Classification

This final rule has been determined to be non-significant by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Except where specified, all State and local laws and regulations that are in direct conflict with this rule will be preempted. Federal funds carry Federal requirements. No person is required to apply for funding under this program, but if they do apply and are selected for funding, they must comply with the requirements applicable to the Federal program funds. This rule is not retroactive. It will not affect agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effect of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agency generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million, or more, in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” It is the determination of the Agency that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) the undersigned has determined and certified by signature of this document that this rule change will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any significant new requirements on Agency applicants and borrowers, and the regulatory changes affect only Agency determination of program benefits for guarantees of loans made to individuals. Changes impacting lenders will impact all approved lenders doing business under this program. There is no distinction made between small and large lenders.

This program/activity is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983; 49 FR 22675, May 31, 1984; 50 FR 14088, April 10, 1985).

Executive Order 13175 imposes requirements on Rural Development in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. Rural Development has determined that the proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If a tribe determines that this rule has implications of which Rural Development is not aware and would like to engage in consultation with Rural Development on this rule, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or AIAN@wdc.usda.gov.

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.410, Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans (Section 502 Rural Housing Loans).

The information collection and record keeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The assigned OMB control number is 0575-0078.

The Rural Housing Service is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll-free at (800) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Public Law (Pub. L.) 111-212, “Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010,” enacted on July 29, 2010, amended Section 502(h)(8) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472 (h)(8)), as follows: “(8) Fees.—Notwithstanding paragraph (14)(D), with respect to a guaranteed loan issued or modified under this subsection, the Secretary may collect from the lender—(A) at the time of guarantee or modification, a fee not to exceed 3.5 percent of the principal obligation of the loan; and (B) an annual fee not to exceed 0.5 percent of the outstanding balance of the loan for the life of the loan.” As a result of Public Law 111-212, a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2011 (76 FR 66860).

The annual fee provision is applicable to purchase and refinance loan transactions. The primary intent of the annual fee is to make the SFHGLP subsidy neutral, thus eliminating the need for taxpayer funding of the program at its current loan level from Congress. The annual fee will be charged in addition to the up-front guarantee fee. For fiscal year (FY) 2012, an annual fee of 0.3 percent is required for all loan obligations. Future changes to the annual fee will be published in Exhibit K, of RD Instruction 440.1 (available in any RD office).

The annual fee for loans guaranteed under the SFHGLP will be calculated based on the average annual scheduled unpaid principal balance of the loan for the life of the loan. The annual fee will be calculated when the loan is closed and every 12 months thereafter until the loan is paid in full or no longer outstanding and the guarantee canceled or expired.

Accrual of the annual fee will begin on the first of the month, following the month in which the loan closed. For example, if the loan closes on October 25, 2012, accrual of the annual fee will begin on November 1, 2012. An RHS “Guarantee Fee and Annual Fee Calculator” and a Guarantee Fee (GAF) Implementation Guide is available on the USDA LINC Training and Resource Library Web site as follows: https://usdalinc.sc.egov.usda.gov/USDALincTrainingResourceLib.do. Additional guidance will also be posted to the above Web site at it becomes available.

The annual fee will accrue on a prorated basis for each month the loan is outstanding, but will only be billed to the lender and collected by the Agency on an annual basis or at such time the loan is paid in full or otherwise terminated. Generally, the servicing lender of record will be billed retroactively for a 12 month period on the 3rd business day following the 15th calendar day in the anniversary month in which the loan closed, and will be due to RHS on the 1st day of the following month. Accrual of the annual fee will begin on the 1st day of the month following the month in which the loan was closed (this is a change from the proposed rule and is explained further below). For example, if the loan closed on October 25, 2012, the initial bill will be generated by RHS on October 18th 2013 (3 business days following October 15, 2013); and the initial annual fee payment will be due to RHS on November 1, 2013. For subsequent years that the loan remains outstanding, the annual fee will be due on November 1st of that year (i.e. November 1, 2014, November 1, 2015, etc.)

RHS may impose a late charge of 4% if the annual fee is not paid to RHS by the 15th day of the month in which it is due. For example, if the annual fee is due to RHS on November 1, 2013, a late charge will apply if the annual fee is not paid by November 15, 2013. Additional late charges will be assessed each month that the annual fee is past due. Future changes to the late charge will be published in Exhibit K of RD Instruction 440.1 (available in any RD office). Due to the new process and system changes associated with the annual fee, RHS will not impose late charges on the initial amount of annual fees due for loans obligated during FY 2012.

RHS will charge the annual fee to the lender, and the lender may pass this fee on to the borrower. The lender may collect the fee from the borrower on a monthly basis by collecting 1/12 th of the annual fee amount in addition to the borrower's regular monthly mortgage payment of principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI). When a lender chooses to collect the annual fee from the borrower on a monthly basis, the 1/12 th collection amount must be included when calculating the PITI ratio. The lender remains responsible for the timely collection and payment to the Agency of the annual fee.

Discussion of Public Comments Received on the October 28, 2011 Proposed Rule: The Agency received comments from five different sources in response to the Proposed Rule. These comments came from advocacy groups, home mortgage companies, community bankers and potential home loan applicants.

Three commenters expressed support and appreciation of the importance of the SFHGLP to its targeted population of low-to-moderate income rural families. However, the same commenters and one additional commenter were concerned that the higher payments attributable to the new annual fee will negatively impact borrower affordability and potentially make eligible borrowers less willing to take out an SFHGLP loan, even when these loans would otherwise be the best product for them. For example, one commenter stated the intent of the program is to help people get into homes, not to make it more expensive.

The Agency acknowledges that the borrower's monthly payment may increase as a result of the annual fee. Based on the Agency's average loan amount of $135,000 at a 3.75 percent interest rate, the borrowers' payment will increase on average by $20 per month over the life of the loan. However, in order for the Agency to continue offering the SFHGLP at no cost to the taxpayers, both the up-front and annual fees are necessary. If the Agency were to seek taxpayer funding of the program from Congress, it is highly likely that funding levels will decrease dramatically because Congress has not authorized budget authority for the SFHGLP since FY 2010. Without budget authority and the fees, the Agency estimates that there would be approximately 182,000 fewer loans guaranteed through the SFHGLP.

Four commenters expressed understanding of the budgetary motivation for RHS shifting to an up-front and annual premium structure. However, only one of the four commenters was in favor of the Agency's proposal and believes it will be easier for the borrower to handle since the up-front guarantee fee to purchase a home will be less (lowered to 2% from 3.5%). The commenters that were not in favor of the annual fee believe budget neutrality can be achieved with a single up-front premium. For example, one commenter indicated subsidy neutrality could be achieved with a 4 percent up-front fee; and, another commenter provided an example that showed the average borrower will see a $19.25 increase in their monthly house payment because of the annual fee. The commenters that were not in favor of the annual fee, expressed concerns that the split premium may drive up the cost of home ownership for low- and moderate-income rural families, and therefore believe a higher single up-front fee structure is more beneficial to borrowers.

The Agency does not disagree with the commenters that subsidy neutrality could be achieved with a higher up-front single fee structure. However, as an initial matter, statutory authority exists for both fees, and there are limits for each fee that the Agency must manage. In addition, the Agency determines the up-front guarantee fee based in part on the program's subsidy score, which constantly changes. The up-front guarantee fee could potentially change at any time during a fiscal year, and these unexpected changes would cause confusion with a single fee structure. Separate fee structures will allow the Agency better flexibility to manage the fees and the availability of commitment authority for the program.

One commenter expressed concerns that refinance borrowers who took out SFHGLP loans with the expectation that they would only be responsible for payment of a single upfront guarantee fee will now be subject to additional costs over the life of their loan. The commenter was concerned that refinance borrowers may ultimately see their payments actually increase despite the lower interest rate.

The Agency acknowledges that the refinance option might not be advantageous for all SFHGLP borrowers depending on their financial circumstances. However, the Agency does not impose a mandatory refinance requirement for SFHGLP borrowers. Therefore, if refinancing with an SFHGLP does not provide positive benefits for the borrowers, the Agency believes the borrower will continue with their current loan or find another funding source to refinance their SFHGLP loan. If the commenter was concerned that a borrower who already refinanced a loan before the implementation of the annual fee would now see increases in current loan payments due to the annual fee, the Agency repeats that this rule is not retroactive.

All five commenters expressed strong disagreement with the Agency's proposal to make the annual fee mandatory for the “life of the loan.” The commenters were concerned that the “life of the loan” provision will impose unnecessary burden on borrowers as the annual fee will continue even as the loan balance declines. Further, the commenters pointed out the “life of the loan” provision is significantly different from that of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured loans, and conventional loan products that require mortgage insurance. The commenters strongly urged the Agency to reconsider the “life of the loan” provision by eliminating the annual fee when a 78 percent loan-to-value (LTV) is achieved, as FHA does with monthly mortgage insurance premiums (MIPs).

Since several commenters compared RHS to FHA, the Agency conducted an analysis comparing RHS and FHA fee structures. The results, when comparing an RHS purchase loan that requires an annual fee for the “life of the loan” to an FHA 203b purchase loan that requires monthly MIP until 78 percent LTV is achieved, overall housing expenses are significantly less for RHS borrowers. This is due to the fact that the Agency's current annual fee (0.3 percent FY 2012) is much less than the monthly MIP for an FHA loan (115 basis points (bps) as of April 18, 2011 and subject to change). Even, if RHS were to increase the annual fee to the maximum allowed (0.5 percent), it would still be significantly less than the current FHA MIP.

The chart below (Chart 1—RHS/FHA Comparison) compares a RHS purchase loan to a FHA 203b purchase loan, and assumes the following: A Purchase Price of $135,000; a Term of 30 Years; an Interest Rate of 3.75 percent; and, as applicable, that the Up-front Guarantee Fee or Up Front Mortgage Insurance Premium (UFMIP) is financed into the loan. In this scenario, the SFHGLP borrower will pay $7,352.87 in annual fees over the life of the loan, while the FHA borrower will pay $12,655.45 in MIP until the LTV reaching 78 percent, which equates to approximately 10 years and 3 months.

In addition to the illustration in Chart 1 which compares RHS and FHA fee structures, the Agency's analysis of the SFHGLP Portfolio reveals that by 10 years and 3 months (when the LTV reaches 78 percent), approximately 55 percent of SFHGLP borrowers will have already paid their loan in full and/or the guarantee will have been terminated. Using the example in Chart 1, by the time most RHS borrowers pay their loans off (10 years and 3 months), the Agency calculates that they would have paid $4,101.05 in annual fees compared to an FHA insured borrower who would have paid $12,655.45 in mortgage insurance premiums.

Since all of the commenters strongly opposed the Agency's proposal to collect the annual fee for the life of the loan, the Agency conducted additional analysis to determine how subsidy neutrality could be achieved if the annual fee were eliminated once 78 percent LTV is achieved. The Agency's analysis revealed that both a higher up-front fee and higher annual fee would be required. Therefore, allowing the borrowers to pay the annual fee over the life of the loan keeps both the up-front fee and annual fee percentage lower for SFHGLP customers, making the cost of homeownership more affordable. Additionally, borrowers that pay off their loans prior to maturity will pay less in annual fees. As previously indicated, the majority of the SFHGLP borrowers pay their loans off by 10 years and 3 month, and using the loan based on the example in Chart 1, the average SFHGLP borrower will pay $4,101.05 in annual fees.

The Agency acknowledges that the “life of the loan” provision of the annual fee is not an industry standard, and that it creates unique requirements for vendors and servicers as it relates to system enhancements. Therefore, the Agency will continue to study its subsidy model to determine if the effective period of the annual fee can be modified in the future. However, any future changes to the effective period of the annual fee will not be retroactive.

Two commenters expressed concerns that the annual fee billing process will result in higher closing costs for the borrower. The commenters explained that since RHS proposes to collect the initial annual fee 12 months from the date of closing rather than 12 months from the first payment due date as reflected on the promissory note, the lender will have to collect additional funds from the borrower at closing to ensure sufficient funds are available to pay the annual fee when it is due. Therefore, the commenters suggested the Agency reconsider the billing method.

The Agency agrees with the comment. Instead of initiating accrual of the annual fee on the date of loan closing as proposed, the accrual of the annual fee will begin on the 1st day of the month following the month in which the loan is closed. For example, if a loan closes on October 25, 2012, accrual of the annual fee will begin on November 1, 2012, and the initial annual fee payment will be due to RHS on November 1, 2013.

As previously stated, the lender may collect 1/12 th of the annual fee at loan closing and 1/12 th per month starting with the first payment due date. This method results in the collection of 12 annual fee payments and will ensure sufficient funds are available when the annual fee comes due. Furthermore, the Agency realizes that a 1/12 th collection of the annual fee at loan closing will increase closing costs; however, based on the sample loan amount illustrated in chart 1, the closing costs will increase by a nominal amount of $34 for a borrower purchasing a $135,000 home.

One commenter expressed concerns that the Agency has not provided sufficient administrative guidance on this policy change, therefore inhibiting the industry from revising its systems and applicable disclosure documents accordingly. For example, the commenter wanted to know if the annual fee is considered mortgage insurance. The commenter was concerned that if the fee were considered mortgage insurance, escrowing of the fee would violate Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

The Agency disclosed in the proposed rule that RHS will work closely with lenders and service bureaus on necessary system enhancements. Since issuance of the proposed rule, the Agency has worked with several lenders and service bureaus to ensure their systems are capable of handling the annual fee. As discussed in the background section of this rule, the Agency has made available a Guaranteed Fee Implementation Guide and a “Guarantee and Annual Fee Calculator,” and both can be found on the USDALinc Training and Resource Library Web site: https://usdalinc.sc.egov.usda.gov/USDALincTrainingResourceLib.do .

Additional guidance will also be posted to the above Web site as it becomes available.

While RHS does not regulate RESPA “escrow account” under RESPA is broadly defined at 24 CFR 3500.17(b) as “any account that a servicer establishes or controls on behalf of a borrower to pay taxes, insurance premiums (including flood insurance), or other charges with respect to a federally related mortgage loan, including charges that the borrower and servicer have voluntarily agreed that the servicer should collect and pay.”

Therefore, the Agency does not believe that escrowing the annual fee is a violation of RESPA.

Two commenters wanted to know if a study has been conducted on the impact that the annual fee will have on future loan volume. The commenters believed that small lenders will drop out of the program due to the complicated nature of implementing and administering an annual fee and that only large lenders will adopt the change. The Agency realizes that any time a change is made, there is a potential for lenders both large and small to drop out of the program. Approximately 80 percent of the SFHGLP loans are serviced by larger lenders. Small community banks are actively involved with the SFHGLP, but typically do not keep such loans on their books for 30 years. Most small community banks originate the loans and immediately sell them to larger lenders/servicers. The Agency is implementing the annual fee to eliminate the need of taxpayer funding of the SFHGLP. Without the annual fee, it is likely the availability of SFHGLP guarantees would be reduced dramatically (approximately 182,000 fewer loans would be guaranteed by SFHGLP), thereby adversely affecting potential homeowners in rural America.

Three commenters expressed concerns that the Agency was not following proper rulemaking requirements; two of the three believe the Regulatory Flexibility Act was not being met because the rule could have significant impact on small entities; and one of the three did not agree with the OMB designation of non-significant.

The OMB, not RHS, has authority for determining whether a regulation is significant. As mentioned, within that authority, OMB has found this final rule to be non-significant.

As stated in the background section of this rule, the Agency is implementing the annual fee as a result of Public Law 111-212, “Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010,” enacted on July 29, 2010, which amended Section 502(h)(8) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(8)) to read as follows: “(8) Fees.—Notwithstanding paragraph (14)(D), with respect to a guaranteed loan issued or modified under this subsection, the Secretary may collect from the lender—(A) at the time of guarantee or modification, a fee not to exceed 3.5 percent of the principal obligation of the loan; and (B) an annual fee not to exceed 0.5 percent of the outstanding balance of the loan for the life of the loan.” Therefore, the authorizing statute for the SFHGLP specifically allows the Agency to implement an annual fee up to 0.5 percent of the outstanding balance of the loan for the life of the loan.

The Agency has had legal authority to implement an annual fee since the date of the statute (July 29, 2010), but chose not to implement the annual fee until October 1, 2011, to allow lenders time to make necessary technical adjustments to their internal systems. The purpose of the proposed rule was to seek comments from the public to better assist the Agency in writing the technical and administrative guidance associated with the annual fee.

The Agency is amending 7 CFR 1980.302(a) to include a definition of the annual fee. The regulations at 7 CFR 1980.310(c) also are amended to clarify that escrow funds using loan funds may be used to pay the annual fee. Lastly, the Agency will amend the eligibility regulations at 7 CFR 1980.345(c)(1) to add the annual fee amount in determinations of repayment ability.

For the reason stated in the preamble, Chapter XVIII, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

On January 4, 2012, the final rule, “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements” was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 330). In that rule, the FAA amended the FAA's existing flight, duty and rest regulations applicable to certain certificate holders and their flightcrew members operating under the domestic, flag, and supplemental operations rules.

The paperwork burden is comprised of five areas: fatigue risk management system, § 117.7; fatigue training, § 117.9; flight time limitation, § 117.11; flight duty period extension reporting, § 117.19; and emergency and government sponsored operations, § 117.29. The information collection requirements had not been approved by OMB at the time of publication.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the FAA submitted a copy of the new information collection requirements to OMB for its review. OMB approved the collection on May 4, 2012, and assigned the information collection OMB Control Number 2120-0751, which expires on May 31, 2015.

This document is being published to inform affected parties of the approval, and to announce that as of January 4, 2014, affected parties are required to comply with the new information collection requirements in §§ 117.7, 117.9, 117.11, 117.19, and 117.29.

Pursuant to the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74), the United States of America, acting through the U.S. Agency for International Development, may issue certain loan guarantees applicable to sums borrowed by Banque Centrale de Tunisie, acting on behalf of the Republic of Tunisia (the “Borrower”). The loan guarantees shall insure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such loans. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations.

This rulemaking document is not subject to rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or to regulatory review under Executive Order 12866 because it involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) do not apply.

I. Background on the West Virginia Program II. Description and Submission of the Amendment III. OSM's Findings IV. Public Comment Procedures V. OSM's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the West Virginia Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “* * * a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the West Virginia program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the West Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the West Virginia program in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5915). You can also find later actions concerning West Virginia's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 948.10, 948.12, 948.13, 948.15, and 948.16.

By letter dated April 27, 2012, and received on April 27, 2012, (Administrative Record Number WV- 1577), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). The amendment includes changes to the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (WVSCMRA) as contained in Enrolled Senate Bill 579, relative to West Virginia's alternative bonding system. As detailed in WVDEP's April 27, 2012, Transmittal Letter, “Senate Bill 579 amends § 22-3-11 of the Code of West Virginia to implement actuarial recommendations relating to the continuing fiscal viability of the Special Reclamation Fund.” Subsection 22-3-11(h)(1) of the WVSCMRA is substantively amended by increasing the amount of the special reclamation tax to twenty-seven and nine-tenths cents per ton of clean coal mined. The former special reclamation tax, effective as of July 1, 2009, required remittance of fourteen and four-tenths cents per ton of clean coal mined; the collection of this tax is eliminated and replaced with the aforementioned amount. Additionally, the amended language requires fifteen cents per ton of the collected twenty-seven and nine-tenths cents per ton, be deposited in the Special Reclamation Water Trust Fund (the Fund). Historically, although not codified, WVDEP allocated three cents per ton of clean coal mined to finance the Fund, resulting in a severely underfunded account. It is forecasted that the imposition of the new rate enumerated in Senate Bill 579 will ease the strain placed on the Fund.

Formatting and style changes have been effectuated via Senate Bill 579. Former paragraph (h)(1) is revised to add a caption entitled: Rate, deposits and review; additionally, the paragraph has been segregated to add four subparts that incorporate all the former language.

Effective upon publication of this interim rule, we are approving, on an interim basis, the revisions to Section 22-3-11(h)(1) of the WVSCMRA, which reinstates and increases the Special Reclamation Tax and adds revenue for the Fund, provided that the special reclamation tax may not be reduced until the Special Reclamation Fund and the Fund have sufficient moneys to meet the reclamation responsibilities required in this section. Since these revisions increase revenues to the State's alternative bonding system, we find that they do not render the State's program less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.11(e). Because our approval of these revisions is interim in nature, and in order to satisfy the public participation requirements for approval or disapproval of State program amendments, we will accept comments on the reinstatement and increase in the Special Reclamation Tax and the additional funds allocated to the Fund in accordance with Section IV of this Federal Register notice. Following our review of the comments received, we will issue a final rule announcing the Director's final decision on the revisions to Section 22-3-1(h)(1) of the WVSCMRA that are the subject of this interim rule.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), we find that good cause exists to approve the revisions to Section 22-3-11(h)(1) of the WVSCMRA on an interim basis without notice and opportunity for comment, because to require notice and opportunity for comment now would be contrary to the public interest in that it would delay the start of the collection of the increased Special Reclamation Tax. Enrolled Senate Bill 579 becomes effective under State law on July 1, 2012, and the public interest in the accomplishment of prompt and thorough reclamation of bond forfeiture sites, including water treatment of discharges from the sites, will be adversely affected if the twenty-seven and nine-tenths cents per ton special reclamation tax cannot be collected on and after that effective date. As explained above, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the reinstatement and increase in the special reclamation tax and the allocation of fifteen cents per ton of the tax allocated to the Fund, before we make a final decision.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether these amendments satisfy the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve these revisions, they will become part of the West Virginia program.

Send your written comments to OSM at one of the addresses given above. Your comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We may not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or sent to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ).

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that the entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m. EST on July 26, 2012. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If there is only limited interest in participating in a public hearing, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the Docket for this rulemaking.

Based on the above findings, we are approving on an interim basis, the specific revisions outlined above to the West Virginia program as provided to us on April 27, 2012. To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 948, which codify decisions concerning the West Virginia program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this interim rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on an analysis of the State submission.

This rule is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal regulation involving Indian lands.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State previously had a special reclamation tax of $0.144 per ton of clean coal mined. The tax is used to reclaim bond forfeiture sites in the State. On March 30, 2012, the Governor signed into law a bill that reinstated and increased the special reclamation tax to $0.279 per ton of clean coal mined and allocated $0.15 of that tax to the Fund for the purpose of designing, constructing and maintaining water treatment systems at bond forfeiture sites. Upon full implementation, the increased tax rate of $0.279 will yield approximately $ 36 million annually in additional revenue for bond forfeiture reclamation. The $0.15 per ton tax that is allocated to the Fund will provide approximately $20 million annually for water treatment at bond forfeiture sites. The tax is payable by all coal operators mining coal in West Virginia, regardless of size.

Based upon the above analysis and discussion, we have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 948 is amended as set forth below:

I. Discussion of Final Rule II. Procedural Determinations I. Discussion of Final Rule

By letter dated March 5, 2010 (SATS number: WY-042-FOR, Administrative Record Docket ID No. OSM-2012-0001), Wyoming requested that we remove the disapproval at 30 CFR 950.12(a)(12) of the proposed 1986 revisions to Chapter XVII of the rules and regulations of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Land Quality Division (LQD). Wyoming requests that we remove the disapproval because the state believes that retention of the disapproval is inconsistent with our subsequent approval of replacement rules for the disapproved amendment.

On May 1, 1986, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Land Quality Division (LQD) submitted proposed amendments to its approved regulatory program under SMCRA. The revisions to Chapter XVII of the LQD Rules and Regulations proposed to incorporate the concept of “minor violations” into the rules on inspection and enforcement. The inspector could cite minor violations in inspection reports rather than through issuance of the more standard notice of violation form.

However, we found that the proposed amendment to Chapter XVII did not provide for adequate enforcement of the approved Wyoming program and therefore was less effective than the Federal regulations. Specifically, the Director found that the proposed amendment was “not adequately limited to violations which are only minor,” did not “ensure that operators who repeatedly incur minor infractions or who do not abate the minor infractions in a timely manner will be formally cited,” and did not “ensure that minor infractions beyond some specified threshold number will be considered for purposes of determining a pattern of violations” (51 FR 42209, 42216, November 24, 1986). We subsequently disapproved “[a]ll revisions to Chapter XVII, which would have introduced a new enforcement scheme.” See 30 CFR 950.12(a)(12) and 51 FR 42209, November 24, 1986.

On March 31, 1989, the WDEQ submitted additional proposed revisions to Chapter XVII to resolve the issues resulting in the disapproval of the 1986 amendment concerning that chapter. We subsequently approved the proposed revisions, finding that the “proposed rule is consistent with and no less stringent than the requirements of SMCRA and the regulations adopted pursuant to SMCRA regarding enforcement.” See 55 FR 30221, 30230, July 25, 1990. In our 1990 approval, we stated that “[e]xamples of minor violations that will be identified in the inspection report, but may or may not be subject to formal notice of violation, are listed in chapter XVII, section 2(f)(i) through (f)(ix).” We also specified that “[o]nly those violations listed at that section may be noted in an inspection report” and “[a] formal notice of violation will be issued for all other violations.” See 55 FR 30221, 30229.

Our approval in 1990 of Wyoming's 1989 proposed amendment to its enforcement rules meant that the disapproval at 30 CFR 950.12(a)(12) of the 1986 proposed amendment that the 1989 amendment replaced became moot. At Wyoming's request, we are removing 30 CFR 950.12(a)(12) in this final rule.

Removal of our disapproval of the 1986 proposed amendment does not alter the terms of our decisions on either the 1986 or the 1989 proposed amendments. Wyoming's March 5, 2010, letter confirms that the state has implemented and will continue to implement subsection 2(f) of its enforcement rules in a manner consistent with our 1990 approval of the 1989 proposed amendment. In other words, only those infractions listed in subsection 2(f) may be considered minor violations. All other violations will be cited by issuing a formal notice of violation.

We are publishing this final rule without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, provides an exception to notice and comment requirements when an agency finds that there is good cause for dispensing with notice and comment procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule.

Specifically, we have determined that notice and comment is unnecessary for this rule because it is nonsubstantive. As discussed above, this rule removes a now-moot provision concerning a proposed amendment to the Wyoming program that has since been replaced with a subsequent program amendment. This rule neither imposes new regulatory requirements nor removes any existing regulatory requirements.

For the same reasons, we find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to have the regulation become effective on a date that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register .

This rule is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. As discussed above, this rule removes a now-moot provision concerning a proposed amendment to the Wyoming program that has since been replaced with a subsequent program amendment. This rule neither imposes new regulatory requirements nor removes any existing regulatory requirements. For these reasons, we find that:

(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency for the reasons stated above.

(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues for the reasons stated above.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). As discussed above, this rule removes a now-moot provision concerning a proposed amendment to the Wyoming program that has since been replaced with a subsequent program amendment. This rule neither imposes new regulatory requirements nor removes any existing regulatory requirements.

As discussed above, this rule removes a now-moot provision concerning a proposed amendment to the Wyoming program that has since been replaced with a subsequent program amendment. This rule neither imposes new regulatory requirements nor removes any existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, this rule is not considered a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and it will not—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million.

(2) Cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions because the rule does not impose new requirements on the coal mining industry or consumers.

(3) Have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. As discussed above, this rule removes a now-moot provision concerning a proposed amendment to the Wyoming program that has since been replaced with a subsequent program amendment. This rule neither imposes new regulatory requirements nor removes any existing regulatory requirements. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule does not contain collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This rule does not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1292(d), provides that agency actions pertaining to approval of state regulatory programs do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a statement of energy effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not considered significant under Executive Order 12866, nor would it have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the removal of a now-moot provision concerning a 1986 proposed amendment to the Wyoming regulatory program would not have substantial direct effects 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.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications; therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. As discussed above, this rule removes a now-moot provision concerning a proposed amendment to the Wyoming program that has since been replaced with a subsequent program amendment. This rule neither imposes new regulatory requirements nor removes any existing regulatory requirements.

This rule does not have federalism implications. For the reasons previously stated, it will not have “substantial direct effects 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.”

In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 950 is amended as set forth below:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

On May 21, 2012, we published an NPRM entitled Safety Zone; Nautical City Festival Air Show, Rogers City MI; in the Federal Register (77 FR 29932). 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 . Due to the timing of the event, waiting 30 days to make this rule effective would be impracticable.

On the weekend of August 3 through 5, 2012, the Nautical City Festival will be celebrating Calcite's 100th Anniversary. As part of that celebration, an air show will be launched to the east of the Rogers City marina. The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie has determined that the air show event poses various hazards to the public such as debris falling into the water and general congestion of the waterway.

To safeguard against the dangers posed by the Nautical City Festival Air Show near Rogers City, MI, the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary. Thus, the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie is establishing a safety zone on Lake Huron to include all waters within a 5000′ by 2000′ rectangle bounded by a line drawn from 45°25′30.67″ N, 083°48′19.54″ W then southeast to 45°25′24.85″ N, 083° 47′09.68″ W then southwest to 45°25′05.41″ N, 083°47′12.84″ W then northwest to 45°25′11.30″ N 083°48′22.88″ W then back to the point of origin [DATUM: NAD 83].

This safety zone will be effective from 1:00 p.m. on August 3, 2012 until 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2012. However, it will only be enforced from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. each day on August 3-5, 2012. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene representative. All persons and vessels authorized to enter the safety zone shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his 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 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under these 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 will be relatively small and will exist for only a minimal time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by proper authority.

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; owners and operators of vessels intending to transit the waters near Rogers City, Michigan, between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on August 3 through 5, 2012.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

This rule calls for no 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 have determined that it 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 INTFORMATION 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 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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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 concluded 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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone. A final environmental analysis checklist 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 165 as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the helicopters operating under heavy loads in close proximity to power lines, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of helicopters, mariners, and other vessels transiting the area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

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 Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication because to do otherwise would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is required to protect helicopters, mariners and vessels transiting the area.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which, collectively, authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company will sponsor the Sacramento River Closure for Aerial Cable Installation on July 11, 2012 through July 13, 2012, in the navigable waters of the Sacramento River near Sherman Island, CA. Aerial operations to install the cable are scheduled to take place from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. on July 11, 2012 through July 13, 2012. Upon commencement of the aerial operations, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the Sacramento River within 200 yards of a line connecting the following points: 38°04′15″ N, 121°47′20″ W; 38°03′38″ N, 121°46′58″ W (NAD 83). The aerial cable installation is necessary to reinstall the cable that broke on October 19, 2011. The replacement cable is a non-electrical support cable that holds aircraft warning devices on a Pacific Gas and Electric high voltage electrical transmission line. The safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area on the waters surrounding the installation operation. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of helicopters, mariners, and other vessels transiting the area from the dangers associated with helicopters operating under heavy loads in close proximity to power lines.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the Sacramento River within 200 yards of a line connecting the points 38°04′15″ N, 121°47′20″ W and 38°03′38″ N, 121°46′58″ W (NAD 83) during the aerial cable installation. Aerial operations to install the cable between the towers located adjacent the Sacramento River in positions 38°04′15″ N, 121°47′20″ W and 38°03′38″ N, 121°46′58″ W (NAD 83) are scheduled to take place from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. on July 11, 2012 through July 13, 2012. At the conclusion of the aerial operations the safety zone shall terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the aerial cable installation operation. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep mariners and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the aerial installation to ensure the safety of helicopters, mariners, and other vessels transiting the area.

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 and 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 Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

We expect the economic impact of this rule does not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

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 may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via 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 , 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 calls for no 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 State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule 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:

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes would update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; Information and Reports; General; and, Navigation Closing Procedures. These amendments are necessary to take account of updated procedures which will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Many of these changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. Where new requirements or regulations are being made, an explanation for such a change is provided below.

The joint regulations became effective in Canada on July 9, 2012. For consistency, because these are joint regulations under international agreement, and to avoid confusion among users of the Seaway, the SLSDC finds that there is good cause to make the U.S. version of the amendments effective upon the date of publication in the Federal Register .

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478) or you may visit http://www.Regulations.gov. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2012 (76 FR 13088). No comments were received.

The SLSDC is amending three sections of the Condition of Vessels portion of the joint Seaway regulations. Under section 401.11, “Fairleads”, due to damage from fairleads on new vessels, the SLSDC is requiring that all sharp edges be rounded. In section 401.12, “Minimum requirements—mooring lines and fairleads”, the SLSDC is addressing the use of wire lines on vessels 100 m or less. In section 401.15, “Stern anchors”, the Seaway entities are requiring vessels of more than 125 m in overall length as well as every integrated tug and barge or articulated tug and barge unit greater than 125 m in overall length be equipped with a stern anchor.

Several changes to the Seaway Navigation section are being made. The Seaway Corporations are amending their joint rules in section 401.29, “Maximum draft”, to permit vessels using a “Draft Information System” (DIS) to transit the Seaway up to 7 cm (3 inches) above the maximum permissible draft allowed at the time. The use of a DIS is an optional, not a mandatory requirement, to transit the Seaway. The DIS will allow the vessel to transit the Seaway at a draft up to 3 inches (7 cm) more than the published maximum draft with prior approval from the two Seaway entities.

The primary purpose of this amendment is safety. The use of the DIS will ensure that vessels maintain a safe under keel clearance as they make maximum use of the available water column. DIS uses water level measurements, bathymetry of the channel bottom, and squat of the vessel as it moves at different speeds and in different channel types. The squat of a vessel varies depending on the vessel type, hull shape, and the type of channel in which it is operating, and the vessel's speed. By including all the factors, the under keel clearance value is determined in real time. The information on the projected under keel clearance is integrated electronically with chart data, high-resolution bathymetry and other readings on a single bridge display.

The technology features an algorithm, which allows the Master to estimate under keel clearance ahead, offering time for a course change or other required reaction in transit. With Masters having more precise information regarding the available water column, the risk of a vessel touching bottom or grounding is reduced.

In addition to the safety benefits, increasing the maximum allowable draft will improve the Seaway's productivity and competitiveness. Depending on the commodity carried, an additional three inches of draft might account for as much as 360 additional metric tons per voyage.

The use of a DIS tool began in 2003 in the St. Mary's River. In 2006, the Seaway entities conducted 4 trials of the tool used in the St. Mary's River as a proof of concept. Three tests were conducted in the Montreal to Lake Ontario (MLO) section of the Seaway during 2007 under low water conditions. During 2008, tests were conducted in the MLO and Welland Canal sections of the Seaway. In 2009, eight (8) trials were conducted in the Welland Canal section and ten (10) trials were conducted in the MLO section of the Seaway. In 2010 a DIS pilot program was instituted in the MLO and Welland Canal. After successful completion of the test trials and pilot program and to ensure future consistency and reliability of the DIS, the two Seaway entities began the development of a standard DIS specification.

On January 19, 2011, the two Seaway Corporations jointly published an industrial implementation specification entitled, “Implementation Specification—a Draft Information System for the St. Lawrence Seaway” (Specification). Following a public comment period during which comments received were considered in the development of the Specification, a final Implementation Specification was published on the bi-national Web site at http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com on March 16, 2011. The Specification was developed under the guidance of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the SLSDC, together with representatives from system manufacturers and the shipping industry. The development of the Specification followed accelerated procedures derived from the International Organization for Standards (ISO) standardization process that endeavored to develop a broad based consensus standard. The DIS Implementation Specification describes the functionality and interfaces for a system which utilizes water levels, channel type, bathymetry, and vessel speed and characteristics to determine current and predicted under keel clearance. On March 18, 2012, the first DIS Tool was verified by a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) to be compliant with the Specification.

In addition to these changes, the two Seaway Corporations, in section 401.32, “Cargo booms—deck cargo” are requiring notification of the height of deck cargo in order to determine appropriate wind restrictions.

In the Information and Reports section, a change to section 401.79, “Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection” is being made. The amendments provide requirements for reporting notice of arrival depending on the vessel's voyage time. Further, vessels requiring inspection or re-inspection will be required to provide a 24-hour notice of inspection based on certain specified factors. The Advance Notice of Arrival procedures are currently in effect pursuant to Seaway Notices.

The other changes to the joint regulations are merely editorial or to clarify existing requirements.

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.

This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.

This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.

Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation amends 33 CFR part 401 as follows:

We make the following correction to the Federal Pell Grant Program interim final rule:

On page 25898, in the first column, replace the last paragraph under the heading Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date with the following two paragraphs:

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). In addition, this interim final rule has been determined to be a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. ). Generally, under the CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days after the date on which the rule is published in the Federal Register . Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, provides that any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.

As previously stated, because this interim final rule merely reflects statutory changes and removes obsolete regulatory provisions and, in the case of new § 690.64, protects students from receiving reduced amounts of Pell Grant funds, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective dates in the APA and the CRA and make this interim final rule effective on the day it is published.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys . At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov . Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide 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. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0343 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 10, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0343, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on line information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43231) (FRL-8880-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7842) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.544 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide (benzoic acid, 3-methoxy-2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl hydrazide), in or on the raw agricultural commodities fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 1.9 parts per million (ppm); lemon, oil at 45 ppm; citrus, oil (except lemon) at 100 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.8 ppm; and beet, sugar at 0.5 ppm. In addition, the petition proposed that 40 CFR 180.544 be amended by removing the tolerance for vegetable, root, subgroup 1A from paragraph (a) and the tolerances for fruit, citrus and citrus, oil from paragraph (c). Lastly, the petition proposed to revise the tolerance expressions in 40 CFR 180.544. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

In the Federal Register of October 27, 2010 (75 FR 66092) (FRL-8848-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0F7776) by Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. The petition proposed to reestablish tolerances which were inadvertently allowed to expire in 2010. The proposed tolerances in 40 CFR 180.544 are for indirect or inadvertent combined residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide, (benzoic acid, 3-methoxy-2-methyl-, 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide) and its metabolites RH-117,236 free phenol of methoxyfenozide; 3,5-dimethylbenzoic acid N-tert-butyl-N′-(3-hydroxy-2-methylbenzoyl) hydrazide, RH-151,055 glucose conjugate of RH-117,236; 3,5-dimethylbenzoic acid N-tert-butyl-N-[3 (β-D-glucopyranosyloxy)-2-methylbenzoyl]-hydrazide) and RH-152,072 the malonylglycosyl conjugate of RH-117,236, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 at 0.1 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 0.2 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 0.2 ppm; vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.1 ppm; vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 at 10 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16 at 10 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17 at 10 ppm; animal feed, non-grass, group 18 at 10 ppm; and herb and spice, group 19 at 10 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some of the commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * * *”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for methoxyfenozide including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with methoxyfenozide follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

Methoxyfenozide is not acutely toxic and not a dermal sensitizer. Minimal or no toxic effects were observed in studies in which methoxyfenozide was administered by the dermal or inhalation routes of exposure.

The main target organs in the rat and dog were the liver, thyroid and red blood cells (RBC). The most consistent findings across species and studies were decreased red blood cell parameters and increased liver, thyroid, adrenal and spleen weights. In the rat metabolism study, liver contained 2-9% of the administered radioactivity at maximum concentration (C max ), but levels decreased and bioaccumulation was not observed. Levels in the blood were negligible. The effects of methoxyfenozide on the blood (methemoglobinemia, decreased red blood cell parameters, Heinz body formation) are consistent with those of other hydrazine compounds.

Acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in the rat did not show evidence of potential neurotoxicity. In the acute study, decreased hindlimb grip strength on Day 0 was reported in males. This finding was only observed at the limit dose in males and was not observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study and was therefore not considered evidence of neurotoxicity. No clinical signs of toxicity or neurohistopathology were observed in other guideline studies.

No maternal or developmental effects were observed in either the rat or rabbit oral developmental toxicity studies. In the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, parental effects were limited to increased liver weight and microscopic periportal hypertrophy. No offspring or reproductive toxicity was observed. In a 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study in the rat, no immunotoxicity was observed. The only observed effect was increased liver weight.

Dermal effects were not observed in the rat following a 28-day exposure period (5 exposure days per week for a total of 20 exposures). This finding is consistent with the relatively low dermal absorption of 2% of the applied dose, observed in an in vivo dermal absorption study in rats treated with an 80% wettable powder (WP) formulation product.

There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat dietary 24-month chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study or the mouse dietary 18-month carcinogenicity study. No mutagenic or clastogenic potential was observed in the battery of genotoxicity studies on methoxyfenozide. Based on these findings, methoxyfenozide is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by methoxyfenozide as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document titled “Methoxyfenozide Human Health Risk Assessment” starting at page 14 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0343.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for methoxyfenozide used for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011- 0507 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 10, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0507, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets .

In the Federal Register of March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18748) (FRL-9340-9), EPA issued a rule that proposed to revoke certain tolerances for the fungicide dicloran and the insecticide formetanate hydrochloride in follow-up to amended registrations that deleted specific uses, leaving no dicloran and formetanate hydrochloride registrations for those uses, and make minor revisions to the tolerance expressions for dicloran and formetanate hydrochloride and to specific tolerance nomenclatures for dicloran. Also, the proposed rule of March 28, 2012 provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards.

In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in the United States. Those instances where registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of the pesticide active ingredient. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic commodities.

EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States.

Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies:

1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA section 408(d) or (e) order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.

2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer needed.

3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance meets the requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).

In response to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register of March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18748), EPA received no comments during the 60-day public comment period. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the actions proposed concerning dicloran and formetanate hydrochloride in the Federal Register of March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18748) (FRL-9340-9). For a detailed discussion of the Agency's rationale for the finalized tolerance actions, refer to the proposed rule of March 28, 2012.

EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.

As stated in the DATES section, this final rule is effective July 11, 2012. However, EPA is revoking the dicloran tolerance on potato with an expiration/revocation date of December 31, 2014 and the formetanate hydrochloride tolerances on apple; apple, wet pomace; peach; and pear with expiration/revocation dates of December 31, 2013. The Agency believes that these expiration/revocation dates allow users to exhaust stocks and allow sufficient time for passage of treated commodities through the channels of trade.

Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:

1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA.

2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for formetanate hydrochloride or MRL for dicloran in or on potatoes.

In this final rule, EPA revokes specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action (i.e., a tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “ Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled “ Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations ” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled “ Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-13, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of the proposed rule, as mentioned in Unit II.A.). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “ Federalism ” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects 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.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled “ Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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 northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,156 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 northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,006 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 150 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 northern rockfish 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 as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for northern 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 5, 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.