Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25901 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

You may also view this document in 

text or PDF at the following site: 

www.ifap.ed.gov/. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number: 84.063 Federal Pell Grants) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 690 

Colleges and universities, Elementary 

and secondary education, Grant 

programs—education, Student aid. 

Dated: April 27, 2012. 

Anne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends part 

690 of title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 690—FEDERAL PELL GRANT 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 690 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070g, unless 

otherwise noted. 

§ 690.63 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend 690.63: 

■ a. In paragraph (g)(1), by removing the 

words and citation, ‘‘except as provided 

in § 690.67’’; and 

■ b. By removing paragraph (h). 

■ 3. Section 690.64 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 690.64 Determining the award year for a 

Federal Pell Grant payment period that 

occurs in two award years. 

(a) If a student enrolls in a payment 

period that is scheduled to occur in two 

award years— 

(1) The entire payment period must be 

considered to occur within one award 

year; 

(2) The institution must determine for 

each Federal Pell Grant recipient the 

award year in which the payment 

period will be placed; 

(3) If an institution places the 

payment period in the first award year, 

it must pay a student with funds from 

the first award year; and 

(4) If an institution places the 

payment period in the second award 

year, it must pay a student with funds 

from the second award year. 

(b) An institution may not make a 

payment which will result in the 

student receiving more than his or her 

Scheduled Federal Pell Grant for an 

award year. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a) 

■ 4. Section 690.65 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

words and citation, ‘‘except as provided 

under § 690.67’’; and 

■ b. By revising paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 690.65 Transfer student: attendance at 

more than one institution during an award 

year. 

* * * * * 

(f) A transfer student shall repay any 

amount received in an award year that 

exceeds his or her Scheduled Federal 

Pell Grant. 

* * * 

§ 690.67 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 5. Section 690.67 is removed and 

reserved. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10559 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0271; FRL–9664–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Removal of the 1980 

Consent Order for the Maryland Slag 

Company 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revision removes a 1980 

Consent Order issued to the Maryland 

Slag Company (now known as 

MultServ). The 1980 Consent Order is 

no longer required to satisfy any 

applicable Federal regulations and the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving 

this revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 2, 

2012 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

June 1, 2012. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0271 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: spink.marcia@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0271, 

Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director for 

Policy and Science, Air Protection 

Division, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0271. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
25902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marcia L. Spink, (215) 814–2104, or by 

email at spink.marcia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Maryland Slag Company (now 

MultiServ) operates a blast furnace slag 

processing plant at the Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation’s (now ISG Sparrows Point) 

steel mill located in Sparrows Point, 

Baltimore County. Hot metal slag from 

Bethlehem Steel’s blast furnace that is 

not processed by the Atlantic Cement 

Company’s (now LaFarge North 

America) granulated slag cement plant 

is allowed to cool before being sent to 

the Maryland Slag processing facility. 

At the slag processing facility, slag is 

reduced in size with a crusher and 

segregated into different group sizes by 

a screening operation. The processed 

slag material is used as an aggregate 

material in road construction and 

parking lots. The slag processing facility 

is subject to the requirements under SIPapproved regulation COMAR 

26.11.10.04B(1) which prohibits the 

discharge of fugitive particulate matter 

emissions from iron and steel 

production installations unless 

reasonably available control measures 

are employed to minimize emissions. 

In 1980, the Atlantic Cement 

Company proposed to construct a slag 

cement processing facility within the 

confines of the Bethlehem Steel 

Corporation’s Sparrows Point steel mill. 

At the time of the proposed project, the 

Sparrows point area was nonattainment 

for total suspended particulates (TSP). 

In order to construct the plant, the 

Atlantic Cement Company was required 

to secure particulate matter emission 

offsets. These offsets were obtained from 

the Maryland Slag Company and were 

formalized and made enforceable in the 

October 31, 1980 Consent Order. The 

October 31, 1980 Consent Order was 

approved as a SIP revision by EPA on 

September 8, 1981 (41 FR 44757). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On February 13, 2007, the Maryland 

Department of the Environment 

submitted a formal revision to its SIP. 

The SIP revision consists of a request to 

remove the Consent Order, issued on 

October 31, 1980, to the Maryland Slag 

Company (now MultiServ). The Consent 

Order provided particulate matter 

offsets from the Maryland Slag 

Company to the Atlantic Cement 

Company. The 1980 Consent Order is no 

longer necessary because the affected 

facilities are no longer located in a 

nonattainment area for TSP, and the 

Atlantic Cement Company (now Lafarge 

North America) was re-permitted in 

2001 demonstrating compliance with 

the more stringent national ambient air 

quality standard for particulate matter 

with a diameter of 10 microns or less 

(PM10). In addition, the Maryland Slag 

Company (now MultiServ) has reduced 

its annual PM emissions by reducing the 

material it processes from one million 

tons annually in 1980 to less than 

100,000 tons annually today. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving MDE’s February 13, 

2007 SIP revision to remove the October 

31, 1980 Consent Order issued to the 

Maryland Slag Company (now 

MultiServ) because it is no longer 

required to satisfy any applicable 

Federal regulations and the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on July 2, 2012 without further 

notice unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by June 1, 2012. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. 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. 3501 et 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. 601 et 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 CAA; 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 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25903 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et 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. Section 804, 

however, exempts from section 801 the 

following types of rules: Rules of 

particular applicability; rules relating to 

agency management or personnel; and 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice that do not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 2, 2012. 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. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action to remove the 1980 Consent 

Order for the Maryland Slag Company 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter. 

Dated: April 12, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by removing the entry 

for Maryland Slag Co. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10339 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–1079; FRL–9344–9] 

Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerances; 

Technical Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the 

Federal Register of March 2, 2012, 

concerning the establishment of 

tolerances for the insecticide 

thiamethoxam on multiple 

commodities. This document is being 

issued to correct various typographical 

omissions, specifically, the omission of 

previously established tolerances for 

caneberry subgroup 13–07A; mustard, 

seed; onion, dry bulb; papaya; safflower, 

seed; and nut, tree, group 14. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 2, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2010–1079. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available in http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Chao, Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8735; email address: 

chao.julie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

The Agency included in the final rule 

a list of those who may be potentially 

affected by this action. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. What does this technical correction 

do? 

This technical correction reinstates 

previously established tolerances for the 

insecticide thiamethoxam in or on: 

Caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 0.35 

parts per million (ppm); mustard, seed 

at 0.02 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.02 

ppm; onion, dry bulb at 0.03 ppm; 

papaya at 0.40 ppm; and safflower, seed 

at 0.02 ppm. These tolerances were 

inadvertently deleted from the table in 

paragraph (a) under 40 CFR Part 180.565 

in the final rule establishing new 

tolerances for thiamethoxam on several 

commodities that published in the 

Federal Register of March 2, 2012 (77 

FR 12731) (FRL–9331–8). 

III. Why is this correction issued as a 

final rule? 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an 

Agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the Agency may issue a final 

rule without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for making this technical correction 

final without prior proposal and 

opportunity for comment, because the 

tolerances being reinstated in the table 

in paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 180.565 are 

permanent tolerances that were 

inadvertently omitted from that table in 

the course of a rulemaking that 

amended the table to establish several 

new tolerances. As part of that 

rulemaking, EPA prepared a revised 

table listing the current and new 

tolerances. In preparing the revised 

table, that contains tolerances on over 

80 commodities, EPA inadvertently 

overlooked the tolerances identified in 

Unit II. It is clear on the face of the 

rulemaking document that the omission 

of the tolerances identified in Unit II 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES