Section 19(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts and nonpersonal time deposits, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) authorizes the Board to require reports of liabilities and assets from depository institutions to enable the Board to conduct monetary policy. The Board's actions with respect to each of these provisions are discussed in turn below.

Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (Act), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution are subject to reserve requirement ratios of zero, three, or ten percent. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. Section 19(b)(11)(B) provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the reserve requirement exemption amount for the next calendar year if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions increase from one year to the next. No adjustment is made to the reserve requirement exemption amount if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions should decrease during the applicable time period. The Act requires the percentage increase in the reserve requirement exemption amount to be 80 percent of the increase in total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions increased about 9.6 percent (from $5,455 billion to $5,978 billion) between June 30, 2011, and June 30, 2012. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to set the reserve requirement exemption amount for 2013 at $12.4 million, an increase of $0.9 million from its level in 2012.1

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, are subject to a three percent reserve requirement. Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche are subject to a ten percent reserve requirement. Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the low reserve tranche for the next calendar year. The Act requires the adjustment in the low reserve tranche to be 80 percent of the percentage increase or decrease in total transaction accounts of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

Net transaction accounts of all depository institutions increased 15.0 percent (from $1,190 billion to $1,368 billion) between June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2012. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to increase the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts by $8.5 million, from $71.0 million for 2012 to $79.5 million for 2013.

For depository institutions that file deposit reports weekly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for the fourteen-day reserve computation period beginning Tuesday, November 27, 2012, and for the corresponding fourteen-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, December 27, 2012. For depository institutions that report quarterly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for the seven-day reserve computation period beginning Tuesday, December 18, 2012, and for the corresponding seven-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, January 17, 2013.

Section 11(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board to require depository institutions to file reports of their liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable it to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control the monetary and credit aggregates. The Board screens depository institutions each year and assigns them to one of four deposit reporting panels (weekly reporters, quarterly reporters, annual reporters, or nonreporters). The panel assignment for annual reporters is effective in June of the screening year; the panel assignment for weekly and quarterly reporters is effective in September of the screening year.

In order to ease reporting burden, the Board permits smaller depository institutions to submit deposit reports less frequently than larger depository institutions. The Board permits depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits below a specified level (the “nonexempt deposit cutoff”) to report deposit data quarterly. Depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits above the nonexempt deposit cutoff are required to report deposit data weekly. The Board requires certain large depository institutions to report weekly regardless of the level of their net transaction accounts if the depository institution's total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits exceeds a specified level (the “reduced reporting limit”). The nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit are adjusted annually, by an amount equal to 80 percent of the increase, if any, in total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment.

From June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012, total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits at all depository institutions increased 8.8 percent (from $8,174 billion to $8,890 billion). Accordingly, the Board is increasing the nonexempt deposit cutoff level by $19.0 million to $290.5 million for 2013 (from $271.5 million in 2012). The Board is also increasing the reduced reporting limit by $107 million to $1.628 billion in 2013 (from $1.521 billion for 2012).2

Beginning in 2013, the boundaries of the four deposit reporting panels will be defined as follows. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts over $12.4 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) or with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $1.628 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are subject to detailed reporting, and must file a Report of Transaction Accounts, Other Deposits and Vault Cash (FR 2900 report) either weekly or quarterly. Of this group, those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $290.5 million (the nonexempt deposit cutoff level) are required to file the FR 2900 report each week, while those with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $290.5 million are required to file the FR 2900 report each quarter. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts less than or equal to $12.4 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) and with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.628 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are eligible for reduced reporting, and must either file a deposit report annually or not at all. Of this group, those with total deposits greater than $12.4 million (but with total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.628 billion) are required to file the Annual Report of Deposits and Reservable Liabilities (FR 2910a) report annually, while those with total deposits less than or equal to $12.4 million are not required to file a deposit report. A depository institution that adjusts reported values on its FR 2910a report in order to qualify for reduced reporting will be shifted to an FR 2900 reporting panel.

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments prescribed by statute and by the Board's policy concerning reporting practices. The adjustments in the reserve requirement exemption amount, the low reserve tranche, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level, and the reduced reporting limit serve to reduce regulatory burdens on depository institutions. Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Consequently, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, do not apply to these amendments.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

On February 17, 2012, the Bureau published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to define larger participants of two markets identified by the Bureau: consumer reporting and consumer debt collection.1 On July 20, 2012, the Bureau published the Consumer Reporting Rule.2 The Bureau is issuing this final rule to define larger participants of a market for consumer debt collection (Final Consumer Debt Collection Rule). This Final Consumer Debt Collection Rule is the second in a series of rulemakings to define larger participants of markets for consumer financial products and services for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1).

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)3 established the Bureau on July 21, 2010. One of the Bureau's responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act is the supervision of certain nonbank covered persons,4 and very large banks, thrifts, and credit unions and their affiliates.5

Under 12 U.S.C. 5514, the Bureau has supervisory authority over all nonbank covered persons offering or providing three enumerated types of consumer financial products or services: (1) Origination, brokerage, or servicing of residential mortgage loans secured by real estate, and related mortgage loan modification or foreclosure relief services; (2) private education loans; and (3) payday loans.6 The Bureau also has supervisory authority over “larger participant[s] of a market for other consumer financial products or services,” as the Bureau defines by rule.7 On July 20, 2012, the Bureau published in theFederal Registerthe Consumer Reporting Rule, which defined larger participants of a market for consumer reporting.8 The Consumer Reporting Rule also established various procedures and standards that will apply with respect to all larger participants defined by rule, including those in the market for consumer debt collection that is defined in this Final Consumer Debt Collection Rule.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36209). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 36209, June 18, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes and re-identification of the sub-paragraphs of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this final rule. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 36209, June 18, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 36209, June 18, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 56 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $66,640, or $1,190 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 13 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $1,105 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 36209, June 18, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron June 21, 2012 (77 FR 37340). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) states:

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

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received.

Neptune Aviation Services requested a change in the text of paragraph (c) “Applicability,” of the NPRM (77 FR 37340, June 21, 2012) to include an “exemption” for an airplane operated as an “airtanker,” which does not carry passengers.

We partially agree with the request to change the text in paragraph (c) of this AD. We disagree with using the term “airtanker”; however, we have revisedparagraph (c) to include an exception for airplanes in a non-passenger configuration.

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 37340, June 21, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 37340, June 21, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $5,079 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $5,759.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 37340, June 21, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in theFederal Registeron August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45515). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracks in Stringer 11, and a splice repair if necessary; and repetitive post-repair inspections, and repair if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supports the NPRM (77 FR 45515, August 1, 2012).

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 45515, August 1, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 45515, August 1, 2012).

We estimate that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions of the post-repair inspection specified in this AD.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That SNPRM published in theFederal Registeron July 24, 2012 (77 FR 43178). The original NPRM (76 FR 40288, July 8, 2011) proposed to require repetitive eddy current high frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracking on the aft side of the left and right wing rear spar lower caps at station Xrs=164.000, further ETHF inspections if cracks are found, and repair if necessary. The original NPRM also proposed to require repetitive post-repair inspections and repair if necessary. The SNPRM proposed to continue to have the same requirements as the original NPRM, but also added new repetitive post-repair inspections, and corrective action if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (77 FR 43178, July 24, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR43178, July 24, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 43178, July 24, 2012).

We estimate that this AD affects 51 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron May 8, 2012 (77 FR 26996). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Mr. Jason Aldrich stated that it appears from the analysis gathered that the repairs/modifications (proposed by the NPRM (77 FR 26996, May 8, 2012)) could significantly reduce potential damage to the airplane, which would directly result in improved safety for persons.

Airbus requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM (77 FR 26996, May 8, 2012) to clarify that any Repair Approval Sheet (RAS) approved under authority of Airbus Design Organization Approval (DOA) number EASA 21J.031 is acceptable as a repair method for the EASA or its delegated agent.

We disagree to change the AD because a change is not necessary. Paragraph (h) of the AD allows repairs approved by EASA or its delegated agent. We understand that Airbus has discretion to provide repair to their operators that meets the certification basis of the airplane and mitigates the unsafe condition addressed in the AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Airbus requested that we allow a repair performed according to the proposed requirements in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (77 FR 26996, May 8, 2012) as terminating action, as stated in paragraph (3) of EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0176, dated September 13, 2011.

We disagree to allow repairs as terminating action in this AD. The action identified by EASA in its AD is not necessarily terminating action. Under the provision of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that a proposed repair meets an acceptable level of safety as terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 26996, May 8, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 26996, May 8, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 44 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $11,220, or $255 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 26996, May 8, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34870), and proposed to supersede AD 2004-22-23, Amendment 39-13851 (69 FR 64856, November 9, 2004). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received.

Comair, Inc. requested that we allow the use of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-57-052, Revision A, dated October 28, 2011, in the AD. Comair, Inc. provided no reasons for the request.

We agree to reference the most recent service information. Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 601R-57-052, Revision A, dated October 28, 2011. This service bulletin includes editorial changes, but does not add work for airplanes that have done the actions using Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-57-052, dated July 28, 2011 (which was referenced to as the appropriate source of service information in the NPRM (77 FR 34870, June 12, 2012). Therefore we have revised paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (h)(1), and (h)(2) of this AD to refer to Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-57-052, Revision A, dated October 28, 2011. We have also added paragraph (i) to this AD to allow credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-57-052, dated July 28, 2011. We have re-designated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 34870, June 12, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 34870, June 12, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect about 584 products of U.S. registry.

We estimate that it will take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $496,400, or $850 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 14 work-hours and require parts costing $3,860, for a cost of $5,050 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 34870, June 12, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in theFederal Registeron July 11, 2012 (77 FR 40830). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 40830, July 11, 2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 40830, July 11, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 40830, July 11, 2012).

We estimate that this AD will affect 59 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $20,060, or $340 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing up to $405,143, for a cost of up to $405,738 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov;or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 40830, July 11, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the Special Local Regulations for the annual Key West World Championship Super Boat Race in 33 CFR 100.701 on November 7, 2012; November 9, 2012; and November 11, 2012, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. These regulations can be found in the 2012 issue of theFederal Register33 CFR 100.701

On November 7, 9, and 11, 2012, Super Boat International Productions, Inc. is hosting the Key West World Championship, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will be held on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean located southwest of Key West, Florida. Approximately 75 high-speed power boats will be participating in the races. It is anticipated that at least 100 spectator vessels will be present during the races.

The special local regulations encompass certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean located southwest of Key West, Florida. The special local regulations will be enforced daily from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on November 7, 2012; November 9, 2012; and November 11, 2012. The special local regulations area will consist of the following four sections located within the area as listed in the event application. (1) A race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or remaining. The race area is defined as all waters of the Atlantic Ocean located southwest of Key West encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 24°32′08″ N, 81°50′19″ W; thence east to Point 2 in position 24°32′23″ N, 81°48′58″ W; thence northeast to Point 3 in position 24°33′14″ N, 81°48′47″ W; thence northeast to Point 4 in position 24°33′54″ N, 81°48′22″ W; thence west to Point 5 in position 24°33′54″ N, 81°48′25″ W; thence southwest back to origin. All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area. (2) A buffer zone around the race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or remaining. The buffer zone is defined as all waters of the Atlantic Ocean located southwest of Key West encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 24°33′26″ N, 81°49′02″ W; thence southwest to Point 2 in position 24°32′22″ N,81°50′39″ W; thence south to Point 3 in position 24°31′53″ N, 81°50′39″ W; thence northeast to Point 4 in position 24°32′06″ N, 81°48′35″ W thence northwest to back to origin. All persons and vessels except those persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the buffer zone. (3) Spectator Area 1. Spectator Area 1 consists of all waters of the Atlantic Ocean located southwest of Key West encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 24°33′26″ N, 81°49′02″ W; thence northeast to Point 2 in position 24°33′36″ N, 81°48′49″ W; thence northwest to Point 3 in position 24°33′39″ N, 81°49′26″ W; thence southwest to Point 4 in position 24°33′24″ N, 81°49′28″ W; thence northeast back to origin. All vessels are prohibited from anchoring in Spectator Area 1; any vessel transiting in the area shall travel at idle speed. (4) Spectator Area 2. Spectator Area 2 consists of all waters of the Atlantic Ocean located southwest of Key West encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 24°33′41″ N, 81°48′44″ W; thence northeast to Point 2 in position 24°33′55″ N, 81°48′34″ W; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 24°33′52″ N, 81°48′42″ W; thence southwest back to origin. All vessels are prohibited from anchoring in Spectator Area 2; any vessel transiting in the area shall travel at idle speed. Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area, or the buffer zone by contacting the Captain of the Port Key West by telephone at 305-292-8727, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, remain within the race area, or the buffer zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in theFederal Register,the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement period via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 17, 2012, in theFederal Register, 77 FR 29254. The Coast Guard received one comment. There were no requests for a Public Meeting.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 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, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

The Coast Guard is establishing a moving safety zone around each large cruise ship as it transits the Lower Mississippi River between the Port of New Orleans Cruise Ship Terminal, mile marker 96.0, and the Southwest Pass Sea Buoy to address the increasing risk to safe navigation. For the purpose of this rule, the term “large cruise ship” is defined as a vessel over 100 feet in length, carrying more than 500 passengers for hire, making a voyage lasting more than 24 hours, any part of which is on the high seas, and for which passengers are embarked or disembarked in the United States or its territories. The marine transportation system on the lower Mississippi river has seen a sustained growth over the years and there are more vessels on the river than ever before. If a marine accident occurs involving a large cruise ship there is a significantly higher potential for loss of life than with any other type of commercial vessel. Therefore to mitigate the risks and consequences associated with higher traffic, the reduction of navigable space, and to protect lives, the Coast Guard is establishing a moving safety zone around each large cruise ship. This rule is intended to establish early passing or overtaking arrangements thus increasing the time available for safe maneuvering.

One comment was received which proposed a ship's automatic identification system (AIS) or a virtual AIS aid to navigation be incorporated into the proposed regulation. Although AIS is an effective tool to enhance safe navigation it is not specific to this rule making. Therefore, after consideration, the Coast Guard did not see a need to alter the regulation.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal. The moving safety zones will not interfere with a vessel's ability to make passing and overtaking arrangements. Routine navigation around and near the safety zones will not be impacted. The moving safety zone is intended to enable early notification of passing or overtaking arrangements, providing additional time and opportunity to negotiate navigational arrangements and to maneuver without causing delay in transit for both the large cruise ship and the other vessels operating in the area.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The moving safety zones are intended to enable early notification that passing or overtaking arrangements may be necessary, providing additional time and opportunity to negotiate navigational arrangements, giving both vessels sufficient time to maneuver without causing delay in transit.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Lower Mississippi River between mile marker 96.0, New Orleans, LA and the Southwest Pass Sea Buoy during cruise ship transits.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection 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 establishing a moving safety zone 1 mile ahead, 1 mile astern and bank to bank of large cruise ships on the Lower Mississippi River. 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 underADDRESSES.We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931 for the following events:

(1)Navy Pier Fireworks;on November 24, 2012 from 5:00 p.m. through 7:00 p.m.; on December 31, 2012 from 7:00 p.m. through 7:20 p.m.; and on December 31, 2012 from 11:45 p.m. through 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2013.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter, move within or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.931 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in theFederal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by this section is suspended. If the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the safety zone. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Throughout this document the following terms have the meanings described below:

“We”, “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

The State of New Mexico on behalf of the City of Albuquerque submitted revisions to the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Bernalillo County and the City of Albuquerque on July 28, 2011. We proposed approval of these revisions on August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45530). For EPA's full analysis of these revisions, the reader is referred to that proposal and the Technical Support Document for this rulemaking, which is available on line athttp://www.regulations.gov,Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0695. Among the revisions to the I/M rules at 20.11.100 NMAC are: expanding the vehicle I/M program to cover model year 1998 and newer diesel motor vehicles greater than 1,000 and less than 10,001 pounds; including all hybrid vehicle gasoline engines; changing the test frequency for some model year vehicles; revising an exemption for certain low income vehicle owners from the $300 repair or repair estimate threshold; and revising some test procedures. Regulatory language from the VPMD (Vehicle Pollution Management Division) Procedures Manual is now codified in the I/M rules. Numerous non-substantive ministerial revisions were also proposed for approval because they add clarity and improve readability of the rules.

Although not required by Federal rule, model year 1998 and newer compression ignition powered (diesel)motor vehicles of a certain size are now included in the vehicle I/M program. Diesel vehicles that are greater than 1,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) but less than 10,001 pounds GVW are covered by On-Board Diagnostics second generation (OBDII) testing. Testing for this fuel type will start on January 1, 2013, as adopted in the rule. Gasoline/electric hybrids are no longer exempt from testing. Technology improvements have made testing the small gasoline engines found in hybrids now possible.

A clarification is made about the newest model years that are exempt from testing. The term “two registration periods” is clarified to mean four (4) years. Model year 1975-1985 vehicles are now required to get tested on a biennial schedule. Previously, these vehicles were on an annual testing schedule. Other provisions in the rule require vehicles in this age group to have annual inspections if their HC (hydrocarbon) or CO (carbon monoxide) emissions are more than 75% of the standard for those pollutants. Motor vehicles 35 years old or older are now exempt from testing.

Minor changes to test procedures include requiring a visual inspection for a catalytic converter on all OBDII-equipped vehicles. The program is also limiting the gas cap pressure check to 1975-2005 vehicles.

The requirement for spending at least $300 for repairs to apply for a time extension has been revised to require a repair estimate of $300 or more from a licensed repair facility and proof that the individual is financially incapable of paying for the needed repairs.

Prior to the rule revision before us, many program procedures were contained in the VPMD Procedures Manual. The Program determined that this manual was out of date but some of the regulatory language needed to be retained. Portions of the manual were codified in the rulesverbatim.Non-regulatory procedure information is now contained in technical guidance that is not part of the SIP.

As a result of the codification process, some additional terms were added to the definitions section. These include Audit, Clean piping, Clean scanning, Covert audit, Covert surveillance, Emissions analyzer, Emissions inspection system or EIS, Fleet, Gas cap test, Overt audit, Pretesting, and Vehicle information database or VID. Definitions adopted for these terms are those that are commonly used in the industry or similar to terms defined in the federal regulations.

In the process of codifying language from the Procedures Manual, the I/M rules were reorganized with some sections being moved from one numbered section to another. Useless and/or anachronistic references were removed or revised to be more meaningful.

We received no comments on the proposed rule during the 30 day comment period that ended on August 31, 2012.

EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the New Mexico SIP for the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County submitted on July 28, 2011. These include revisions to the fuel type subject to testing, the model years subject to testing, certain test procedures, an opportunity for a time extension for motorists that are financially incapable of paying for repairs of $300 or more, codification of procedures from the Procedures Manual, addition of definitions, and other non-substantive revisions. We believe these revisions enhance the SIP and improve the effectiveness of the I/M program. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. .L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 20, 2010. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings toenforce its requirements. (Seesection 307(b)(2).)

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site athttp://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-2012-0131 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 31, 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 (excluding 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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0131, 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), (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 athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

In theFederal Registerof May 2, 2012 (77 FR 25957) (FRL-9346-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7900) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of calcium gluconate (CAS Reg. No. 299-28-5) when used as an inert ingredient (sequestrant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket,http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(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 thepesticide chemical residue * * *.”

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

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

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by calcium gluconate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

Calcium gluconate has been evaluated by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) which determined that calcium gluconate was of very low toxicity and allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of “not specified”. The JECFA evaluation of calcium gluconate was part of a group—gluconic acid and its inorganic salts, that were assessed together based on the fact that the calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium salts of gluconic acid are freely ionizable and that it was appropriate to allocate ADIs on the basis of data on their corresponding anion (gluconic acid) as calcium gluconate dissociates under normal physiologic conditions into gluconic acid. ADI “not specified” is used to refer to a food substance of very low toxicity, which, on the basis of available data (chemical, biochemical, toxicological, and other) and the total dietary intake of the substance arising from its use at the levels necessary to achieve the desired effect and from its acceptable background levels in food, does not, in the opinion of the Committee, represent a hazard to health. For that reason, and for reasons stated in individual evaluations, the establishment of an ADI expressed in numerical form is not necessary. Calcium gluconate was added to the CODEX General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) in 1999.

Toxicological studies considered by JECFA in their evaluation of gluconic acid and its inorganic salts included acute oral toxicity studies in the rat, mouse, rabbit and hamster with LD50values ranging from >2,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) to 7,850 mg/kg. Gluconic acid and its inorganic salts have been tested inin vitroassays (bacterial reverse mutation assays) which demonstrated that gluconic acid was not mutagenic with or without metabolic activation.

In various subchronic, chronic, reproductive and developmental studies evaluated using gluconic acid and its inorganic salts by JECFA, no observable adverse effects were noted at or above limit dose levels (i.e., > 1,000 mg/kg/day). (JECFA 1999).

As discussed above, there was no hazard identified in repeat dose toxicity and reproductive/developmental studies with gluconic acid and its inorganic salts at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day to either parental animals or their offspring. Thus, due to its low potential hazard and lack of a hazard endpoint, the Agency has determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors applied to a point of departure protective of an identified hazard endpoint is not appropriate for calcium gluconate.

Calcium gluconate was not mutagenic in anin vitrochromosome aberration test, bacterial gene mutation test. In addition, the availablein vitroandin vivomutagenicity data with glucuronic acid and its inorganic salts were negative. Based on the available information from the mutation studies, it is not anticipated to be carcinogenic.

No hazard endpoint of concern for calcium gluconate was identified for the acute and chronic dietary assessment (food and drinking water), or for the short, intermediate, and long term residential assessments (via all exposure routes); therefore, acute and chronic dietary and short-, intermediate-, and long-term residential exposure assessments were not performed.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

While the toxicity of calcium gluconate is expected to be similar to the other inorganic salts of gluconic acid as well as gluconic acid itself, there are no toxicological endpoints of concern identified for any of these substances. Therefore a cumulative risk assessment was not performed.

For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

The toxicity database for calcium gluconate identified no hazard endpoint of concern for calcium gluconate and there is no residual uncertainty regarding prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity. No acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies are available, but there were no clinical signs of neurotoxicity or any systemic toxicity observed in the available database at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. No developmental or reproductive effects were seen in the available studies at doses up to and including 1,000 mg/kg/day.

Based on this information, there is no concern, at this time, for increased sensitivity to infants and children to calcium gluconate when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and a safety factor analysis has not been used to assess risk. For the same reason, EPA has determined that an additional safety factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children.

Given the lack of concern for hazard posed by calcium gluconate, EPA concludes that there are no dietary or aggregate dietary/non-dietary risks of concern as a result of exposure to calcium gluconate in food and water, or from residential exposure. Residues of concern are not anticipated for dietary exposure (food and drinking water) or for residential exposure from the use of calcium gluconate as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. As discussed in this unit, EPA expects aggregate exposure to calcium gluconate to pose no appreciable dietary risk given that the data show a lack of any systemic toxicity or adverse developmental/reproductive effects at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day.

Taking into consideration all available information on calcium gluconate, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup, including infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to calcium gluconate under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of calcium gluconate (CAS Reg. No. 299-28-5) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, is safe under FFDCA section 408.

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

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 Nation 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 calcium gluconate.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 for calcium gluconate (CAS Reg. No. 299-28-5) when used as an inert ingredient (sequestrant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops.

This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisionsof FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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 athttp://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-2012-0225 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 31, 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 (excludingany Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0225, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

In theFederal Registerof July, 25 2012 (77 FR 43565) (FRL-9353-6), 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 1F7930) by Bayer CropScience, 2 TW Alexander Dr., RTP, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.555 be amended by increasing tolerances for residues of the fungicide trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester), in or on almond hulls at 9.0 parts per million (ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket,http://www.regulations.gov.There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Bayer CropScience's petition also requested that EPA delete the trifloxystrobin tolerance for “Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish.” This tolerance was superseded by the establishment of the tolerance “Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B” in theFederal Registerof January 2, 2008 (73 FR 52). Inadvertently, EPA failed to remove the “Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish” tolerance when it established the broader “Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B” tolerance.

In addition to the petitioner's requests EPA has deleted the tolerance for almond. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to amend 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 amending 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 trifloxystrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances amended by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with trifloxystrobin 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.

Trifloxystrobin exhibits very low toxicity following single oral, dermal and inhalation exposures. It is a strong dermal sensitizer. In repeated dose tests in rats, the liver is the target organ for trifloxystrobin; toxicity is induced following oral and dermal exposure for 28 days. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility following prenatal exposure to rats and rabbits and postnatal exposures to rats. Trifloxystrobin was determined not to be carcinogenic in mice or rats following long-term dietary administration. Trifloxystrobin is positive for mutagenicity in Chinese Hamster V79 cells, albeit at cytotoxic dose levels. However, trifloxystrobin is negative in the remaining mutagenicity studies.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by trifloxystrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in theFederal Registerof June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33190) (FRL-8829-2), and athttp://www.regulations.govin the document “Trifloxystrobin. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Petition Proposing Increased Tolerances for Residues in/on Field, Sweet and Pop Corn,” pp. 17-21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0278.

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, seehttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.A summary of the toxicological endpoints for trifloxystrobin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. ofthe final rule published in theFederal Registerof June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33190).

1.Dietary exposure from food and feed uses.In evaluating dietary exposure to trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing trifloxystrobin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555. EPA assessed dietary exposures from trifloxystrobin in food as follows:

i.Acute exposure.Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for trifloxystrobin. In estimating acute dietary exposure for females 13-49 years old, EPA conducted an analysis using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEMTM7.81), which used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues. EPA assumed all commodities with established or proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.

ii.Chronic exposure.In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues for all commodities with the exception of apples, oranges and grapes. For these commodities EPA used anticipated residues from field residue trials. EPA assumed all commodities with established or proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.

iii.Cancer.Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that trifloxystrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv.Anticipated residue information.Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

2.Dietary exposure from drinking water.The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of trifloxystrobin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of trifloxystrobin plus its major degradation product, are estimated to be 47.98 parts per billion (ppb) and 47.31 ppb for surface water for acute and chronic exposures, respectively. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

3.From non-dietary exposure.The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamentals and turfgrass. EPA assessed residential exposure under the following exposure scenarios: Adult post application dermal exposure; and children's post-application dermal and/or hand-to-mouth exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html.

4.Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity.Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found trifloxystrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and trifloxystrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that trifloxystrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

1.In general.Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2.Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.There is no indication of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbits to trifloxystrobin. In the prenatal developmental study in rats, there was no developmental toxicity at the limit dose. In the prenatal developmental study in rabbits, developmental toxicity was seen at a dose that was higher than the dose that caused maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation reproduction study, there was no offspring toxicity at the highest dose tested.

3.Conclusion.EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The database is complete except for an inhalation study. An immunotoxicity study has been submitted; preliminary examination of the data found no evidence of immunotoxicity. In addition, the entire trifloxystrobin toxicity database was examined and there was no indication that this chemical directly targets the immune system. EPA does not believe that the immunotoxicity study will result in a dose less than the points of departure already used in this risk assessment and an additional database uncertainty factor (UF) for potential immunotoxicitydoes not need to be applied. Regarding the requirement for an inhalation toxicity study, the Agency has increased its focus on the uncertainties associated with route-to-route extrapolation (i.e., the use of oral toxicity studies for inhalation risk assessment) and is presently requiring inhalation toxicity studies more frequently. Although an inhalation toxicity study is now required for trifloxystrobin based on the current weight of the evidence approach, residential inhalation exposure is not anticipated; therefore, there are no uncertainties with respect to residential inhalation exposures to trifloxystrobin and no need to retain an additional database uncertainty factor for this safety finding.

ii. There is no indication that trifloxystrobin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. A waiver for a subchronic neurotoxicity study has been granted. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies (rats, dogs, mice), in developmental toxicity studies (rats, rabbits), or in a reproductive toxicity study (rats). There is no concern for neurotoxicity for trifloxystrobin based on the available database, limited findings in an acute neurotoxicity study, and lack of neurotoxicity in other fungicides of the strobilurin class.

iii. There is no evidence that trifloxystrobin results in increased susceptibility inin uterorats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary exposure assessment was unrefined, and the chronic dietary exposure assessment was partially refined, assuming 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues for all commodities except for apples, grapes, and oranges where the average field trial residues were used. By using these screening-level assessments with minor refinement, actual exposures/risks from residues in food will not be underestimated. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to trifloxystrobin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by trifloxystrobin.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1.Acute risk.Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to trifloxystrobin will occupy 1.9% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2.Chronic risk.Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 64% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of trifloxystrobin is not expected.

3.Short-term risk.Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to trifloxystrobin.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,100 for adults (dermal residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures); 650 for children 1-2 years (dermal residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures); and 130 for children 1-2 years (incidental oral residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures). Because EPA's level of concern for trifloxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or less, these MOEs are not of concern.

4.Intermediate-term risk.Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk based on a short soil half-life (approximately 2 days).

5.Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population.Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6.Determination of safety.Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to trifloxystrobin residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), Method AG-659A and liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS), Method No. 200177) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:residuemethods@epa.gov.

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 established an MRL for trifloxystrobin in or on almond hulls at 3.0 ppm. This MRL is different than the proposed amended tolerance at 9.0 ppm for trifloxystrobin in the United States.

Previously, the domestic tolerance and Codex MRL of trifloxystrobin were harmonized at 3.0 ppm. The proposed amendment, to reduce the preharvest interval of almond hulls from 60 days to 14 days requires an increase in the tolerance level from 3.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm.

EPA is deleting the existing tolerance for almonds. The removal of the specific tolerance for almonds is a result of the coverage of almonds within the established tolerance for nut, tree, group 14 at 0.04 ppm.

Therefore, the tolerance is amended for residues of trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]amino] oxy]methyl]-methyl ester), in or on almond, hulls from 3.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm. EPA is also granting the petitioner's request to remove the tolerance for Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish. This tolerance should have been removed by EPA in its January 2, 2008 rulemaking, (73 FR 52) (FRL-8342-6), that added a tolerance for “Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B.” The “Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B” tolerance was intended as a replacement for the tolerance “Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish.” EPA is correcting that error in this action. Finally, the specific tolerance is removed for almonds because this commodity is covered by crop group tolerances.

This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site athttp://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-2012-0279 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 31, 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 (excluding 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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0279, 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), (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 athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In theFederal Registerof July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 2E8000) filed by Stephan Company, 22 West Frontage Rd., Northfield Illinois 60093. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by revising an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene); CAS No. 37251-69-7. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use 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 an exemption from the requirement of 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 * * *” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this final rule and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,889 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10 percent oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25 percent oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in 40 CFR 723.250, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene).

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) is 1,889 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene), EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene).

There is an existing tolerance for α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene); poly oxyethylene content 30 to 90 moles; molecular weight (in amu) averages 3,000 in 40 CFR 180.960.

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

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 isdifferent 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 α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene).

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of α-(ρ-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), nor does it 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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.).

Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site athttp://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-2012-0278 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 31, 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 (excluding 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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0278, 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), (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 athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available athttp://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In theFederal Registerof July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 2E7995) filed by Stephan Company, 22 West Frontage Rd., Northfield, Illinois 60093. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated; CAS No. 67784-86-5. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use 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 an exemption from the requirement of 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 * * *” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and otherrelevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

7. The polymer's number average MW of 2,009 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10 percent oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25 percent oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated.

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW (amu) of fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated is 2,009 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated.

There are no existing tolerance exemptions for this polymer.

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

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 fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated.

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of fatty acids, tall-oil, ethoxylated propoxylated from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of atolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), nor does it 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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.).

Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. This action 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 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (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 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 51,009 metric tons (mt) as established by thefinal 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (77 FR 10669, February 23, 2012) and a subsequent inseason adjustment to catcher vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear (77 FR 53152, August 31, 2012). The Regional Administrator has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 3,260 mt of the 2012 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(9). The Regional Administrator has also determined that this unharvested amount is unlikely to be harvested through the hierarchy set forth in § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A) and § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B), NMFS reallocates 1,260 mt to American Fisheries Act (AFA) catcher/processors and 2,000 mt to Amendment 80 catcher/processors.

The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (77 FR 10669, February 23, 2012) and inseason adjustment (77 FR 53152, August 31, 2012) are revised as follows: 6,621 mt for AFA catcher/processors, 33,232 mt for Amendment 80 catcher/processors, and 47,749 mt for trawl catcher vessels. In accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS will reissue cooperative quota permits for the reallocated Pacific cod to Amendment 80 catcher/processors following the procedures set forth in § 679.91(f)(3).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(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 reallocation of Pacific cod specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear to AFA catcher/processors and Amendment 80 catcher/processors. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 24, 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.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (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 FMPappear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

NMFS closed the directed fishery for Pacific ocean perch (POP) in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) (77 FR 10669, February 23, 2012).

NMFS has determined that approximately 3,400 metric tons of POP remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2012 total allowable catch of POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for POP in Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters dependent upon POP in this area. The Administrator, Alaska Region considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the current catch of POP in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels participating in this fishery.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(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 opening of POP directed fishing in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 22, 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.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until November 13, 2012.

This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.