronic toxicity studies in rats, mice,
and dogs identified the liver as the primary target organ of
flutriafol. Hepatotoxicity was first evident in the subchronic studies
(rats and dogs) in the form of increases in liver enzyme release
(alkaline phosphatase), and liver weights, and histopathology findings
ranging from hepatocyte vacuolization to centrilobular hypertrophy and
slight increases in hemosiderin-laden Kupffer cells. It is noteworthy
that with chronic exposures, there are no indications of progression of
liver toxicity in all species. After over one year of exposure,
hepatotoxicity in rats, dogs, and mice took the form of minimal to
severe fatty changes; bile duct proliferation/cholangiolar fibrosis;
hemosiderin accumulation in Kupffer cells; centrilobular hypertrophy,
and increases in alkaline phosphatase release. Slight indications of
effects in the hematopoietic system are sporadically seen in the
database. These effects are manifested in the form of slight anemia
(rats and dogs) and increased platelet, white blood cell, neutrophil,
and lymphocyte counts (mice). These effects, however, were minimal in
severity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by flutriafol as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule
published in the Federal Register of June 6, 2014 (79 FR 32666) (FRL-
9910-38) under the docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0654-0005 and EPA-
HQ-OPP-2013-0655-0008.

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 reference dose (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 flutriafol used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of June 6, 2014.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flutriafol, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing flutriafol tolerances in 40 CFR
180.629. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flutriafol 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. Such effects were identified
for flutriafol. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat In America (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to
residue levels in food, EPA made the following assumptions for the
acute exposure assessment: Tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level
residues adjusted to account for the residues of concern for risk
assessment and 100 percent crop treated (PCT). Since adequate
processing studies have been submitted which indicate that tolerances
for residues in/on apple juice, grape juice, dried prunes, and tomato
puree are unnecessary and since tolerances for residues in/on raisins
and tomato paste are established, the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
(DEEM) (ver. 7.81) default processing factors for these commodities
were reduced to 1. The DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors were
retained for the remaining relevant commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's (NHANES/
WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008 as well. As to residue levels in food,
EPA made the follow assumptions for the chronic exposure assessment:
Tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level residues adjusted to
account for the residues of concern for risk assessment and 100 PCT.
Since adequate processing studies have been submitted which indicate
that tolerances for residues in/on apple juice, grape juice, dried
prunes, and tomato puree are unnecessary and since tolerances for
residues in/on raisins and tomato paste are established, the DEEM (ver.
7.81) default processing factors for these commodities were reduced to
1. The DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors were retained for
the remaining relevant commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that flutriafol 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 PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for flutriafol. Tolerance level residues or tolerance level residues
adjusted to account for the residues of concern for risk assessment and
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for flutriafol. These simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of
flutriafol. 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 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA): First Index
Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and the Pesticide Root Zone Model/
Ground Water (PRZM/GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of flutriafol for acute exposures are estimated to be 40.55
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 310 ppb for ground water.
    For chronic exposures assessments the EDWC's are estimated to be
4.03 ppb for surface water and 202 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 310 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 202 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). Flutriafol is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    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.''
    Flutriafol is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures
for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
    Triazole-derived pesticides can form the metabolite 1,2,4-triazole
(T) and two triazole conjugates triazolylalanine (TA) and
triazolylacetic acid (TAA). To support existing tolerances and to
establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, EPA
conducted an initial human-health risk assessment for exposure to T,
TA, and TAA resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of
any triazole-derived fungicide as of September 1, 2005. The risk
assessment was a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in
terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a
maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and
non-dietary exposures (i.e., high-end estimates of both dietary and
non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional
10X Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor (SF) for the
protection of infants and children. The assessment included evaluations
of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants
and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment can be found in the
propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov,
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497 and an update to the aggregate
human health risk assessment for free triazoles and its conjugates may
be found in this current docket, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0653-
0006 entitled ``Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human
Health Risk Assessment to Address The New Section 3 Registrations For
Use of Propiconazole on Rapeseed Crop Subgroup 20 A; Use of
Difenoconazole on Rapeseed Crop Subgroup 20 A; and Use of Tebuconazole
on Imported Oranges.''

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 FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The potential impact of in
utero and perinatal flutriafol exposure was investigated in three
developmental toxicity studies (two in rats, one in rabbits) and 2
multi-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats. In the first of
two rat developmental toxicity studies, increased quantitative
susceptibility was observed with developmental effects (delayed
ossification or non-ossification of the skeleton in the fetuses) seen
at a lower dose than maternal effects. In the second rat developmental
study, a qualitative susceptibility was noted. Although developmental
toxicity occurred at the same dose level that elicited maternal
toxicity, the developmental effects (external, visceral, and skeletal
malformations; embryo lethality; skeletal variations; a generalized
delay in fetal development; and fewer live fetuses) were more severe
than the decreased food consumption and body-weight gains observed in
the dams. For rabbits, there was in increased qualitative fetal
susceptibly.

Intrauterine deaths occurred at a dose level that also caused adverse
effects in maternal animals. In the 2-generation reproduction studies,
a qualitative susceptibility was also seen. Effects in the offspring
decreased litter size and percentage of live births (increased pup
mortality) and liver toxicity can be attributed to the systemic
toxicity of the parental animals (decreased body weight and food
consumption and liver toxicity).
    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 flutriafol is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that flutriafol is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Signs of neurotoxicity
were reported in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies at the
highest dose only; however, these effects were primarily seen in
animals that were agonal (at the point of death) and, thus, are not
indicative of neurotoxicity. In addition, there was no evidence of
neurotoxicity in any additional short-term or long-term toxicity
studies in rats, mice, and dogs.
    iii. There are no concerns or residential uncertainties for
prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity. Although there is evidence for
increased quantitative and qualitative susceptibility in the prenatal
study in rats and rabbits and the 2-generation reproduction study rats,
there are no concerns for the offspring toxicity observed in the
developmental and reproductive toxicity studies for the following
reasons:
     Clear NOAELs and LOAELs were established in the fetuses/
offspring for each of these studies:
     The dose-response for these effects are well-defined and
characterized.
     Developmental endpoints are used for assessing acute
dietary risks to the most sensitive population (females 13-49 years
old) as well as all other short-and intermediate-term exposure
scenarios.
     The chronic reference dose is greater than 300-fold lower
than the dose at which the offspring effects were observed in the 2-
generation reproduction 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 ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to flutriafol in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flutriafol.

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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
flutriafol will occupy 44% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
flutriafol from food and water will utilize 74% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Because there are no residential uses for flutriafol, the
chronic aggregate risk includes food and drinking water only.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-
term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Since flutriafol is not
registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure, the short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of
the risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, flutriafol is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.'' EPA does not expect flutriafol to pose a cancer risk.
    5. 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 flutriafol residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology gas chromotography/nitrogen/
phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) for the proposed tolerances is available
to enforce the tolerances recommended herein. 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.
    There are no Codex MRLs for flutriafol in/on the proposed
commodities.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing that stated, in
part, that no residue should be allowed for flutriafol. The Agency
understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural
crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by FFDCA section
408 states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the
safety standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears
to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation
of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in
violation of the statutory framework.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Based on the analysis of available field trial data and the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance
calculation procedure, EPA established a higher tolerance for cotton,
gin byproducts than requested. For the same reason, EPA is granting a
tolerance for vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, crop group 4, except
head lettuce and radicchio and is not granting separate subgroup
tolerances for leafy greens (subgroup 4A) except head lettuce and leaf
petioles (subgroup 4B). Based on the proposed uses and the resulting
livestock dietary burdens, EPA is setting a poultry, fat tolerance and
is increasing tolerances for cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver;
sheep, liver; and milk. Based upon the previous explanation, EPA is
establishing tolerances for poultry, meat byproducts below the level
requested. Since residues in hog tissue were near the Limit of
Quantification (LOQ), EPA determined that separate tolerances in or on
hog liver and hog meat byproducts except liver were unnecessary and is
establishing a tolerance in or on hog meat byproducts only. Although
the petition requested that EPA remove a tolerance for hog meat
byproducts, no such tolerance existed before this rule, so EPA could
not remove it. A tolerance in or on hog, muscle was not established as
it was granted as part of a previous tolerance petition (PP 3F8174)
under docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0654 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0655.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flutriafol,
in or on Brassica, head and stem (subgroup 5A) at 1.5 ppm; Brassica,
leafy greens (subgroup 5B) at 7.0 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 6.0
ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.50 ppm; egg at 0.01 ppm; grain,
aspirated fractions at 6.0 ppm; hog, meat by products at 0.05 ppm;
lettuce, head at 1.5 ppm; liver (cattle, goat, horse, sheep) at 1.0
ppm; milk at 0.02 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm; radicchio at 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain forage at
2.0 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover at
6.0 ppm and vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, crop group 4, except
head lettuce and radicchio at 10 ppm.
    Also, as a housekeeping measure, this regulation removes the
entries for the tolerances contained in paragraph (b) of Sec.  180.629
as those tolerances expired on December 31, 2014.

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: January 28, 2015.
Susan T. Lewis,
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.  180.629:
0
i. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Brassica, head and stem
(subgroup 5A)''; ``Brassica, leafy greens (subgroup 5B)''; ``Cotton,
gin byproducts''; ``Cotton, undelinted seed''; ``Egg''; ``Hog, meat
byproducts''; ``Lettuce, head''; ``Poultry, fat''; ``Poultry, meat
byproducts''; ``Radicchio''; ``Sorghum, grain, forage''; ``Sorghum,
grain, grain''; ``Sorghum, grain, stover'' and ``Vegetable, leafy,
except Brassica, crop group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio'' to
the table in paragraph (a).
0
ii. Revise the entries for ``Cattle, liver''; ``Goat, liver''; ``Grain,
aspirated fractions''; ``Horse, liver''; ``Milk''; and ``Sheep, liver''
in the table in paragraph (a).
0
iii. Revise paragraph (b).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.629  Flutriafol; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Brassica, head and stem (subgroup 5A)...................            1.5
Brassica, leafy greens (subgroup 5B)....................            7.0

                                * * * * *
Cattle, liver...........................................            1.0

                                * * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................            6.0
Cotton, undelinted seed.................................            0.50

                                * * * * *
Egg.....................................................            0.01

                                * * * * *
Goat, liver.............................................            1.0

                                * * * * *
Grain, aspirated fractions..............................            6.0

                                * * * * *
Hog, meat byproducts....................................            0.05

                                * * * * *
Horse, liver............................................            1.0

                                * * * * *
Lettuce, head...........................................            1.5

                                * * * * *
Milk....................................................            0.02

                                * * * * *
Poultry, fat............................................            0.01
Poultry, meat byproducts................................            0.01
Radicchio...............................................            1.5

                                * * * * *
Sheep, liver............................................            1.0

                                * * * * *
Sorghum, grain, forage..................................            2.0
Sorghum, grain, grain...................................            1.5
Sorghum, grain, stover..................................            6.0

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, crop group 4, except            10
 head lettuce and radicchio.............................

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

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-02177 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48809-48813]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19481]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL 9846-2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
(MRSL) Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the MRSL Superfund Site
(Site), located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, from the
National Priorities List (NPL). 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).
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Department
of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However,
this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective September 26, 2013
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 11, 2013. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1990-0010, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email: Michael Torres, Remedial Project Manager:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Michael Torres; Remedial Project Manger (RPM): 214-
665-6660.
     Mail: Michael Torres, RPM, US-EPA Region 6, Mail Code 6SF-
RL, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
     Hand Delivery: Michael Torres, RPM, US-EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, 7th floor, Dallas, Texas 75202.

Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1990-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an 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 statue. 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:
    ODEQ Central Records,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 707 N. Robinson, Oklahoma City,
OK 73102, office hours: 8:00 to 4:30 Monday through Friday.
    Ralph Ellison Library,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 2000 NE. 23rd Street, Oklahoma
City, OK 73111, hours: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday,
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Torres, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 6SF-RL, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the MRSL Superfund Site (Site), from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (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 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.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 26, 2013 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by September 11, 2013. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to
comment.
    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 MRSL Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses
EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments
are received during the public comment period.

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 ODEQ, 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 is 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 of Oklahoma prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from
the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in The Daily Oklahoman. The
newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning
the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) 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.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    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 Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    The closed Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site (MRSL or
Site) is located at 3300 Mosley Road between NE 23rd and NE 36th Street
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. The MRSL site consists of
approximately 70 acres surrounded by predominantly undeveloped land
between Oklahoma City and Midwest City, Oklahoma. The East Oak
Recycling and Disposal Facility (East Oak), which is currently in
operation, is located just to the west of the Site.
    Waste management of Oklahoma (WMO) is the current owner of the
MRSL. The MRSL was originally owned by Floyd Swen, who operated the
site under the name A-1 Sanitation Company from 1971 to 1975. From 1975
through 1984, the landfill was owned and operated by Oklahoma City
Disposal Inc. (OCD), which at the time was a subsidiary of SCA
Services, Inc. Originally permitted by Oklahoma State Department of
Health (OSDH) (now Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality) as a
sanitary landfill, OCD was authorized by OSDH to accept industrial
hazardous wastes between February 20, 1976, and August 24, 1976, due to
the temporary closure of the Royal Hardage Landfill in Criner,
Oklahoma. During the six-month period, OCD reportedly accepted
approximately 1.7 million gallons of predominantly liquid hazardous
waste, which included industrial and plating sludge, caustics, acid
solutions, oil emulsions, alkaline solutions, solvents, paint sludge,
toxaphene, and trichloroethene. All of the hazardous waste was placed
in three below-grade unlined pits (referred to as the waste pits) that
are now buried beneath municipal waste. In 1984, WMO acquired the stock
of SCA Services, which thus transferred the

ownership, operation, and maintenance of the MRSL site to WMO. The
landfill reached its permitted capacity and was closed in November
1987. A compacted clay cover was installed over the landfill in 1988 in
accordance with existing regulations governing landfill closure.
    An EPA site assessment was conducted from November 1986 through
November 1990. The Site was HRS scored by EPA on February 6, 1987. The
MRSL was proposed to the NPL on June 24, 1988. On February 21, 1990,
EPA added the MRSL to the NPL (55 FR 6154) and registered the site in
the CERCLIS database as OKD980620868.
    There were no removal action activities at the site, however, EPA
enforcement activities continued in efforts to address the site's
contamination issues. WMO plans on optimizing reuse of the property by
integrating the site development plan for the East Oak Recycling and
Disposal Facility into the MRSL footprint. Integration of the active
East Oak facility with the inactive MRSL site will increase solid waste
disposal capacity for the region. WMO's planned expansion will not
interfere or compromise the Site's remedy.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The RI/FS identified primary constituents of concern (COCs) to be
vinyl chloride (VC) in the Alluvium aquifer and benzene in the Garber-
Wellington aquifer. Arsenic and barium were determined to be secondary
COCs because they represented less risk to human health and the
environment. Arsenic and barium, both of which are naturally occurring
metals, were included as COCs primarily because they were detected in
concentrations greater than Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) in ground water at the time the risk assessment
was conducted and not because they were identified as effective source
area indicators. Investigation activities began in January 1990 and the
FS was completed in August 1991. The RI and FS reports and the Proposed
Plan for the MRSL were released by EPA to the public on April 8, 1992.

Selected Remedy

    The major components of the selected remedy in the 1992 ROD include
the following: Enforcing institutional controls (ICs), such as land use
restrictions, site access restrictions, posting of signs, fencing, and
restrictions on the extraction and use of ground water from MRSL wells;
restoring ground water as a potential source of drinking water through
the process of natural attenuation; monitoring leachate migration via a
ground water monitoring program and periodic sampling; implementing a
landfill gas monitoring system (LGMS) to prevent explosion or
inhalation hazards; and repairing and improving the existing cap, and
adding a vegetative soil layer to reduce erosion and infiltration.
    The ROD identifies source control and migration management as
remedial performance objectives. Source control focuses on preventing
surface water from infiltrating the waste unit and impacting ground
water, and migration management focuses on monitoring ground water to
detect and control contaminant releases. Source control is both a
short-term and long-term protectiveness measure. Once constructed, the
clay cap provided immediate protection and when properly maintained
will continue to provide protection for the long term. Source control
is achieved via the following engineering controls, technology, and
administrative controls: Prevent direct contact with and exposure to
landfill contents through the use of the clay cap and institutional
controls such as restrictions on future property use; restrictions on
groundwater use, and restrictions and warnings in the property deed
records; control surface runoff and resulting erosion through a
continued landfill maintenance program of the clay cap, which will
result in the reduction or elimination of leachate formation within the
landfill and transport of contaminants into the ground water; prevent
inhalation of and explosion of landfill gas by implementing a landfill
gas monitoring program; and prevent human and animal exposure to and
ingestion of contaminated ground water. This will be accomplished
through long-term ground water monitoring, landfill maintenance, ICs
and, if necessary, implementation of contingency measures.
    Ground water monitoring is a long-term protectiveness remedy
component ensuring that the primary remedial measure (capping and
landfill gas management systems) are functioning as designed. The
ground water monitoring program included development of baseline values
for each monitoring constituent, and comparison of new data to baseline
or established ground water protection standards (GWPS) to identify
potential contaminant releases. Contamination migration management is
achieved by the following controls:
     Contain low-level ground water contamination within site
boundaries. The ground water remediation goals were established for
ROD-defined COCs only (i.e., benzene, vinyl chloride, barium, and
arsenic).
     Prevent contamination of the Garber-Wellington aquifer
above health-based risk levels by implementing a ground water
monitoring program of alluvial and Garber-Wellington wells. The program
includes contingencies for active remediation described in the ROD.
     Restore ground water to beneficial use.
     Prevent water infiltration through the landfill that could
increase contaminant transport into ground water.

Response Actions

    A Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) was issued by EPA and the
Remedial Design (RD) commenced on January 28, 1994. The effective date
of the UAO was February 14, 1994. An Order to Proceed was issued to WMO
on March 3, 1994, to prepare the Remedial Design Work Plan and Ground
water Monitoring Work Plan (GWMP). Deed restrictions were filed with
the Oklahoma County Clerk on April 1, 1994, and Deed Notices were filed
on May 12, 1994. In October 1994, WMO submitted the Landfill Gas
Assessment Report for the MRSL site. The Remedial Design Work Plan
Ground water Monitoring Work Plan, and the Health and Safety Plan for
the RD were submitted to EPA by WMO in November 1994. On February 25,
1995, Terracon Consultants completed the ground water monitoring well
installation and soil boring program. On August 18, 1995, WMO completed
the RD Work Plan.
    Phase I construction activities for the LGMS began on August 24,
1995, and were completed in February 1996. The MRSL Construction
Quality Assurance Plan for Phase I cap improvements was revised and
approved in August 1995. The Final Cover Quality Assurance Testing
Report was submitted to EPA on December 30, 2003. The Quality
Assurance/Quality Control documents for Phase II construction
activities of the site's gas system and final cap improvements were
submitted to EPA on July 16, 2004.

Cleanup Goals

    EPA and ODEQ conducted a pre-final inspection of the Site on August
3, 2004, which consisted of a walk-over survey including a description
and schedule for correcting or addressing minor construction contract
items by WMO and its contractors. These ``punch list'' items included
inspection of: (1) The MRSL site's vegetative cover, (2) the drainage
from the top of the landfill, (3)

indications of subsidence or minor erosion, (4) the gas collection
system and wells, and (5) adequate plugging and abandonment of a barren
well. EPA and ODEQ also reviewed QA/QC construction documents for the
ground water monitoring system and well summaries during the pre-final
inspection process to check the natural attenuation progression.
Furthermore, a review of implemented ICs shows that the deed
restrictions and notices have been successful in providing human health
and environmental protection at the Site. On September 8, 2004, EPA
issued the Preliminary Close Out Report, which documents that EPA
completed all construction activities for the remedial action at the
Site in accordance with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities
List Sites (EPA OSWER Directive 9320.22 May 2011).

Operation and Maintenance

    A modified GWMP was developed by WMO for the MRSL to provide a
transitional plan to ensure that the long-term protectiveness goals are
achieved. The GWMP was approved by the ODEQ in April 2010 and endorsed
by EPA in April 2011 to facilitate transition of the MRSL site to ODEQ
under the East Oak Recycling and Disposal Facility solid waste permit
(3555036). With the approval by both agencies, ground water
monitoring will continue through the operating and post-closure care
periods of the active East Oak Recycling and Disposal Facility using
sampling programs and statistical evaluation methods to ensure the
underlying Garber-Wellington Aquifer is not adversely impacted at
concentrations greater than ARARs. The ground water monitoring data
will be submitted for primacy review to ODEQ and included in five-year
review reports. The MRSL Interim Operation and Maintenance Plan (OMP)
was reorganized in a report dated April 2010. The OMP was subsequently
approved by the ODEQ in a letter dated May 6, 2010. The OMP outlines
protocols for maintenance inspection and monitoring of the cover,
stormwater conveyance, and landfill gas system. As per ODEQ and EPA
requests, the OMP now includes addition of a maintenance log reporting
requirement to be housed at the active East Oak Recycling and Disposal
Facility for review and inspection as needed.
    All administrative requirements have been implemented at the MRSL
Superfund Site. A deed notice identifying restrictions was filed with
the Oklahoma County Clerk, and recorded in Book 2202, pages 0068
through 0070, on May 12, 1994. A Covenant was filed with the Oklahoma
County Clerk and recorded in Book 6583, pages 1972 through 1974, on
April 1, 1994. The deed restrictions include the following requirements
and information: Land use restrictions; access restrictions, posting of
signs, restrictions to groundwater use, remedial activities at the
facility, hazardous substances at the site, and warning of activities
that could result in exposure.

Five-Year Review

    Three five-year reviews have been conducted at the MRSL site, the
first in 2000, the second in 2005, and the third completed in 2009. The
implemented action taken at the Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund
Site was found to be protective of human health and the environment in
the short-term. However, a third five-year review addendum was
performed and completed in July 2010. The Third Five-Year Review Report
First Addendum for the Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site
protectiveness determination follows: Because the deficiencies
identified in the September 2009 five-year review have been adequately
addressed by the Responsible Party, EPA has now determined that the
remedy implemented to date at the Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Superfund Site is protective of human health and the environment in the
long term. Current monitoring data indicate that the remedy is
functioning as required to achieve ground water cleanup goals through
monitored natural attenuation and the LGMS. Because the actions
currently implemented at the MRSL site prevent exposure to residual
Site contamination, the remedy is considered protective of human health
and the environment in the long-term and will remain so as long as the
remedy is properly maintained. Restrictions to access, signage,
restrictions to ground water use, remedial activities, declaration of
hazardous substances at the Site, and warning of activities that could
result in exposure are institutional controls that are permanently in
place to limit use of the site. These institutional controls are
considered protective of human health and the environment. The next
Five Year Review will be performed in 2015 and every five years in
perpetuity or until on-site wastes that do not allow unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure are removed from the MRSL Superfund Site.

Community Involvement

    A public availability session was conducted by the EPA, ODEQ, and
WMO in April 1992 to discuss with the community the proposed plan for
the remedy. Public comments were received and addressed in the
Responsive Summary portions of the June 1992 ROD. A public notice
announcing initiation of the most recent or third five-year review was
published in The Daily Oklahoman on June 27, 2009. EPA will accept
public comments on the proposal to delete the Site for thirty (30) days
after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    WMO has implemented all appropriate response action required. EPA
Region 6 issued a ROD which documented the remedial action activities,
and all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented as
documented in the Final Close-Out Report dated May 15, 2013. A notice
has been published in the local newspaper and has been distributed to
appropriate Federal, State, and local officials and other interested
parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day public comment period
on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete. All relevant documents have been
made available for public review in the local Site information
repository.
    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 Oklahoma, has determined that all
appropriate response action under CERCLA has been implemented, and no
further action by the PRP is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Oklahoma through the
ODEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA
have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 26, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
September 11, 2013. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

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.

    Dated: August 1, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Mosley Road
Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site'', ``Oklahoma City''.

[FR Doc. 2013-19481 Filed 8-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49088-49089]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee
(SOCAC) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the SOCAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 22, 2021, from 1:00 p.m.
to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
    Requests to attend the meeting must be received by September 13,
2021.

    Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by
September 13, 2021.
    Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the
meeting must be received no later than September 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public
who wish to observe the meeting must RSVP by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information on the committee and copies of the meeting
minutes will be available on the FAA Committee website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natalie Mitchell-Funderburk, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
committee-related request should be sent to the person listed in this
section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The SOCAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), in accordance with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public
Law 115-254, to provide advice to the Secretary on policy-level issues
facing the aviation community that are related to FAA safety oversight
and certification programs and activities.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
     Review and Acceptance of March 29, 2021, Meeting Minutes.
     Subcommittee Report.
     FAA Updates.
    Additional information will be posted on the committee's website
listed in the ADDRESSES section at least one week in advance of the
meeting.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first
served basis, as space is limited. Please confirm your attendance with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Please provide the following information: Full legal name, country of
citizenship, and name of your industry association or applicable
affiliation. The FAA will email registrants the meeting access
information in a timely manner prior to the meeting.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign
language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to
time constraints. Any member of the public may present a written
statement to the committee at any time by providing a copy to the
Designated Federal Officer via the email listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Timothy R. Adams,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-18792 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56902-56903]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22640]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67815; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Delete Non-Operable Text Within Its Price List Applicable to
Supplemental Liquidity Providers (``SLPs'')

September 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 5, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete non-operable text within its Price
List applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers (``SLPs''). The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to delete non-operable text within its
Price List applicable to SLPs.
    On August 28, 2012, the Exchange filed a rule proposal to (i) amend
NYSE Rule 107B to change the existing SLP monthly volume requirement in
all assigned SLP securities from an average daily volume (``ADV'') of
more than 10 million shares to an ADV that is a specified percentage of
consolidated ADV (``CADV'') in all NYSE-listed securities (``NYSE
CADV'') and (ii) amend the Exchange's Price List to specify the
applicable percentage of NYSE CADV for the monthly volume requirement.
In particular, the Exchange deleted from the Price List the requirement
that SLPs add liquidity of an ADV of more than 10 million shares, and
replaced it with a requirement that SLPs add liquidity in all assigned
SLP securities of an ADV of more than 0.22% of NYSE CADV. These rule
changes became operative on September 1, 2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67759 (Aug. 30,
2012) 77 FR 54939 (Sep. 6, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes this rule filing to delete text that was
inadvertently kept in the Price List that states that the monthly
volume requirement is based on adding liquidity of an ADV of more than
10 million shares. In particular, the Exchange proposes to delete the
following text from the Price List: ``of an ADV of more than 10 million
shares.'' As a result of this proposed change, the Price List will now
accurately reflect that the monthly volume requirement to receive the
credit per share--per transaction--for SLPs, both for securities with a
per share price of $1.00 or more and for securities with a per share
price of less than $1.00, is to add liquidity in all assigned SLP
securities of an ADV of more than 0.22% of NYSE CADV. The Exchange
further proposes to amend footnote 8 to the Price List to conform to
the changes that are operative relating to how the monthly volume
requirement is calculated.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act,\5\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the rule proposal meets these
requirements because it provides transparency in the Price List by
deleting text that is no longer operable and assures that the Price
List accurately reflects how the credits per transaction are calculated
for the monthly volume requirement, as amended, by deleting the text
that is no longer operable and revising footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-NYSE-2012-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-46. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-46 and should be
submitted on or before October 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22640 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 21, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN - DOCKET OST-1998-3419

-_______________________________________________________________________

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

Application of   American Airlines, Inc.  filed  1/6/2005 for:

XX  Allocation of one additional weekly U.S.-Japan combination frequency
to provide scheduled service between Dallas/Ft. Worth and Tokyo, Japan.
 American will use this award to increase its service in this market
from 13 weekly frequencies to 14 weekly frequencies.

.

Applicant rep:  Carl B. Nelson<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Gerald
Caolo<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O SI T I O N

XX  Granted  (subject to conditions, see below)

The frequency allocation was granted:  January 21, 2005, and will remain
in effect indefinitely, provided that American continues to hold the
necessary underlying authority to serve the Dallas/Ft. Worth-Tokyo
market.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the Air Transport Services
Agreement and the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between the United
States and Japan.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  	XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

___________________________________________

Conditions:  Consistent with our standard practice, the frequency
allocation granted is subject to the condition that if the frequency is
not used for a period of 90 days, the allocation will expire
automatically and the frequency will revert to the Department for
reallocation.  The 90-day dormancy period will begin on May 10, 2005,
the date American proposes to inaugurate operation with this frequency.

Remarks:  We acted on these applications without awaiting expiration of
the 15-day answer period with the consent of all parties served.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

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

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

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

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

 American holds certificate authority to serve the Dallas/Ft.
Worth-Tokyo market.  See Order 2001-12-8, October 10, 2001, Docket
OST-96-1393.

 PAGE   3

 PAGE   2