Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49745 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 

12988, (‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’), to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 

13045 (‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’). This rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under E.O. 13175 

(‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’), because it 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 

13211 (‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’). 

We have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under that 

order because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under E.O. 12866 and 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, codified as a 

note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

their regulatory activities unless the 

agency provides Congress, through 

OMB, with an explanation of why using 

these standards would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

specifications of materials, performance, 

design, or operation; test methods; 

sampling procedures; and related 

management systems practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. 

This rule uses a voluntary consensus 

standard: The current ABYC S–30. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This final rule 

is categorically excluded under section 

2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraphs (34)(d) and 

(e) of the Instruction and under section 

6(a) of the ‘‘Appendix to National 

Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard 

Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, 

Notice of Final Agency Policy’’ (67 FR 

48243, July 23, 2002). This final rule 

involves the safe loading capacity and 

required amount of flotation material for 

certain recreational boats, which 

concerns equipping of vessels, as well 

as equipment and vessel operation 

safety standards. This rule supports the 

Coast Guard’s maritime safety mission. 

A Record of Environmental 

Consideration (REC) supporting this 

determination is available in the docket 

as discussed in the ADDRESSES section of 

this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 183 

Marine safety. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the interim rule amending 33 

CFR part 183 that was published at 82 

FR 16512 on April 5, 2017, is adopted 

as a final rule without change. 

Dated: October 23, 2017. 

Jennifer F. Williams, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of 

Inspections and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23384 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0348; FRL–9968–40] 

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Strain 

F727; Exemption From the 

Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain F727 in or on 

all food commodities when used in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. Marrone Bio 

Innovations submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain F727 under 

FFDCA. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

October 27, 2017. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before December 26, 2017, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0348, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert McNally, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
49746 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(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 number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2016–0348 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 December 26, 2017. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2016–0348, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

II. Background 

In the Federal Register of August 29, 

2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL–9950–22), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F8444) 

by Marrone Bio Innovations, 1540 Drew 

Ave., Davis, CA 95618. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 

amended by establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 

strain F727 in and on all food 

commodities. That document referenced 

a summary of the petition prepared by 

the petitioner Marrone Bio Innovations, 

which is available in the docket via 

http://www.regulations.gov. There were 

no comments received in response to 

the notice of filing. 

III. Final Rule 

A. EPA’s Safety Determination 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement for a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings but does not include 

occupational exposure. Pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in 

establishing or maintaining in effect an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance, EPA must take into account 

the factors set forth in FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give 

special consideration to exposure of 

infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance or tolerance 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 . . . .’’ Additionally, FFDCA 

section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA 

consider ‘‘available information 

concerning the cumulative effects of [a 

particular pesticide’s] . . . residues and 

other substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA evaluated the available 

toxicological and exposure data on 

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain F727 

and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability, as well as 

the relationship of this information to 

human risk. A full explanation of the 

data upon which EPA relied and its risk 

assessment based on those data can be 

found within the August 24, 2017, 

document, entitled ‘‘Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

Considerations for Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain F727.’’ This 

document, as well as other relevant 

information, is available in the docket 

for this action as described under 

ADDRESSES. 

Based upon its evaluation, EPA 

concludes that Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain F727 is not 

toxic, pathogenic, or infective. Although 

there may be some exposure to residues 

when used on all food commodities in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices, there is a 

reasonable certainty that such exposure 

will be safe due to the lack of potential 

for adverse effects. EPA also determined 

that retention of the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was 

not necessary as part of the qualitative 

assessment conducted for Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain F727. 

Based upon its evaluation, EPA 

concludes that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 

strain F727. Therefore, an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance is 

established for residues of Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain F727 in and on 

all food commodities when used in 

accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. 

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Due to the lack of toxicity, infectivity, 

or pathogenicity of Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens strain F727, EPA has 

determined that there is no need for an 

analytical method to measure and detect 

residues in or on food. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action 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 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49747 

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 tolerance exemption in this action, 

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. As a result, 

this action does not alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

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

EPA has determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

States or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply 

to this action. In addition, this action 

does not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

EPA’s consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(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: October 11, 2017. 

Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., 

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 § 180.1347 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.1347 Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 

strain F727; exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

An exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance is established for residues 

of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain 

F727 in or on all food commodities 

when used in accordance with label 

directions and good agricultural 

practices. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23469 Filed 10–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

41 CFR Part 51–11 

RIN 3037–AA04 

Touhy Regulations 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled (Committee) has revised 

procedures to respond to subpoenas or 

other official demands for information 

and testimony served upon itself or its 

employees. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

27, 2017 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timi Kenealy, (703) 603–2100, Email: 

CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Committee, operating as the U.S. 

AbilityOne Commission, administers 

the AbilityOne Program pursuant to the 

authority of 41 U.S.C. 8501. Through 

this program, employment opportunities 

are provided to people who are blind or 

severely disabled through the provisions 

of products and services to the Federal 

Government. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301, the head of 

an Executive department or military 

department may prescribe regulations 

for the government of his department, 

the conduct of its employees, the 

distribution and performance of its 

business, and the custody, use, and 

preservation of its records, papers, and 

property. The part does not authorize 

withholding information from the 

public or limiting the availability of 

records to the public. 

The United States Supreme Court 

held in United States ex rel. Touhy v. 

Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), that the 

head of a Federal agency may make the 

determination on his/her sole authority 

to produce documents and authorize 

employee’s testimony in response to a 

subpoena or other demand for 

information. 

This regulation governs the 

Committee’s procedures for authorizing 

or denying such demands. In addition to 

the updates for the Touhy case, the 

Committee made technical corrections 

to include changes to the mailing 

address and changed ‘‘JWOD’’ to 

‘‘AbilityOne’’ the operating name of the 

agency since 2010. Changes to this 

section of the CFR were last made in 

1994. On July 18, 2017, the Committee 

published a proposed rule outlining 

these changes on https://

www.federalregister.gov/. No comments 

were received and this rule is being 

finalized with no additional changes. 

Regulatory Analysis 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and Executive 

Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule benefits the public 

and the United States Government by 

providing clear procedures for members 

of the public and Government 

employees to follow when official 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES