[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40114-40117]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17233]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86588; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule

August 7, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 1, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees schedule to (i) amend the
Cboe Options Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Products
Sliding Scales Program (Proprietary Product Sliding Scales'') and (ii)
amend the Marketing Fee program, effective August 1, 2019.
Proprietary Sliding Scales
    The Proprietary Products Sliding Scales table provides that
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary transaction fees for
Clearing Trading Permit Holders (origin code ``F'') and for Non-
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Affiliates (``Non-TPH Affiliates'')
(origin code ``L'') (collectively, Clearing TPHs'') in Underlying
Symbol List A \3\ will be reduced provided a Clearing TPH reaches
certain average daily volume (``ADV'') thresholds identified in Table A
(the ``Firm Sliding Scale'') and Table B (the ``VIX Sliding Scale'').
More specifically, Table A, the Firm Sliding Scale, provides for
reduced Clearing TPH transaction fees in Underlying Symbol List A
options, provided a Clearing TPH reaches certain ADV thresholds in all
underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A on the Exchange
in a month. Table B, the VIX Sliding Scale, provides for reduced
Clearing TPH transaction fees in VIX, provided a Clearing TPH reaches
certain VIX options volume thresholds during a month. For each Clearing
TPH, the Exchange assesses the better of (a) the Firm Sliding Scale as
applied to all Underlying Symbol List A products or (b) the Firm
Sliding Scale as applied to all Underlying Symbol List A except

VIX, plus the discounted transaction fees as calculated under the VIX
Sliding Scale. More specifically, for calculating a Clearing TPH's
total proprietary product transaction fees, the Exchange currently uses
the following methodology: If using the VIX Sliding Scale plus the Firm
Sliding Scale (minus VIX options volume) results in lower total
Clearing TPH proprietary transaction fees than just using the Firm
Sliding Scale, the Exchange will apply the VIX Sliding Scale plus the
Firm Sliding Scale (deducting the VIX options volume from the Firm
Sliding Scale). If using the VIX Sliding Scale plus the Firm Sliding
Scale (minus VIX options volume) results in higher total Clearing TPH
proprietary transaction fees than just using the Firm Sliding Scale,
the Exchange will apply only the Firm Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Options Footnote 34. Underlying Symbol List A
currently includes OEX, XEO, RUT, RLG, RLV, RUI, AWDE, FTEM, FXTM,
UKXM, SPX (includes SPXw), VIX, VOLATILITY INDEXES and binary
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to simplify and streamline the Proprietary Sliding Scales
program, the Exchange proposes to make the Firm Sliding Scale and VIX
Sliding Scales separate and independent programs. That is, the Exchange
proposes to no longer assess the lesser amount of the transaction fees
calculated using only the Firm Sliding Scale as applied to all
Underlying Symbol List A products or (b) the Firm Sliding Scale as
applied to all Underlying Symbol List A except VIX, plus the discounted
transaction fees as calculated under the VIX Sliding Scale. Rather, all
Underlying Symbol List A options, excluding VIX, will be subject to the
``Cboe Options Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Products
Sliding Scale'' (formerly Table A) and all VIX volume will always be
subject to the ``Cboe Options Clearing Trading Permit Holder VIX
Sliding Scale'' (formerly Table B). The current methodology was
originally adopted to provide a Clearing TPH with the most beneficial
fee arrangement (the lowest fees) without double-counting VIX options
volume. The Exchange notes however, the more beneficial fee arrangement
for Clearing TPHs has historically and consistently been to apply the
rates under the Firm Sliding Scale to all Underlying Symbol List A
products excluding VIX and apply the rates under the VIX Sliding Scale
to all VIX volume (which provides for the same end result as is being
proposed by separating the program). For example, this result has been
true for all Clearing TPHs to date this year 2019. As such, the
Exchange believes the proposal to separate the sliding scale programs
does not significantly or substantively impact Clearing TPHs.
Marketing Fee Program
    The Exchange next proposes to amend its Marketing Fee program. By
way of background the Marketing Fee is assessed on certain transactions
of Market-Makers resulting from (i) customer orders from payment
accepting firms, or (ii) customer orders that have designated a DPM
under Cboe Options Rule 8.80, a ``Preferred Market[hyphen]Maker'' under
Cboe Options Rule 8.13 or a ``Lead Market-Maker'' under Cboe Options
Rule 8.15 (collectively ``Preferenced Market[hyphen]Maker''). The funds
collected via this Marketing Fee are then put into pools controlled by
the Preferenced Market-Maker. The Preferenced Market-Maker controlling
a certain pool of funds can then determine the order flow provider(s)
to which the funds should be directed in order to encourage such order
flow provider(s) to send orders to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to simplify and amend the Marketing Fee
program to provide that the Marketing Fee will be assessed on all
transactions of Market-Makers resulting from any Customer order
(instead of only Customer orders from (i) payment accepting firms or
(ii) that have designated a Preferenced Market-Maker). The Exchange
notes that currently, order flow providers are given the option of
``opting in'' to the Marketing Fee Program to be eligible to receive
marketing fees (i.e., become a payment accepting firm).\4\ The Exchange
notes that over time however, the vast majority of firms have become
payment accepting firms and there are only a handful of order flow
providers that are not payment accepting firms. The Exchange also notes
that currently the vast majority of customer orders designate a
Preferenced Market-Maker. Accordingly, the vast majority of Market-
Maker orders that result from a Customer order are already subject to
the Marketing Fee. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the rule change will impact Trading Permit Holders, the
Exchange anticipates the impact of the proposed change to be de minimis
for all TPHs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed change will
also provide for more streamlined administration of the Marketing Fee
program and uniform application of the Marketing Fee. Lastly, the
proposed amendment to the Marketing Fee program will further harmonize
the program with the corresponding Marketing Fee program of its
affiliate exchange, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., (``Cboe EDGX'') and is
also in line with how other exchanges apply their respective marketing
fee programs (i.e., marketing fees apply to all Market-Maker
transactions resulting from any Customer order).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange has had no role with respect to the
negotiations between Preferenced Market-Makers and payment accepting
firms. Rather, the Exchange merely collects and administers the
payment of the fee collected on those transactions for which the
Preferenced Market-Maker has advised the Exchange that it has
negotiated with a payment accepting firm to pay for the firm's order
flow.
    \5\ See e.g., Cboe EDGX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Marketing
Fees, which provides the marketing fees are charged to all Market
Makers who are counterparties to a trade with a Customer. See also
Nasdaq ISE, Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 6(E), Marketing Fee
and NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section IA, Options
Transaction Fees and Credits, Marketing Charges Per Contract for
Electronic Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act, in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), in particular, as it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its Members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the
rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and, particularly, is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
separate the Proprietary Sliding Scales Program (i.e., Table A, Firm
Sliding Scale and Table B, VIX Sliding Scale), because Clearing TPHs
are still eligible to receive discounted transaction fees for their
Underlying Symbol List A volume. Additionally, as discussed above,
under the current ``best of'' calculation, the most beneficial fee
arrangement (the lowest fees) for Clearing TPHs has consistently and
historically been to apply the rates under the Firm Sliding Scale on
all Underlying Symbol List A products excluding VIX and apply the rates
under the VIX Sliding Scale on all

VIX volume, which is exactly how the programs will function separately
as proposed. As such, the Exchange believes the proposal to separate
the sliding scale programs does not significantly or substantively
affect Clearing TPHs. Moreover, the proposed rule change streamlines
and simplifies the Proprietary Sliding Scales program.
    The Exchange also believes that notwithstanding the proposed rule
change, the Firm Sliding Scale and VIX Sliding Scale will continue to
incentivize option volume. Additionally, the Exchange notes that lower
fees for executing more contracts is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it provides market participants with an
incentive to execute more contracts on the Exchange. This brings
greater liquidity and trading opportunity, which benefits all market
participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all Clearing TPHs
uniformly. The Exchange also believes offering lower fees under the
Proprietary Sliding Scale to Clearing TPHs and not other market
participants is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
Clearing TPHs must take on certain obligations and responsibilities,
such as clearing and membership with the Options Clearing Corporation,
as well as significant regulatory burdens and financial obligations,
that other market participants are not required to undertake.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to apply the
Marketing Fee to all Market-Maker transactions that result from
Customer orders (instead of Customer orders that are from payment
accepting firms or designate a Preferenced Market-Maker) is reasonable
because the Marketing Fee amount is not changing. Rather, the proposed
rule change results in the Marketing Fee being applied uniformly on all
Market-Maker transactions where the counterparty is a Customer. As
discussed above, the Exchange believes the proposed change will not
have a significant impact, as the vast majority of Market-Maker-to-
Customer transactions are already subject to the Marketing Fee as (i)
only a few order flow providers are not already payment accepting firms
and (ii) the majority of orders designate a Preferenced Market-Maker.
The Exchange also note that the Marketing Fee program is designed to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange, which would increase
liquidity and benefit all market participants. Lastly, the proposed
rule change enables a more streamlined administration of the Marketing
Fee program and is in line with how other exchanges, including the
Exchange's affiliate, administer their respective Marking Fee
programs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g., Cboe EDGX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, Marketing
Fees, which provides the marketing fees are charged to all Market
Makers who are counterparties to a trade with a Customer. See also
Nasdaq ISE, Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 6(E), Marketing Fee
and NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section IA, Options
Transaction Fees and Credits, Marketing Charges Per Contract for
Electronic Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on
intramarket competitions that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change to
the Proprietary Sliding Scales program and Marketing Fee Program, will
be applied equally to Clearing TPHs and Market-Makers, respectively.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed change relating to the Proprietary Sliding Scales program only
affects Exchange proprietary products, which are traded exclusively on
the Exchange. Additionally, the proposed change to the Marketing Fee
program, mirrors how other exchanges, including Cboe EDGX, apply their
respective marketing fees. The Exchange notes that neither proposed
rule change it intended as a competitive pricing change, but rather as
a change to streamline and simplify both programs.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2019-039 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-039. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions

should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-039 and should be submitted on
or before September 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17233 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 40283-40284]
[DOCID:fr11au09-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Application for
Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2009.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington DC or at http://fdms.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2009.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Regulation(s)         Nature of special
   Application No.          Docket No.             Applicant             affected            permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NEW SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14887-N.............  ......................  S.C. Johnson &       49 CFR               To authorize the
                                               Sons, Sturtevant,    173.306(a)(3)(v).    transportation in
                                               WI.                                       commerce of certain
                                                                                aerosols containing a
                                                                                Division 2.2 compressed
                                                                                gas in certain non-
                                                                                refillable aerosol
                                                                                containers which are
                                                                                not subject to the hot
                                                                                water bath test. (mode
                                                                                1)
14888-N.............  ......................  Boost Oxygen LLC,    49 CFR               To authorize the
                                               Bridgeport, CT.      173.306(a)(1).       transportation in
                                                                                commerce of an 18 ounce
                                                                                capacity DOT 2Q
                                                                                container containing an
                                                                                oxygen mixture as
                                                                                Consumer commodity when
                                                                                transported by motor
                                                                                vehicle. (mode 1)

14889-N.............  ......................  Albemarle            49 CFR 180.605(d)..  To authorize the
                                               Corporation, Baton                        transportation in
                                               Rouge.                                    commerce of certain UN
                                                                                portable tanks that are
                                                                                waived from the
                                                                                requirement to perform
                                                                                an internal examination
                                                                                as part of the
                                                                                intermediate 2.5 year
                                                                                periodic inspection
                                                                                when used exclusively
                                                                                for the transport of
                                                                                certain organometallic
                                                                                substances. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3)
14890-N.............  ......................  Liquid Transport     49 CFR 180.407(e)    To authorize the
                                               Corp.,               and (i).             transportation in
                                               Indianapolis, IN.                         commerce of certain MC-
                                                                                307 and DOT-407 cargo
                                                                                tank motor vehicles
                                                                                containing certain
                                                                                Class 3 (flammable)
                                                                                materials that have not
                                                                                had internal visual
                                                                                inspections or
                                                                                thickness testing.
                                                                                (mode 1)
14892-N.............  ......................  Norris Cylinder      49 CFR 173.301(a),   To authorize the
                                               Company, Longview,   173.304a,            manufacture, marking,
                                               TX.                  180.205(c), (f)      sale and use of a non-
                                                                    and (g) and          DOT specification
                                                                    180.215.             cylinder similar to a
                                                                                DOT 3AA which is
                                                                                authorized a 10 year
                                                                                retest period if
                                                                                qualified by ultrasonic
                                                                                examination. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4, 5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-19248 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52588-52589]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21454]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-17]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below. Before submitting these
ICRs to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified below.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
December 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICRs activities by mail to
either: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA
to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a
self-addressed stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB Control
Number 2130-XXXX,'' (the relevant OMB control number for each ICR is
listed below) and should also include the title of the ICR.
Alternatively, comments may be emailed to Ms. Wells at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Toone at b1dad8dc9fc5dededfd4f1d5dec59fd6dec7. Please refer to
the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA
will summarize comments received in response to this notice in a
subsequent notice and include them in its information collection
submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Ms. Kim
Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICRs
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0534.
    Abstract: FRA believes that highway-rail grade crossing (grade
crossing) accidents resulting from warning system failures can be
reduced. Accordingly, FRA's regulations require railroads to take
specific responses in the event of

an activation failure (when a grade crossing warning system fails to
indicate the approach of a train at least 20 seconds prior to the
train's arrival at the crossing or to indicate the presence of a train
occupying the crossing). Specifically, railroads must report to FRA
every impact between on-track railroad equipment and an automobile,
bus, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, farm vehicle, or pedestrian at a
highway-rail grade crossing involving a crossing warning system
activation failure. Notification must be provided to the National
Response Center within 24 hours of occurrence at the stipulated toll-
free telephone number. Additionally, railroads must report to FRA
within 15 days each activation failure of a highway-rail grade warning
system. Form FRA F 6180.83, ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warning
System Report,'' must be used for this purpose and completed using the
instructions printed on the form. With this information, FRA can
identify the causes of activation failures and investigate them to
determine whether periodic maintenance, inspection, and testing
standards are effective.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.83.
    Respondent Universe: 746 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion/monthly.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time  per     Total annual     Total cost
           CFR section                  Respondent universe           Total annual responses             responses         burden hours   equivalent \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
234.7--Accidents involving grade   746 railroads...............  2 phone calls..................  2 minutes.............              .1              $7
 crossing signal failure--
 Telephone Notification.
234.9--Grade crossing signal       746 railroads...............  250 reports....................  10 minutes............              42           2,856
 system failure reports--Form
 6180.83.
234.105/106/107--Activation        746 railroads...............  30,000 notifications...........  5 minutes.............           2,500         170,000
 failure/partial activation/false
 activation--Notification to
 train crew and law enforcement
 due to credible report of
 warning system malfunction.
234.109--Recordkeeping...........  746 railroads...............  30,000 records.................  5 minutes.............           2,500         170,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  746 railroads...............  60,252 responses...............  N/A...................           5,042         342,863
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 60,252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent
overhead charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 5,042 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$342,863.
    Title: Alleged Violation Reporting Form.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0590.
    Abstract: The Alleged Violation Reporting Form is a response to
section 307(b) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 which
requires FRA to ``provide a mechanism for the public to submit written
reports of potential violations of Federal railroad safety and
hazardous materials transportation laws, regulations, and orders to the
Federal Railroad Administration.'' The Alleged Violation Reporting Form
allows the general public to submit alleged violations directly to FRA.
The form allows FRA to collect information necessary to investigate the
alleged violation and to follow up with the submitting party. FRA may
share the information collected with FRA employees, State DOT partners,
and law enforcement agencies.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: General public.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.151.
    Respondent Universe: 1,000 individuals.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time per      Total annual     Total cost
           CFR section                  Respondent universe           Total annual responses             responses         burden hours   equivalent \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alleged Violation Reporting Form   1,000 individuals...........  570 forms......................  5 minutes.............              48          $1,296
 (Form FRA F 6180.151).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FRA used an hourly rate of $27 for the value of the public's
time. FRA obtained this data from the Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 48 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $1,296.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-21454 Filed 10-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11356-11357]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03432]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0566; FRL-9959-22-OAR]

Release of Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document for the
Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur
Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a
periodic review of the air quality criteria and the primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Sulfur Oxides
(SOX). On or about February 16, 2017, the EPA will make
available for public review the document titled Review of the Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides: Risk and
Exposure Assessment Planning Document (REA Planning Document). This
plan presents considerations and the proposed approach for conducting
quantitative analyses of sulfur dioxide (SO2) exposures and
health risks in this NAAQS review. This planning document is intended
to facilitate consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) and public comment on plans for such quantitative
analyses.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0566, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. The REA Planning
Document will be available primarily via the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-standards-planning-documents-current-review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Nicole Hagan, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-3153; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumption and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Information About the Document

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment
and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the
Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to
issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is
to list those air pollutants that in his ``judgment, cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare''; ``the presence of which in the
ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary
sources''; and ``for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air
quality criteria . . .'' (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)(A)-(C)). Air quality
criteria are intended to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the
presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .'' (42 U.S.C.
7408(a)(2)). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes
primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for
pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d)
requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air
quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in
scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health
or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise
the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Section
109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee
``shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . . and shall
recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of
the existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate . . . .''
Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been
performed by the CASAC.
    Presently, the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and
primary NAAQS for SOx.\1\ The EPA's overall plan for this
review is presented in the Integrated Review Plan for the Primary NAAQS
for Sulfur Dioxide (IRP).\2\ The REA Planning Document considers the
degree to which important uncertainties identified in quantitative
analyses from previous reviews have been addressed by newly available
scientific evidence, tools, or information, including those in the
second draft Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides--Health
Criteria (ISA).\3\ Based on these considerations, the document reaches
preliminary conclusions on the extent to which updated quantitative
analyses of exposures or health risks are warranted in the current
review. For updated analyses that are supported, this planning document
presents anticipated approaches to conducting such analyses. This
document will be available on or about February 16, 2017, on the EPA's
Technology Transfer Network Web site at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-standards-planning-documents-current-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The indicator for the current standard is SO2.
    \2\ The IRP (EPA-452/R-14-007, October 2014) is available at
https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-standards-planning-documents-current-review.
    \3\ The second draft ISA was made available to both CASAC and
the public in December 2016 (81 FR 89097) and is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-standards-integrated-science-assessments-current-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The REA Planning Document has been made available for consultation
with the CASAC at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. A separate
Federal Register notice will provide details about this meeting and the
process for participation. The EPA will also consider public comments
on the REA Planning Document that are submitted to the docket, as
described above.

    Dated: February 13, 2017.
Stephen Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-03432 Filed 2-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 43763]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17622]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1339]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Weld County, Colorado
and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations,
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone
designation, or regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports
for Weld County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective July 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1339, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 22, 2013, FEMA published a proposed
notice at 78 FR 43911, proposing flood hazard determinations for Weld
County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the
proposed notice.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: July 10, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-17622 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7180-7183]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-27057]

Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collections to OMB;
Agency Request for OMB Approval of Information Collections: Increasing
Charter Air Transportation Options

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Department of Transportation's (DOT or Department)
intention to request an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control
number for requirements in the Department's final rule, Increasing
Charter Air Transportation Options, that certain disclosures be made to
consumers by air charter brokers, air taxi operators, and commuter air
carriers.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number OST-
2007-27057 through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sohum Karia, Office of the General
Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (Voice),
202-366-7152 (Fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Email). Arrangements to
receive this document in an alternative format may be made by
contacting the above-named individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Increasing Charter Air Transportation Options.
    Type of Review: New Information Collections.
    Background: This notice concerns two new information collection
requirements in the Department's final rule, Increasing Charter Air
Transportation Options, 83 FR 46867 (September 17, 2018), which is
effective on February 14, 2019. Under the final rule, air charter
brokers \1\ are authorized to act as indirect air carriers \2\ by
contracting in their own right with customers to provide charter air
transportation and separately arranging with direct air carriers to
provide such transportation services. The first information collection
pertains to the requirement that air charter brokers disclose in all
solicitation materials and advertisements that they are air charter
brokers and not direct air carriers. The second information collection
involves the requirement that air charter brokers, air taxi operators,
and commuter air carriers provide notification to consumers containing
pertinent information regarding the terms of the charter air
transportation at the time a consumer is considering the purchase of
air transportation. If the information is not known at that time or
changes thereafter, then the entities must provide notification within
a reasonable time after the information becomes known. This information
is intended to aid the prospective charterer in making a more informed
choice regarding the purchase of charter air transportation, and to
facilitate travel by reducing the possibility that the consumer will be
misled or ill-informed about key information regarding a given flight
before and during his or her trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final rule defines an air charter broker as ``any person
or entity that, as an indirect air carrier, foreign indirect air
carrier, or a bona fide agent, holds out, sells, or arranges single
entity charter air transportation using a direct air carrier.''
    \2\ ``Indirect air carrier'' means any person who undertakes to
engage indirectly in air transportation operations and who uses for
such transportation the services of a direct air carrier. 14 CFR
380.2. ``Direct air carrier'' means a certificated commuter or
foreign air carrier, or an air taxi operator registered under 14 CFR
part 298, or a Canadian charter air taxi operator registered under
14 CFR part 294, that directly engages in the operation of aircraft
under a certificate, authorization, permit or exemption issued by
the Department. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The title, a description of the information collection and
respondents, and the periodic reporting burden are set forth below for
each of the information collections:
    1. Requirement to disclose that air charter brokers are not direct
air carriers in advertising and solicitation materials (14 CFR 295.23)
    All air charter broker solicitation materials and advertising,
including internet web pages, must clearly and conspicuously state that
the air charter broker is not a direct air carrier in operational
control of aircraft, and that the air service advertised would be
provided by a properly licensed direct air carrier.
    Respondents: Air charter brokers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 700. To reach this estimate, the
Department began by determining the approximate number of flights
arranged by air charter brokers annually, using flight records
information from the air traffic control radar system and data reports
from private sector aviation research organizations.\3\ These data

indicate annual flight activity by these operators of between 760,000
and 1.1 million flights, as shown in Table 1 below.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These data are developed from the Enhanced Traffic
Management System (ETMS) flight records, and rely on aircraft and
user classifications made by air traffic controllers as well as tail
number and operator data. The development of these data for the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Business model is presented in
the report ``Air Traffic Services Business Model: Overview, Model
Description and Applications with Supporting Documentation, Final
Report'', September 2011, prepared for the FAA by GRA, Incorporated,
a contractor.
    \4\ Based on the data developed by GRA, Incorporated, for the
FAA, Table 1 displays annual flight activity for non-scheduled Part
135 passenger operations from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal Year
2011. The Department was unable to supplement Table 1 with data from
subsequent fiscal years, as FAA has ceased maintaining the
information. Nevertheless, the Department believes that data from
FY2012-2017 would not alter our analysis.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Part 135  non-
Part 135 non-scheduled  passenger flights per  fiscal      scheduled
                         year                          passenger flights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.................................................          1,005,248
2007.................................................            965,401
2008.................................................          1,084,398
2009.................................................            761,301
2010.................................................            900,003
2011.................................................            870,619
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department utilized the most recent figure of 870,619 FY2011
Part 135 Non-Scheduled Passenger Flights (see Table 1). Not all of
these flights are revenue flights, since aircraft must sometimes be
positioned to meet customers. Although the frequency of non-revenue
positioning flights is generally non-public, the Department, based on
discussions with parties knowledgeable about this aspect of the
industry, estimates that 25 percent of non-scheduled passenger flights
are non-revenue, meaning that 75 percent, or 652,964 (870,619 x 75%)
are revenue flights. We then estimated the percentage of revenue air
charter flights arranged by brokers. There was no firm industry
estimate of this value, so we assumed a midrange estimate of 30
percent,\5\ resulting in a value of approximately 195,889 (652,964 x
30%) non-scheduled passenger flights arranged by air charter brokers
per year. In response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the
Department received no public comments disputing this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Department also considered a low estimate of 20 percent,
resulting in a value of 130,593 flights, and a high estimate of 40
percent, resulting in a value of 261,186. In order to reach a more
definitive estimate of the number of respondents, this notice
focuses on the midrange estimate of 30 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department sought to derive the number of respondents from the
195,889 flights by estimating of the number of flights arranged
annually by the average air charter broker. However, since there was no
reliable data on the number of flights arranged by the average air
charter broker, we considered various estimates of the number of air
charter brokers based on general industry knowledge, avoiding selection
of extreme outliers. For instance, because the industry includes both
large and small entities, we did not consider an extremely low estimate
of five respondents, which would amount to approximately 39,200
(195,889/5) flights arranged annually by each broker, and would not
account for the relatively lower business volume of smaller entities.
Similarly, we did not consider extremely high estimates, such as 10,000
respondents, which would amount to approximately 20 flights arranged
annually by each broker, and would not account for the relatively
higher business volume of larger entities. Ultimately, our approach
yielded an estimate of 700 respondents, with an estimated 280 flights
arranged annually per broker (195,889/700).
    A value of 700 respondents is reasonable based on public comments
in response to the NPRM. These comments noted that the industry has
relatively low barriers to entry and therefore is likely comprised of
many small air charter brokers operating in the marketplace, in
addition to a few dozen larger, more established, and well-known
companies. Therefore, many of those 700 would likely arrange fewer than
the average of 280 flights annually, and a few dozen would likely
arrange more than that average. Accordingly, given our assumption of
195,889 total annual flights arranged by air charter brokers, we
estimate that approximately 700 respondents will be subject to the
rule's information collection requirements pertaining to air charter
brokers.
    Frequency: 15 minutes per flight, for approximately 280 flights per
year. The estimate of 280 flights derives from our assumption of
195,889 total annual flights arranged by air charter brokers and our
estimate of 700 air charter broker respondents (195,889/700). We
believe that the burden required for an air charter broker to comply
with this disclosure requirement by changing a small portion of an air
charter broker's advertising web pages or printed materials would be
minimal. To quantify the estimated burden, it was assumed that
accomplishing these disclosures takes 15 minutes of the time of a
qualified sales staff person employed by the air charter broker,
comprised of 10 minutes required to draft the language to be used and 5
minutes to post this information on the air charter broker's website.
It was also assumed that each flight involves one advertisement or
solicitation material, though this is likely an overestimate given that
such materials in this industry are primarily displayed or sent
electronically to many consumers with identical content and form,
resulting in minimal burden to the broker per individual consumer.
    Estimated Annual Burden per Respondent: 70 hours, given that each
advertisement or solicitation material would require a burden of 15
minutes, and that each air charter broker will arrange an estimated 280
flights per year (280 x .25 hours). However, discussions with
individuals knowledgeable about the current air charter broker industry
indicated that making the required disclosures is already customary
business practice in a significant part of the industry. Comments
received in response to the NPRM confirmed the Department's prior
understanding. Thus, the burden of compliance with this aspect of the
final rule will be minimal for entities in the air charter broker
industry.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 49,000 hours. This figure derives
from our estimate of 700 respondents, with approximately 70 hours
annually per respondent (700 x 70 hours). Alternatively, the estimate
of 49,000 hours results by multiplying our previously stated estimates
of 195,889 total annual flights arranged by air charter brokers and a
burden of 15 minutes per flight (195,889 x .25 hours ~ 48,972).
    2. Requirement for air charter brokers, air taxi operators, and
commuter air carriers to charterers to provide certain disclosures to
consumers (14 CFR 295.24 and 298.80)
    The final rule requires that before entering a contract for a
specific flight or series of flights with charterers, air charter
brokers must make the following disclosures: (a) The corporate name of
the direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier in operational
control of the aircraft on which the air transportation is to be
performed and any other names in which that direct carrier holds itself
out to the public; (b) The capacity in which the air charter broker is
acting in contracting for the air transportation, i.e., as an indirect
air carrier, indirect foreign air carrier, as an agent of the
charterer, or as an agent of the direct air carrier or direct foreign
air carrier that will be in operational control of the flight; (c) The
existence or absence of liability insurance held by the air charter
broker covering the charterer and passengers and property on the

charter flight, and the monetary limits of any such insurance.
    The final rule further requires that before entering a contract for
a specific flight or series of flights with charterers, air charter
brokers must make the following disclosures upon request of the
charterer, prior to the start of the air transportation: (a) If the air
charter broker is acting as the agent of the charterer, the air charter
broker must disclose the existence of any corporate or business
relationship, including a preexisting contract, between the air charter
broker and the direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier that
will be in operational control of the flight that may have a bearing on
the air charter broker's selection of the direct carrier that will be
in operational control of the flight; (b) The total cost of the air
transportation paid by the charterer to or through the air charter
broker, including any air charter broker or carrier-imposed fees or
government-imposed taxes and fees. Specific individual fees, taxes, or
costs may, but are not required to be itemized. The total cost of the
air transportation is not required to include fees charged by third-
parties; (c) The existence of any fees and their amounts collected by
third-parties, if known (or a good faith estimate if not known),
including fuel, landing fees, and aircraft parking or hangar fees, for
which the charterer will be responsible for paying directly.
    If any of the information that is required to be disclosed to the
charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed is not known at
the time the contract is entered into or changes thereafter, air
charter brokers must provide the information to the charterer within a
reasonable time after such information becomes available to the air
charter broker, such that the charterer has enough time to make an
informed decision as to whether to accept the additional information or
accept the change.
    If the information that is required to be disclosed to the
charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed changes after
the air transportation covered by the contract has begun, air charter
brokers must provide information regarding any such changes to the
charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes
available to the air charter broker.
    In addition, the final rule requires that before entering a
contract for a specific flight or series of flights with charterers,
air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must make similar
disclosures, prior to the start of the air transportation. For example,
they must disclose that the flight will be performed by another direct
air carrier or direct foreign air carrier if that is the case, as well
as the corporate name of the direct air carrier or direct foreign air
carrier in operational control of the aircraft on which the air
transportation is to be performed and any other names in which that
direct carrier holds itself out to the public. If the flight is to be
performed by another direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier,
they must disclose the capacity in which the air taxi operator or
commuter air carrier is acting in contracting for the air
transportation, i.e., as a principal, as an agent of the charterer, or
as an agent of the direct air carrier that will be in operational
control of the flight.
    Air taxi operators and commuter air carriers must also make the
following disclosures upon request of the charterer, prior to the start
of the air transportation: (a) If the flight is to be performed by
another direct air carrier or foreign direct air carrier and the air
taxi operator or commuter air carrier is acting as the agent of the
charterer, the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier must disclose
the existence of any corporate or business relationship, including a
preexisting contract, between the air taxi operator or commuter air
carrier and the direct carrier that will be in operational control of
the flight that may have a bearing on the air taxi operator's or
commuter air carrier's selection of the direct carrier that will be in
operational control of the flight; (b) The total cost of the air
transportation paid by the charterer to or through the air taxi
operator or commuter air carrier, including any carrier-imposed fees or
government-imposed taxes and fees. Specific individual fees, taxes, or
costs may, but are not required to be itemized. The total cost of the
air transportation is not required to include fees charged by third
parties; (c) The existence of any fees and their amounts collected by
third parties, if known (or a good faith estimate if not known),
including fuel, landing fees, and aircraft parking or hangar fees for
which the charterer will be responsible for paying directly.
    If any of the information that is required to be disclosed to the
charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed is not known at
the time the contract is entered into or changes thereafter, air taxi
operators and commuter air carriers must provide the information to the
charterer within a reasonable time after such information becomes
available to the air taxi operator or commuter air carrier, such that
the charterer has enough time to make an informed decision as to
whether to accept the additional information or accept the change.
    If the information that is required to be disclosed to the
charterer or requested by the charterer to be disclosed changes after
the air transportation covered by the contract has begun, air taxi
operators and commuter air carriers must provide information regarding
any such changes to the charterer within a reasonable time after such
information becomes available to the air taxi operator or commuter air
carrier.
    Respondents: Air taxi operators; commuter air carriers operating or
arranging non-scheduled, charter flights operated pursuant to Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 135 and 14 CFR part 298; and air
charter brokers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,855, of which 2,155 \6\ are air
taxi operators and commuter air carriers and 700 are air charter
brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This estimate is based on October 2012 FAA data. ``Study of
Operators Regulated Under Part 135,'' at ES-2, Federal Aviation
Administration (April 2016), available at: http://nata.aero/data/files/gia/4656_001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency: 15 minutes per flight, for approximately 280 flights per
year. The estimate of 280 flights derives from our assumption of
195,889 total annual flights arranged by air charter brokers and our
estimate of 700 air charter broker respondents (195,889/700). For each
air charter broker transaction, discussions with individuals
knowledgeable about the current air charter broker industry indicated
that the time required for an air charter broker to record and share
the necessary data elements with a charterer was modest. To estimate
the cost of this for air charter brokers not currently providing
charterers with the identified disclosures, it is assumed that
accomplishing the disclosures takes 15 minutes of the time of a
qualified sales staff person employed by the air charter broker. Part
of the justification for this time estimate is that the information to
be disclosed is comprised of data elements that arise naturally from
the arrangement of a flight operated by a direct air carrier. Given the
substantive similarity of the disclosures required of air taxi
operators and commuter air carriers, the Department assumed that they
also require no more than 15 minutes per transaction.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 70 hours for air charter
brokers, assuming 15 minutes per transaction and 280 transactions per
year per respondent (280 x .25 hours). Regarding the estimated 2,155
taxi operators and commuter air carriers, given our previously stated
estimate of

652,964 non-scheduled passenger revenue flights operated annually under
Part 135, we estimate approximately 303 (652,964/2,155) transactions
annually per air taxi operator or commuter air carrier. Assuming 15
minutes per transaction, we estimate the total annual burden per
respondent to be approximately 75 hours and 45 minutes (303 x .25 =
75.75). However, discussions with individuals knowledgeable about the
industry indicated that making these disclosures to charterers is
already a standard part of customary and usual business practices for
air charter brokers as well as air taxi operators and commuter air
carriers. Thus, these entities should expect little or no incremental
burden due to these disclosure requirements, as supported by comments
received in response to the Department's NPRM.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The estimated total annual burden
would be 212,241 hours and 15 minutes. Regarding air charter brokers,
based on the estimate of 700 respondents, with approximately 70 hours
annually per respondent, the estimated total annual burden of the
flight-specific disclosure requirements would be 49,000 hours.
Regarding air taxi operators and commuter air carriers, based on the
estimate of 2,155 respondents, with approximately 75.75 hours annually
per respondent, the estimated total annual burden would be 163,241
hours and 15 minutes (2,155 x 75.75). As stated previously, the total
annual incremental burden to air taxi operators and commuter air
carriers is expected to be minimal to none, since making these
disclosures is already standard practice for this segment of the
industry.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 22, 2019.
Blane A. Workie,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2019-03678 Filed 2-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3827-3830]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28122]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0403; FRL-10015-98]

Bacillus Thuringiensis Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj Protein and G10-evo
Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase (G10evo-EPSPS) Protein;
Exemptions From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes exemptions from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj protein in or on the food and feed commodities of corn;
corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop, and for residues of the inert
ingredient G10-evo Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (G10evo-
EPSPS) protein in or on the food and feed commodities of all crops when
used in a plant-incorporated protectant. Hangzhou Ruifeng Biosciences
Co., Ltd. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for these pesticide chemical residues. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj and G10evo-EPSPS
proteins.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 15, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 16, 2021, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0403, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0403 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
March 16, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0403, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of December 21, 2018 (83 FR 65660) (FRL-
9985-67) and March 18, 2019 (84 FR 9735) (FRL-9989-90), EPA issued
documents pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of pesticide tolerance petitions (PP 8E8669 and
IN-11257) by Hangzhou Ruifeng Biosciences Co., Ltd., 1500 Wenyi Rd.,
Building 1, Room 103, Hangzhou, China (c/o GA Bannon Consulting LLC, 13
Blue Flag Court, Dardenne Prairie, MO 63368). Petition 8E8669 requested
that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis
fusion protein Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj in or on the food and feed commodities of
corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop when used as a plant-
incorporated protectant in corn; Petition IN-11257 requested that 40
CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Deinococcus radiodurans 5-
enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) protein in or on all
food commodities when used as an inert ingredient in a plant-
incorporated protectant. The documents referenced a summary of each
petition prepared by the petitioner Hangzhou Ruifeng Biosciences Co.,
Ltd., which are available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
One comment was received on the notice of filing that published on
December 21, 2018. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit
VII.B of the document titled ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) Safety Determination for Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj and G10evo-EPSPS
Proteins'' available in the docket.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
these actions and considered their validity, completeness and
reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk.
EPA has also considered available information concerning the
variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of
consumers, including infants and children. A summary of the data upon
which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be
found within the document entitled ``Final Human Health Risk Assessment
and Review of Product Characterization of the Insecticidal Plant-
Incorporated Protectant Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj, a G10evo-
EPSPS Herbicide Tolerance Protein, and the Genetic Material Necessary
for their Production in ShuangKang 12-5 Maize and Establishment of a
Permanent Tolerance Exemption.'' This document, as well as other
relevant information, is available in the docket for this action EPA-
HQ-OPP-2018-0403.
    The Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj fusion protein is an
active ingredient produced within the plant to confer protection
against lepidopteran pests. The Deinococcus radiodurans 5-
enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) protein (hereafter
referred to by its common name ``G10evo-EPSPS'') protein is an inert
ingredient used as a selectable marker that is produced in the plant
and confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The available data
demonstrated that, with regard to humans, the Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj fusion
protein and G10evo-EPSPS are not toxic or allergenic via any
anticipated route of

exposure. Dietary exposure is the most relevant route of exposure, and
the Agency concludes that dietary exposure would present no harm
because of the lack of toxicity or allergenicity of either protein. In
addition, both proteins are contained within plant cells, which
essentially eliminates the dermal and inhalation exposure routes or
reduces them to negligible levels. EPA also determined that a Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was not necessary as part
of the qualitative assessment conducted for Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj and G10evo-
EPSPS, due to the low risk of these ingredients. These findings are
discussed in more detail in the document titled ``Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Safety Determination for Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj and
G10evo-EPSPS Proteins.'' Based upon its evaluation in the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Safety Determination for Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj
and G10evo-EPSPS Proteins, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Cry1Ab/
Cry2Aj and G10evo-EPSPS. Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of
a tolerance are established for residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj fusion protein in or on the food and feed commodities of
corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop when used as a plant-
incorporated protectant in corn, and for residues of G10-evo EPSPS
protein in or on the food and feed commodities of all crops when used
as an inert ingredient in a plant-incorporated protectant.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The petitioner submitted Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays
(ELISAs) that detect the G10evo-EPSPS protein and the Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj
protein in corn seed, along with a PCR method for use as a Cry1Ab/
Cry2Aj screening and confirmation tool. G10evo-EPSPS protein is
detectable via a quantitative, ``sandwich'' ELISA assay using a
commercially available kit (YouLong, Catalog # AA1141). Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj
protein is detectable by combining a PCR screening method targeting the
junction sequence of the cry1Ab/cry2Aj fusion gene followed by an ELISA
assay to detect the Cry1Ab protein. The ELISA assay provided is the
commercially available QualiPlate Kit for Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac (Envirologix,
Catalog # AP-003-CRBS), which is designed to detect the Cry1Ab protein
in corn leaf and seed samples.

C. Revisions to the Requested Tolerance Exemption

    The following modifications were made to the original requests for
an exemption from a tolerance:
    1. EPA replaced ``40 CFR part 180'' with ``40 CFR part 174''
because PIP tolerance exemptions are published in part 174.
    2. Changed the name from ``Bacillus thuringiensis fusion protein
Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj'' to ``Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj protein,'' to
align with nomenclature for other exemptions published in 40 CFR part
174.
    3. Changed the name from ``Deinococcus radiodurans 5-
enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) protein'' to ``G10evo
Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (G10evo-EPSPS) protein,'' to
align with nomenclature for other exemptions published in 40 CFR part
174.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under
Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not 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.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

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

    Dated: November 5, 2020.
Edward Messina,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 174--PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT-INCORPORATED
PROTECTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  174.542 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.542   Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj protein in corn;
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj protein in or on
the food or feed commodities of corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn,
pop, are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a
plant-incorporated protectant in corn.

0
3. Add Sec.  174.543 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.543   G10evo-EPSPS protein in all plants; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of G10evo-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase
(G10evo-EPSPS) protein in or on all food or feed commodities, are
exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as an inert
ingredient in a plant-incorporated protectant.

[FR Doc. 2020-28122 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30612-30613]
[DOCID:fr28my08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filing

May 20, 2008.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc........  Docket No. EL07-56-003
Borough of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania......
City and Towns of Hagerstown, Thurmont, and
 Williamsport, Maryland.
District of Columbia Office of the People's
 Counsel.
Illinois Citizens Utility Board............
Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counsel.
Maryland Office of People's Counsel........
New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel........
Office of the Attorney General of Virginia,
 Division of Consumer Counsel.
Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel......
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative..........
Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate...
PJM Industrial Customer Coalition..........
Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative,
 Inc..
State of Delaware, Division of the Public
 Advocate.
Complainants v. PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
 Respondent.
Organization of PJM States, Inc............  Docket No. EL07-58-003
District of Columbia Public Service
 Commission.
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission......
Kentucky Public Service Commission.........
Maryland Public Service Commission.........
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.......
North Carolina Utilities Commission........
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.....
Virginia State Corporation Commission......
Complainants v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
 Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on May 12, 2008, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
filed Rate Schedule FERC No. 46, Market Monitoring Services Agreement
and Rate Schedule FERC No. 47, Service Level Agreement, in compliance
with the Commission's March 21, 2008 Order, Allegheny Elec. Coop., Inc.
v. PJM Interconnection L.L.C., 122 FERC ] 61,257, at P 26 & Ordering
Para. (C) (2008) (March 21 Order).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11833 Filed 5-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P