        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket No. 18-89; DA 20-406; FRS 16678]
        National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on how the recently enacted Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act), signed into law on March 12, 2020, applies to proposals under consideration in the Commission's Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain rulemaking and related proceedings.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before May 20, 2020 and reply comments are due on or before June 4, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed as soon as possible.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties are invited to file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

           Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

           Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by commercial courier or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Filings will not be accepted via hand or messenger delivery.
           Commercial deliveries (not including those sent using the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
           U.S. Postal Service First-Class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

            People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice, 202-418-0432 (tty).

            Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenters written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml., .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brian Cruikshank, Wireline Competition Bureau, brian.cruikshank@fcc.gov, 202-418-7400 or TTY: 202-418-0484.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice in WC Docket No. 18-89, DA 20-406, released April 13, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission's headquarters will be closed to the general public until further notice. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-406A1.pdf.

        Synopsis
        I. Introduction
        1. On November 26, 2019, the Commission adopted the Protecting National Security Through FCC Programs Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order (R&O, FNPRM, or Information Collection Order), FCC 19-121, which, in part, prohibits the use of Universal Service Fund (USF) support to purchase equipment or services from any company identified as posing a national security risk to communications networks or the communications supply chain.
        2. In the R&O, the Commission also initially designated Huawei Technologies Company (Huawei) and ZTE Corporation (ZTE), and their subsidiaries, parents, or affiliates, as companies that may pose such a risk to the communications networks and supply chain, and established a process for future designations of other companies posing such a risk.
        3. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a reimbursement program proposal that would reimburse eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) receiving USF support for the cost to remove and replace communications equipment and services from finally designated companies in their networks.
        4. Finally, in the Information Collection Order, the Commission required ETCs, and their subsidiaries or affiliates, to report whether they had Huawei or ZTE equipment or services in their networks and to estimate the cost to replace such equipment.
        II. Discussion
        5. Reimbursement Program. Section 4 of the Secure Networks Act is largely consistent with the Commission's proposals in the FNPRM, which proposed a reimbursement program for ETCs to replace potentially prohibited equipment and services. Section 4 directs the Commission to establish a reimbursement program for “providers of advanced communications service” to replace covered communications equipment or services. The legislation, inter alia, limits program eligibility to providers with two million or fewer customers and restricts funding to the permanent replacement of covered equipment and services obtained before August 14, 2018 so long as the equipment and services replaced are identified as “covered” on the initial list issued by the Commission pursuant to Section 2 of the Secure Networks Act. If equipment or services are subsequently added to the initial list, then providers may use the funds to replace equipment and services obtained no more than 60 days after the date the equipment or services were added to the list. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should modify the reimbursement program proposed in the FNPRM to implement these new statutory requirements. Commenters should also specifically address how the Commission should interpret “providers of advanced communications service.”

        6. The Secure Networks Act directs the Commission on how to structure the reimbursement program's application filing and review process and describes a process that largely resembles the application process proposed in the FNPRM. Specifically, under the statute, the Commission must: (1) Require applicants to provide initial reimbursement cost estimates; (2) act on applications within 90 days of submission unless a 45 day extension is warranted; (3) provide applicants an opportunity to cure a deficiency; (4) require certifications as to the applicant's plan and timeline; and (5) “make reasonable efforts to ensure that reimbursement funds are distributed equitably among all applicants.” The Commission seeks comment on any modifications the Commission should apply to the process proposed in the FNPRM, if any, to implement these requirements.
        7. The statute also requires program recipients to complete the “removal, replacement, and disposal of any covered communications equipment or services” within one year after the Commission distributes reimbursement funds to the recipient. The Commission can, however, grant a six month general extension of time to all recipients and individual extensions for up to six months “if the Commission finds that, due to no fault of such recipient, such recipient is unable to complete the permanent removal, replacement, and disposal.” What challenges, if any, will carriers face in replacing equipment and services in the timeframes required by the Secure Networks Act? Is the Commission able to grant both general and individual extensions under the statute or does the grant of a general extension prohibit us from granting additional individual extensions? Can the Commission grant multiple extensions to an individual recipient if the circumstances warrant such action? Separately, if the Commission proceeds with having a reimbursement process similar to the one used in the broadcast incentive auction proceeding, how would the deadline for completing the removal and replacement process be structured if the Commission uses initial disbursement allocations based on cost estimates before actually issuing support payments as expenses are incurred?

        8. The statute requires the Commission to include disposal requirements for covered equipment that “prevent such equipment or services” from being used in other providers' networks. The Secure Networks Act mandates that reimbursement recipients provide regular status updates to the Commission and that these status updates be posted on the Commission's website. The statute further requires that the Commission take “all necessary steps” to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, including by conducting audits and random field investigations of recipients and by requiring recipients to provide regular reports on how they have spent reimbursement funds. The Commission seeks comment on these provisions and the extent of the changes needed, if any, to the proposals in the FNPRM to implement the legislation.

        9. The reimbursement program created by the Secure Networks Act appears to require an express appropriation from Congress. The Secure Networks Act, however, does not provide funding for the reimbursement program and states that the program must be “separate from any Federal universal service program established under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.” The Commission seeks comment on our reading of these provisions.
        10. List of Suggested Replacements. Section 4(d)(1) of the Secure Networks Act directs the Commission to “develop a list of suggested replacements of both physical and virtual communications equipment, applications and management software, and services or categories of replacements of both physical and virtual communications equipment, applications and management software, and services.” The list must be “technology neutral and may not advantage the use of reimbursement funds for capital expenditures over operational expenditures, to the extent that the Commission determines that communications services can serve as an adequate substitute for the installation of communications equipment.”
        11. How should the Commission develop a list of suggested replacement communications equipment and services? What are possible sources of this information? How often should the Commission update the list? What is the most efficient method of seeking public input on appropriate equipment and services for the list? Can the list simply include all equipment and services from certain companies, or must it include the precise names of the equipment and services from those companies that are eligible for reimbursement? Should the list include suppliers of virtual network equipment and services?

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Daniel Kahn,
          Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2020-08822 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-98-4511; Notice 1]
        RIN 2127-AD50
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lift Systems for Accessible Motor Vehicles Platform Lift Installations on Motor Vehicles

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); correction.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues, you may call Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-1833.
          For legal issues, you may call Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
          You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This document corrects the supplemental notice proposing to establish two new safety standards: an equipment standard specifying requirements for platform lifts; and a vehicle standard for all vehicles equipped with such lifts. A correction notice is necessary because the SNPRM, as published, misidentified three references to figures and failed to include one figure. Additionally, the SNPRM incorrectly referred to a section of the proposed regulatory text that does not exist.
        Therefore, the SNPRM (65 FR 46228, July 27, 2000) is corrected as follows:
        1. On page 46234 in the second column, in line 5, the reference to figure 3 should be to figure 2. There is no figure 3.
        2. On page 46249 in the third column, S5.1.2.4 references a figure 3. The correct reference is to figure 2.
        3. On page 46250 in the first column, S5.2.4 refers to S5.1.4. There is no S5.1.4 and the reference should be deleted. On the same page in the second column, S5.4.2.2 references figure 2. The correct reference is to figure 1.
        4. On page 46257, figure 2 is missing. Figure 2 is provided in this correction notice.

          Issued on: July 27, 2000.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Performance Safety Standards.

        BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

          EP04AU00.002

      [FR Doc. 00-19483 Filed 8-3-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-C


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 258
        [EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0568; FRL-10007-02-Region 9]
        Tentative Determination To Approve Site Specific Flexibility for the Cocopah Landfill

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a tentative determination to approve two Site Specific Flexibility Requests (SSFRs) from Cocopah Landfill, Inc. (CLI), a Republic Services (Republic) company, to close and monitor the Cocopah Landfill. The Cocopah Landfill is located within Indian Country on the Cocopah Indian Reservation near Somerton, Arizona and was operated by Republic and its predecessors from the 1960's to the present. Republic is seeking approval from EPA for an alternative final cover and an alternative location for the storage of facility records. EPA is now seeking public comment on EPA's tentative determination to approve the SSFRs. EPA will consider timely comments before making a final determination.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2020. If sufficient public interest is expressed by May 26, 2020, EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on June 8, 2020 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If by May 26, 2020 EPA does not receive information indicating sufficient public interest for a public hearing, EPA will cancel the public hearing and provide notice of the cancelled public hearing on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0568. If there is sufficient public interest for a public meeting EPA will announce further details on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0568 in advance of the hearing. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Steve Wall at (415) 972-3381 to verify that a hearing will be held.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2018-0568 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to R9LandSubmit@epa.gov. Due to COVID-19, we are not providing facsimile or regular mail options, because those are not viable at this time. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Wall, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3381, wall.steve@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. Legal Authority for This Proposal
          II. Background
          III. Basis for Proposal
          A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR: Alternative Final Cover System
          B. Records Storage SSFR: Alternative Location for the Storage of Facility Records
          IV. Additional Findings

        I. Legal Authority for This Proposal

        Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Congress required EPA to establish revised minimum federal criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs), including landfill location restrictions, operating standards, design standards, and requirements for ground water monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, and financial assurance. Under RCRA section 4005, states are to develop permit programs for facilities that may receive household hazardous waste or waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste, and EPA is to determine whether the state's program is adequate to ensure that facilities will comply with the revised federal criteria.
        The MSWLF criteria are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 258. These regulations are prescriptive, self-implementing and apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs. Many of these criteria include a flexible performance standard as an alternative to the prescriptive, self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard is not self-implementing and requires approval by the Director of an EPA-approved state MSWLF permitting program.

        However, EPA's approval of a state program generally does not extend to Indian Country because states generally do not have authority over Indian Country. For this reason, owners and operators of MSWLF units located in Indian Country cannot take advantage of the flexibilities available to those facilities that are within the jurisdiction of an EPA-approved state program. However, the EPA has the authority under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules to enable such owners and operators to use the flexible standards. See Yankton Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1996). EPA refers to such rules as “Site Specific Flexibility Determinations” and has developed draft guidance for owners and operators on preparing a request for such a site-specific rule, entitled “Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country Draft Guidance,” EPA530-R-97-016 (August 1997) (Draft Guidance).
        II. Background
        The Cocopah Landfill is located on the Cocopah Indian Reservation on property owned by the Cocopah Indian Tribe (Tribe) and is located near Somerton, Arizona. The Cocopah Landfill is a commercial MSWLF operated by Republic and its predecessors from the 1960's to the present. Waste was last received at the Site on June 30, 2000 and interim closure construction was completed in 2003 with an interim 3-foot-thick monolithic soil cover. The Cocopah Landfill property encompasses an area of 192 acres of which approximately 138 acres were used for placement of waste materials. Disposal operations were restricted to two separate units of 105 acres and 33 acres each, designated as the North Fill Area and the South Fill Area, respectively. A combined total of approximately 2.5 million tons of waste are known to have been deposited in the two disposal units.
        Between 2010 and 2016, EPA worked with the Tribe and Republic to develop and reach agreement on an overall landfill closure plan. During this time, EPA also reviewed the SSFRs to determine whether they met technical and regulatory requirements. On September 5, 2017, the Tribe submitted Republic's “Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan and Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for the Cocopah Landfill” (Final Closure Plan) to EPA, requesting that EPA take appropriate action to ensure that the Final Closure Plan and accompanying SSFRs satisfy U.S. EPA's requirements. EPA provided final comments on the Plan on April 26, 2019, which Republic addressed in an updated Final Closure Plan dated November 2019. The Final Closure Plan submitted to EPA includes two SSFRs. The requests seek EPA approval to use an alternative final cover meeting the performance requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(a), and approval to use an alternative location for the storage of facility records pursuant to 40 CFR 258.29(a).
        III. Basis for Proposal
        EPA is basing its tentative determination to approve the SSFRs on the Tribe's concurrence, dated September 5, 2017, on the SSFRs as included in the Closure Plan, as well as EPA's determination that the SSFRs meet the requirements in 40 CFR part 258, and on EPA's independent review of the Final Closure Plan.
        A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR: Alternative Final Cover System

        The regulations require the installation of a final cover system specified in 40 CFR 258.60(a), which consists of an infiltration layer with a minimum of 18 inches of compacted clay with a permeability of 1 × 10−5 cm/sec, covered by an erosion layer with a minimum six inches of topsoil. Republic seeks approval for an alternative final cover designed to satisfy the performance criteria specified in 40 CFR 258.60(b); Republic proposes an alternative cover, called an evapotranspiration cover, which would consist of two and a half feet of native soil to control infiltration covered by six inches of a soil gravel mixture to control erosion.
        EPA is basing its tentative determination on a number of factors, including: (1) Research showing that the prescriptive, self-implementing requirements for final covers, comprised of low permeability compacted clay, do not perform well in the arid west. The clay dries out and cracks, which allows increased infiltration along the cracks; (2) Research showing that in arid environments thick soil covers comprised of native soil can perform as well or better than the prescriptive cover; and (3) Republic's analysis demonstrating, based on site-specific climatic conditions and soil properties, that the proposed alternative soil final cover will achieve equivalent reduction in infiltration as the prescriptive cover design and that the proposed erosion layer provides equivalent protection from wind and water erosion. This analysis is provided in Appendix A, B, C and M of the Final Closure Plan for the Cocopah Landfill dated November 2019.
        B. Records Storage SSFR: Alternative Location for the Storage of Facility Records
        The regulations at 40 CFR 258.29(a) require that the owner or operator of a MSWLF unit must record and retain operating records at or near the facility or at an approved alternative location. Republic does not have administrative facilities at the Cocopah Landfill where records can be maintained. As a result, Republic requested approval to store all required documentation relating to the operating record of the Cocopah Landfill at the Copper Mountain Landfill (CML), which is Republic's closest operating facility to the Cocopah Landfill. The address of Copper Mountain Landfill is 34853 East County 12th Street, Wellton, Arizona 85356, which is 36 miles from the Cocopah Landfill.
        EPA is basing its tentative determination on factors including: (1) The Cocopah Landfill is no longer operational, and Republic does not have administrative facilities there; and (2) Republic's proposed alternative records storage location, the Copper Mountain Landfill, is only 36 miles away.
        IV. Additional Findings

        In order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq., Republic will coordinate with the Tribe to arrange for a qualified Native American monitor to be present during any work. If buried or previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during project activities, all work within the vicinity of the find will cease, and the provisions pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b) will be implemented. If, during the Landfill closure activities, previously undocumented archaeological material or human remains are encountered, all work shall cease in the immediate area and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find and recommend further management actions.
        Though no known threatened or endangered species or their habitat exist on the site, a preconstruction survey will be conducted prior to cover installation to ensure no threatened or endangered species are present. Following closure and vegetation restoration activities, the Site may become suitable for threatened and endangered species. This would be a beneficial effect.
        Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

        This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only.

        Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in Section 203 of UMRA.
        Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
        This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is EPA's conservative analysis of the potential risks posed by Republic's proposal and the controls and standards set forth in the application.
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        As required by section three of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), calls for EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” See also “EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations,” (November 8, 1984) and “EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes,” (May 4, 2011). EPA consulted with the Tribe throughout Republic's development of its Final Closure Plan for the Cocopah Landfill. EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on this tentative determination from officials of the Tribe.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
          Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Final cover, Post-closure care, Groundwater monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

          Dated: April 23, 2020.
          Jeffrey Scott
          Director,Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division,Region IX.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258, is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

        1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).

          Subpart F—Closure and Post-Closure Care

        2. Section 258.62 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

          § 258.62
          Approval of Site-specific flexibility requests in Indian Country.

          (d) Cocopah Municipal Solid Waste Landfill—Alternative final cover and alternative location for the storage of facility records. This paragraph (d) applies to the Cocopah Landfill, a Municipal Solid Waste landfill operated by Republic on the Cocopah Indian Reservation near Somerton, Arizona.
          (1) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.60(b), the owner or operator may replace the prescriptive final cover set forth in 40 CFR 258.60(a), with an alternative final cover as follows:
          (i) The owner or operator may install an evapotranspiration cover system as an alternative final cover for the 135-acre site.
          (ii) The alternative final cover system shall be constructed to achieve an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in § 258.60(a)(1) and (2) and provide an equivalent protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer specified in § 258.60(a)(3). Top-deck cover slopes shall have a minimum slope of 2%. All side slopes in the South Fill Area shall be regraded to a maximum 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V). The existing side slope of 2.5H:1V in the North Fill Area will remain; however, drainage benches shall be installed on portions of the slope where the vertical height exceeds 50 feet.
          (iii) The final cover system shall consist of a minimum three-feet-thick multi-layer cover system comprised, from bottom to top, of:
          (A) A minimum 30-inch thick infiltration layer consisting of:
          (1) Existing intermediate cover; and
          (2) Additional cover soil from on-site sources, which, prior to placement, shall be wetted to optimal moisture and thoroughly mixed to near uniform condition, and the material shall then be placed in lifts with an uncompacted thickness of six to eight inches, spread evenly and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density, and shall:
          (i) Exhibit a grain size distribution that excludes particles in excess of three inches in diameter;
          (ii) Have a minimum fines content (percent by weight passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve) of 12 percent for the average of ten consecutive tests; and
          (iii) Have a grain size distribution with a minimum of six percent finer than five microns for the average of ten consecutive tests; and
          (B) A surface erosion layer comprised of a rock/soil admixture for top deck slopes and rock armoring for side slopes. The surface erosion layer requirements for top-deck slopes and side slopes are detailed below:
          (1) Top deck slope surface erosion layer requirements: The top deck slope surface erosion layer shall be a minimum six-inch surface erosion layer comprised of a rock/soil admixture. The top deck surface erosion layer shall achieve the following gradation specification:
          (i) Exclude particles in excess of three inches in diameter;
          (ii) 40% to 75% passing No. 4 sieve
          (iii) 10% to 50% passing No. 40 sieve
          (iv) Less than or equal to 15% passing No. 200 sieve
          (2) Side slope surface erosion layer: The side slope surfaces erosion layer shall consist of a 4-inch thick rock armor underlain by an 8 ounce per square yard (oz/sy) non-woven geotextile filter fabric. The side slope surface erosion rock armor layer shall achieve the following gradation specification:
          (i) Exclude particles in excess of three inches in diameter;
          (ii) 10% to 40% passing No. 4 sieve
          (iii) 0% to 10% passing No. 40 sieve

          (2) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.29(a), the owner operator may retain all required documentation relating to the operating record of the Cocopah Landfill at the administrative offices of Copper Mountain Landfill. The address of Copper Mountain Landfill is 34853 East County 12th Street, Wellton, Arizona 85356.
          (3) The owner or operator shall place documentation demonstrating compliance with the provisions of this Section in the operating record.
          (4) All other applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 258 remain in effect.

      [FR Doc. 2020-09241 Filed 5-7-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 21-185; RM-11906; DA 21-475; FR ID 24742]
        Television Broadcasting Services Butte, Montana

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Sinclair Media Licensee, LLC (Petitioner), the licensee of KTVM-TV (NBC), channel 6, Butte, Montana. The Petitioner requests the substitution of channel 20 for channel 6 at Butte, Montana in the DTV Table of Allotments.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before June 9, 2021 and reply comments on or before June 24, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for the Petitioner as follows: Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter, PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647; or Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In support of its channel substitution request, the Petitioner states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers. Petitioner further states that KTVM-TV has received numerous complaints from viewers unable to receive that Station's over-the-air signal, despite being able to receive signals from other stations, and that its channel substitution proposal will result in more effective building penetration for indoor antenna reception. In addition, the Petitioner states that while the proposed channel 20 facility's noise limited contour does not completely encompass the relevant channel 6 noise limited contour, KTVM-TV is an NBC affiliate and there are two other NBC affiliated stations that serve some of the portions of the loss area. The Petitioner also submitted an analysis, using the Commission's TVStudy software analysis program, demonstrating that after taking into account service provided by the other NBC stations, all of the population located within KTVM-TV's original post-transition channel 6 noise limited contour will continue to receive NBC service, except for 66 people. The Bureau used the technical parameters of KTVM-TV's original post-transition digital channel 6 facility (File Nos. BPCDT-20080314ADF and BLCDT-20090622ADT) in determining any predicted loss which may occur from the proposed channel substitution.
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-185; RM-11906; DA 21-475, adopted April 26, 2021, and released April 26, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

        This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.
        Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
        See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rule
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICE

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.

          § 73.622
          [Amended]

        2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i), amend the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Montana by revising the entry for Butte to read as follows:

          § 73.622
          Digital television table of allotments.

          (i) * * *

              Community
              Channel No.

              *    *    *    *    *

                Montana

              *    *    *    *    *

              Butte
              5, 19, 20, 24

              *    *    *    *    *

      [FR Doc. 2021-09694 Filed 5-7-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 170330338-7470-01]
        RIN 0648-XF335
        Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017-18 Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to specify an annual catch limit (ACL) of 306,000 lb for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2017-18 fishing year, which will begin on September 1, 2017, and end on August 31, 2018. If NMFS projects that the fishery will reach the ACL, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year as an accountability measure (AM). The proposed ACL and AM support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by June 9, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed 2017-18 ACL, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0033, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0033, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          NMFS prepared an environmental analysis that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed specification. The environmental analysis and other supporting documents are available at www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage the bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP), as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu (Hyporthodus quernus). The regulations at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, part 665 (50 CFR 665.4) requires NMFS to specify an ACL for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish each fishing year, based on a recommendation from the Council.

        NMFS proposes to specify an ACL of 306,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for the 2017-18 fishing year. The Council recommended the proposed ACL, based on a 2011 bottomfish stock assessment updated in 2015 with three additional years of data, and taking into consideration the risk of overfishing, past fishery performance, the acceptable biological catch recommendation from its Scientific and Statistical Committee, and input from the public. This update to the 2011 NMFS bottomfish stock assessment estimated the overfishing limit for the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish stock complex to be 352,000 lb, which is 31,000 lb less than the estimated overfishing limit in the 2011 stock assessment. Based on this update, the Council recommended a three-year phased reduction of the ACL. NMFS prepared an environmental assessment, dated March 17, 2016 (available at www.regulations.gov), of the Council's three-year phased reduction of the ACL (entitled “Specification of Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish Fisheries in Fishing Years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18”). The proposed ACL of 306,000 lb for 2017-18 is the third annual reduction in this phased approach, and is 12,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS specified last year (82 FR 5429, January 18, 2017).
        The ACL is associated with a 39-percent probability of overfishing, and is more conservative than the 50-percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS monitors Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If NMFS projects the fishery will reach this limit, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year, as an accountability measure (AM). As an additional AM, in the event that NMFS and the Council determine that the final 2017-18 Deep 7 bottomfish catch exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the Deep 7 bottomfish ACL for the 2018-19 fishing year by the amount of the overage.
        The fishery has not caught the specified limit in any year since 2011. NMFS does not expect the proposed ACL and AM specifications for 2017-18 to result in a change in fishing operations, or other changes to the conduct of the fishery that would result in significant environmental impacts. After considering public comments on the proposed ACL and AMs, NMFS will publish the final specifications.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the Hawaii FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to these proposed specifications.

        NMFS proposes to specify an ACL of 306,000 lb for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, as recommended by the Council, for the 2017-18 fishing year, which will begin on September 1, 2017, and end on August 31, 2018. NMFS monitors MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If NMFS projects that the fishery will reach this limit, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year as an AM. The proposed ACL is 12,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS implemented for the 2016-17 fishing year, 20,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS implemented for the 2015-16 fishing year, and 40,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS implemented in each of the four fishing years, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The AM would remain the same. Over the past five fishing seasons, the highest reported annual landings, 309,485 lb, occurred during the 2013-14 fishing year. NMFS does not expect that the fishery would reach the limit during the 2017-18 fishing year. Additionally, the proposed AM would allow NMFS to close the fishery to prevent the fishery from exceeding the proposed ACL. NMFS is preparing a new stock assessment that would account for fishery performance in previous years, which NMFS and the Council would consider in recommending an ACL for fishing year 2018-2019.
        This rule would affect commercial and non-commercial fishermen who catch MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. Specifically, during the 2015-16 fishing year, 368 fishermen reported landing 259,530 lb of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. With regard to the 2016-17 fishing year, which is currently underway, as of March 28, 2017, 302 fishermen have caught 180,951 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish, which represents 57% of the 2016-17 ACL for Deep 7 bottomfish. For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million or all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all affected entities—vessels in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish—are small entities under the NMFS standard, as they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.
        As for revenues earned by fishermen from MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, State of Hawaii records report that 328 of the 368 fishermen sold their MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catch during the 2015-16 fishing year. These 328 individuals sold a combined total of 240,183 lb (92.5 percent of reported catch) at a value of $1,716,313. Based on these revenues, the average price for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in 2015-16 was approximately $7.15/lb. NMFS assumed that either the remaining 40 commercial fishermen sold no Deep 7 bottomfish, or the State of Hawaii reporting program did not capture their sales. With regard to the 2016-17 fishing year currently underway, as of March 28, 2016, revenues from sales of Deep 7 bottomfish totaled $1,138,531 from 147,274 lb sold, yielding an average price of $7.73 per lb.
        Assuming the fishery attains the ACL of 306,000 in 2017-18, and using the 2015-16 average price of $7.15/lb, NMFS expects the potential fleet wide revenue during 2017-18 to be $2,187,900 (or approximately $2,023,808 under the assumption that 92.5 percent of catch is sold). If Deep 7 bottomfish catch reached the ACL during the 2017-18 fishing year and all catch were to be sold by the same number of fishermen with sales during 2015-16, each of these 328 commercial fishermen could potentially earn on average $6,671 from the sale of 933 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish. If the fishery reaches the ACL, with 92.5 percent of all Deep 7 bottomfish catch to be sold, then these 328 commercial fishermen would sell an average of 863 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish valued at about $6,171, which is well below the $11 million threshold.
        In general, the relative importance of MHI bottomfish to commercial participants as a percentage of overall fishing or household income is unknown, as the total suite of fishing and other income-generating activities by individual operations across the year has not been examined.

        Even though this proposed specification would apply to a substantial number of vessels, i.e., 100 percent of the bottomfish fleet, as NMFS does not expect this rule to have a significantly adverse economic impact on individual vessels. Landings information from the past five fishing years suggest that Deep 7 bottomfish landings are not likely to exceed the ACL proposed for 2017-18. Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: May 19, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-10704 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0418; FRL-9970-24]
        RIN 2070-ZA16
        Fenoxaprop-ethyl, Flufenpyr-ethyl, Imazapyr, Maleic hydrazide, Pyrazon, Quinclorac, Triflumizole, et al.; Proposed Tolerance and Tolerance Exemption Actions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for fenoxaprop-ethyl, flufenpyr-ethyl, maleic hydrazide, pyrazon, and quinclorac in follow up to canceled products or where a commodity is no longer a significant livestock feed item or a tolerance is no longer needed. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish exemptions from certain tolerances for maleic hydrazide and to modify certain tolerances for quinclorac and imazapyr. In accordance with current Agency practice, EPA also is proposing to update the nomenclature for certain tolerances for fenoxaprop-ethyl and triflumizole, to remove expired tolerances for certain pesticide active ingredients, and to conform with rounding class practices for certain existing tolerances of specific pesticide active ingredients.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 5, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0418, 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.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Christina Scheltema, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-2201; email address: scheltema.christina@epa.gov.

        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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

        C. What can I do if I wish the Agency to maintain a tolerance that the Agency proposes to revoke?

        This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(f), if needed. The order would specify data needed and the timeframes for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA.
        EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.
        II. Background
        A. What action is the Agency taking?
        EPA is proposing to revoke or modify specific tolerances, and/or update the nomenclature for specific tolerances, for the fungicide triflumizole and the herbicides fenoxaprop-ethyl, flufenpyr-ethyl, imazapyr, pyrazon, and quinclorac, in or on the commodities specified in the regulatory text. In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances for maleic hydrazide and concomitantly establish tolerance exemptions to cover the existing food uses for it.

        EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances because they are no longer needed, because they are on commodities that EPA no longer considers to be significant livestock feed items, or because they are associated with uses that are no longer registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in the United States (U.S.). EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance for quinclorac on grain, aspirated fractions because it is no longer needed, and proposing to revoke the fenoxaprop-ethyl tolerance on peanut, hulls because EPA no longer considers the commodity to be a significant livestock feed item (determination can be found in the June 30, 2008 memorandum titled Revisions of Feedstuffs in Table 1 of OPPTS Test Guidelines 860.1000 and Guidance on Constructing Maximum Reasonably Balanced Diets (MRBD), available in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0155 at
          https://www.regulations.gov). EPA is proposing to revoke all tolerances for flufenpyr-ethyl and pyrazon due to cancellation of associated uses in the United States.
        EPA is proposing to remove from 40 CFR part 180, subpart C certain tolerances for boscalid, cyazofamid, endosulfan, fenoxaprop-ethyl, fenpyroximate, mandipropamid, methidathion, pendimethalin, pyraclostrobin, quinclorac, and spiromesifen because those tolerances have expired. EPA also is proposing to modify tolerance levels to conform with rounding class practices for certain existing tolerances of specific pesticide active ingredients.

        Detailed explanations for the proposed modifications of tolerances for imazapyr can be found in the May 24, 2017 memorandum titled Imazapyr, Isopropylamine Salt: Amendment of Tolerances for Residues on Livestock Tissues, available in the docket of this proposed rule. Detailed explanations for the proposed modifications of tolerances for quinclorac can be found in the November 6, 2012 Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review and the March 10, 2015 Interim Registration Review Decision, available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1135 at https://www.regulations.gov. Detailed explanations for the proposed tolerance exemptions for maleic hydrazide can be found in the May 14, 2014 Registration Review Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data, the June 18, 2014 Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, and the September 11, 2015 Interim Registration Review Decision, available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0387 at https://www.regulations.gov.

        1. Boscalid. Because the sole tolerance in 40 CFR 180.589(b) for endive, Belgian expired on December 31, 2013, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        2. Cyazofamid. Because the sole tolerance in 40 CFR 180.601(b) for basil, dried expired on December 31, 2014, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        3. Endosulfan. Because the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.182 for endosulfan residues of concern all expired on various dates from July 31, 2012 through July 31, 2016, EPA proposes to remove that section in its entirety.
        4. Fenoxaprop-ethyl. Because EPA no longer considers peanut hulls to be a significant livestock feed item, the tolerance on peanut, hulls is no longer needed, and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA proposes to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.430(a) for peanut, hulls.
        Also, because all the tolerances (grass, forage and grass, hay) in 40 CFR 180.430(b) expired on December 31, 2016, EPA proposes to remove the paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        In order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA proposes in 40 CFR 180.430(a) to revise the commodity terminology for “soybean” to “soybean, seed.”
        Also, in accordance with current Agency rounding class practices for tolerance values, EPA proposes to list the existing tolerance in 40 CFR 180.430(a) for barley, straw at 0.10 ppm.
        5. Fenpyroximate. Because the sole tolerance in 40 CFR 180.566(b) for honey expired on December 31, 2013, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        6. Flufenpyr-ethyl. In the Federal Register of July 8, 2015 (80 FR 39100) (FRL-9928-54), EPA announced its receipt of voluntary requests by registrants to cancel certain pesticide registrations, including requests to cancel the last flufenpyr-ethyl products registered for use on food in the U.S. At the time of their voluntary request to cancel, the flufenpyr-ethyl registrant stated that these products were never manufactured and there were no existing stocks in the channels of trade, and therefore no existing stocks provision was requested. In the Federal Register of September 22, 2015 (80 FR 57179) (FRL-9933-58), EPA published a cancellation order in follow-up to the July 8, 2015 notice and granted the requested product cancellations for flufenpyr-ethyl. No existing stocks provision was requested or needed. Therefore, EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.595(a)(1) on corn, field, grain; soybean, seed; and sugarcane, cane and to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.595(a)(2) on corn, field, forage and corn, field, stover.
        7. Imazapyr. Based on the lack of human health endpoints for imazapyr, EPA determined there are no hazards and no risks of concern from exposure to residues of imazapyr, and therefore the current U.S. tolerances in livestock kidneys can be increased to harmonize with the current Canadian MRLs in livestock kidneys at 0.3 ppm (the determination is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Consequently, EPA proposes to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.500(a) in or on cattle, kidney; goat, kidney; horse, kidney; and sheep, kidney from 0.20 to 0.30 ppm.
        Also, in accordance with current Agency rounding class practices for tolerance values, EPA proposes to list the existing tolerance in 40 CFR 180.500(a) for lentil at 0.20 ppm.
        8. Maleic hydrazide. Based on the low toxicity and lack of human health endpoints for maleic hydrazide, EPA determined that there are no risks of concern from exposure to residues of maleic hydrazide. As a result, EPA concluded that the current tolerances for residues of maleic hydrazide in 40 CFR 180.175 are no longer needed and should be revoked, and exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance should be concomitantly established. Therefore, EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances in § 180.175(a)(1) in or on onion, bulb and potato; to revoke the tolerances in § 180.175(a)(2) in or on potato, chips; to remove § 180.175 in its entirety; and to establish exemptions from tolerances in 40 CFR part 180, subpart D, for onion, bulb and potato in newly designated 40 CFR 180.1349(a) and for potato, chips in newly designated 40 CFR 180.1349(b).
        9. Mandipropamid. Because the sole tolerance in 40 CFR 180.637(b) for basil, dried expired on December 31, 2015, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        10. Methidathion. Because the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.298 all expired on December 31, 2016, EPA proposes to remove that section in its entirety.
        11. Pendimethalin. Because all the tolerances (Bermuda grass, forage and Bermuda grass, hay) in 40 CFR 180.361(b) expired on December 31, 2010, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        12. Pyraclostrobin. Because the sole tolerance in 40 CFR 180.582(b) for endive, Belgium expired on December 31, 2013, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        13. Pyrazon. In the Federal Register of March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12996) (FRL-9923-27), EPA announced its receipt of voluntary requests by registrants to cancel certain pesticide registrations, including the last pyrazon products registered for use on food commodities in the U.S. In the Federal Register of June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31596) (FRL-9926-88), EPA published a cancellation order in follow-up to the March 12, 2015 notice and granted the requested product cancellations for pyrazon. EPA permitted the registrant to sell and distribute existing stocks of the cancelled pyrazon products until June 2, 2016, and persons other than the registrant to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of the cancelled pyrazon products until supplies are exhausted. EPA believes that existing stocks in the U.S. are exhausted. However, in a letter dated February 10, 2015, the pyrazon registrant (BASF) notified EPA of a need for the pyrazon tolerances for import purposes through December 31, 2017. Consequently, EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.316(a) on beet, garden, roots; beet, garden, tops; beet, sugar, molasses; beet, sugar, roots; beet, sugar, tops; cattle, fat; cattle, liver; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts, except liver; goat, fat; goat, liver; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts, except liver; horse, fat; horse, liver; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts, except liver; milk; sheep, fat; sheep, liver; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts, except liver; and in 40 CFR 180.316(d) on corn, field, forage; corn, field, stover; soybean, forage; soybean, hay; wheat, forage; wheat, hay; and wheat, straw each with an expiration/revocation date of [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE] and to add a footnote that there are no U.S. registrations for them.
        Also, in accordance with current Agency rounding class practices for tolerance values, EPA proposes to list existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.316(a) for beet, garden, roots at 0.90 ppm and beet, sugar, roots at 0.20 ppm and to list existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.316(d) for corn, field, forage; corn, field, stover; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay at 0.50 ppm; for wheat, forage at 0.30 ppm; for wheat, hay at 0.20 ppm; and for wheat, straw at 0.10 ppm.
        14. Quinclorac. A tolerance on grain, aspirated fractions exists in 40 CFR 180.463 for residues of quinclorac at 1,200 ppm, a level which EPA originally determined by calculation in the absence of residue data. Since that time, residue data on aspirated grain fractions showed that residues on aspirated grain fractions were no higher than the individual tolerances set on barley, grain (2.0 ppm), rice, grain (5.0 ppm), and wheat, grain (0.5 ppm). Therefore, a separate tolerance on grain, aspirated fractions is no longer needed. Consequently, EPA proposes to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.463(a)(1) on grain, aspirated fractions.
        Based on the recalculated dietary burdens for livestock, which demonstrate Maximum Dietary Burdens (MDBs) for poultry at 5.4 ppm and swine at 6.0 ppm, EPA determined that the existing tolerances in poultry and hog commodities should be reassessed. Based on quinclorac data from the available cattle and poultry feeding studies, which demonstrate that the maximum residues in the commodities are expected to be <0.05 ppm, EPA determined that the tolerances in poultry, meat byproducts; hog, fat; and hog, meat byproducts should be set at 0.05 ppm. This will also harmonize the tolerances with the existing Canadian MRLs at 0.05 ppm. Consequently, EPA proposes to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.463(a)(1) for poultry, meat byproducts from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm; hog, fat from 0.7 to 0.05 ppm; and hog, meat byproducts from 1.5 to 0.05 ppm.
        Also, in accordance with current Agency rounding class practices for tolerance values, EPA proposes to list the existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.463(a)(1) for cattle, fat; goat, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat at 0.70 ppm; for rhubarb; wheat, grain; and wheat, hay at 0.50 ppm; and for wheat, straw at 0.10 ppm.
        In the Federal Register of September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55068) (FRL-8149-5), a tolerance was established in 40 CFR 180.463 for residues of quinclorac in or on imported barley, grain. There are no U.S. registrations for the use of quinclorac on barley. Therefore, EPA will add a footnote to the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.463(a)(1) on barley, grain explaining that there are no U.S. registrations as of September 28, 2007.
        Because the sole tolerance in 40 CFR 180.463(b) on cranberry expired on December 31, 2012, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        15. Spiromesifen. Because all the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.607(b) expired on December 31, 2014, EPA proposes to remove the existing paragraph and table, and reserve the section.
        16. Triflumizole. In order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA proposes in 40 CFR 180.476(a)(l) to revise the commodity terminology for “Cilantro, leaves” to “Cilantro, fresh leaves.”
        B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

        A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under FFDCA section 402(a), 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce, 21 U.S.C. 331(a). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Food-use pesticides not registered in the U.S. must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States.
        EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the U.S. of food containing such pesticide residues. However, when there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.

        Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under FFDCA section 408, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to cover imported commodities.
        Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency determines that additional information is reasonably required to support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
        C. When do these actions become effective?

        EPA is proposing that the actions herein become effective 6 months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. EPA is proposing this effective date for these actions to allow a reasonable interval for producers in exporting members of the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures Agreement to adapt to the requirements of a final rule. With the exception of the proposed revocation of tolerances with expiration dates for pyrazon, the Agency believes that existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the tolerances proposed for revocation have been completely exhausted and that treated commodities have cleared the channels of trade. Where EPA is proposing revocation with expiration dates for pyrazon, the Agency believes that existing stocks in the U.S. are exhausted and that the proposed date allow sufficient time for passage of treated commodities through the channels of trade for import purposes as requested by the manufacturer. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
        Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
        1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner, that was lawful under FIFRA, and
        2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the pesticide was applied to such food.
        III. 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 U.S. 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 not established MRLs for pyrazon, fenoxaprop-ethyl, or flufenpyr-ethyl.
        The Codex has not established MRLs for quinclorac in or on grain, aspirated fractions; hog, fat; hog, meat byproducts; and poultry, meat products.
        The Codex has established MRLs for maleic hydrazide in or on various commodities including onion, bulb at 15 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and potato at 50 mg/kg. These MRLs are the same as the current tolerances for maleic hydrazide in the United States. However, because the tolerances are not needed, EPA is proposing to revoke the U.S. tolerances for maleic hydrazide and to establish exemptions from tolerances in or on onion, bulb; potato; and potato, chips.
        The Codex has established MRLs for imazapyr in or on various commodities including edible offal (mammalian) at 0.2 mg/kg, which is the same as the current U.S. tolerances, and will be covered by the proposed U.S. tolerances for imazapyr in or on cattle, kidney; goat, kidney; horse, kidney; and sheep, kidney at 0.3 ppm, a higher level than the MRL.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerance exemptions under FFDCA 408(e), and also to modify and revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (e.g., establishment of a tolerance/tolerance exemption, modification of a tolerance, and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed 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). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed rule 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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations, were published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposed rule that would change EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposed rule, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This proposed rule does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: December 6, 2018.
          Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
          Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

        Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as follows:

          PART 180—[AMENDED]

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

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

          § § 180.175, 180.182, and 180.298
          [Removed]

        2. Remove §§ 180.175, 180.182, and 180.298.
         3. In § 180.316, revise the tables in paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:

          § 180.316
          Pyrazon; tolerances for residues.
          (a) * * *

              Commodity
              Parts permillion

              Beet, garden, roots 1

              0.90

              Beet, garden, tops 1

              7.0

              Beet, sugar, molasses 1

              1.5

              Beet, sugar, roots 1

              0.20

              Beet, sugar, tops 1

              3.0

              Cattle, fat 1

              0.10

              Cattle, liver 1

              0.15

              Cattle, meat 1

              0.10

              Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver 1

              0.10

              Goat, fat 1

              0.10

              Goat, liver 1

              0.15

              Goat, meat 1

              0.10

              Goat, meat byproducts, except liver 1

              0.10

              Horse, fat 1

              0.10

              Horse, liver 1

              0.15

              Horse, meat 1

              0.10

              Horse, meat byproducts, except liver 1

              0.10

              Milk 1

              0.02

              Sheep, fat 1

              0.10

              Sheep, liver 1

              0.15

              Sheep, meat 1

              0.10

              Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver 1

              0.10

              1 There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities; therefore, these tolerances will expire [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].

          (d) * * *

              Commodity
              Parts permillion

              Corn, field, forage 1

              0.50

              Corn, field, stover 1

              0.50

              Soybean, forage 1

              0.50

              Soybean, hay 1

              0.50

              Wheat, forage 1

              0.30

              Wheat, hay 1

              0.20

              Wheat, straw 1

              0.10

              1 There are no U.S. registrations on these commodities.

        4. In § 180.361, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.361
          Pendimethalin; tolerances for residues.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

        5. In § 180.430, revise the table in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.430
          Fenoxaprop-ethyl; tolerances for residues.
          (a) * * *

              Commodity
              Parts permillion

              Barley, grain
              0.05

              Barley, straw
              0.10

              Cattle, fat
              0.05

              Cattle, meat
              0.05

              Cattle, meat byproducts
              0.05

              Cotton, undelinted seed
              0.05

              Goat, fat
              0.05

              Goat, meat
              0.05

              Goat, meat byproducts
              0.05

              Hog, fat
              0.05

              Hog, meat
              0.05

              Hog, meat byproducts
              0.05

              Horse, fat
              0.05

              Horse, meat
              0.05

              Horse, meat byproducts
              0.05

              Milk
              0.02

              Peanut
              0.05

              Rice, grain
              0.05

              Sheep, fat
              0.05

              Sheep, meat
              0.05

              Sheep, meat byproducts
              0.05

              Soybean, seed
              0.05

              Wheat, grain
              0.05

              Wheat, straw
              0.50

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

         6. In § 180.463, revise the table in paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.463
          Quinclorac; tolerances for residues.
          (a)(1) * * *

              Commodity
              Parts permillion

              Barley, grain 1

              2.0

              Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H
              1.5

              Cattle, fat
              0.70

              Cattle, meat
              0.05

              Cattle, meat byproducts
              1.5

              Egg
              0.05

              Goat, fat
              0.70

              Goat, meat
              0.05

              Goat, meat byproducts
              1.5

              Grass, forage
              150

              Grass, hay
              130

              Hog, fat
              0.05

              Hog, meat
              0.05

              Hog, meat byproducts
              0.05

              Horse, fat
              0.70

              Horse, meat
              0.05

              Horse, meat byproducts
              1.5

              Milk
              0.05

              Poultry, fat
              0.05

              Poultry, meat
              0.05

              Poultry, meat byproducts
              0.05

              Rhubarb
              0.50

              Rice, bran
              15.0

              Rice, grain
              5.0

              Sheep, fat
              0.70

              Sheep, meat
              0.05

              Sheep, meat byproducts
              1.5

              Sorghum, grain, forage
              3.0

              Sorghum, grain, grain
              6.0

              Sorghum, grain, stover
              1.0

              Wheat, forage
              1.0

              Wheat, germ
              0.75

              Wheat, grain
              0.50

              Wheat, hay
              0.50

              Wheat, straw
              0.10

              1 There are no U.S. registrations for this commodity as of September 28, 2007.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

        7. In § 180.476, in the table in paragraph (a)(1), remove the entry for “Cilantro, leaves” and add an entry for “Cilantro, fresh leaves” in its place to read as follows:

          § 180.476
          Triflumizole; tolerances for residues.
          (a)(1) * * *

              Commodity
              Parts permillion

              *    *    *    *    *

              Cilantro, fresh leaves
              35

              *    *    *    *    *

        8. In § 180.500, revise the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

          § 180.500
          Imazapyr; tolerances for residues.
          (a) * * *

              Commodity
              Parts permillion

              Cattle, fat
              0.05

              Cattle, kidney
              0.30

              Cattle, meat
              0.05

              Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney
              0.05

              Corn, field, forage
              0.05

              Corn, field, grain
              0.05

              Corn, field, stover
              0.05

              Fish
              1.0

              Goat, fat
              0.05

              Goat, kidney
              0.30

              Goat, meat
              0.05

              Goats, meat byproducts, except kidney
              0.05

              Grass, forage
              100

              Grass, hay
              30

              Horse, fat
              0.05

              Horse, kidney
              0.30

              Horse, meat
              0.05

              Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney
              0.05

              Lentil 1

              0.20

              Milk
              0.01

              Rapeseed subgroup 20A 1

              0.05

              Sheep, fat
              0.05

              Sheep, kidney
              0.30

              Sheep, meat
              0.05

              Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney
              0.05

              Shellfish
              0.10

              Soybean, meal 1

              4.5

              Soybean, seed 1

              4.0

              Sunflower subgroup 20B 1

              0.05

              1 There are no U.S. registrations on these commodities.

        9. In § 180.566, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.566
          Fenpyroximate; tolerances for residues.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

        10. In § 180.582, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.582
          Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for residues.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

        11. In § 180.589, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.589
          Boscalid; tolerances for residues.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

          § 180.595
          [Removed]

        12. Remove § 180.595.
        13. In § 180.601, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.601
          Cyazofamid; tolerances for residues.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

        14. In § 180.607, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.607
          Spiromesifen; tolerances for residues.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

        15. In § 180.637, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

          § 180.637
          Mandipropamid; tolerances for residues.

          (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

        16. Add § 180.1349 to subpart D to read as follows:

          § 180.1349
          Maleic hydrazide; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
          (a) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the pesticide maleic hydrazide, including its metabolites and degradates, when used as a plant growth regulator or herbicide in or on onion, bulb and potato.

          (b) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the pesticide maleic hydrazide, including its metabolites and degradates, when present in or on potato, chips as a result of application of maleic hydrazide to the growing potato plant.

      [FR Doc. 2019-00787 Filed 2-4-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P