Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) established the Bureau as an independent agency within the Federal Reserve System responsible for regulating the offering and provision of consumer financial products and services under the Federal consumer financial laws. 1 The Bureau's mission is to “implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products are fair, transparent, and competitive.”  2 Congress equipped the Bureau with a number of tools to achieve this mission, including: broad authority to promulgate rules to regulate the consumer financial marketplace; a mandate to educate and inform consumers to make better informed financial decisions; the ability to bring enforcement actions to remedy violations of Federal consumer financial law; and the authority to supervise institutions for compliance with Federal consumer financial law.

This final rule amends the Bureau's rules relating to the confidential treatment of information, 12 CFR part 1070, subpart D, in order to facilitate the exercise of the Bureau's authorities by ensuring that the confidentiality of privileged information is not vitiated by any person's disclosure of such information to the Bureau in the course of its supervisory or regulatory processes, or by the Bureau's exchange of privileged information with another Federal or State agency.

The Bureau is in the process of reviewing comments received on other aspects of the interim final rule that governs the Bureau's disclosure of records and information. See 76 FR 44242 (July 22, 2011) (codified at 12 CFR part 1070). The Bureau intends to issue a final rule in response to those comments in the future.

The Bureau has authority to supervise and examine insured depository institutions and credit unions with total assets of more than $10,000,000,000 as well as their affiliates and service providers, in order to assess their compliance with Federal consumer financial law, to obtain information about their activities subject to such laws and their associated compliance systems or procedures, and to detect and assess risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and services. 3 This supervisory authority, and all related “powers and duties,” transferred to the Bureau from the prudential regulators on July 21, 2011. 4 In addition, in accordance with the goal of ensuring that Federal consumer law is “enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition[,]”  5 Congress also provided the Bureau with nearly identical authority to supervise certain nondepository institutions. 6 The entities subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority are referred to herein as “supervised entities.”

The Bureau's supervision program is focused on supervised entities' “ability to detect, prevent, and correct practices that present a significant risk of violating the law and causing consumer harm.”  7 Thus, while the Bureau is committed to remedying violations of Federal consumer financial law, the primary goal of the Bureau's supervision program is to prevent violations of law or consumer harm from occurring. To this end, supervised entities are expected “to have an effective compliance management system adapted to [their] business strategy and operations.”  8 Indeed, every “CFPB examination will include review and testing of components of the supervised entity's compliance management system.”  9

An independent audit program and regular self-testing for violations of Federal consumer financial law are essential elements of a strong compliance program. 10 Supervised entities sometimes rely upon counsel to conduct these analyses. As a consequence, in exercising its supervisory authority, the Bureau may request from its supervised entities information that may be subject to one or more statutory or common law privileges, including the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection. 11 Certain supervised entities have expressed concern, based on cases decided outside of the supervisory context, 12 that compliance with the Bureau's supervisory requests for such information may result in a waiver of any applicable privilege with respect to third parties.

On January 4, 2012, the Bureau issued a bulletin, CFPB Bulletin 12-01, in which it stated its view that “because entities must comply with the Bureau's supervisory requests for information, the provision of privileged information to the Bureau would not be considered voluntary and would thus not waive any privilege that attached to such information.”  13 Further, the Bulletin observed that the prudential regulators' authority to examine very large depository institutions and credit unions, and their affiliates, for compliance with Federal consumer financial law, as well as all related powers and duties, transferred to the Bureau on July 21, 2011. 14 The Bureau interprets this transfer of authority as including the ability, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1785(j) & 1828(x), to obtain privileged information without waiving any applicable privilege claimed by the provider of the information.

On March 15, 2012, in order to provide further reassurances to its supervised entities, the Bureau published a notice and request for comment regarding its proposal to add a new section to its rules relating to the confidential treatment of information that would provide that any person's submission of information to the Bureau in the course of the Bureau's supervisory or regulatory processes will not waive any privilege such person may claim with respect to such information as to any other person or entity. 15 The proposed rule was intended to provide protections for the confidentiality of privileged information substantively identical to the statutory provisions that apply to the submission of privileged information to the prudential regulators, and State and foreign bank regulators. 16 The notice of proposed rulemaking reiterated the position set forth in CFPB Bulletin 12-01 that the submission of privileged information to the Bureau would not, under existing law, result in a waiver of any applicable privilege, and explained that the Bureau was exercising its rulemaking authority to codify this result in order to provide maximum assurances of confidentiality to the entities subject to its supervisory or regulatory authority. As a result, the proposed rule was intended to govern any claim, in Federal or State court, that a person has waived any applicable privilege, including the privilege for attorney work product, by providing such information to the Bureau in the exercise of its supervisory or regulatory processes. 17

The Bureau received 26 comment letters regarding the proposed rule. These comments were submitted on behalf of twenty trade associations (one letter was submitted on behalf of five trade associations), eight individual financial institutions, and two individuals. A majority of the comments supported adoption of the proposed rule; however, several commenters recommended that the Bureau not adopt the proposed rule, but wait for Congress to address institutions' concerns regarding privilege waiver through the enactment of legislation. Although the Bureau has expressed support for legislation codifying the Bureau's view that the submission of privileged information to the Bureau does not result in a waiver, 18 the Bureau does not believe such legislation is necessary. As discussed below, Congress has delegated to the Bureau the authority to issue regulations to ensure the confidentiality of information submitted to the Bureau and to facilitate the exercise of its supervisory authority. Delegated rulemaking authority is designed to relieve Congress of the obligation to anticipate and address every issue that arises in an agency's administration of the laws entrusted to its care. 19 Accordingly, while the Bureau continues to support appropriate legislation, the possibility of future congressional action does not counsel against the Bureau's exercise of its existing authority to protect the confidentiality of information it obtains in the course of its supervisory or regulatory processes.

Some commenters disagreed with the Bureau's position, stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking, that the Bureau has the authority to compel privileged information and that the submission of privileged information to the Bureau pursuant to this authority does not waive any applicable privilege because it is not voluntary. 20 Commenters argued that, for this reason, the rule will not effectively preserve the privileged nature of information submitted to the Bureau. The Bureau continues to adhere to the position that it can compel privileged information pursuant to its supervisory authority. The prudential regulators have consistently taken the view that they can compel privileged information pursuant to their supervisory authority, 21 and the case law that directly addresses the issue supports the view that the submission of privileged information to a supervisory agency is not voluntary and therefore does not result in a privilege waiver. 22 The Bureau's authority in this regard is not, however, a prerequisite to its authority to promulgate the rule.

The validity and effectiveness of the rule depends on the scope of the Bureau's rulemaking authority, not on the Bureau's authority to compel privileged information. 23 In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Bureau noted that it had issued CFPB Bulletin 12-01, which took the position “that, like the prudential regulators, its supervisory authority encompasses the authority to compel supervised entities to provide privileged information and, therefore, a supervised entity's submission of privileged information to the Bureau in response to a request is not a voluntary disclosure that would result in the waiver of any applicable privilege.”  24 Consistent with this view of the law, the Bureau observed that the effect of the proposed rule would be to codify the result courts considering claims of waiver would reach in the absence of the rule; thus, the rulemaking would give further assurance to regulated entities regarding the issue of waiver. 25 The Bureau was clear, however, that the proposed rule would protect the privileged nature of information submitted to the Bureau even assuming courts would have reached a different determination under existing law. 26 Thus, the Bureau did not indicate in the notice of proposed rulemaking that its authority to promulgate the proposed rule depends on its authority to compel privileged information, or that the proposed rule would codify the Bureau's claimed authority to compel privileged information. To the contrary, the Bureau stated that “the rule does not impose obligations on covered persons to provide information; rather, any requirement to provide information stems from the Bureau's authority under existing law.”  27

In fact, the rule is authorized by the rulemaking authority delegated to the Bureau in the Dodd-Frank Act. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Bureau cited three sources of rulemaking authority that support the rule. First, the Bureau relied on “its authority to `prescribe rules regarding the confidential treatment of information obtained from persons in connection with the exercise of its authorities under Federal consumer financial laws.' ”  28 The Bureau also relied upon “its general rulemaking authority to `prescribe rules * * * as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and prevent evasions thereof,” and its authority to “prescribe rules to facilitate the supervision of [nondepository institutions] and assessment and detection of risks to consumers.”  29 As the Bureau noted, the proposed rule is an appropriate means to facilitate the Bureau's supervision program because, by providing supervised entities greater assurances that their privileges will be maintained, it encourages the free flow of information that is essential to an effective supervision program. 30 With respect to large depository institutions and credit unions and their affiliates, the rule is also supported by the Bureau's interpretation of Dodd-Frank Act section 1061(b) as including within its grant to the Bureau of all powers and duties relating to the prudential regulators' transferred supervisory authority the power, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1785(j) & 1828(x), to receive privileged information from supervised entities without effecting a waiver. The rule is intended to codify the Bureau's interpretation of section 1061 in this respect.

Commenters generally agreed that an effective supervision program requires that the Bureau be able to obtain privileged information, and that the proposed rule would facilitate such access. As one trade association commenter observed, “the Bureau needs to have a trusting and open relationship with its supervised entities, which includes having appropriate access to certain privileged information.” A large financial services provider agreed that the proposed rule would “yield numerous benefits, chief among them encouraging the free flow of information between supervised persons and their counsel and between supervised persons and the CFPB.” Another trade association agreed that “the preservation of existing legal privileges * * * is vitally important to the functioning of an effective regulatory and supervisory framework.” Commenters also generally agreed with the Bureau that the same standards should apply to entities supervised by the Bureau as to entities currently or formerly supervised by the prudential regulators. These comments confirm the Bureau's judgment in the exercise of its rulemaking authorities that the rule will ensure the confidentiality of information it obtains in the course of its supervisory or regulatory processes and is necessary or appropriate to administer or facilitate the exercise of its supervisory responsibilities.

No commenters argued that the rule was not within the plain text of the rulemaking authority upon which the Bureau relies, but some commenters suggested that Congress's failure to amend 12 U.S.C. 1828(x) to include the Bureau when it enacted the Dodd-Frank Act raises the negative inference that Congress did not intend the Bureau to accomplish the same end through an exercise of its rulemaking authority. The text of both the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Dodd-Frank Act suggest otherwise. First, 12 U.S.C. 1828(x) itself cautions against construing the protections it affords to information submitted to the Federal banking agencies as suggesting that “any person waives any privilege applicable to information that is submitted or transferred under any circumstance to which [it] does not apply.” 12 U.S.C. 1828(x)(2)(A). Second, nothing in either the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or the Dodd-Frank Act suggests that Congress intended depository institutions or credit unions with more than $10,000,000,000 in assets, or nondepository entities subject to supervision by the Bureau, to be entitled to less protection for the confidentiality of their information than smaller depository institutions or credit unions supervised for compliance with Federal consumer financial law by the prudential regulators or state bank regulators. To the contrary, Congress explicitly authorized the Bureau to exercise its authority—including the rulemaking authority relied upon here—to ensure that “Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition.”  31 Thus, the Bureau does not believe that Congress's silence regarding this provision of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act suggests that the Bureau lacks the rulemaking authority to promulgate section 1070.48. Congress has entrusted the Bureau with administering and implementing Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 32 and the Bureau is adopting section 1070.48 pursuant to the rulemaking authorities expressly provided under that law. Accordingly, section 1070.48 is a valid exercise of the Bureau's rulemaking authority and will govern third parties' claims of waiver based on the submission of privileged information by any person to the Bureau. 33

Several commenters asked the Bureau to make clear that the rule would apply to the submission of privileged information by insured depository institutions or credit unions with $10,000,000 or less in assets, as defined in section 1026(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. As the commenters note, although the prudential regulators retain primary supervisory authority over these institutions, the Bureau has authority, at its discretion, to participate in the prudential regulators' examinations of these institutions on a sampling basis. 34 The Bureau may also require reports from smaller depository institutions and credit unions as necessary to support its implementation of Federal consumer financial law, to support its examination of these institutions, and “to assess and detect risks to consumers and consumer financial markets.”  35 Although the need for the rule has arisen primarily in the context of the Bureau's supervision of larger depository institutions and credit unions, the term “person” used by section 1070.48 is not intended to be limited to such institutions, but is intended to be interpreted broadly in accordance with the definition of that term in 12 CFR 1070.2. Accordingly, to the extent smaller depository institutions or credit unions submit privileged information to the Bureau in the course of the Bureau's supervisory or regulatory processes, section 1070.48 will govern any claim, in Federal or State court, that such submission resulted in a waiver of the privilege.

Commenters also sought clarification as to whether the rule would apply to claims that institutions have waived protections afforded to attorney work product by submitting such information to the Bureau. The Bureau does intend the rule's reference to “privilege” to encompass “any privilege” that applies to information submitted by the Bureau, including the attorney work product protection. In fact, in discussing the need for the rule in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Bureau began by observing that it “will at times request from its supervised entities information that may be subject to one or more statutory or common law privileges, including, for example, the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection.”  36 The Bureau believes that interpreting the term “privilege” as including the protection afforded by the work product doctrine is consistent with courts' treatment of the term, 37 and with the purpose of the rule. Section 1070.48 is intended to facilitate the free flow of information between the Bureau and its supervised institutions by reassuring such institutions that the submission of information to the Bureau will not affect the institutions' ability to protect it from disclosure to third parties. This purpose is served by construing the term privilege, as used in the section 1070.48, to include attorney work product. Accordingly, the Bureau interprets the term “privilege” to include the protection afforded by the work product doctrine.

Several commenters asked the Bureau to reaffirm its policy, as expressed in CFPB Bulletin 12-01, that it will request privileged information only in limited circumstances. As noted in CFPB Bulletin 12-01, the Bureau recognizes the important interests served by the common law privileges, in particular the attorney-client privilege. The Bureau understands that compliance with Federal consumer financial law is served by policies that do not discourage those subject to its supervisory or regulatory authority from seeking the advice of counsel. Accordingly, the Bureau continues to adhere to its policy to request submission of privileged information only when it determines that such information is material to its supervisory objectives and that it cannot practicably obtain the same information from non-privileged sources. The Bureau also continues to adhere to its policy of giving “due consideration to supervised institutions' requests to limit the form and scope of any supervisory request for privileged information.”  38 The Bureau believes that its policies regarding requests for privileged information are consistent with those of the prudential regulators. 39

In light of these policies, the Bureau disagrees with the contention of several commenters that the final rule will have the effect of chilling attorney-client communications within supervised entities. To the contrary, the final rule encourages and strengthens communications between supervised entities and their attorneys by providing additional protections for the confidentiality of those communications. As the Bureau made clear in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the rule itself does not require the submission of privileged information, but instead merely provides protections for privileged information that is submitted to the Bureau, voluntarily or otherwise. As stated above, to the extent the Bureau requests privileged information from supervised entities, it will do so only when it determines that such information is material to its supervisory objectives and that it cannot practicably obtain the same information from non-privileged sources.

Commenters also expressed concern regarding the Bureau's disclosure to other agencies of attorney-client or work product privileged information submitted to the Bureau in the course of its supervisory process. The Bureau's policy for the treatment of confidential supervisory information generally is expressed in CFPB Bulletin 12-01, which states, in pertinent part:

This policy applies to the Bureau's treatment of all confidential supervisory information, including the instances in which the Bureau is asked to share with a law enforcement agency confidential supervisory information that is also subject to the attorney-client or work product privileges. The Bulletin's presumption against sharing confidential supervisory information would be even stronger in such instances.

As stated in CFPB Bulletin 12-01, “[b]y articulating its policy regarding its treatment of confidential supervisory information, the Bureau does not intend to limit its use of such information in administrative or judicial proceedings, subject to appropriate protective orders.”  41

For the foregoing reasons, the Bureau adopts the proposed rule without modification.

On July 28, 2011, the Bureau issued an interim final rule providing that “[t]he provision by the CFPB of any confidential information pursuant to [12 CFR part 1070, subpart D] does not constitute a waiver, or otherwise affect, any privilege any agency or person may claim with respect to such information under federal law.” 12 CFR 1070.47(c). In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Bureau proposed readopting this rule in modified form to create a non-waiver provision substantively similar to that codified in section 11 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 42 with the exception that the rule will also apply to the disclosure of privileged information to State agencies in addition to Federal agencies. The primary purpose of the proposed rule is to protect the privileges of the Bureau in the context of a joint investigation or coordinated examination. The rule will, however, also foreclose claims that any other person's privilege has been waived by the Bureau's disclosure of that person's privileged information to another Federal or State agency.

The Bureau received comparatively few comments related to its proposed revision of section 1070.47(c). As noted, some commenters expressed concern regarding the Bureau's treatment of attorney-client and attorney work product privileged information obtained in the course of its supervisory or regulatory processes, including whether the Bureau intends to provide such privileged information to other Federal or State agencies. One commenter suggested that the term “State agency” in section 1070.47(c) be defined to exclude State attorneys general, and suggested that the Bureau should not share with a State agency the privileged information of a regulated entity that relates to pending or anticipated litigation between the State agency and the entity.

As addressed above in the discussion of section 1070.48, the ordinary presumption that the Bureau will not share confidential supervisory information is even stronger when the confidential supervisory information is also subject to the attorney-client or work product privilege. Although section 1070.47(c) will protect any person's privileged information from claims of waiver, it is primarily intended to protect the Bureau's privileges—including, for example, its examination privilege, its deliberative process privilege, and its law enforcement privilege—in the context of a coordinated examination or joint investigation. 43 For this reason, the Bureau declines to define the term “State agency” as excluding State attorneys general. If the Bureau were to share privileged information obtained from a person in the course of its supervisory or regulatory functions with another agency, for example a prudential regulator, the information would remain the property of the Bureau. 44 The agency receiving any person's privileged information from the Bureau would be required to maintain the confidentiality of the information and would be prohibited from further disclosure of such information without the Bureau's consent. 45

Several commenters raised a specific concern regarding whether the corporate entity created by State regulators to administer the National Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) will be considered a “State agency” for purposes of section 1070.47(c). According to the commenters, State regulators often use the NMLS to exchange confidential information of related companies. The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (S.A.F.E. Act) protects the confidentiality of information exchanged by State and Federal agencies through the NMLS, and expressly provides that information provided to the NMLS “may be shared with all State and Federal regulatory officials with mortgage industry oversight authority without the loss of privilege or the loss of confidentiality protections provided by Federal or State laws.” 12 U.S.C. 5111(a); see also 12 CFR 1008.3 (implementing regulation). One commenter expressed concern that a court could find that this provision does not extend to the sharing of information relating to nonbank lenders. To address this concern, the commenter suggested adding an additional rule of construction to section 1070.47(c) to make clear that the term “State agency” includes any entity employed by a state agency to carry out its statutory responsibilities. The Bureau declines to adopt this suggestion because, in its view, the confidentiality provisions of the S.A.F.E. Act and its implementing regulations provide the necessary assurances of confidentiality.

Commenters also sought clarification that section 1070.47(c), like section 1070.48, would apply to attorney work product, as well as other types of privileged information. For the reasons set forth in the discussion of section 1070.48, the Bureau affirms that section 1070.47(c) is intended to apply to attorney work product and other privileged information.

For the foregoing reasons, the Bureau adopts the proposed rule without modification.

The final rule is based on the Bureau's authority to “prescribe rules regarding the confidential treatment of information obtained from persons in connection with the exercise of its authorities under Federal consumer financial laws.”  46 As explained above, section 1070.48 will ensure that the confidential nature of privileged information obtained by the Bureau in the course of any supervisory or regulatory process is not waived, destroyed, or modified by compliance with the Bureau's requests for information. The revised version of section 1070.47(c) ensures that the sharing of information with Federal and State agencies mandated or authorized by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act does not affect the confidential and privileged nature of the information. This protection is an appropriate use of the Bureau's authority to prescribe rules regarding the confidential treatment of information. Where any privileged information or material is submitted to the Bureau or shared by the Bureau as described in the final rule, the final rule prohibits discovery or disclosure of that information or material as if, and to the extent that, the privilege had not been waived.

In addition, the Bureau relies on its general rulemaking authority to “prescribe rules * * * as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.”  47 The supervision and other authorities provided by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act are components of “Federal consumer financial law.” As explained above, the final rule is a necessary and appropriate measure to ensure that the Bureau is able to implement these authorities, and to do so consistently “without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition.”  48 As explained above, the final rule will promote candid dialogue between supervised entities and the Bureau, again furthering the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial law. In addition, by providing greater certainty to supervised entities, the final rule will also prevent evasions of the Bureau's supervisory and other authorities because supervised entities might improperly attempt to rely upon the risk of waiving privilege in order to evade or hamper the Bureau's supervision. The final rule is also meant to codify the Bureau's interpretation of section 1061(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act as granting the Bureau the prudential regulators' authority, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1785(j) and 1828(x), to obtain privileged information from very large depository institutions and credit unions and their affiliates without effecting a waiver.

Finally, the Bureau also relies on its authority to “prescribe rules to facilitate the supervision of [nondepository institutions] and assessment and detection of risks to consumers.”  49 For the reasons discussed above, the final rule will facilitate the Bureau's supervision of nondepository institutions and thereby enhance the Bureau's ability to assess and detect risks to consumers.

In developing the final rule, the Bureau considered potential benefits, costs, and impacts, and has consulted or offered to consult with the prudential regulators and the Federal Trade Commission, including regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by such agencies. 50 The Bureau did not receive comments regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking's analysis of the proposed rule's potential benefits, costs, and impacts.

Section 1070.48 of the final rule provides that the submission by any person of information to the Bureau in the course of the Bureau's supervisory or regulatory processes does not waive or otherwise affect any privilege such person may claim with respect to such information under Federal or State law as to any other person or entity. Section 1070.47(c) of the final rule provides that the Bureau's provision of privileged information to another Federal or State agency does not waive any applicable privilege.

As explained above, the Bureau anticipates that section 1070.48 will most often apply in the context of a supervised entity's involuntary submission of privileged information to the Bureau. 51 In these circumstances, the final rule will not result in a determination regarding the privileged nature of information different than that which would have been reached in the absence of the rule, and would not be expected to impose costs on consumers or to impact consumers' access to consumer financial products or services. In circumstances in which section 1070.48 results in a determination regarding the privileged nature of information different than that which would be reached under existing law, the final rule will benefit covered persons by preserving any applicable privilege a covered person may claim in response to a third party's claim of waiver. Furthermore, in that scenario, the final rule could impose a potential cost on consumers or covered persons involved in subsequent third-party litigation regarding a supervised entity to the extent the rule, as opposed to existing law, prevents them from discovering or using privileged information subject to the rule pursuant to a theory of waiver. The final rule could also benefit consumers, however, by facilitating the Bureau's ability to supervise covered persons and service providers and thereby detect and prevent risks to consumers.

The Bureau also believes that courts applying the principles of the common law would be unlikely to find a waiver of any applicable privilege in most circumstances in which it will share privileged information with another Federal or State agency. For example, the Bureau believes it unlikely that a court would find a waiver if it were to share its privileged deliberative work product with Federal or State agencies in the context of a coordinated examination or joint investigation. In circumstances in which the rule does result in a determination regarding waiver different than that which would be reached under existing law, section 1070.47(c)'s only effect would be to preserve the confidentiality of privileged information and, therefore, would not impose material costs on consumers or covered persons for the same reasons as set forth above in relation to section 1070.48. Accordingly, section 1070.47(c) is not expected to impose material costs on consumers or covered persons or to impact consumers' access to consumer financial products or services.

Finally, although the final rule would apply to privileged information submitted by depository institutions or credit unions with $10,000,000,000 or less in assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, it has no unique impact upon such institutions. Nor does the final rule have a unique impact on rural consumers.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations.

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau did not perform an IFRA because it determined and certified that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau did not receive any comments regarding its certification, and is adopting the proposed rule without change.

A FRFA is not required for the proposed rule because it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule does not impose obligations or standards of conduct on any entities. In any event, as noted, the submission by any person of any information to the Bureau in the course of the Bureau's supervisory or regulatory processes or the Bureau's later disclosure of such submitted material generally does not waive or otherwise affect any privilege such person may claim with respect to such information under Federal or State law as to any other person or entity. The final rule is intended to codify this result in order to give further assurance to entities subject to the Bureau's authority. Any requirement to provide information stems from the Bureau's authority under existing law, not the final rule. To the extent that the final rule alters existing law, it protects any applicable privilege under Federal or State law that a covered person that provides information to the Bureau may claim.

Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1070, subpart D, as set forth below:

The airworthiness standards in § 33.83 refer to engine surveys, vibration surveys, vibration test, or simply surveys with the intent to prescribe engine vibration surveys conducted by the means of an engine test. This intent has been applied since the regulation was first issued in 1964 and is common certification practice. However, FAA continues to receive requests for clarification in regard to the “engine surveys” required in the second sentence of § 33.83(a). The requested clarification was whether an “appropriate combination of experience, analysis, and component test” is acceptable in lieu of an engine test. We are revising § 33.83(a) to clarify that the applicants must conduct the engine surveys by the means of an engine test, and that the applicants may use an “appropriate combination of experience, analysis, and component test” in support of conducting the engine test. This clarification is not substantive in nature, and will not impose any additional burden on any person.

In consideration of the following, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canada AD CF-2012-12, dated March 26, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

P&WC has issued ASB No. PW100-72-A21813, Revision 3, dated March 21, 2012 and ASB No. PW100-72-A21802, Revision 4, dated March 16, 2012. These ASBs provide instructions on replacing the affected propeller shafts that are identified by S/N in the ASBs. P&WC has also issued Special Instruction P&WC 22-2012R2, dated April 4, 2012, which provides instructions on performing ultrasonic inspections to the affected propeller shafts. The actions described in that service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires within 30 days after the effective date of the AD, removing from service propeller shafts with a S/N listed in Table 1 of P&WC ASB No. PW100-72-A21802, Revision 4, dated March 16, 2012. These propeller shafts are the highest-risk propeller shafts.

This AD also requires within 200 engine flight hours (EFH) or 40 days, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, performing an initial, and repetitive visual inspections or ultrasonic inspections of propeller shafts with a S/N listed in Table 1 or Table 2 of P&WC ASB No. PW100-72-A21813, Revision 3, dated March 21, 2012. These propeller shafts are not as high a risk.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the compliance requirements are within 30 days or less, depending on airplane usage. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0416; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-13-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The PW126, PW127B, PW127H, and PW127J model engines listed in the MCAI are not included in this AD because they are not subject to FAA oversight.

The MCAI requires retirement of all subject propeller shafts within 12 months. This AD does not. However, that requirement may be added at a later date as required terminating action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

In FR Doc. 2012-10562 appearing on page 30596 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, May 23, 2012, the following corrections are made.

Due to funding limitations, in the Expanded HAP Final Rule, the Permanent Change of Station (PCS) eligibility criterion date for when PCS orders needed to be issued was changed from September 30, 2012, to September 30, 2010, but the Final Rule retained the September 30, 2012, date for when the house must be sold. In accordance with the Act, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 eligibility criterion will terminate on September 30, 2012, a full year after implementation of the BRAC 2005 round. It is appropriate to establish application deadlines for Expanded HAP benefits for the PCS and BRAC 2005 categories. To that end, this rule will amend 32 CFR part 239 by adding two paragraphs to Section 239.9(a) to establish the application deadlines. This change does not eliminate anyone's eligibility; rather it simply requires filing of applications in a timely manner. Submission of the applications by the specified deadlines is sufficient even if further documentation is required.

Additionally, the amendment will revise the HAP Field Office address for the submission of HAP applications. The three former field offices were consolidated into one field office in Savannah, Georgia.

The prompt implementation of the Direct Final Rule is of critical importance. Due to the current economic climate, continuing the Expanded HAP provisions for PCS and BRAC 2005 categories is no longer viable. This Direct Final Rule makes nonsubstantive changes to the Expanded HAP rule. These changes inform applicants of application deadlines and the current field office address for submitting applications. These changes do not impact the eligibility criteria or other policies and procedures prescribed in the rule.

Additionally, the Department of Defense has determined that these changes to the final rule are exempt from public comment as the application deadline is the same as the program termination deadline for the Expanded HAP that was previously established and codified in the final rule and the change of address for the field office is an administrative change.

DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves nonsubstantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Expanded HAP. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register . A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A significant adverse comment is not a comment that addresses the order of application processing, the ten percent home value loss, and the date of home purchase. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

a. The Expanded Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP), authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“the Act”), provided much needed assistance to military and civilian employees, and spouses of military members who died in the line of duty. However, the Expanded HAP eligibility criteria established in the Act, including those criteria that were subsequently changed through administrative rulemaking procedures, did not establish a deadline for when applications must be submitted to DoD. Based on reductions in the Defense budget in Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond, continuing the Expanded HAP provisions for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 categories is no longer viable. In the Expanded HAP Final Rule, the PCS eligibility criterion date was changed from September 30, 2012, to September 30, 2010, due to funding limitations. However, the Department continues to receive more than 100 eligible applications per month for the PCS category. Per the Act, the BRAC 2005 eligibility criterion will terminate on September 30, 2012, a full year after the statutory completion of the BRAC 2005 round. It is now time to establish application deadlines for Expanded HAP benefits for the PCS and BRAC 2005 categories. To that end, this rule will amend 32 CFR part 239 by adding two paragraphs to Section 239.9(a) to establish the application deadlines.

b. 42 United States Code, Section 3374, as amended.

The HAP Rule, Section 239.9(a) will be amended to add application deadlines for the submission of PCS and BRAC 2005 benefits. This change does not eliminate anyone's eligibility; rather it simply requires filing of applications in a timely manner. Submission of the applications by the specified deadlines is sufficient even if further documentation is required. Additionally, the amendment will revise the HAP Field Office address for the submission of HAP applications. The three former field offices were consolidated into one field office in Savannah, Georgia.

There is no cost to the public. The Department of Defense administrative costs for implementation of the authorities under this rule are eight (8) percent of the funds appropriated to execute the Expanded HAP. Workload will be accomplished with additional staffing and be integrated into normal business.

It has been determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action.

This rule does not:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; or

(3) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders.

This rule does:

Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof.

OMB has reviewed this rule.

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 239 does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 239 is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

It has been certified that this rule does impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The HAP Application is approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0463.

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 239 does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:

(1) The States;

(2) The relationship between the National Government and the States; or

(3) The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 239 is amended as follows:

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) of the DoN, under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS HARRY S. TRUMAN is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot comply fully with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the placement of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship; Annex I, paragraph 2(g), pertaining to the placement of the sidelights above the hull; and Annex I, paragraph 2(i)(iii), pertaining to the vertical line spacing of the task lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the CFR as follows:

On April 27, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Potomac River, National Harbor Access Channel, MD” in the Federal Register (77 FR 82). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The potential dangers posed by persons and vessels operating in close proximity to swimmers crossing navigation channels make special local regulations necessary. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it would require rescheduling the event, which hundreds of people are involved in. The regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, support craft and other vessels transiting the event area.

On July 8, 2012, the National Harbor Marina of Oxon Hill, Maryland, will sponsor a swimming competition across the Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. The event consists of up to 250 swimmers on a 1.3-mile linear course located downriver from the Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-495/I-95) Bridge. The swimmers will be supported by sponsor-provided watercraft. The start will be located at North Point in Jones Point Park and the finish will be located along the shore at National Harbor Marina. Portions of the swim course will cross the Potomac River federal navigation channel and the National Harbor Access Channel. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting portions of the Potomac River and National Harbor Access Channel during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit safely through a portion of the regulated area, but only after the last participant has cleared that portion of the regulated area and when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of the Potomac River, including and National Harbor Access Channel, during the event.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting portions of the Potomac River and the National Harbor Access Channel during the event, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Though the regulated area extends across the entire width of the river, vessel traffic may be permitted to safely transit a portion of the regulated area, but only after all participants have safely cleared that portion of the regulated area and when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe for vessel traffic to do so. All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the annual Seattle Seafair Unlimited Hydroplane Race in 33 CFR 100.1301 from 8 a.m. on August 2, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. on August 5, 2012.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1301, the Coast Guard will restrict general navigation in the following area: The waters of Lake Washington bounded by the Interstate 90 (Mercer Island/Lacey V. Murrow) Bridge, the western shore of Lake Washington, and the east/west line drawn tangent to Bailey Peninsula and along the shoreline of Mercer Island.

The regulated area has been divided into two zones. The zones are separated by a line perpendicular from the I-90 Bridge to the northwest corner of the East log boom and a line extending from the southeast corner of the East log boom to the southeast corner of the hydroplane race course and then to the northerly tip of Ohlers Island in Andrews Bay. The western zone is designated Zone I, the eastern zone, Zone II. (Refer to NOAA Chart 18447).

The Coast Guard will maintain a patrol consisting of Coast Guard vessels, assisted by Auxiliary Coast Guard vessels, in Zone II. The Coast Guard patrol of this area is under the direction of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (the “Patrol Commander”). The Patrol Commander is empowered to control the movement of vessels on the racecourse and in the adjoining waters during the periods this regulation is in effect. The Patrol Commander may be assisted by other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

Only authorized vessels may be allowed to enter Zone I during the hours this regulation is in effect. Vessels in the vicinity of Zone I shall maneuver and anchor as directed by Coast Guard Officers or Petty Officers.

During the times in which the regulation is in effect, the following rules shall apply:

(1) Swimming, wading, or otherwise entering the water in Zone I by any person is prohibited while hydroplane boats are on the racecourse. At other times in Zone I, any person entering the water from the shoreline shall remain west of the swim line, denoted by buoys, and any person entering the water from the log boom shall remain within ten (10) feet of the log boom.

(2) Any person swimming or otherwise entering the water in Zone II shall remain within ten (10) feet of a vessel.

(3) Rafting to a log boom will be limited to groups of three vessels.

(4) Up to six (6) vessels may raft together in Zone II if none of the vessels are secured to a log boom. Only vessels authorized by the Patrol Commander, other law enforcement agencies or event sponsors shall be permitted to tow other watercraft or inflatable devices.

(5) Vessels proceeding in either Zone I or Zone II during the hours this regulation is in effect shall do so only at speeds which will create minimum wake, seven (07) miles per hour or less. This maximum speed may be reduced at the discretion of the Patrol Commander.

(6) Upon completion of the daily racing activities, all vessels leaving either Zone I or Zone II shall proceed at speeds of seven (07) miles per hour or less. The maximum speed may be reduced at the discretion of the Patrol Commander.

(7) A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the areas under the direction of the Patrol Commander shall serve as signal to stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the patrol vessel; failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1301 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

On April 4, 2012 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound Zone, in the Federal Register (77 FR 20324).

We received no comments on the NPRM. No requests for a public meeting were received and no public meetings were held.

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 454, 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory special local regulations and safety zones.

This temporary rule establishes special local regulations and safety zones in order to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during regattas, fireworks displays and swim events.

In the NPRM the Coast Guard stated the following events: Davis Park Fireworks, Charles W. Morgan Anniversary Fireworks and Waves of Hope Swim, had not chose a date and time for their events and we would announce them in the final rule. The dates for each of the events are as follows: The Davis Park Fireworks have been removed from the table because the sponsor has decided not to hold the event. Charles W. Morgan Anniversary Fireworks will be held on November 3, 2012 and Waves of Hope Swim will be held on August 13, 2012. The dates can also be found in TABLE 1 & 2 to § 165.T01-0111.

The following events have been removed from this rulemaking and placed in a separate rulemaking under docket number (USCG-2012-0477) titled Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone. Salute to Veterans Devon Yacht Club Fireworks, Dolan Family Fourth Fireworks, Islip Fireworks, Madison Fireworks, Stratford Fireworks, Rowayton Fireworks, Quarentello Wedding Fireworks and Niantic Bay Fireworks. These events have been moved because there was less than 30 days between publication of this rule and the start of each events. Moving these events to a separate rulemaking allows the Coast Guard to accommodate a 30 day window between this rule publication and first day of being effective.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated areas are of limited duration and cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways. Furthermore, vessels may transit the navigable waterways outside of the regulated areas. Persons or vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.

Advanced public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor or moor within the regulated areas during the enforcement periods stated for each event listed below in the List of Subjects.

These temporary special local regulations and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the regulated areas are of limited size and of short duration, vessels that can safely do so may navigate in all other portions of the waterways except for the areas designated as regulated areas, and vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Additionally, before the effective period, notifications will be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the events.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of special local regulations and safety zones. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)&(h), of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2012, a fireworks display will be held on Lake Erie near Lake View, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Barbara Harder Wedding Fireworks. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 7, 2012. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Lake View, NY within a 560 foot radius of position 42°43′17.8″ N and 78°57′54.2″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Lake Erie on the evening of July 7, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only two hours late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are or intend to become a certified applicator under an EPA Federal certification plan. Certified applicators are included in three major industries in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes described as crop production, animal production or exterminating, and pest control services. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., individuals that are private certified applicators on farms.

• Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., individuals that are private certified applicators on farms.

• Exterminating and pest control services (NAICS code 561710), e.g., individuals that are commercial certified applicators for hire.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected.

This final rule is issued pursuant to the authority in sections 11 and 25 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136i and w). Section 11 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136i), requires EPA to provide certification plans for applicators of RUPs. Section 25 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136w), authorizes EPA to issue regulations to carry out provisions of FIFRA.

Under the provisions of FIFRA section 3(d)(1)(C), EPA shall classify a pesticide for restricted use, if, absent additional regulatory restrictions, the Agency determines that it may generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. RUPs may be applied only by a certified applicator or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

Pesticide applicators can be certified either by a certifying agency (a State, tribe, or non-EPA Federal agency that has an EPA-approved certification plan), or directly by EPA through a Federal certification plan for an area or situation not covered by a certifying agency's plan. Applicators must demonstrate competency to the certifying agency granting the certificate, according to the requirements of that agency's plan. Currently, all 50 States, some federal agencies, and 4 tribes are certifying agencies (i.e., they implement their EPA-approved certification plans). Applicators certified by a State may apply RUPs in that State, and applicators certified by a tribe may apply RUPs in that tribe's Indian country, without a Federal certificate. However, under 40 CFR 171.11, in areas where there is no EPA-approved certification plan in effect (currently, most of Indian country), EPA may implement a Federal plan, thereby allowing applicators to use RUPs in the area covered by the plan after receiving Federal certification. Under 40 CFR 171.11(e), a Federal plan may include an option that allows applicators to be issued an EPA Federal certificate after submitting to EPA a certification form along with documentation of a valid certificate from a certifying agency, without further demonstration of competency.

Applicator certificates have expiration dates to help ensure that certified applicators maintain their competency. All certifying agencies implement a recertification program for applicators. These programs require certified applicators to continue to meet the competency requirements either through continuing education or examination.

Section 171.11(e) states that an EPA Federal certificate based on a certifying agency's certificate is valid for 2 years for commercial applicators and 3 years for private applicators, or until the expiration date of the original certifying agency certificate, whichever occurs first. The duration of the certification period varies significantly among States, with some currently being shorter and some longer than the Federal certificate maximum of 2 or 3 years.

On June 24, 2011 (76 FR 37045) (FRL-8863-7), EPA published a proposed rule to eliminate the 2 or 3 year maximum for Federal certificates and allow Federal certification to expire at the same time as the underlying certifying agency certificate. The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on August 23, 2011. EPA received one comment, which was from a tribal government agency and supported the proposal. The commenter said that the rule will “eliminate confusion about the different expiration dates and there will be less paperwork.”

This action will finalize what was proposed in June 2011. EPA is amending 40 CFR 171.11(e) to synchronize the expiration dates for the EPA Federal certificate with the certifying agency certifications of RUP applicators. This minor revision does not pose any additional requirement or burden and is expected to have a beneficial impact on affected entities, without impacting human health or the environment. EPA will benefit through the reduction of administration of Federal certification plans. Additionally, this rule supersedes the expiration dates described in the Navajo Certification Plan. Further explanation of benefits and the underlying reasons for this revision are explained in the proposed rule associated with this action (June 24, 2011; 76 FR 37045).

In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a) and (d), EPA submitted a draft of this final rule to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the United States Senate, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP and USDA waived review of this final rule.

This action will allow EPA to use the same expiration date for the certification it grants, using the expiration date of the valid certifying agency certification upon which the EPA certification is based. It does not otherwise amend or impose any other requirements. The final rule will not otherwise involve any significant policy or legal issues, and will not increase existing costs. In fact, synchronizing the expiration dates can reduce burden because some applicators will have to complete less paperwork by having a reduced frequency of Federal recertification. As such, EPA is not required to make special considerations or evaluations under the following statutory and Executive Order review requirements.

This is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action does not impose or change any information collection burden that requires additional review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable.

The information collection activities contained in the regulations are already approved under OMB control number 2070-0029 (EPA ICR No. 0155.09), and the changes to the expiration date do not change the covered activities such that additional OMB review or approval is required.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), I hereby certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the RFA, small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities because the primary purpose of regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify under RFA when the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has no expected economic impact on small entities subject to the rule.

The revision in this final rule will only synchronize the certification expiration dates for restricted use applicators and is not expected to have any adverse economic impacts on affected entities, regardless of their size. It does not otherwise amend or impose any other requirements. As such, this final rule will not have any adverse economic impact on any entities, large or small.

State, local, and tribal governments are not regulated by this final rule, so it is not expected to affect these governments. Accordingly, pursuant to Title II of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), EPA has determined that this action is not subject to the requirements in sections 202 and 205 of UMRA because it 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 for the private sector in any 1 year. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA.

This action will not have “federalism implications” as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on 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. This rule only affects some applicators of RUPs that are certified under an EPA federal plan by reducing their paperwork burden, and it is not expected to impact human health or the environment or impose any additional burden or restrictions, or otherwise affect Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks, nor is it an “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of NTTAA (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Therefore, this action does not involve special consideration of environmental justice-related issues as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register .

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

The Gulf reef fish fishery is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

On June 29, 2012, NMFS implemented a recreational quota for Gulf red snapper of 3.959 million lb (1.796 million kg) and a commercial quota of 4.121 million lb (1.869 million kg) through a regulatory amendment (77 FR 31734, May 30, 2012). These quotas are based on the Council's established acceptable biological catch of 8.080 million lb (3.665 million kg) for the 2012 fishing year, and the allocation ratios in the FMP.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to close the recreational red snapper component of the Gulf reef fish fishery in Federal waters when the quota is met or projected to be met. Based on 2011 recreational landings data, NMFS projected the recreational quota would be met on or by July 10, 2012. Therefore, in the rule that published May 30, 2012 (77 FR 31734), NMFS announced the recreational red snapper fishing season would close at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 11, 2012, which constituted a 40-day fishing season.

Landings and effort data are not available in-season to determine if the quota will be met on July 10, 2012. However, the central and northeastern Gulf experienced severe weather conditions during the first 26 days of the 2012 recreational red snapper fishing season and it is likely that fishing effort and landings are less than projected. In addition to tropical storm Debby in late June, poor weather conditions persisted prior to that time in the central and northeastern Gulf. The majority of recreational harvest in the Gulf comes from the northern and central parts of the Gulf. Weather data from four buys stationed throughout the Gulf were used as proxies for determining days when fishing did not occur or when effort was reduced. Wave heights and wind speeds have been greater in June 2012 than June 2011 for all areas of the Gulf, except Texas. Because of this reduced effort, NMFS has projected the recreational red snapper quota will not be met by the July 11, 2012, closing date. Based on the assumption that weather will improve over the next 2 to 3 weeks and, thus, fishing effort will return to expected rates, NMFS projects the recreational red snapper season can be extended for an additional 6 days, and will close at 12:01 a.m. local time on July 17, 2012. The season will then be closed until 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2013, the beginning of the 2013 recreational fishing season.

During the open period, the bag and possession limit for recreational Gulf red snapper is two fish. However, no red snapper may be retained by the captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat. The bag limit for such captain and crew is zero.

During the closed period, the bag and possession limit for recreational Gulf red snapper is zero. A person aboard a vessel for which a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, must also abide by these closure provisions in state waters.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on the season extension is unnecessary because the rule establishing the annual quota has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public that additional harvest remains in the established quota and, therefore, the fishery will be extended for a limited time.

This rule relieves a restriction by extending the recreational red snapper fishing season. Because it relieves a restriction, this rule is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedures Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), its amendments, and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 635) issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ).

Under § 635.5(b)(1), shark dealers are required to report to NMFS all sharks landed every two weeks. Dealer reports for fish received between the 1st and 15th of any month must be received by NMFS by the 25th of that month. Dealer reports for fish received between the 16th and the end of any month must be received by NMFS by the 10th of the following month. Under § 635.28(b)(2), when NMFS projects that fishing season landings for a specific shark quota have reached or are projected to reach 80 percent of the available quota, NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notification of closure for that shark species group, which will be effective no fewer than 5 days after the date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via a notice in the Federal Register , that additional quota is available and the season is reopened, the fishery for that specific quota is closed, even across fishing years.

On January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3393), NMFS announced that the non-sandbar LCS fishery for the Gulf of Mexico region for the 2012 fishing year would open on February 15 with a quota of 392.8 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (866,063 lb dw). Dealer reports through June 15 2012, indicate that 295.9 mt dw or 75.3 percent of the available quota for non-sandbar LCS has been taken. Dealer reports received to date indicate that 20 percent of the quota was landed from the opening of the fishery on February 15, 2012, through March 6, 2012; 16 percent of the quota was landed from March 7, 2012, through March 28, 2012; 21 percent was landed from March 29, 2012, through April 17, 2012; 11 percent of the quota was landed from April 18, 2012, through May 17, 2012; and 7.3 percent was landed from May 18, 2012, through June 15, 2012. Based on the rate of fishing effort indicated by these preliminary dealer reports, NMFS estimates that an additional 9 to 14 percent of the quota could be taken from June 15 through June 30, 2012, thus reaching or exceeding the 80-percent limit specified for a closure notice in the regulations. Accordingly, NMFS is closing the commercial non-sandbar LCS fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region as of 11:30 p.m. local time July 6, 2012. All other shark fisheries remain open, except the commercial porbeagle fishery, which closed on May 30, 2012 (77 FR 32036).

At § 635.27(b)(1)(ii), the boundary between the Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic region is defined as a line beginning on the East Coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due east. Any water and land to the south and west of that boundary is considered, for the purposes of quota monitoring and setting of quotas, to be within the Gulf of Mexico region.

During the closure, retention of non-sandbar LCS sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region is prohibited for persons fishing aboard vessels issued a commercial shark limited access permit under 50 CFR 635.4—unless, that is, the vessel is properly permitted to operate as a charter vessel or headboat for HMS and is engaged in a for-hire trip, in which case the recreational retention limits for sharks and “no sale” provisions apply (50 CFR 635.22(a) and (c)), or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32 and a NMFS-approved observer is onboard. A shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may not purchase or receive non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region from a vessel issued an Atlantic Shark Limited Access Permit (LAP), except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess non-sandbar LCS that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage consistent with § 635.28(b)(4). However, a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess non-sandbar LCS that were harvested by a vessel issued a valid shark research fishery permit per § 635.32 with a NMFS-approved observer onboard during the trip the sharks were taken on as long as the non-sandbar shark research fishery remains open. Under this closure, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, in accordance with state regulations, purchase or receive a non-sandbar LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in state waters and that has not been issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that providing prior notice and public comment for this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the fishery is currently underway and any delay in this action would result in overharvest of the quota and be inconsistent with management requirements and objectives. Similarly, affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because if the quota is exceeded, the stock may be negatively affected and fishermen ultimately could experience reductions in the available quota and a lack of fishing opportunities in future seasons. For these reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is required under § 635.28(b)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2012 TAC of “other rockfish” in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 44 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2012 TAC of “other rockfish” in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will be achieved. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that “other rockfish” caught in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

“Other rockfish” in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA means slope and demersal shelf rockfish.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of “other rockfish” in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 28, 2012.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2012 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,102 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2012 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,802 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 300 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) will apply at all times during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 28, 2012.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.