[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20716-20718]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08042]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77507; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Amended and Restated By-Laws

April 4, 2016.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 29, 2016, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the Exchange's Amended
and Restated By-Laws.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 Amended and Restated By-Laws
(``By-Laws'') to eliminate the last sentence of Article II, Section
2.2(d),\3\ the last sentence of Article II, Section 2.2(g)(ii) \4\ and
the last sentence of Article IV, Section 4.2(b) \5\ as well as the
defined

terms set forth in Article I (p) and (oo) \6\ which are used only in
connection with the foregoing By-Law provisions proposed to be
eliminated. Article I of the By-Laws will be re-lettered accordingly.
These By-Law provisions restrict an individual who is a Director,\7\
Observer \8\ or committee member of MIAX from also serving as a member
of the board of directors or similar governing body of a Specified
Entity and would cause such individual to immediately cease being a
Director, Observer or committee member, as applicable, of the
Exchange's Board of Directors (``Board'') upon such individual becoming
a member of the board of directors or similar governing body of a
Specified Entity. The term ``Specified Entity'' generally refers to any
U.S. securities option exchange (or facility thereof) or U.S.
alternative trading system on which securities options are traded which
competes with the Exchange, or an affiliate of the foregoing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Article II, Section 2.2(d) of the By-Laws reads in relevant
part: In the event a Director appointed after the Effective Date
becomes a member of the board of directors or similar governing body
of a Specified Entity, such individual shall immediately cease to be
a Director of the Company and the resulting vacancy shall be filled
pursuant to the provisions of Article II, Section 2.2(e).
    \4\ Article II, Section 2.2(g)(ii) of the By-Laws reads in
relevant part: In the event an individual designated as an Observer
becomes a member of the board of directors or similar governing body
of a Specified Entity after the Effective Date, such individual
shall immediately cease to be an Observer and the resulting vacancy
shall be filled pursuant to the provisions of Article II, Section
2.2(e).
    \5\ Article IV, Section 4.2(b) of the By-Laws reads in relevant
part: In the event a committee member appointed after the Effective
Date becomes a member of the board of directors or similar governing
body of a Specified Entity, such individual shall immediately cease
to be even a committee member and the resulting vacancy shall be
filled pursuant to the provisions of Article IV.
    \6\ The term ``Specified Entity'' means (i) any U.S. securities
option exchange (or facility thereof) or U.S. alternative trading
system on which securities options are traded (other than the
Company or any of its affiliates) that lists for trading any option
contract that competes with an Exchange Contract, (ii) any person
that owns or controls such U.S. securities option exchange or U.S.
alternative trading system, and (iii) any affiliate of a person
described in clause (i) or (ii) above. See By-Laws Article I (oo).
The term ``Exchange Contract'' means a contract that is then listed
for trading by the Exchange or that is contemplated by the then
current business plan of the Company to be listed for trading by the
Exchange within ninety (90) days following such date. See By-Laws
Article I (p).
    \7\ The term ``Director'' means the persons elected or appointed
to the [MIAX] Board of Directors from time to time in accordance
with the LLC Agreement [of MIAX] and these By-Laws in their capacity
as managers of the Company. See By-Laws Article I (j).
    \8\ The term ``Observer'' means a person invited to attend
meetings of the [MIAX] Board of Directors in a nonvoting observer
capacity as further described in Article II, Section 2.2(g)(i)-(iii)
of the By-Laws. See By-Laws Article II, Section 2.2(g).
    \9\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This restriction was added to the By-Laws in connection with the
Equity Rights Program (``ERP'') \10\ established by the Exchange in
2013.\11\ This prohibition was intended to prevent any potential
conflicts of interest that might arise by virtue of such MIAX Director,
Observer or committee member also serving as a member of the governing
body of a competitor. MIAX has since learned through experience that
such prohibition is unnecessarily restrictive because (1) any such
potential conflicts of interest are more effectively and more
efficiently addressed by other means, and (2) it results in the
unavailability to MIAX (or to its competitors) of many excellent Board
(or other governing body) candidates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to the ERP, units representing the right to
acquire equity in the Exchange's parent holding company, Miami
International Holdings, Inc., were issued to participating Members
in exchange for payment of an initial purchase price or the
prepayment of certain transaction fees and the achievement of
certain liquidity addition volume thresholds on the Exchange over a
fixed period of time. The By-Laws were also then amended to
incorporate rights granted to Members participating in the ERP to
appoint representation on the MIAX Board.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70498 (September
25, 2013), 78 FR 60348 (October 1, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-43) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71172 (December 23, 2013), 78 FR
79530 (December 30, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX has found that potential conflicts of interest are best
addressed through such vehicles as the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and fiduciary duties applicable to limited liability company
(``LLC'') managers under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act
(``LLC Act'') \12\ and self-regulatory obligations imposed upon
directors of a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') such as MIAX
under the Act,\13\ which generally apply to Directors, Observers and
committee members of MIAX, as well as the confidentiality agreements
that MIAX generally enters into with Directors, Observers and committee
members, By-Law provisions directly addressing potential conflicts of
interest \14\ and MIAX policies relating to confidentiality of MIAX
information and addressing the aforementioned fiduciary and other
obligations of company directors generally and as directors of a SRO.
MIAX has also found that any potential benefit that could be derived
from prohibiting a MIAX Director, Observer or committee member from
also serving as member of a governing body of a competitor is by far
out-weighed by the loss to MIAX of the experience, knowledge and
expertise of potential Board members who are disqualified from such
service simply by virtue of their service as a member of a governing
body of a competitor. The proposed rule change is designed to enable
MIAX to engage the best suited and most qualified leaders to serve in
the capacity of Director, Observer or committee member, regardless of
their service on the governing body of a competitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 6 Del. C. Sec.  18-101 et seq. Fiduciary duties of LLC
managers include the duty of loyalty (requires managers to serve the
best interest of the company and avoid conflicts of interest) and
the duty of care (requires managers to act as a prudent person would
in similar circumstances).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78 et seq.
    \14\ See By-Laws Article II, Section 2.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, MIAX has reviewed the rules of other U.S. securities
option exchanges and noted that most other option exchanges do not
restrict their board (or other governing body) members from sitting on
the board of directors or other governing body of another options
exchange.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ None of the BATS Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC,
Nasdaq Options Market or International Securities Exchange, LLC have
such a restriction. Only one U.S. securities options exchange
restricts those of its directors designated by its founding firm
members (i.e., investors in its strategic founding transaction) from
sitting on the board of directors or other governing body of another
options exchange. See Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company
Agreement of NYSE Amex Options LLC, Article VIII, 8.1(h). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71408 (January 27, 2014), 79 FR
5481 (January 31, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-08) (Exhibit 5A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it
enables the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to
carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce
compliance by its Members and persons associated with its Members with,
the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and
the rules of the Exchange; and that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX is proposing to eliminate the restriction in its By-Laws
prohibiting a Director, Observer or committee member of the Exchange's
Board of Directors from simultaneously serving as a member of the
governing body of a competitor. This proposed rule change is consistent
with and will facilitate a Board structure and composition by MIAX that
will strengthen its ability to carry out the purposes of the Act and
comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder, and to enforce compliance by Exchange Members and persons
associated with Exchange Members with the provisions of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder and the rules of the Exchange. This
proposed rule change is also consistent with the

protection of investors and the public interest. Specifically, the
proposed rule change will allow for the selection by MIAX of nominees
best qualified to serve as Directors, Observers or committee members on
the Exchange's Board of Directors based on the overall strategic needs
of the Board, the Exchange and its constituents, regardless of such
individuals' service as a member of the governing body of a competitor.
(Conversely, this proposed rule change will also allow for the
selection by MIAX's competitors of nominees best qualified to serve on
their governing bodies, regardless of such individuals' service on the
Exchange's Board). In addition, the proposed rule change will alleviate
the disruption that might occur if a Director, Observer or committee
member of MIAX were to become a member of the board of directors or
similar governing body of a Specified Entity and thereby immediately
cease to be a Director, Observer or committee member of MIAX, thus
resulting in the loss of a valuable Director, Observer or committee
member and a vacancy on the MIAX Board which the Exchange would have to
divert efforts to refill, and potentially disrupting compliance with
MIAX's Board composition requirements as set forth in its By-Laws.

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. The proposed change to the
By-Laws relates to the corporate governance of MIAX, and as such, is
not a competitive filing and does not impose a burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2016-08 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-MIAX-2016-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-08 and should be
submitted on or before April 29, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08042 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10616]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0024]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on February 1, 2021,
Sandersville Railroad Company (SAN) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
237, Bridge Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number
FRA-2021-0024.
    Specifically, SAN seeks relief from the requirements of 49 CFR
237.31, Adoption of bridge management programs. SAN's requested relief
would include continuing the use of a scale inspector rather than a
railroad bridge inspector for annual bridge inspections.
    SAN owns and operates 35 miles of track and has one railroad
bridge, which is a weigh-in-motion scale with a maximum authorized
speed of 6 miles per hour. The scale provides accurate weights for
customers using SAN's sidings and for Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS)
to ensure it does not exceed weight restrictions for its intended
routes or railcar weight limits. No railcars containing hazardous
materials operate over the scale. SAN claims the scale was designed to
meet American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association,
Association of American Railroads, and Cooper E-80 design
specifications.
    SAN states that an NS railroad scale inspector inspects the scale
annually and provides a report that details any structural deficiencies
found that could jeopardize the safety of the scale. SAN believes that
its current method of inspection, which has been in place for twenty
years, provides a more knowledgeable and less costly inspection than
would be required by 49 CFR part 237.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by April 8, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-03484 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

September 10, 2010

         OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Process for Determining Class 2b and 3 Co2 Standard

FROM:	A. Neam, J. Cherry, Assessment and Standards Division

TO:		Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

Introduction

The heavy duty (class 2b and class 3) pickup trucks and vans sold
currently in the United States, and those which are anticipated to be
sold in the MY 2014-2018 timeframe, are highly varied and satisfy a wide
range of needs.  Examples for these vehicle classes include vans that
can transport 15 passengers and pickup trucks that can tow over 20,000
pounds.  American consumers require many vehicle options to accommodate
their utility needs and preferences.  Recent volatility in oil prices
and the state of the economy have demonstrated that consumer demand and
choice of vehicles within this wide range can be sensitive to these
factors.  Although it is impossible for any organization to precisely
predict the future, a characterization and quantification of the future
fleet are required to assess the impacts of rules which would affect
that future fleet.  The historic perturbations in the U.S. economy and
especially in the automotive sector in recent years make such
forecasting particularly problematic, and so for this rulemaking, it is
assumed the future mix of heavy duty trucks and vans, and volumes of
heavy duty vehicles, will be the same as those in the 2008 model year,
the most recent relatively stable sales year.  In order to accomplish
this, manufacturers have provided details on their 2008 models and
volumes.  This data along with available emissions data was used to
determine the baseline fleet.  This document provides details of how the
baseline fleet was created, how the CO2 emissions for each vehicle was
determined, how the baseline and standard emissions curves for the fleet
were determined, and gives the phase in for the standard.

Why do the agencies establish a baseline vehicle fleet?

In order to calculate the impacts of proposed standards, it is necessary
to estimate the composition of the future vehicle fleet absent the
standards in order to conduct comparisons.  We have developed a
comparison fleet.  The first step in this process was to develop a
baseline fleet based on model year 2008 data.  EPA and NHTSA created a
baseline fleet in order to track the volumes and types of fuel
economy-improving and CO2-reducing technologies which are already
present in today’s fleet.  Creating a baseline fleet helps to keep, to
some extent, the agencies’ from adding technologies to vehicles that
already have these technologies, which would result in “double
counting” of technologies’ costs and benefits when modeling.

The 2008 baseline vehicle fleet

Why did the agencies choose 2008 as the baseline model year?

The 2008 model year is the most recent model year for which the industry
had normal sales.  The 2009 model year data was available, but this
model year was disrupted by the economic downturn and the bankruptcies
of both General Motors and Chrysler.  There was a significant reduction
in the number of vehicles sold by both companies and the industry as a
whole.  These abnormalities made the 2009 model year data unsuitable for
use as a future fleet.  Therefore, the agencies chose to use the 2008
model year data as the baseline since it was the latest representative
transparent data set available.

On what data is the baseline vehicle fleet based?

EPA used several sources to determine the composition, volumes, and
emissions of the vehicles in the fleet.  Though the composition and
volumes of the fleet are from the 2008 model year, some advances in fuel
economy technology have occurred since the 2008 model year, so emissions
data from newer vehicles (when available) was used to model the
emissions of the vehicles.  Representative emissions data from the 2008,
2009, and 2010 model year’s vehicles was used.

The source of the heavy duty fleet composition and volumes are the
automotive manufacturers.  Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors each
submitted product plans which included their fleet composition, details
of each unique (weight and capability) truck and van sold, and their
volume.  The manufacturers included the 2008 model year at the
agency’s request.

 There were two sources for the CO2 emissions data.  The first was
emissions data submitted by the manufacturers at vehicle certification.
Manufacturers are required to submit city cycle emissions data when they
certify vehicle for sale in Federal states.  Manufacturers are also
required to submit highway cycle emissions data for vehicles that are
certified for sale in California.  Since not all vehicles were certified
for California sale, only a subset of emissions data was available from
the certification database.

The second source for CO2 emissions data is a test program run by EPA.
EPA tested a number of vehicles to acquire data from vehicles that are
currently in service.  The vehicles chosen augmented the certification
data, to insure adequate CO2 values were available for modeling the 2008
model year fleet.

How were the 2008 vehicles CO2 emissions modeled?

Ideally, the light duty CAFE ADFE approach would have been used, but the
necessary data is not available for each heavy duty vehicle.  Also, many
years worth of fuel economy data was analyzed to determine the
coefficients of the light duty equation.

Since the method that is used for CAFE was not available, a new method
was derived.   The 2008 model year vehicles CO2 emissions were modeled
using characteristics of each vehicle that relate to CO2 performance.
Although other characteristics affect CO2 performance, the
characteristics available were test weight, axle ratio, and 4 wheel
drive vs. 2 wheel drive.

In order to model vehicle CO2 emissions, data was acquired from both the
certification database and the test program that match the vehicle type
(truck or van), class (2b or 3), and engine.  Multiple vehicles were
examined to determine a factor that could be used with each of the
characteristics that were used to model CO2 emissions.

Two equations were determined, one for City CO2 and one for highway CO2.

They are as follows:

City CO2= {A + [(C-B) * D]} * { 1 + [((E/F)-1) * G]} + H

Where:

A=Base City CO2

B=Test_Vehicle_Test Weight

C=CurrentVehicles Test Weight

D=Weight Multiplier City

E=Vehicle Axle Ratio

F=TestVehicleAxle Ratio

G=City Axle Multiplier

H= 0 if test and current vehicle have the same wheel drive

    = – City 2wd4wd Adder if test vehicle had 4wd and the current
vehicle has 2wd

    =+ City 2wd4wd Adder if test vehicle had 2wd and the current vehicle
has 4wd

Highway CO2=  {I + [(C-B) * J]} * { 1 + [((E/F)-1) * K]} + L

Where:

I=Base Highway CO2

B=Test_Vehicle_Test Weight

C=CurrentVehicles Test Weight

J=Weight Multiplier City

E=Vehicle Axle Ratio

F=TestVehicleAxle Ratio

K=Highway Axle Multiplier

L= 0 if test and current vehicle have the same wheel drive

    = – Highway 2wd4wd Adder if test vehicle had 4wd and the current
vehicle has 2wd

    =+ Highway 2wd4wd Adder if test vehicle had 2wd and the current
vehicle has 4wd

Combined CO2 is used to set the standard.  It is derived using the
following equations:

Combined CO2 =55% * City CO2 + 45% * Highway CO2

The MY 2014-2018 Standards

Heavy duty vehicles are required for many applications that are beyond
the capabilities of vehicles from the light duty fleet.  It is important
that the CO2 standard for heavy duty vehicles does not prevent them from
continuing to satisfy these needs.  The baseline data set used for the
2014-2018 model year standards was analyzed in many ways to determine
the best way to create a baseline and ultimately a standard.

What criterion was examined for determining the Baseline?

In order to preserve the utility of heavy duty vehicles, many criteria
were evaluated to determine the input for the baseline equation.
Examples include EPA curb weight, ALVW, Payload, GCW, GVWR, Footprint,
and Trailer Tow.  The definition for each is below.

EPA curb weight = curb weight of the vehicle with 33% of the optional
content added.

ALVW = EPA curb weight + ½ Payload

Payload = GVWR - EPA curb weight

GVWR = Gross Vehicle Weight Rating,

GCWR = Gross Combined Weight Rating

Footprint = Wheelbase – (Front Track Width + Rear Track Width) / 2

Trailer Tow = GCWR-GVWR

How was the criterion chosen for the Baseline?

The main applications for heavy duty vehicles include hauling
payload/people and/or towing.  Most of the criteria were evaluated
graphically with the exception of footprint.  After reviewing the
footprint data, it was obvious that footprint did not track well with
CO2 and the capability of heavy duty vehicles.

CO2 was graphed vs. EPA curb weight, and it was observed that at the
same weight, vehicles can vary several hundred grams per mile of CO2.
This is due to the fact that at the same curb weight, vehicles can have
both different test weights (which relates to payload) and different
towing capacities.  EPA curb weight was determined to be an inadequate
criterion to base the standard on.

CO2 was graphed vs. ALVW, and a more linear relationship was observed in
comparison to the graph using EPA curb weight.  There was still large
variation in CO2, due to the fact of not capturing the capability of the
vehicle completely.  ALVW was determined to be an inadequate criterion
to base the standard on.

CO2 was graphed vs. payload, and the graph was not linear.  A large
variation in CO2 was observed, due to the fact of not capturing the
capability of the vehicle completely.  Payload is not a good criterion
to base the standard on.

CO2 was graphed vs. GCWR, and the graph was linear, but at the same GCWR
vehicles can have very different CO2.  The large variation in CO2 showed
that GCWR does not completely capture the capability of a vehicle.  GCWR
was determined to be an inadequate criterion to base the standard on.

CO2 was graphed vs. GVWR, and the graph was linear, but like GCWR at the
same GVWR, vehicles can have very different CO2.  The large variation in
CO2 indicated that GVWR does not completely capture the capability of a
vehicle.  GVWR was determined to be an inadequate criterion to base the
standard on.

These vehicle attributes individually did not adequately capture the
capability of the heavy duty vehicles.  The EPA also looked at a measure
of capability that is a combination of attributes.  It is called the
“Work Factor” of the vehicle.  The work factor is defined as .75 *
(payload +500 if 4wd) +. 25 * towing.  Work factor gives a very linear
graph with CO2.  There are some outlier vehicles, but overall it was
determined to be the best measure of capability.

How was the Baseline stringency determined?

To determine the baseline level of stringency, a curve was determined
using the baseline CO2 data.  The data was analyzed based on the
criterion (work factor) calculated in the previous section.  It was
necessary to analyze the baseline using a linear line fit given that it
is one of our goals not to eliminate vehicles in this category.  Using a
linear line fit gives equal weighting to each vehicle configuration
ensuring that no vehicle configuration dominated the standard whether it
has high or low CO2 given its work factor.

The linear fit produces the equation:

CO2= 0.0489 * (Work Factor) + 377

Baselines for future standards may be created using production
weighting.  Production weighting will give greatest weight to vehicles
with the largest production.  This is a good method when a fleet’s
demand is well known, but given the uncertainty with the current fleet,
it is best to use a linear line fit.

How was the Baseline used to determine the Standard?

To determine a standard, CO2 reducing technologies for this segment were
reviewed.  It was determined that different technologies applied to gas
vehicles than to diesel vehicles.  There were more CO2 technologies
available for diesel vehicles than gas vehicles.  This led to two
different percent CO2 reductions, and separate standards for the gas and
diesel vehicles.  A 15 percent reduction is possible for diesel vehicles
given the technology currently on vehicles in the baseline and the CO2
reducing technologies available.  A 10 percent reduction is possible for
gas vehicles given the technology currently on vehicles in the baseline
and the CO2 reduction technologies available.

Using these percentages, separate standards were determined for gas and
diesel vehicles.

The final standard for gas has the equation:

CO2= 0.0440 * (Work Factor) + 339

The final standard for diesel has the equation:

CO2= 0.0416 * (Work Factor) + 320

What is the phase in for the Standard?

The phase in percentages (shown in   REF _Ref271018133 \h  Table 1.3-1
Phase in Percentages ) are the same for both the gasoline and diesel
standard.

Table   STYLEREF 2 \s  1.3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 2  1  Phase in
Percentages

Year	Phase-In Percentage

2014	15%

2015	20%

2016	40%

2017	60%

2018	100%

  REF _Ref271025643 \h  Table 1.3-2  Diesel CO2 Standard Equations )
shows how the standard is phased in for diesel vehicles.

Table   STYLEREF 2 \s  1.3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 2  2   Diesel CO2
Standard Equations

Year	Equation

2014	CO2= 0.0478 * (Work Factor) + 368

2015	CO2= 0.0474 * (Work Factor) + 366

2016	CO2= 0.0460 * (Work Factor) + 354

2017	CO2= 0.0445 * (Work Factor) + 343

2018	CO2= 0.0416 * (Work Factor) + 320

  REF _Ref271025884 \h

Table 1.3-3  Gasoline CO2 Standard Equations ) shows how the standard is
phased in for gasoline vehicles.

Table   STYLEREF 2 \s  1.3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 2  3   Gasoline CO2
Standard Equations

Year	Equation

2014	CO2= 0.0482 * (Work Factor) + 371

2015	CO2= 0.0479 * (Work Factor) + 369

2016	CO2= 0.0469 * (Work Factor) + 362

2017	CO2= 0.0460 * (Work Factor) + 354

2018	CO2= 0.0440 * (Work Factor) + 339

How is the vehicle technology package effectiveness determined?

The individual CO2 reducing technologies are discussed in the Preamble
and Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.  Each technology discussed has a range
of CO2 reduction potential taking into account variations of
implementation for class 2B and 3 vehicles.  As in the 2016 light duty
final rule, the combined CO2 reduction for vehicle technology packages
are determined using the lumped parameter model.  A class 2B and 3
version of the lumped parameter is located in the docket.

  PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12880-12881]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-[2016-0379]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 39 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on December 28, 2016. The
exemptions expire on December 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On November 25, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
Federal diabetes exemption applications from 39 individuals and
requested comments from the public (81 FR 85312). The public comment
period closed on December 27, 2016, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 39 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 39 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 39 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly

monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education
related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen.
These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including
diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the November 25, 2016, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 39 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR 391.64(b):

Mitchell G. Aucoin (NH)
Nelson T. Barninger (PA)
Thomas J. Bonura (TX)
Todd M. Boughter (PA)
Bradley J. Brown (OH)
Alex Caterson (PA)
Kimberly J. Davis (CT)
Earl C. Duke, 2nd (VA)
David A. Evans (PA)
Robert H. Haines (PA)
Anthony L. Hamilton (TX)
Jeremy E. Hartig (WI)
Donovan K. Helton (VA)
Thomas M. Howie, 3rd (AR)
Gary A. Kestner (WV)
Ricky W. Knudsen (MN)
Brandon S. Koehn (KS)
Victor R. Lanza-Contreras (MD)
Oscar A. Lazo (ID)
Stephen B. Macisaac (NY)
Corey M. McCormack (CA)
William D. Meier (KY)
Melvin W. Miller (MI)
Lyman D. Myron (AZ)
Anthony H. Patrick (KY)
Danny L. Peterson (WI)
Eugene P. Roever (AR)
William P. Rossi (TX)
Jim W. Royer (MN)
Robert L. Rich, Jr. (MN)
George H. Saenz (OR)
David E. Schoch, Jr. (NJ)
Bobbie G. Sharp, Sr. (MO)
George A. Skelton (PA)
Joshua D. Taylor (MO)
Daniel G. Van Listenborgh (WY)
Clyde L. Weaver (NC)
Jason A. Weiss (IL)
John R. Wilson (GA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: February 27, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-04391 Filed 3-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


	UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

	OFFICE OF HEARINGS

_________________________________

	}

TRANS STATES AIRLINES, INC.	}	Served: July 26, 2002

	RESPONDENT/APPELLANT	}

						}

		v.				} 	FAA CIVIL PENALTY No.

						}	CP01CE0003

FEDERAL AVIATION			}

 ADMINISTRATION				}	FAA DOCKET No. 2002-9292-8

	COMPLAINTANT/APPELLEE	}

________________________________	}

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE

	Comes now Respondent, Trans States Airlines, Inc. (“Trans States”), by their attorneys, and files this Respondent/Appellant Notice of Address Change and states as follows:

Effective immediately the address and contact information for Respondent/Appellant’s Attorney, David J.A. Hayes III is:

			Captain David J. A. Hayes III

			Chief Legal Officer

			Trans States Airlines, Inc.

			11495 Natural Bridge Road

			St. Louis, MO 63044

<PHONE_NUMBER>

<PHONE_NUMBER> (F)

			  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

							Respectfully submitted,

								CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER

								TRANS STATE AIRLINES, INC.

								S/David J. A. Hayes III

								Captain David J. A. Hayes, III

	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 26th day of July 2002, I have served a copy of the attached NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE on the individual(s) named below via DOT Electronic Document Management System & Certified U. S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, addressed as follows:

Appellate Docket Clerk

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave. S. W.

Room 924A

Washington, D.C. 20591

Mr. John W. Escott, Esq.

Managing Senior Attorney

Federal Aviation Administration

901 Locust Road, Suite #506

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641

816-329-3771(F)

__________________________

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7143]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14351-000]

Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On January 13, 2012, the Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric
Authority (GCPHA) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the P.E. 46A
Wasteway Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the P.E. 46A Wasteway,
which is part of the Federal Columbia Basin Project, in Franklin
County, Washington.
    The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities:
(1) A 20-foot-long, 20-foot-wide intake diversion canal leading to a
20-foot-wide, 15-foot-high intake gate structure; (2) an 8-foot-
diameter, 750-foot-long steel penstock connecting the intake gate
structure to the powerhouse; (3) a powerhouse containing a single
Francis turbine/generating unit with an installed capacity of 1.6
megawatts; (4) an approximately 0.1-mile-long, 13.8-kilovolt
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 6,750 megawatts-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ronald K. Rodewald, Secretary-Manager, Grand
Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority, 32 C Street NW., P.O. Box 219,
Ephrata, WA 98823, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
14237-000 filed July 29, 2011. Competing applications had to be filed
on or before January 17, 2012.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the
``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14351) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3372.

    Dated: February 6, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3162 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76205-76207]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP24-8-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of
Application and Establishing Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on October 18, 2023, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America LLC (NGPL), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations
requesting authorization for its Texas-Louisiana Expansion Project
(Project). The Project consists of construction and operation of new
and modified facilities at the existing Compressor Station (CS) 302
located in Montgomery County, Texas and CS 343 located in Liberty
County, Texas. The Project will create 300,000 dekatherms per day of
incremental firm eastbound transportation capacity on NGPL's existing
mainline facilities along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast region.
NGPL estimates the total cost of the Project to be $72 million. NGPL
requests presumption of rolled-in rate treatment and proposes to
establish an incremental fuel retention rate for firm transportation
service to be provided on Project facilities, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
for public inspection.
    Specifically, NGPL proposes to install one new 18,340 horsepower
(hp) Electric Motor Driven (EMD) compressor unit and to uprate existing
EMD compressor Units 7 and 8 by 1,600 hp each at its existing CS 302.
NGPL also proposes to re-wheel the existing compressor Units 7, 8, and
9 at CS 302 and Units 9 and 10 at its existing CS 343. Finally, NGPL
will install various section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities at CS 302 and
CS 343, including additional gas cooling equipment, a motor control
center building for new gas coolers and a new EMD compressor unit, a
new filter separator, and station yard piping.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed Project should be directed to
Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, for Kinder Morgan Inc., as
Operator of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, at 2 North
Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest
the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding.
There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The
deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
November 21, 2023. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and
comments is explained below.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice

communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available
information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and
assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or
requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at
(202) 502-6595 or [email protected].

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be.

Protests

    Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4) \2\ and 385.211 \3\ of the
Commission's regulations under the NGA, any person \4\ may file a
protest to the application. Protests must comply with the requirements
specified in section 385.2001 \5\ of the Commission's regulations. A
protest may also serve as a motion to intervene so long as the
protestor states it also seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.10(a)(4).
    \3\ 18 CFR 385.211.
    \4\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
    \5\ 18 CFR 385.2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly
recorded, please submit your comments on or before November 21, 2023.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or
protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number CP24-8-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using
the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling,
you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making; first select ``General'' and then select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by
mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must
reference the Project docket number (CP24-8-000).
    To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    To file via any other courier: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected].
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\6\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \7\ and the regulations under the NGA \8\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is November 21, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \8\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP24-8-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature
includes a document-less intervention option; for more information,
visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf.; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your
motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP24-8-
000.
    To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    To file via any other courier: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email at: Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, for
Kinder Morgan Inc., as Operator of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC, at 2 North Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
or at [email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by
an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to
the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from
the service list at the eService link on FERC Online. Service can be
via email with a link to the document.
    All timely, unopposed \9\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\10\ Motions to

intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely,
and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good
cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be
waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in
Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\11\ A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \10\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \11\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 21, 2023.

    Dated: October 31, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24463 Filed 11-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 2414]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2715-003; ER17-380-003; ER19-997-003; ER11-
2424-014; ER19-358-001; ER19-359-001.
    Applicants: Stored Solar, LLC, Stored Solar J&WE, LLC, Stored Solar
Bethlehem, LLC, Stored Solar Tamworth, LLC, Stored Solar Whitefield
LLC, Stored Solar Springfield, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Stored
Solar Entities, et. al.
    Filed Date: 1/4/21.
    Accession Number: 20210104-5395.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/25/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-21-001.
    Applicants: Harts Mill Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to
be effective 12/2/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-350-001.
    Applicants: Highlander Solar Energy Station 1, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to
be effective 12/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-370-001.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Rate Schedule for
Blackstart Service to be effective 1/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-711-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: OATT Revised Attachment H-1 (Rev Dep
Rates)--Supplemental Filing to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-816-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE & NEPOOL; Rev.
Related to Disclosure Information Under FAP to be effective 3/9/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-817-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-01-06_SA 3616 Entergy
Louisiana-EDF Renewables Development GIA (J1076) to be effective 3/8/
2021.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-818-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Correction to eTariff
Metadata for SA No. 5581 Filed in Docket No. ER20-2002 to be effective
8/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-819-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Correction to eTariff
Metadata for SA No. 5582 Filed in Docket No. ER20-2003 to be effective
8/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-820-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-01-06_SA 3617 ELL-EDF-
St. James-St James II MPFCA (J1076 J1142 J1158) to be effective 3/8/
2021.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-821-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 5868; Queue No. AC2-165 to be effective 12/7/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/6/21.
    Accession Number: 20210106-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 6, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00404 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 110 (Monday, June 8, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34646-34648]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11676]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0097; FRL-10008-72]

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 Protein in Soybean; Exemption
From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1
protein (hereafter referred to as Cry14Ab-1) in or on soybean when used
as a Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP). BASF Corporation submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of Cry14Ab-1.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 8, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 7, 2020, 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-2019-0097, 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: Robert McNally, 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-2019-0097 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
August 7, 2020. 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-2019-0097, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,

along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 28, 2019 (84 FR 30976) (FRL-9995-
27), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 8F8722) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant Cry14Ab-1
protein in soybean. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    A temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (40 CFR
174.538) was previously granted (82 FR 57137) for Cry14Ab-1 protein in
soybean as part of an Experimental Use Permit (EPA Registration Number
264-EUP-151). This temporary exemption expired on April 1, 2020.

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.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Cry14Ab-1
and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well
as the relationship of this information to human risk. A summary of the
data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data
can be found within the document entitled ``Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Safety Determination for Cry14Ab-1 Protein''
(Safety Determination). This document, as well as other relevant
information, is available in the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OPP-
2019-0097.
    The available data demonstrated that, with regard to humans,
Cry14Ab-1 is not toxic or allergenic via any route of exposure.
Although there may be some exposure to residues when Cry14Ab-1 is used
in soybeans as a plant-incorporated protectant, exposure to such
residues presents no concern for adverse effects. Non-dietary exposure
via inhalation is not likely since Cry14Ab-1 is contained within plant
cells, which essentially eliminates this exposure route or reduces it
to negligible levels. Non-dietary exposure via the skin is somewhat
more likely via contact with soybean products which might have been
processed in a way that disrupts cellular structure. However, there are
no risks associated with this exposure route to the Cry14Ab-1 protein
itself, because it would be present in the plant at low levels, and is
not toxic or allergenic. EPA also determined that a Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was not necessary as part of the
qualitative assessment conducted for Cry14Ab-1, due to the low risk of
this pesticide. These findings are discussed in more detail in the
Safety Determination.
    Based upon its evaluation in the Safety Determination, 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 Cry14Ab-1. Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Cry14Ab-1 in
or on soybeans when used in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices. In addition, EPA is removing the temporary
exemption for Cry14Ab-1 (40 CFR 174.538) that was established for an
Experimental Use Permit (EPA Registration Number 264-EUP-151) as that
exemption expired on April 1, 2020.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    EPA has determined that an analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Nonetheless, an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) that detects
Cry14Ab-1 protein in soybean seed was submitted by the petitioner as an
analytical method. The analytical method is available as a test kit
(EnviroLogix QualiPlateTM Cry14Ab ELISA kit number AP 052).
An independent laboratory validation of the analytical method showed
that the test kit was accurate for the detection of Cry14Ab-1 protein
in grain composites containing Cry14Ab-1 soybean grain at 1 in 200 and
1 in 800 levels. Therefore, the limit of detection for Cry14Ab-1
protein in ground soybean grain was confirmed as one Cry14Ab-1 soybean
seed in 800 total seeds.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a
petition submitted to EPA. 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, 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 exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of
a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (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: May 14, 2020.
Richard Keigwin,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

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.

Sec.  174.538  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  174.538.

0
3. Add Sec.  174.540 to subpart W to read as follows:

Sec.  174.540  Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 protein; exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 protein in or on
soybean food and feed commodities are exempt from the requirement of a
tolerance when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in soybean.

[FR Doc. 2020-11676 Filed 6-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P