15704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

relied and its risk assessment based on 

that data can be found within the 

February 28, 2014 document entitled 

‘‘Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA) Considerations for Heat-killed 

Burkholderia spp. strain A396 cells and 

spent fermentation media.’’ This 

document, as well as other relevant 

information, is available in the docket 

for this action as described under 

ADDRESSES. 

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes for the 

reasons stated above and in the 

aforementioned February 28, 2014 

document, and because EPA is 

establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance without any 

numerical limitation. 

C. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. In this context, EPA considers 

the international maximum residue 

limits (MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain 

A396 cells and spent fermentation 

media. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes a tolerance 

exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) 

in response to a petition submitted to 

EPA. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance exemption in this final 

rule, do not require the issuance of a 

proposed rule, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes. 

As a result, this action does not alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

EPA determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, EPA determined that 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

EPA consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

V. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 28, 2014. 

Steve Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Add § 180.1325 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.1325 Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. 

strain A396 cells and spent fermentation 

media exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. 

An exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance is established for residues 

of heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain 

A396 cells and spent fermentation 

media in or on all food commodities 

when applied as a biological insecticide 

to agricultural crops and used in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06228 Filed 3–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2012–0123] 

RIN 2105–AE28 

Organization and Delegation of Powers 

and Duties 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation (OST), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of 

Transportation is authorized to delegate 

functions, powers, and duties as the 

Secretary deems appropriate. This rule 

amends the existing delegations of 

authority by relocating the delegations 

to the Inspector General currently found 

in the Department’s regulations on the 

Freedom of Information Act and 

updates the delegation of authority to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 15705 

the Inspector General to administer the 

Privacy Act for the Office of the 

Inspector General’s records. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 21, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available at Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Allread, Attorney-Advisor, at 

john.allread@dot.gov or (202) 366–1428, 

or Claire McKenna, Attorney-Advisor, 

Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC, at claire.mckenna@

dot.gov or (202) 366–0365. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

17, 2012, the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation (OST) updated its 

regulations governing the organization 

of the Department of Transportation and 

delegations of authority from the 

Secretary to Departmental officers. See 

77 FR 49964. The final rule 

inadvertently omitted a delegation of 

authority to the Inspector General to 

administer the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and Privacy 

Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, for the 

records of the Office of the Inspector 

General. Although the Inspector General 

has had authority to administer FOIA 

under 49 CFR part 7, OST wishes to 

consolidate all of its delegations in Part 

1. This rule also updates the CFR to 

reflect the OIG’s delegated authority to 

administer the Privacy Act for its 

records, and places the delegations to 

the Inspector General to administer the 

FOIA and Privacy Act for the Office of 

Inspector General’s records within 

Part 1. 

This final rule does not impose 

substantive requirements. It simply 

relocates a currently existing FOIA 

delegation to the Inspector General to 49 

CFR part 1 and updates the CFR to 

represent the current organizational 

posture of the Department with regard 

to the Privacy Act. The final rule is 

ministerial in nature and relates only to 

Departmental management, procedure, 

and practice. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that notice and 

comment are unnecessary and that the 

rule is exempt from prior notice and 

comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(A). This rule will not have a 

substantive impact on the public, as it 

will only clarify and relocate 

delegations to the Inspector General into 

the Department’s other provisions on 

delegations found in 49 CFR part 1. 

Therefore, the Department finds that 

there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) to make this rule effective less 

than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The DOT has considered the impact 

of this rulemaking action under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

(January 18, 2011, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’), 

and the DOT’s regulatory policies and 

procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 

1979). The DOT has determined that 

this action does not constitute a 

significant regulatory action within the 

meaning of Executive Order 12866 and 

within the meaning of DOT regulatory 

policies and procedures. This rule has 

not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. There are no 

costs associated with this rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required for this rule 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96– 

354, 5 U.S.C. 601–612) do not apply. 

Even so, DOT has evaluated the effects 

of these changes on small entities and 

does not believe that this rule would 

impose any costs on small entities as it 

makes nonsubstantive corrections. 

Therefore, I hereby certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The agency has analyzed the 

environmental impacts of this action 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and has determined that it is 

categorically excluded pursuant to DOT 

Order 5610.1C, Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (44 

FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical 

exclusions are actions identified in an 

agency’s NEPA implementing 

procedures that do not normally have a 

significant impact on the environment 

and therefore do not require either an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the 

applicability of a categorical exclusion, 

the agency must also consider whether 

extraordinary circumstances are present 

that would warrant the preparation of 

an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.c.5 of DOT 

Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference 

the categorical exclusions for all DOT 

Operating Administrations. This action 

is covered by the categorical exclusion 

listed in the Federal Highway 

Administration’s implementing 

procedures, ‘‘[p]romulgation of rules, 

regulations, and directives.’’ 23 CFR 

771.117(c)(20). The purpose of this 

rulemaking is to update the agency’s 

administrative delegations to the Office 

of the Inspector General. The agency 

does not anticipate any environmental 

impacts and there are no extraordinary 

circumstances present in connection 

with this rulemaking. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 dated August 4, 1999, and it has 

been determined that it does not have a 

substantial direct effect on, or sufficient 

federalism implications for, the States, 

nor would it limit the policymaking 

discretion of the States. Therefore, the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

is not necessary. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. The DOT 

has determined that this action does not 

contain a collection of information 

requirement for the purposes of the 

PRA. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995) 

requires Federal agencies to assess the 

effects of certain regulatory actions on 

State, local, and tribal governments, and 

the private sector. The UMRA requires 

a written statement of economic and 

regulatory alternatives for proposed and 

final rules that contain Federal 

mandates. A ‘‘Federal mandate’’ is a 

new or additional enforceable duty, 

imposed on any State, local, or tribal 

Government, or the private sector. If any 

Federal mandate causes those entities to 

spend, in aggregate, $143.1 million or 

more in any one year (adjusted for 

inflation), an UMRA analysis is 

required. This rule would not impose 

Federal mandates on any State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1 

Authority delegations (Government 

agencies); Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31, 

2014. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, DOT 

amends 49 CFR part 1 as follows: 

PART 1—ORGANIZATION AND 

DELEGATION OF POWERS AND 

DUTIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.74 by adding new 

paragraphs (o) and (p) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.74 Delegations to Inspector General. 

* * * * * 

(o) Administer the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and 49 

CFR part 7 (Public Availability of 

Information) in connection with the 

records of the Office of the Inspector 

General. 

(p) Administer the Privacy Act, 5 

U.S.C. 552a, and 49 CFR part 10 

(Maintenance of and Access to Records 

Pertaining to Individuals) in connection 

with the records of the Office of the 

Inspector General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06172 Filed 3–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES