[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85221-85222]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28407]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9030-4]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 11/14/2016 Through 11/18/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20160273, Final, FHWA, FL, SR 87 Connector, Contact: Joseph
Sullivan<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Under 49 U.S.C. 304a(b), FHWA has issued a Final EIS and ROD.
Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to
this action.

EIS No. 20160274, Draft, FHWA, NY, NYS Route 198 (Scajaquada
Expressway) Corridor Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/25/2017, Contact:
Peter Osborn<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20160275, Draft Supplement, USFS, WA, Pack and Saddle Stock
Outfitter-Guide Special Use Permit Issuance, Comment Period Ends: 01/
09/2017, Contact: Jennifer Zbyszewski<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20160276, Final, FRA, MD, Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, Review
Period Ends: 12/27/2016, Contact: Brandon Bratcher<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20160277, Final, USCG, LA, Port Delfin Project Deepwater Port
Application, Review Period Ends: 01/12/2017, Contact: Roddy C. Bachman
202-372-1451.
EIS No. 20160278, Final, BLM, OR, Proposed Land use Plan Amendment for
the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project, Review Period
Ends: 12/25/2016, Contact: Tamara Gertsch<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160279, Final, BOEM, LA, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Leasing Program: 2017-2022, Review Period Ends: 12/27/2016, Contact:
Dr. Jill Lewandowski<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160280, Adoption, USFWS, NAT, ADOPTION--Programmatic--Habitat
Restoration Activities Implemented Throughout the Coastal United
States, Review Period Ends: 12/27/2016, Contact: Peter Barlow 703-358-
2119

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service is
adopting the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency's Final EIS #20150171, filed with EPA on 06/11/2015.
The USFWS was not a cooperating agency. Therefore, recirculation of the
EIS is necessary under Section 1506.3(b) of the CEQ Regulations.

EIS No. 20160281, Draft, USFS, CO, Snowmass Multi-Season Recreation
Projects, Comment Period Ends: 01/11/2017, Contact: Roger Poirier 970-
945-3245
EIS No. 20160282, Final Supplement, USFWS, HI, Na Pua Makani Wind
Project and Habitat Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 01/03/2017,
Contact: Jodi Charrier<PHONE_NUMBER>

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160256, Draft Supplement, USACE, MO, Mississippi River
between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Comment Period
Ends: 01/18/2017, Contact: Kip Runyon<PHONE_NUMBER>, Revision to the FR
Notice Published 11/04/2016, Extending the Comment Period from 12/19/
2016 to 01/18/2017.

    Dated: November 21, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-28407 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


tons is less than 358,974 tons). Therefore, EPA is proposing
Alternative 1 (compliance with BART emission limits on one unit per
year in 2021, 2022, and 2023) as a better-than-BART alternative that
results in greater reasonable progress than would be achieved under
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Emissions over 2009-2044 for EPA's proposed BART
determination are calculated assuming compliance with a proposed
limit of 0.055 lb/MMBtu by 2018, and actual installation years for
LNB/SOFA, i.e., 2009-2011 period. EPA has selected the period 2009-
2044 as most appropriate because it includes the early installation
dates for LNB/SOFA and extends until the anticipated 2044
termination date of the new site lease currently under negotiation
between the Navajo Nation and the owners of NGS. Other timeframes
can be used for the ``better than BART'' analysis (e.g., 2001-2064),
however, these timeframes are unlikely to materially alter the
analysis.

             Table 12--Analysis of Proposed BART Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       BART            Alternative 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Years............  by 2018..........  2021, 2022, and 2023.
Total Emissions (tons)........  358,974..........  430,904.
LNB/SOFA Credit (tons)........  n/a..............  92,175.
Adjusted Emissions (tons).....  n/a..............  338,189.
Better than BART?.............  n/a..............  Yes.
                                                   (338,189 tons <
                                                    358,974 tons).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Analysis of Additional Alternative Compliance Schedules

    To the extent that there may be interest in additional flexibility
beyond the 2021-2023 compliance schedule under Alternative 1, EPA has
evaluated two additional compliance schedules, using the ``better than
BART'' analysis framework described above, to evaluate additional time
for compliance, i.e., compliance on one unit per year in 2023, 2024,
and 2025 (Alternative 2) and compliance on one unit per year in 2024,
2025, and 2026 (Alternative 3). EPA is not proposing Alternatives 2 and
3 because these alternatives require additional information from
stakeholders in order to meet the ``better than BART'' threshold. We
are soliciting comment on Alternatives 2 and 3, and, if appropriate,
will supplement this proposal before finalizing any alternative to BART
that extends the compliance schedule beyond the timeframe proposed in
Alternative 1.
    As shown in Table 13, Alternatives 2 and 3 do not, as currently
evaluated, meet the ``better than BART'' threshold because the adjusted
emissions (accounting for the LNB/SOFA credit for early NOX
reductions) exceed total emissions under BART. Table 13 refers to the
amount by which the alternative exceeds BART as the ``NOX
emissions reduction deficit.'' For Alternatives 2 and 3, the
NOX emission reduction deficits are 15,179 tons and 33,160
tons, respectively, showing that as the compliance dates under a given
alternative extend further into the future, the NOX emission
reduction deficit grows. Because Alternatives 2 and 3 do not by
themselves meet the ``better than BART'' threshold, EPA views
Alternatives 2 and 3 as viable only if the owners of NGS achieve
additional emission reductions to bridge the deficit in NOX
emission reductions. These additional emission reductions could be
implemented as short-term (e.g., for some subset of the period 2009-
2044) or long-term (e.g., achieved annually until 2044) measures.
    As shown in Table 13, if the owners of NGS complied with the
schedule under Alternative 2 and implemented a short-term emission
reduction bridge (for example, over a 10-year period from 2013-2023),
the owners of NGS would need to achieve additional NOX
emission reductions of 1,518 tons per year. Similarly, implementing a
long-term emission reduction bridge (for example, over the period of
2013-2044) would require additional NOX emission reductions
of 490 tons per year. The short and long term emission reduction
bridges in Table 13 provide examples of how additional emission
reductions might be distributed over time. The actual annual emission
reductions that NGS would need to bridge the NOX deficit
would depend, not only on the size of the deficit, but on the specific
measures and time periods chosen by the owners of NGS. Depending on the
magnitude of the required emission bridge, EPA anticipates that
reductions could be achieved without expending substantial funds before
the lease, NEPA review, and other processes are completed. Such
reductions could be implemented as NOX reductions achieved
annually in equal increments to meet the emissions bridge, or some
other structure that achieves the total emission reductions at
different intervals. Thus, EPA is soliciting comment on how NGS could
achieve the emission reduction bridge necessary for these longer
compliance schedules to meet the ``better than BART'' threshold and
will supplement our proposal before an alternative with a compliance
schedule beyond 2023 is finalized.

                                                      Table 13--Analysis of Additional Alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              BART                           Alternative 2                                  Alternative 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Years.................  by 2018...............  2023, 2024, and 2025.........................  2024, 2025, and 2026.
Total Emissions (tons).............  358,974...............  466,869......................................  484,849.
LNB/SOFA Credit (tons).............  n/a...................  92,175.......................................  92,175.
Adjusted Emissions (tons)..........  n/a...................  374,154......................................  392,134.
Better than BART?..................  n/a...................  No...........................................  No.
Emission Reduction Deficit (tons)..  n/a...................  15,179.......................................  33,160.
Short-term Emission Bridge (tpy)...  n/a...................  1,518 tpy over 2013-2023.....................  3,015 tpy over 2013-2024.
(years in place)...................

Long-term Emission Bridge (tpy)....  n/a...................  490 tpy over 2013-2044.......................  1,070 tpy over 2013-2044.
(years in place)...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA is requesting comment on technically and
economically feasible technologies or mechanisms to serve as
enforceable emission reduction bridges (whether short or long term)
that would allow consideration of alternatives that would not otherwise
meet the ``better than BART'' threshold for NOX (e.g.,
Alternatives 2 or 3 or other alternatives suggested by stakeholders
during the public comment period for this proposed rule). EPA also
seeks comment on the schedule on which reductions from an emissions
bridge would need to be achieved. If EPA receives proposals from
stakeholders during the comment period that put forth a plan for
specific emission reduction bridges to bring total emissions over 2009-
2044 of an extended compliance schedule (beyond 2023) at or below the
``better than BART'' threshold of 358,974 tons, EPA may issue a
supplemental proposal for public comment.

F. Solicitation of Comments

    EPA is requesting comment on our proposed level of BART control of
0.055 lb/MMBtu for NOX. We are also requesting comment on
our proposed BART Alternative 1 with a compliance timeframe of 2021-
2023, resulting in greater reasonable progress than would otherwise be
achieved under BART by crediting NGS for its early and voluntary
installation of LNB/SOFA.
    EPA is requesting comment on Alternatives 2 and 3 that provide
additional time for compliance and would require the owners of NGS to
implement additional emission reductions in order to assure greater
reasonable progress than would otherwise be achieved under BART. In
particular, we are requesting comment from stakeholders on potential
technologies that can serve to bridge the NOX emission
reduction deficit for compliance schedules that do not, by themselves,
meet the ``better than BART'' threshold (i.e., Alternatives 2 and 3).
EPA will publish a supplemental proposal before we would finalize any
alternative that requires an emission reduction bridge to be ``better
than BART''.
    In recognition of the importance of NGS to the local and regional
economy and the multitude of interests and stakeholders involved, EPA
is providing a 90-day comment period on this proposed rulemaking and
will continue to engage in consultation with tribes located in Arizona
during the rulemaking process. EPA seeks comment on the analysis and
conclusions presented in this proposal and invites suggestions for
other alternatives that reduce NOX emissions at NGS and its
contribution to visibility impairment while providing long-term,
sustainable benefits to tribes.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This action proposes a source-specific FIP for the Navajo
Generating Station on the Navajo Nation. Under the terms of Executive
Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011), because this proposed rule applies to only one
facility, it is not a rule of general applicability. This proposed
rule, therefore, is exempt from review under EO 12866 and EO 13563.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, a ``collection of information'' is defined as a requirement for
``answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements
imposed on ten or more persons * * * .'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because
the proposed FIP applies to a single facility, Navajo Generating
Station, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Navajo Generating Station is not a small entity and the FIP for
Navajo Generating Station being proposed today does not impose any
compliance requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.

EPA anticipates the annual cost to the private sector of this proposed
rule to be $64 million per year (see Table 2). Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This
proposed rule will not impose direct compliance costs on state, local
or tribal governments. This proposed action will, if finalized, reduce
the emissions of NOX from a single source, the Navajo
Generating Station.
    In developing this rule, EPA consulted with small governments
pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of UMRA to address
impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. EPA put forth an Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on August 28, 2009 regarding our intention to
propose a BART determination for NGS and the Four Corners Power Plant.
We received comments from numerous small governments, including tribal
governments, and governments of several towns in Arizona. This proposed
rule will not impose direct compliance costs on any small governments.
However, increased electricity and water costs associated with this
proposed rule may indirectly affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action proposes emission
reductions of NOX at a specific stationary source located in
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal implications,
and consequently EPA has consulted with tribal officials during the
process of developing the proposed regulation. The proposed regulation
will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, nor pre-empt tribal law. However, several tribes located
in Arizona have expressed concerns regarding the potential impact of
this regulation on their economic interests. The Navajo Nation and Hopi
Tribe focused on the significant contribution of coal-related
royalties, taxes and employment at NGS and the Kayenta Mine to their
economies. Comments from other Arizona tribes focused on the importance
of NGS as a source of power to the CAP in order for the federal
government to meet obligations under existing water settlement
agreements. The importance to tribes of continued operation of NGS and
affordable water costs cannot be overemphasized. In Section II.B.ii,
EPA explains in detail the tribal information that we received and
considered in this proposed rulemaking.
    In order to understand more fully the concerns of the tribes,
senior level EPA officials from both Washington, DC and San Francisco
have personally visited the NGS facility in Page, Arizona. EPA sent
invitations to all tribes in Arizona to consult with EPA during the
development of our BART determination for NGS. We received
correspondence and comments on our ANPRM from officials of numerous
tribes, including the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Gila River
Indian Community, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham
Nation, the Fort McDowell Indian Community, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and
the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community. On September 16, 2011,
and February 8, 2012, EPA held consultation sessions about NGS with
representatives from approximately eleven tribes participating in one
or both meetings. Additionally, EPA had in-person consultation meetings
with tribal representatives prior to this proposal on August 7 and
August 27, 2012. Representatives from nine tribes attended. In addition
to formal consultation, EPA has had numerous meetings and conference
calls with tribes at their request throughout the process of developing
the action we are proposing today. A timeline of all correspondence and
consultation with tribes on NGS is included in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.\61\ EPA will continue to consult with Tribal
officials during the public comment period on the proposed FIP. Several
tribes, including the Navajo, submitted comments which EPA considered
in developing this proposed action. Therefore, EPA has allowed tribes
to provide meaningful and timely input into the development of this
proposed rule and will continue to consult with affected tribes prior
to finalizing our BART determination or any alternative to BART. The
technical support document for this proposed rulemaking provides a
detailed discussion of comments received from tribes during the comment
period for the ANPRM and subsequent consultation and correspondence,
and EPA's responses to those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See document titled: ``Timeline of All Tribal Consultation
on NGS.docx'', in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it requires emissions reductions of NOX from a single
stationary source. Because this proposed action only applies to a
single source and is not a proposed rule of general applicability, it
is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and does not have a disproportionate effect on children. However, to
the extent that the rule will reduce emissions of NOX, which
contribute to ozone and fine particulate matter formation as well as
visibility impairment, the rule will have a beneficial effect on
children's health be reducing air pollution that causes or exacerbates
childhood asthma and other respiratory issues.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the Agency conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable VCS. For the measurements listed below,
there are a number of VCS that appear to have possible use in lieu of
the EPA test methods and performance specifications (40 CFR Part 60,
Appendices A and B) noted next to the measurement requirements. It
would not be practical to specify these standards in the current
proposed rulemaking due to a lack of sufficient data on equivalency and
validation and because some are still under development. However, EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is in the process of
reviewing all available VCS for incorporation by reference into the
test methods and performance specifications of 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendices A and B. Any VCS so incorporated in a specified test method
or performance specification would then be available for use in
determining the emissions from this facility. This will be an ongoing
process designed to incorporate suitable VCS as they become available.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule requires emissions reductions of
NOX from a single stationary source, Navajo Generating
Station.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 17, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

    Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 49--[INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT]

0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Section 49.5513 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec.  49.5513  Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Navajo
Generating Station, Navajo Nation.

* * * * *
    (j)(1) Applicability. Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit
Technology limits for this plant are in addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. The provisions of this
paragraph (j) are severable, and if any provision of this paragraph
(j), or the application of any provision of this paragraph (j) to any
owner/operator or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of
such provision to other owner/operators and other circumstances, and
the remainder of this paragraph (j), shall not be affected thereby.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined in this paragraph (j)(2) shall
have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's
regulations implementing the Clean Air Act and in paragraph (c) of this
section. For purposes of this paragraph (j):
    (i) Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight
and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any
time in the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be
combusted the entire 24-hour period.
    (ii) Coal-fired unit means any of Units 1, 2, or 3 at Navajo
Generating Station.
    (iii) Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the
equipment required by 40 CFR Part 75 and this paragraph (j).
    (iv) Emissions limitation or emissions limit means the federal
emissions limitation required by this section.
    (v) Group of coal-fired units means Units 1, 2 and 3 at Navajo
Generating Station.
    (vi) lb means pound(s).
    (vii) NOX means nitrogen oxides expressed as nitrogen
dioxide (NO2).
    (viii) Owner(s)/operator(s) means any person(s) who own(s) or who
operate(s), control(s), or supervise(s) one more of the units of the
Navajo Generating Station.
    (ix) MMBtu means million British thermal unit(s).
    (x) Operating hour means any hour that fossil fuel is fired in the
unit.
    (xi) Unit means any of Units 1, 2, or 3 at Navajo Generating
Station.
    (xii) Valid data means CEMs data that is not out of control as
defined in 40 CFR Part 75.
    (3) Compliance date. The owner/operator may elect to comply with
the NOX emission limitations in this paragraph (j) either:
    (i) Within five years of the effective date of the final
rulemaking, or
    (ii) On one coal-fired unit per year by 2021, 2022, and 2023.
    (4) NOX emission limitations. The owner/operator of each coal-fired
unit subject to this paragraph (j) shall not emit or cause to be
emitted NOX in excess of the following:
    (i) Under paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section: within 5 years of
the effective of the final rule, 0.055 pounds per million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from any group of coal-fired units, averaged
on a rolling average basis over 30-boiler-operating days.
    (ii) Under paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of this section:
    (A) After 2021, 0.178 lb/MMBtu from any group of coal-fired units,
averaged on a rolling basis over 30-boiler-operating days.
    (B) After 2022, 0.117 lb/MMBtu from any group of coal-fired units,
averaged on a rolling basis over 30-boiler-operating days.
    (C) On and thereafter 2023, 0.055 lb/MMBtu from any group of coal-
fired units, averaged on a rolling basis over 30-boiler-operating days.
    (5) Continuous emission monitoring system. (i) At all times after
the dates

specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section, the owner/operator of
each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full
compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR Part 75, to accurately
measure NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate
from each unit. Valid data means data recorded when the CEMS is not
out-of-control as defined by Part 75, as defined in paragraph (j)(2) of
this section. All valid CEMS hourly data shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limitations for NOX in
paragraph (j)(4) of this section for each unit. If the CEMs data is not
valid, that CEMs data shall be treated as missing data and not used to
calculate the emission average. CEMs data does not need to be bias
adjusted as defined in 40 CFR Part 75. Each required CEMS must obtain
valid data for at least 90 percent of the unit operating hours, on an
annual basis.
    (ii) The owner/operator of each unit shall comply with the quality
assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR Part 75. In addition to
these Part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall be
calculated for both the NOX pounds per hour measurement and
the heat input measurement. The calculation of NOX pounds
per hour and heat input relative accuracy shall be evaluated each time
the CEMS undergo relative accuracy testing.
    (6) Compliance Determination for NOX. (i) The 30-day rolling
average NOX emission rate for each group of coal-fired units
shall be calculated for each calendar day, even if a unit is not in
operation on that calendar day, in accordance with the following
procedure: step one, for each unit, sum the hourly pounds of
NOX emitted during the current boiler-operating day (or most
recent boiler-operating day if the unit is not in operation), and the
preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days, to calculate the
total pounds of NOX emitted over the most recent thirty (30)
boiler-operating day period for each coal-fired unit; step two, for
each unit, sum the hourly heat input, in MMBtu, during the current
boiler-operating day (or most recent boiler-operating day if the unit
is not in operation), and the preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-
operating days, to calculate the total heat input, in MMBtu, over the
most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day period for each coal-fired
unit; step 3, sum together the total pounds of NOX emitted
from the group of coal-fired units over each unit's most recent thirty
(30) boiler-operating day period (the most recent 30 boiler-operating
day periods for different units may be different); step four, sum
together the total heat input from the group of coal-fired units over
each unit's most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day period; and
step five, divide the total pounds of NOX emitted from step
three by the total heat input from step four for each group of coal-
fired units, to calculate the 30-day rolling average NOX
emission rate for each group of coal-fired units, in pounds of
NOX per MMBtu, for each calendar day. Each 30-day rolling
average NOX emission rate shall include all emissions and
all heat input that occur during all periods within any boiler-
operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
    (ii) If a valid NOX pounds per hour or heat input is not
available for any hour for a unit, that heat input and NOX
pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation for that 30 boiler
operating day period.
    (7) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator of each unit shall
maintain the following records for at least five years:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results as required
by Part 75 and as necessary to calculate each units pounds of
NOX and heat input for each hour.
    (ii) Each calendar day rolling average group emission rates for
NOX calculated in accordance with paragraph (j)(5)(i) of
this section.
    (iii) Each unit's 30 boiler operating day pounds of NOX
and heat input.
    (iv) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities
for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any
records required by 40 CFR Part 75.
    (v) Records of the relative accuracy calculation of the
NOX lb/hr measurement and hourly heat input.
    (vi) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (vii) Any other records required by 40 CFR Part 75.
    (8) Reporting. All reports and notifications under this paragraph
(j) shall be submitted to the Director, Navajo Environmental Protection
Agency, P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515, and to the Director
of Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, at 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105. (i) The owner/operator shall notify EPA within
two weeks after completion of installation of NOX control
technology on any of the units subject to this section.
    (ii) Within 30 days after the first applicable compliance date in
paragraph (j)(3) of this section and within 30 days of every second
calendar quarter thereafter (i.e., semi-annually), the owner/operator
shall submit a report that lists for each calendar day, calculated in
accordance with paragraph (j)(6) of this section, total lb of
NOX and heat input (as used to calculate compliance per
paragraph (j)(4) of this section, for each unit's last 30 boiler
operating days. Included in this report shall be the results of the
last relative accuracy test audit and the calculated relative accuracy
for lb/hr NOX and heat input performed 45 days prior to the
end of that reporting period. The end of the year report shall also
include the percent valid data for each NOX, diluent, and
flow monitor used in the calculations of compliance with paragraph
(j)(4) of this section.
    (9) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the unit would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or
operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable
emission limit in the plan.
    (10) Equipment Operations. At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the unit including associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator,
or their designee, which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection
of the unit.
    (11) The affirmative defense provisions of paragraphs (c)(1) and
(g)(3) of this section, related only to malfunctions, apply to this
paragraph (j).
[FR Doc. 2013-01858 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20671-20673]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08891]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80536

Order Granting Application by New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc., Respectively, for a
Conditional Exemption Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act
From Certain Requirements of Rule 6a-2 Under the Exchange Act

April 27, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On February 1, 2017, The New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''),
NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National'') (each an ``Exchange'', collectively,
``Exchanges'') each has requested, pursuant to Rule 0-12 \1\ under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''),\2\ that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') grant an exemption
pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) \3\ of the Exchange Act from certain
requirements under Rule 6a-2(b)(1) under the Exchange Act.\4\ Each
Exchange is registered with the Commission as a national securities
exchange under Section 6 of the Exchange Act. This order grants each
Exchange's request for exemptive relief, subject to the satisfaction of
certain conditions, which are outlined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.6a-2(b)(1). See letters dated February 1, 2017,
from Elizabeth King, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, NYSE,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, regarding Application for
Exemption from Certain Form 1 Requirements under Section 6 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, submitted on behalf of NYSE, NYSE
MKT, NYSE Arca, and NYSE National, respectively (collectively, the
``Exemption Requests'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Application for Conditional Exemption From Certain Requirements of
Exchange Act Rule 6a-2

    Rule 6a-2(b)(1) under the Exchange Act \5\ requires a national
securities exchange to file, on or before June 30 of each year, an
updated Exhibit D as an amendment to its Form 1.\6\ Exhibit D to Form 1
requires an exchange to provide, for each subsidiary or affiliate of
the exchange, unconsolidated financial statements for the latest fiscal
year of the exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.6a-2(b)(1).
    \6\ 17 CFR 249.1 (Form 1, ``Application for, and Amendments to
Application for, Registration as a National Securities Exchange or
Exemption from Registration Pursuant to Section 5 of the Exchange
Act.'')
    \7\ Exhibit D to Form 1 requires that such financial statements
consist, at a minimum, of a balance sheet and an income statement
with such footnotes and other disclosures necessary to avoid
rendering the financial statements misleading. Exhibit D further
provides that, if any affiliate or subsidiary is required by another
Commission rule to submit annual financial statements, the exchange
may provide a statement to that effect, with a citation to the other
Commission rule, in lieu of the financial statements required by
Exhibit D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Instructions to Form 1 define an ``affiliate'' as ``[a]ny
person that, directly or indirectly, controls, is under common control
with, or is controlled by, the national securities exchange . . .,
including any employees.'' \8\ The Instructions to Form 1 define
``control'' as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Form 1 Instructions Section B., Explanation of Terms.

    The power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or
policies of a company, whether through ownership of securities, by
contract or otherwise. Any person that . . . directly or indirectly
has the right to vote 25% or more of a class of voting securities or
has the power to sell or direct the sale of 25% or more of a class
of voting securities . . . is presumed to control that entity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

    Each Exchange has requested that the Commission grant it an
exemption pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, subject to
the conditions set forth below, with respect to its ``Foreign Indirect
Affiliates,'' as defined below, from the requirement under Rule 6a-
2(b)(1) under the Exchange Act to file the financial information
required by Exhibit D.
    Each Exemption Request states that the respective Exchange is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE Group, Inc. (``NYSE Group''), a
Delaware corporation. Each Exemption Request further states that NYSE
Group is wholly owned by NYSE Holdings LLC (``NYSE Holdings''), a
Delaware limited liability company, which is wholly owned by
Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (``ICE Holdings''), a Delaware
corporation. In turn, ICE Holdings is wholly owned by Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. (``Parent Company''), a Delaware corporation. The Parent
Company, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, owns a large number of
foreign entities, some of which also own interests in other foreign
entities in excess of 25%.\10\ The foreign entity affiliates and
subsidiaries of the Parent Company are referred to, collectively, as
the ``Foreign Indirect Affiliates.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exemption Requests, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Exchange states that, because of the limited and indirect
nature of its

connection to the Foreign Indirect Affiliates, the Exchange believes
that the respective financial information of the Foreign Indirect
Affiliates required by Exhibit D of Form 1 would have little relevance
to the Commission's ongoing oversight of the Exchange as a national
securities exchange.\11\ Each Exchange also states that the Foreign
Indirect Affiliates have no ability to influence the management,
policies, or finances of the Exchange and have no obligation to provide
funding to, or ability to materially affect the funding of, the
Exchange.\12\ Each Exchange further states that the Foreign Indirect
Affiliates have no ownership interest in the Exchange or in any of the
controlling shareholders of the Exchange and that there are no
commercial dealings between the Exchange and the Foreign Indirect
Affiliates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exemption Requests, supra note 4, at 2-3.
    \12\ See Exemption Requests, supra note 4, at 3.
    \13\ See Exemption Requests, supra note 4, at 3. Each Exchange
states that ``commercial dealings'' means any direct or indirect
arrangement, agreement, or understanding or any other relationship
including, but not limited to, the providing of hardware, software,
technology services or any other goods or services that support the
operation of the Exchange or any facility of the Exchange. See
Exemption Requests at 3, n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, each Exchange states its opinion that its obtaining
detailed financial information with respect to the Foreign Indirect
Affiliates is unnecessary for the protection of investors and the
public interest, and would be unduly burdensome and inefficient because
the Foreign Indirect Affiliates are located in foreign jurisdictions
and the disclosure of such information could implicate foreign
information sharing restrictions in such jurisdictions.\14\ Each
Exchange notes that the Commission has granted similar exemptions to
several other national securities exchanges.\15\ In connection with its
Exemption Request, each Exchange has provided an organizational chart
setting forth the Parent Company's corporate structure, including its
subsidiaries, and noting the affiliation of the Foreign Indirect
Affiliates and the Exchange.\16\ In addition, each Exchange represents
that it will provide, on or before June 30th of each year, amendments
to the information provided on the organizational chart setting forth
the affiliation of the Foreign Indirect Affiliates and the
Exchange.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exemption Requests, supra note 4, at 3.
    \15\ As examples, each Exchange cites to Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 60650 (September 11, 2009), 74 FR 47828 (September 17,
2009) (granting application by EDGX Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Bats EDGX
Exchange, Inc.) and EDGA Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a Bats EDGA Exchange,
Inc.) for a conditional exemption pursuant to Section 36(a) of the
Exchange Act from certain requirements of Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2 under
the Exchange Act); 66241 (January 26, 2012), 77 FR 4845 (January 31,
2012) (granting application by BOX Options Exchange LLC for a
conditional exemption pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act
from certain requirements of Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2 under the Exchange
Act); and 69011 (March 1, 2013), 78 FR 14844 (March 7, 2013)
(granting application by Topaz Exchange, LLC (n/k/a ISE Gemini, LLC)
for a conditional exemption pursuant to Section 36(a) of the
Exchange Act from certain requirements of Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2 under
the Exchange Act). See Exemption Requests at 3. The Commission also
granted a similar exemption to ISE Mercury, LLC. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 75867 (September 9, 2015), 80 FR 55395
(September 15, 2015) (granting application by ISE Mercury, LLC for a
conditional exemption pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act
from certain requirements of Rules 6a-1 and 6a-2 under the Exchange
Act).
    \16\ See Exhibit A to the Exemption Requests, supra note 4.
    \17\ See Exemption Requests, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Order Granting Conditional Section 36 Exemption

    Section 6 of the Exchange Act \18\ sets forth a procedure for an
exchange to register as a national securities exchange.\19\ Rule 6a-
1(a) under the Exchange Act \20\ requires an application for
registration as a national securities exchange to be filed on Form 1 in
accordance with the instructions in Form 1. Rule 6a-2 under the
Exchange Act establishes ongoing requirements for a national securities
exchange to file certain amendments to Form 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ Specifically, Section 6(a) of the Exchange Act states that
``[a]n exchange may be registered as a national securities exchange
. . . by filing with the Commission an application for registration
in such form as the Commission, by rule, may prescribe containing
the rules of the exchange and such other information and documents
as the Commission, by rule, may prescribe as necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors.'' Section 6 of the Exchange Act also sets forth various
requirements to which a national securities exchange is subject.
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.6a-1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that ``the
Commission, by rule, regulation, or order, may conditionally or
unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any
class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any
provision or provisions of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or
regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the
protection of investors.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed below, the Commission believes that it is
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors to exempt the Exchanges from the requirement under Rule
6a-2(b)(1) under the Exchange Act to provide the information required
in Exhibit D to Form 1 with respect to the Foreign Indirect Affiliates,
subject to the following conditions:
    (1) Each Exchange must provide, as part of its annual Form 1
amendment due on or before June 30th of each year, a list of the names
of the Foreign Indirect Affiliates for which the Exchange is relying on
exemptive relief; and
    (2) Each Exchange must provide, as part of its annual Form 1
amendment due on or before June 30th of each year, an organizational
chart setting forth the affiliation of all affiliates, including those
Foreign Indirect Affiliates for which the Exchange is relying on
exemptive relief.
    The information included in a national securities exchange's annual
amendment to Exhibit D to Form 1 under Rule 6a-2(b)(1) under the
Exchange Act is designed to help the Commission exercise its oversight
responsibilities with respect to national securities exchanges.
Specifically, Exhibit D is designed to provide the Commission with
information concerning the financial status of the affiliates and
subsidiaries of a national securities exchange.\22\ Such information is
intended to help the Commission to assess the financial health of the
affiliates and subsidiaries of a national securities exchange and thus
to determine whether a national securities exchange has the ability to
carry out its obligations under the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 18843 (June 25,
1982), 47 FR 29259 (July 6, 1982) (proposing amendments to Form 1);
see also Form 1, 17 CFR 249.1, and supra Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the most recent amendments to Form 1 in 1998,\23\ many
national securities exchanges that previously were member-owned
organizations with few affiliated entities have demutualized. Some of
these demutualized exchanges have been consolidated under holding
companies with numerous affiliates that, in some cases, have only a
limited and indirect connection to the national securities exchange,
with no ability to influence the management or policies of the national
securities exchange and no obligation to fund, or to materially affect
the funding of, the national securities exchange. The Commission
believes that, with respect to these Foreign Indirect Affiliates, the
information required under Exhibit D would have limited relevance to
the Commission's

oversight of a registered national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40760 (December 8,
1998), 63 FR 70844 (December 22, 1998) (Regulation ATS Adopting
Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Exchanges' representations, the limited and indirect
nature of the relationship between the Exchanges and the Foreign
Indirect Affiliates, and the information that the Exchanges will
provide with respect to all other affiliates, including the foreign
direct affiliates and domestic direct and indirect affiliates, the
Commission believes that it will have sufficient information necessary
to oversee the Exchanges' activities as national securities exchanges
under the Exchange Act.\24\ In particular, the Commission notes that
each Exchange has represented that the nature of the connection between
it and the Foreign Indirect Affiliates is limited and indirect, that
the Foreign Indirect Affiliates would have no ability to influence the
management, policies, or finances of the Exchanges, and that the
Foreign Indirect Affiliates would have no obligation to provide funding
to, or ability to materially affect the funding of, the Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) and 78s(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchanges have
represented that the Foreign Indirect Affiliates have no ownership
interest in the Exchanges or in any of the controlling shareholders of
the Exchanges and that there are no commercial dealings between any of
the Exchanges and the Foreign Indirect Affiliates.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Exemption Requests, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that it is
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors to grant the conditional exemptive relief requested by the
Exchanges.
    The Commission may modify by order the terms, scope or conditions
of the exemption from Rule 6a-2(b)(1) under the Exchange Act granted to
each Exchange if it determines that such modification is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, or is consistent with the
protection of investors. Furthermore, the Commission may limit,
suspend, or revoke the exemption granted to each Exchange if it finds
that the Exchange has failed to comply with, or is unable to comply
with, any of the conditions set forth in this order, if such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, or is consistent with
the protection of investors.
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act,\26\ that
the Exchanges are exempt from the requirement under Rule 6a-2(b)(1)
under the Exchange Act, with respect to the Foreign Indirect
Affiliates, to update the information in Exhibit D to Form 1 on or
before June 30th of each year subject to the following conditions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Each Exchange must provide, as part of its annual Form 1
amendment due on or before June 30th of each year, a list of the names
of the Foreign Indirect Affiliates for which the Exchange is relying on
exemptive relief; and
    (2) Each Exchange must provide, as part of its annual Form 1
amendment due on or before June 30th of each year, an organizational
chart setting forth the affiliation of all affiliates, including those
Foreign Indirect Affiliates for which the Exchange is relying on
exemptive relief.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08891 Filed 5-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26498-26502]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09090]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0273, EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0841 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0844;
FRL-10877-01-OCSPP]

Starch, 1-Octenylbutanedioate, Aluminum Salt; Dextrin, Hydrogen
1-Octenylbutanedioate; and Amylopectin, 2-Hydroxypropyl Ether, Acid-;
Exemption 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 starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum
salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-
hydroxypropyl ether, acid- when used as inert ingredients (for seed
treatment only) in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest.
Ingredion Incorporated submitted petitions to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish maximum permissible levels for
residues of starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin,
hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether,
acid- when used in accordance with the terms of the exemptions.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 1, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 30, 2023 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 dockets for these actions, identified by docket
identification (ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0273, EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0841
and EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0844, are available at https://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 and the OPP
docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest status information on EPA/DC
services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

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 Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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 numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0273, EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0841 and EPA-
HQ-OPP-2022-0844 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 June 30,
2023. 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 numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0273, EPA-HQ-
OPP-2022-0841 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0844, by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petitions for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2021 (86 FR 29229) (FRL-10023-
95), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of pesticide petition PP IN-11458 by
Ingredion Incorporated, 5 Westbrook Corporate Center, Westchester, IL
60154. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CAS Reg. No.
9087-61-0) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations
applied ``in or on raw agricultural commodities pre-harvest and as a
seed treatment.'' A summary of the petition prepared by Ingredion
Incorporated is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.
Ingredion Incorporated subsequently clarified that the word ``and''
should not have been included in the request and that they were
requesting an exemption under 40 CFR 180.920 for seed treatment use
only. Therefore, a use pattern limitation for seed treatment use is
being established for this exemption.
    In the Federal Register of November 17, 2022 (87 FR 68959) (FRL-
9410-07-OCSPP), EPA issued documents pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of pesticide petitions PP IN-11699
and PP IN-11715 by Ingredion Incorporated, 5 Westbrook Corporate
Center, Westchester, IL 60154. The petitions requested that 40 CFR
180.920 be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate (CAS
Reg. No. 68070-94-0) and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- (CAS
Reg. No. 2756130-86-4) when used as inert ingredients (for seed
treatment only) in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest.
Summaries of the petitions prepared by Ingredion Incorporated are
available in the dockets at https://www.regulations.gov.
    There were no comments received in response to the notices of
filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    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 tolerance 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. When making a safety determination for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to account for the considerations in section
408(b)(2)(C) and (D). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption 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. . . .'' Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA's
consideration in making safety determinations, e.g., the validity,
completeness, and reliability of available data, nature of toxic
effects, available information concerning the cumulative effects of the
pesticide chemical and other substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity, and available information concerning aggregate exposure
levels to the pesticide chemical and other related substances, among
other factors.
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients,

the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with
possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food,
drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of
pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that
a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of these
actions. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate,
aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and
amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid-, including exposure resulting
from the exemptions established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate,
aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and
amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate,
aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and
amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    The toxicological database for starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate,
aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and
amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid-, all of which are modified
starches, is supported by data regarding amylopectin, acid-hydrolyzed,
1-octenylbutanedioate (CAS Reg. No. 113894-85-2); amylopectin, hydrogen
1-octadecenylbutanedioate (CAS Reg. No. 125109-81-1); and 2-
hydroxypropyl starch (CAS Reg. No. 9049-76-7), which are three other
modified starches previously reviewed by the Agency. EPA has determined
that it is appropriate to bridge amylopectin, acid-hydrolyzed, 1-
octenylbutanedioate; amylopectin, hydrogen 1-octadecenylbutanedioate;
and 2-hydroxypropyl starch data to assess starch, 1-
octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-
octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- due
to similarities in the manufacturing processes, functional groups/
structure, composition, and physical/chemical properties of these
modified starches.
    In acute studies, the oral lethal dose, LD50 of the
modified starches was > 7,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). Various
modified starches were tested in repeat dose studies, and no toxicity
was observed at doses as high as 9,000 mg/kg/day. No fetal, parental,
or reproductive toxicity was seen in any of the multi-generational
reproduction toxicity studies at dietary levels up to 62% (i.e., 31,000
mg/kg/day).

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.
    The hazard profile of these modified starches is adequately
defined. Overall, they show low acute, subchronic, and developmental
toxicity. No systemic toxicity is observed up to the limit dose of
1,000 mg/kg/day and as high as 31,000 mg/kg/day. Since signs of
toxicity were not observed, no toxicological endpoints of concern or
PODs were identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment for
starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-
octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- can
be performed.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin,
hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether,
acid-, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance and from existing uses. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin,
hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether,
acid- in food as follows:
    Modified food starches are approved (21 CFR 172.892) by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as food additives and are used in a
wide range of food products. In addition, dietary (food and drinking
water) exposure is possible from the use of modified starches when used
as food use inert ingredients in pesticide products. However, a
quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a
toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). Starch,
1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-
octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- are
not currently proposed for pesticide residential uses; however, future
uses may include uses in and around the home. Residential exposure is
also possible from the use of modified starches in non-pesticidal
products such as cosmetics. However, a quantitative residential
exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological

endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' Based on the lack of
toxicity in the available database, EPA has not found starch, 1-
octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-
octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
these modified starches do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of these tolerance
exemptions, therefore, EPA has assumed that starch, 1-
octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-
octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid- do
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor. Based on an assessment of starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate,
aluminum salt; dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and
amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, acid-, EPA has concluded that there
are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population,
including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects
associated with these chemicals, EPA conducted a qualitative
assessment. As part of that assessment, the Agency did not use safety
factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed
for assessing risk to infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt; dextrin,
hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate; and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether,
acid- residues.

V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are
established for residues of starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum
salt (CAS Reg. No. 9087-61-0); dextrin, hydrogen 1-octenylbutanedioate
(CAS Reg. No. 68070-94-0); and amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether,
acid- (CAS Reg. No. 2756130-86-4) when used as inert ingredients (for
seed treatment only) in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest
under 40 CFR 180.920.

VII. 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). 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 exemptions 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).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 25, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.920, amend table 1 to the section by adding, in
alphabetical order, entries for ``Amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether,
acid- (CAS Reg. No. 2756130-86-4)''; ``Dextrin, hydrogen 1-
octenylbutanedioate (CAS Reg. No. 68070-94-0)''; and ``Starch, 1-
octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CAS Reg. No. 9087-61-0)'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl      For seed treatment  Binder, carrier,
 ether, acid- (CAS Reg. No.        use only.           film-former.
 2756130-86-4).

                              * * * * * * *
Dextrin, hydrogen 1-              For seed treatment  Binder, carrier,
 octenylbutanedioate (CAS Reg.     use only.           film-former.
 No. 68070-94-0).

                              * * * * * * *
Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate,    For seed treatment  Flow aid, flow
 aluminum salt (CAS Reg. No.       use only.           enhancer, anti-
 9087-61-0).                                           caking agent

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

[FR Doc. 2023-09090 Filed 4-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 16, 2007

      NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET DOT-OST-2004-17800

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________

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

Application of COMAIR, INC. (COMAIR) filed 3/27/06 for:

XX   Renewal of exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide
the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States, via intermediate points,
and a point or points in Jamaica, and beyond; and authority to integrate
this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority.
Comair intends to operate this service pursuant to a code-share
arrangement with Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta).

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: November 16, 2007, through
November 16, 2009.

Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the Air Transport Agreement
between the United States and Jamaica.

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

	    XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon Comair rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Comair notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in Comair‘s authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Comair, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Comair in a competitive carrier selection
proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the
authority at issue.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:

The code-share operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding
any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here
is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign
air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such
service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier
selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket)
accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected.

The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
Comair nor Delta shall give any force and effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

Remarks: The authority for which Comair requested renewal expired June
3, 2006, but has been kept in force pursuant to the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), as implemented by 14 CFR
Part 377, pending action on its timely-filed renewal application.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

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

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

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

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov

APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

			11/2006

 Comair states that it was granted U.S.-Jamaica exemption authority to
introduce “Delta Connection” service on the Cincinnati-Montego Bay
route using 70-seat CRJ 700 aircraft.  Comair further states that
although the route is currently being served directly by Delta using
larger aircraft, Comair requires renewal of its exemption authority to
provide Comair and Delta with the flexibility to replace or supplement
Delta mainline service on this route.