Section 704B of ECOA, as added by Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires that financial institutions collect and report information concerning credit applications made by women or minority-owned businesses and by small businesses. 15 U.S.C. 1691c-2. The statute directs financial institutions to compile and maintain the data “in accordance with regulations of the Bureau.” ECOA Section 704B(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1691c-2(e)(1). The purpose of Section 704B is “to facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.” ECOA Section 704B became effective on the date that rulemaking authority for ECOA transferred to the CFPB, which was July 21, 2011.

On April 11, 2011, the CFPB issued a letter concluding that financial institutions have no obligations under Section 704B until the CFPB issues regulations to implement the requirements. 1 The CFPB letter notes that Congress intended Section 704B to produce reliable and consistent data that can be analyzed by the CFPB, other government agencies, and members of the public to facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and to identify business and community development needs. Based on the statutory text, purpose, and legislative history, the CFPB letter concludes that implementing regulations are necessary to ensure that data are collected and reported in a consistent, standardized fashion that allows for sound analysis by the CFPB and other users of the data.

Although the CFPB has authority to issue rules to implement ECOA (including data collection under Section 704B) for most entities, the Board retains authority to issue rules under ECOA for motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 2 Thus, the Board is responsible for issuing regulations to implement the amendments made by Section 704B for motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a). Consequently, the Board has received inquiries as to whether motor vehicle dealers must comply with the requirements of ECOA Section 704B before implementing regulations are issued.

The Board believes that detailed rules to implement ECOA Section 704B are necessary to ensure that data collected and reported under that provision are useful. As noted, the purposes of the statute are to facilitate fair lending enforcement and to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. To support sound analysis by users of the data, the data should be collected and reported by motor vehicle dealers in a consistent and standardized way. To achieve this, implementing rules can provide motor vehicle dealers with uniform definitions and standards that they can follow in collecting and reporting data.

For these reasons, on June 23, 2011, the Board published for public comment a proposed rule to except motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act from any obligation to comply with ECOA Section 704B until the Board issues final regulations to implement that provision and those regulations become effective. The proposed rule was consistent with the views expressed by the CFPB, and was supported by the text and purpose of Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The applicability of the proposed rule was limited to Section 1071 and would not affect the implementation date of any other provision of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Board received five comment letters in response to the June 2011 proposal. All of the commenters generally supported the proposed rule. For the reasons discussed below, the Board is adopting the June 2011 proposal as a final rule without changes.

ECOA Section 703, as amended by Section 1085 of the Dodd-Frank Act, directs the Board to prescribe regulations to carry out ECOA's purposes for motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. See 15 U.S.C. 1691b(f). In addition, the Board's general rulemaking under ECOA includes authority to issue regulations that contain such classifications, differentiation, or other provisions, or that provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions, as in the judgment of the Board are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of ECOA, to prevent circumvention or evasion of ECOA, or to facilitate or substantiate compliance with ECOA. Id. Finally, ECOA Section 704B(g)(2) contains authority for exceptions or exemptions for any class of financial institutions as deemed necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of Section 704B. 15 U.S.C. 1691c-2(g)(2).

Pursuant to this authority, the final rule excepts motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act from the requirement to comply with ECOA Section 704B until the effective date of final rules issued by the Board to implement Section 704B. The Board believes that this exception is necessary to effectuate the purposes of ECOA and facilitate compliance. First, as noted, ECOA Section 704B states that its purpose is “to facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.” 15 U.S.C. 1691c-2(a). The Board believes that this purpose is better served if detailed rules prescribe the method for collecting and reporting data under Section 704B. The collection of data in a uniform manner under a final regulation will enhance data analysis and enforcement capabilities. Second, in directing that financial institutions compile and maintain the data “in accordance with regulations of the Bureau,” the text of ECOA Section 704B clearly contemplates that regulations are necessary to implement this provision. 3 Finally, delaying data collection until there are implementing regulations will facilitate compliance by providing guidance on how motor vehicle dealers can comply with the statutory requirements in a manner that effectuates the legislative purposes.

This final rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register . The Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. , generally requires that rules be published not less than 30 days before their effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, the APA provides exceptions to this timing requirement for certain rules. For the reasons discussed below, the Board believes that the final rule meets the requirements for an exception to the APA's general 30-day notice requirement.

Specifically, the APA's 30-day notice requirement does not apply to “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). As explained above, the final rule temporarily relieves motor vehicle dealers covered under Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act from the statutory obligation under ECOA Section 704B to collect and report data on credit applications made by women- and minority-owned businesses and small businesses. The rule therefore grants a temporary exemption from a statutory obligation that might otherwise apply.

In addition, the APA's 30-day notice rule does not apply when “otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Board finds that there is good cause to make this final rule effective immediately because Section 704B has already become effective and the text of the statute clearly contemplates that regulations are necessary to implement the law's requirements. For the reasons discussed above, the Board believes that regulations are necessary to effectuate the purposes of Section 704B and that motor vehicle dealers should be excepted from the statutory requirements until such rules are in effect.

The Board received five comment letters in response to the proposed rule. Two letters were received from trade associations that represent motor vehicle dealers, vehicle manufacturers and other automotive-related companies. One letter was received from a trade association that represents finance companies and other financial institutions that provide consumer and commercial credit. Comment letters were also received from a public policy advocacy organization and a research and consulting firm that focuses on women- and minority-owned financial institutions and investments in minority businesses.

All of the comment letters generally supported the Board's proposal to except motor vehicle dealers from the requirements of Section 704B until the effective date of final rules issued by the Board to implement that provision. Three commenters expressly urged the Board to consult and coordinate with the CFPB in developing substantive rules under Section 704B so that the rules issued by both agencies will be uniform and consistent. The consumer advocacy organization that commented also urged the Board to issue rules implementing the data collection requirements as quickly as possible so that motor vehicle dealers can comply as soon as the CFPB's rules for other creditors become effective.

Section 704B of ECOA requires that financial institutions collect and report information concerning credit applications made by women or minority-owned businesses and by small businesses. 15 U.S.C. 1691c-2. This section of ECOA became effective on the designated transfer date, which was July 21, 2011. The term “financial institution” includes any entity that engages in any financial activity. 15 U.S.C. 1691c-2(h)(1). The term “financial activity” is not defined in ECOA or the Dodd-Frank Act, but motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act might be engaged in “financial activity” and therefore might be financial institutions subject to the requirements of ECOA Section 704B.

For the reasons discussed above, the Board is adopting Section 202.17(a) as proposed to provide that no motor vehicle dealer covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act is required to comply with the requirements of Section 704B of ECOA until the effective date of final rules issued by the Board to implement Section 704B. In addition, the final rule specifies that Section 202.17(a) shall not be construed to affect the effective date of ECOA Section 704B for any person other than a motor vehicle dealer covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506, 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1, the Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule contains no collections of information under the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). Accordingly, no paperwork burden is associated with the rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to perform an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis on the impact a rule is expected to have on small entities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) establishes size standards that define which entities are small businesses for purposes of the RFA. 4 For example, to be considered a small business under the SBA size standard, a new car dealer must have 200 or fewer employees and a used car dealer must have $23 million or less in annual revenues.

Under Section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under Section 603 of the RFA is not required if an agency certifies, along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification, that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on its initial and final analysis and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 704B of ECOA, as added by Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires that financial institutions collect and report information concerning credit applications made by women or minority-owned businesses and by small businesses. ECOA Section 704B became effective on the date that rulemaking authority for ECOA was transferred to the CFPB, which was July 21, 2011. Although the CFPB has the authority to issue rules to implement ECOA Section 704B for most entities, the Board retains authority to issue rules for certain motor vehicle dealers. This final rule excepts motor vehicle dealers that are subject to the Board's jurisdiction from the requirements of ECOA Section 704B temporarily, until the effective date of final rules that will be issued by the Board to implement that provision. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION above contains information on the reasons, objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule.

No public comments on the proposed rule addressed matters relating to the Board's initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The final rule applies to motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The total number of small entities covered by the final rules is unknown, because the Board does not have data on the number of small entities that are motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a). Furthermore, it is unclear how many motor vehicle dealers covered by Section 1029(a) receive credit applications from women-or minority-owned businesses or small businesses. Nevertheless, no small entities are likely to be affected by the final rule because the rule merely preserves the status quo by granting a temporary exemption from the requirement to comply with the statute, which took effect on July 21, 2011.

The final rule will not impose any new recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements. Instead, the final rule temporarily will delay these requirements until the Board issues final implementing regulations and the regulations become effective.

The Board has not identified any federal statutes or regulations that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final rule.

The Board is not aware of any significant alternatives that would minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities. Commenters did not suggest any alternatives.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation B, 12 CFR part 202, 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 the Federal Register on July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40286). 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 (76 FR 40286, July 8, 2011) 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.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 8 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 38 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 $3,490 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $53,760, or $6,720 per product.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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 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); and

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 40286, July 8, 2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 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:

I. Introduction A. Background

Currently, a non-narrow-based security index futures contract (“foreign security index futures contract”) traded on, or subject to the rules of, a foreign board of trade may be offered or sold to persons located within the United States pursuant to a staff no-action letter confirming that the contract satisfies the requirements enumerated in section 2(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA” or “Act”) (such letter hereinafter referred to as a “Foreign Security Index No-Action Letter”). 1 On December 13, 2010, the Commission published in the Federal Register a proposal to adopt new rule 30.13, which would establish Commission certification procedures for confirming that a security index futures contract traded on a foreign board of trade meets the requirements of the Act and therefore, may lawfully be offered or sold within the U.S. 2 The Commission received six comment letters in response to the Proposal. 3 Three commenters, two foreign boards of trade and a proprietary capital management firm, expressed strong support for proposed rule 30.13. 4

Eurex also recommended that the new rule provide for a foreign board of trade to list a new contract with prior notification, in lieu of filing a request for certification, in certain limited circumstances. 5 To address such comment, the Commission is providing in rule 30.13 that a foreign board of trade may make available for offer or sale to U.S. customers a new contract in reliance upon a previously-issued Foreign Security Index No-Action Letter or Commission certification where the new contract is: (i) Based on an index that was the subject of such prior no-action relief or certification issued to that board; and (ii) “substantially identical” to the contract overlying such index.

Rule 30.13 sets forth a procedure whereby a foreign board of trade may apply to the Commission for certification that a security index futures contract traded on, or subject to, that board conforms to the criteria enumerated in section 2(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. The Commission certification procedure will be available to futures contracts based on a non-narrow-based index of foreign or U.S. securities. 6 Under this new procedure, the foreign board of trade seeking Commission certification must file with the Commission a written submission requesting certification with respect to their security index futures contract(s). Such submission must include data, information, facts, and statements complying with the form and content requirements set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of rule 30.13. 7 In addition, the foreign board of trade also must provide a written statement that the subject contract conforms to section 2(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, the foreign board of trade must describe the manner in which U.S. persons legally may access these products on that board of trade ( e.g., access through omnibus accounts, through an intermediary, which is registered in the U.S. and also is an authorized member of the foreign board of trade, or through an entity that has relief from registration under part 30). 8

The substantive review will remain the same under rule 30.13 as it is under the current staff no-action process. Further, consistent with the existing staff no-action review process the Commission's review of the subject contract will not be subject to any specific time frame, except as noted below. If a contract is determined to conform to the applicable requirements of the Act, the Commission will so notify the foreign board of trade. 9

Finally, foreign boards of trade that have received Foreign Security Index No-Action Letters prior to the effective date of rule 30.13 will be grandfathered, provided that the board submits a written statement representing that it remains fully compliant with the underlying conditions of the subject letter. 10 Accordingly, a foreign board of trade that has received from Commission staff such no-action letters will be able to rely on such relief, in lieu of obtaining new Commission certification (for the contract that is the subject of that letter).

The new rule establishes a procedure for a foreign board of trade to request and receive a Commission certification on an expedited basis. This expedited procedure is an alternative to the regular review procedure and will be available to a foreign board of trade that has received a Foreign Security Index No-Action Letter or Commission certification with respect to a non-narrow-based security index futures contract traded on that board. Additionally, the expedited review will be available to a foreign board of trade that has received, and is compliant with the requirements of, the applicable staff no-action letter  11 permitting a foreign board of trade to offer U.S. traders with direct access to its trading system. 12

As the Commission noted in the Proposal, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act authorizes the Commission to register foreign boards of trade that provide U.S. persons with “direct access” to their trading systems. 13 On November 19, 2010, the Commission proposed rules to implement the new statutory provision. 14 The Commission anticipates that at such time as the Commission may adopt such registration requirements, the expedited review procedure would be extended to recipients of an FBOT registration license.

Under the expedited review procedure, a qualifying foreign board of trade may request that the Commission make its certification as to whether a futures contract on a security index that it lists for trading, or plans to list for trading, on that board satisfies the requirements enumerated in section 2(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act within 45 days after the submission of such request. The review period could be extended by the Commission for an additional 45 days if the foreign security index futures contract raises novel or complex issues that require additional time for review, or if the foreign board of trade requests an extension of time.

If the foreign board of trade's request to the Commission for expedited consideration does not comply in form or content with the requirements of proposed rule 30.13, the Commission may notify the requesting foreign board of trade and treat the request for expedited review as withdrawn. However, the foreign board of trade will not be precluded from filing a new expedited request, provided that such submission satisfies the content and form requirements applicable to such process specified in rule 30.13.

Unless the Commission notifies the foreign board of trade that the request has been deemed withdrawn, the subject contract will be deemed to be in conformance with the requirements of section 2(a)(1)(C)(ii) and, therefore may be offered or sold within the U.S., at the expiration of the applicable review period. In contrast to the regular, non-expedited review, the Commission will not issue a certification letter to the foreign board of trade upon completion of its review.

If the Commission will not, or is unable to, deem that the foreign security index futures contract or the underlying security index conforms to the requirements of the Act, it will so notify the foreign board of trade within the 45 day time period or such extended time frame, with a brief statement of the reasons. Upon such notification, the foreign board of trade's request for Commission certification will be treated as having been withdrawn. The foreign board of trade, however, will not be precluded from filing a new submission, provided that such submission sufficiently addresses the deficiencies or issues identified in the Commission notification. 15

Eurex states that the proposed Commission certification procedures focus on an index's compliance with the standards for non-narrow security index trading. Therefore, Eurex recommends that only prior notification be required: (i) For any change in contract terms that do not relate to the composition of the index, such as index multiplier; or (ii) to list additional products based on an index for which a contract has been certified and whose terms differ from the original contract by the “size of the multiplier or other non-index related features.”  16

As a preliminary matter, the Commission notes that under the current staff no-action process, the staff reviews the underlying index, as well as the terms and conditions of the overlying futures contract, and in particular those terms and conditions relating to cash settlement. In that regard, the staff examines, among other things, whether the cash price series is reliable, acceptable, publicly available and timely; that the cash settlement price is reflective of the underlying cash market; and that the cash settlement price is not readily susceptible to manipulation. In summary, although the staff review of foreign security index contracts may be focused primarily on the nature of the underlying index, it is not exclusively so. As noted above, the substantive review will remain the same under the new rule 30.13 as it is under the current no-action process.

The Commission also notes that under the existing staff no-action process, a foreign board of trade is required to notify the Commission of any material changes in facts or representations submitted in connection with the original request for relief; non-material changes to contract terms do not trigger any such notification requirement. Generally speaking, the Commission considers the following routine and non-material changes: (i) Changes in the composition, computation, or method of selection of component entities of an index referenced and defined in the contract's terms; or (ii) changes that do not affect the pricing basis of the index, which are made by an independent third party whose business relates to the collection or dissemination of price formation and which was not formed solely for the purpose of compiling an index for use in connection with a futures or option product.

In response to Eurex's comments and to further remove any unnecessary impediments to offerings of foreign security index contracts, the Commission is adding paragraph (m) to rule 30.13 to provide that a foreign security index futures contract may be offered or sold to U.S. customers in reliance on a previously-issued Foreign Board of Trade No-Action Letter or Commission certification, provided that the contract is: (i) Based on an index that was the subject of such prior certification or no-action relief; (ii) “substantially identical” to the contract overlying such index. In such case, the foreign board of trade may submit the contract to the Commission for an accelerated review of fifteen business days for confirmation that such contract is substantially identical to the relevant existing contract  17 and thus may be offered or sold in the U.S. upon reliance of a previously-issued Foreign Security Index No-Action Letter or Commission certification. In making such submission, the foreign board of trade must provide an explanation of why the subject contract is substantially identical to a contract that was the subject of a prior Commission certification or Foreign Security Index No-Action Letter, together with information specified in § 30.13(a)(2)(v) to (vii). Unless the Commission notifies the foreign board of trade within the fifteen business days that the contract will be reviewed under either the full or expedited procedure, such contract may be offered or sold in the U.S. at the end of that 15 day period. 18

Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing new regulations under the Act. Section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of new regulations or to determine whether the benefits of adopted regulations outweigh their costs. Rather, section 15(a) requires the Commission to consider the cost and benefits of the subject regulations. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of new regulations shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of the market for listed derivatives; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular regulation is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act.

In the proposed rule, the Commission determined that there are no apparent new costs associated with proposed § 30.13. The proposed rule would codify and streamline the current review process, without substantive changes to the review standards and information required to be filed with respect to a broad-based security index. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed review procedures would not compromise customer protection safeguards provided by the Act or in any way be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, foreign boards of trade and U.S. market participants will benefit from proposed § 30.13. The certification process being proposed will provide a foreign board of trade with greater certainty with respect to the contracts it offers in the U.S., which until now have only been subject to staff no-action relief that is not binding on the Commission. Moreover, the proposed expedited review process would enhance market efficiency by providing foreign boards of trade with greater certainty concerning the time necessary to obtain regulatory clearance in order to market broad-based security index products within the United States. Finally, streamlining the review process would make additional hedging instruments available to U.S. persons without unnecessary delay, and in turn, may foster price discovery in the futures market.

The Commission received no comments on the costs associated with this rulemaking, and two foreign boards of trade commented that the benefits to them would be significant.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that agencies consider the impact of their regulations on small businesses. The Commission has previously determined that designated contract markets are not small entities for purposes of the RFA. 19 The Commission's determination was based on considerations relating to the central role played by contract markets in the futures market, as well as the high volume of transactions conducted on such markets.

To the extent that the RFA may apply to the action proposed to be taken herein, the Commission does not believe that a foreign board of trade falls within the definition of “small entity” for purposes of the RFA. Rather, the Commission is of the view that the rationale that guided its finding with respect to U.S. contract markets apply equally to foreign boards of trade. Moreover, with regard to foreign firms, the RFA defines a “small entity” as a “business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or uses American products, materials or labor.”  20 A foreign board of trade that may seek Commission certification pursuant to the proposed rule is not likely to meet such criteria. In the proposed rule, the Commission solicited comments on this matter; no comment letter was submitted. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, certifies that the final rules promulgated herein will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

When publicizing proposed regulations, the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. The information collection requirements associated with the proposed regulations are administered under Office of Management and Budget control numbers 3038-0022 and 3038-0054. In the proposing release, the Commission stated that the proposed regulations would not impose any new or additional recordkeeping or information collection requirement that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. No comments were submitted on this matter. Accordingly, the PRA is inapplicable.

For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, the Commission hereby amends Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

FDA is amending certain regulations in parts 25, 173, 175, 177, 178, 182, and 184 (21 CFR parts 25, 173, 175, 177, 178, 182, and 184). Minor errors were inadvertently published in the CFR affecting certain regulations regarding environmental impact considerations (part 25), food additives (parts 173, 175, 177, and 178), and GRAS substances (parts 182 and 184). This action makes the needed corrections.

The final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). These amendments are merely correcting nonsubstantive errors. FDA therefore, for good cause, finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3) that notice and public comment are unnecessary. The changes addressed in this document are as follows:

1. The Agency is correcting typographical errors. Two chemical names are corrected: Polytetrafluoroethylene in § 175.105 and dialkyl (C 8 -C 18 ) dimethylammonium chloride in § 177.2600. Two chemical formulas are corrected: N,N -B-is(2-hydroxyethyl) alkylamine, where the alkyl groups (C 14 -C 18 ) are derived from tallow in § 178.3130, and MnCl 2 in § 184.1446.

2. The Agency is also correcting five Chemical Abstract Service registry numbers (CAS Reg. Nos.) that are incorrectly listed: 123-93-5 in § 173.375, 1302-78-9 in § 184.1155, 7758-99-8 in § 184.1261, 10024-66-5 in § 184.1449, and 10025-69-1 in § 184.1845.

3. The Agency is updating citations. The two citations in 21 CFR 182.99 are updated to 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.920 due to a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation. A citation in § 25.32 is updated. Section 25.32(p) refers to a petition pertaining to the label declaration of ingredients as described in § 101.103 (21 CFR 101.103). However, FDA revoked § 101.103 on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27771 at 27779) because it duplicated the procedures in 21 CFR 10.30 for citizen petitions.

4. The Agency is amending tables in §§ 175.300 and 177.1210.

5. Finally, the Agency is updating § 184.1165. Under § 184.1165(a), both n -butane and iso-butane are described as odorless. However, the Food Chemicals Codex, 7th Edition (2010)  1 does not use the word “odorless” to describe the gases. Therefore, the Agency is amending its description by removing the word “odorless.”

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 25, 173, 175, 177, 178, 182, and 184 are amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. What is the background of North Carolina's CSA? II. This Action III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of North Carolina's CSA?

In June 2002, the General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 2001, passed Session Law 2002-4, also known as Senate Bill 1078. This legislation, entitled “An Act to Improve Air Quality in the State by Imposing Limits on the Emission of Certain Pollutants from Certain Facilities that Burn Coal to Generate Electricity and to Provide for Recovery by Electric Utilities of the Costs of Achieving Compliance with Those Limits,” requires significant actual emission reductions from coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. The State expected that emission reductions from the CSA would have significant health benefits for the citizens of North Carolina and other states.

North Carolina's CSA includes a schedule of system-wide limitations (or caps) on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from coal-fired power plants in the State, the first of which became effective in 2007. The State expects the resulting emission reductions will serve as a significant step towards meeting the 1997 PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), among other NAAQS, improving visibility in the mountains and other scenic vistas, and reducing acid rain. EPA notes that all areas in the State that were designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS are currently attaining the standards. Although the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir and Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS have not yet been redesignated to attainment, EPA determined that these areas had attaining data based on the three-year period 2006-2008. 1 Also, although the Charlotte 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is still designated nonattainment, EPA has issued a proposed determination that the Area has attaining data based on the 2008-2010 design value period. See 76 FR 20293 (April 12, 2011). North Carolina has identified the CSA as part of its plan to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Because North Carolina is relying on emissions reductions from the CSA to demonstrate attainment and maintenance for certain areas in the State, North Carolina is now formally seeking that the CSA be included in the SIP so that the CSA's requirements may be considered “permanent and enforceable.”

EPA is approving a revision to the North Carolina SIP to incorporate the system-wide emission caps from the State's CSA. The specific provisions being incorporated into the SIP are paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section 1 of Session Law 2002-4, Senate Bill 1078 (hereafter “Senate Bill 1078”) enacted June 20, 2002. This approval does not include incorporation into the North Carolina SIP of paragraphs (f) through (j) of Section 1 of Senate Bill 1078 nor any of Section 2 of Senate Bill 1078. Please refer to the docket for this rulemaking for the complete text of these provisions.

On June 22, 2011, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to incorporate the CSA requirements into federally-approved North Carolina SIP. See 76 FR 36468. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closed on July 22, 2011. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, during the public comment period.

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the system-wide emission caps from the North Carolina State legislation entitled, “An Act to Improve Air Quality in the State by Imposing Limits on the Emission of Certain Pollutants from Certain Facilities that Burn Coal to Generate Electricity and to Provide for Recovery by Electric Utilities of the Costs of Achieving Compliance with Those Limits.” EPA has evaluated the State's submittal and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations. In reducing system-wide NO x and SO 2 emissions allowed by coal-fired power plants in the State, the CSA is strengthening North Carolina's SIP and will not interfere with CAA requirements. The approval of the CSA ensures that the State may take credit for the associated NO x and SO 2 emission reductions when pertinent to SIP submittals for other CAA requirements.

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 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 costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. 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 the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 November 25, 2011. 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 to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and those redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas), with plans developed under section 175A of the CAA for the following transportation related criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). Conformity, for purposes of the SIP, means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93 (“Federal conformity rule”) and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.

On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised certain provisions of section 176(c) of the CAA, related to transportation conformity. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, states were required to address all of the Federal conformity rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU, state's SIPs were required to contain all or portions of only the following three sections of the Federal conformity rule, modified as appropriate to each state's circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to implement certain kinds of control measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (written commitments to implement certain kinds of mitigation measures). States are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the Federal conformity rule.

On September 17, 2010, the Maryland Department of the Environment submitted a revision to its SIP, Revision #10-07 to EPA for transportation conformity amendments adopted on June 30, 2008. The SIP revision included regulations .01 through .09 under COMAR 26.11.26 (Conformity).

We reviewed the submittals to assure consistency with the February 14, 2006, “Interim Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity provisions in SAFETEA-LU.” The guidance document can be found at http://epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm . The guidance document states that each state is only required to address and tailor the afore-mentioned three sections of the Federal Conformity Rule to be included in their state conformity SIPs. EPA's review of Maryland's SIP revision indicates that it is consistent with EPA's guidance in that it includes the three aforementioned regulatory elements specified by SAFETEA-LU. Consistent with the EPA Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures), COMAR 26.11.26.02, COMAR 26.11.26.04, and COMAR 26.11.26.05 identify the appropriate agencies, procedures, and allocation of responsibilities. In addition, COMAR 26.11.26.07 provides for appropriate public consultation/public involvement consistent with 40 CFR 93.105. With respect to the requirements of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c), the SIP specifies that written commitments to implement control measures and mitigation measures for meeting these requirements will be provided as needed.

EPA is approving the Maryland SIP revisions for transportation conformity, which were submitted on September 17, 2010. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA 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 November 25, 2011 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 26, 2011. 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. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 (Public Law 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 costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. 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 the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 November 25, 2011. 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 approve the Maryland transportation conformity regulation may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See, section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

On January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2079), we finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 as adopted locally on June 18, 2009 and submitted by the State on June 26, 2009. We based our limited disapproval action on certain deficiencies in the submittal. Our disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of sanctions pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Under 40 CFR 52.31(d)(1), offset sanctions apply eighteen months after the effective date of a disapproval and highway sanctions apply six months after the offset sanctions, unless we determine that the deficiencies forming the basis of the disapproval have been corrected.

On October 21, 2010, SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4570 that were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our limited disapproval action. On April 5, 2011, the State submitted these revisions to EPA. On September 14, 2011 (76 FR 56706) we proposed approval of the State's submittal because we believe it corrects the deficiencies identified in our January 14, 2010 limited disapproval action. Based on our September 14, 2011 proposed approval, we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay the imposition of offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of highway sanctions that were triggered by our January 14, 2010 limited disapproval.

EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this stay/deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment described in this final determination and the proposed full approval of revised SJVUAPCD Rule 4570, we intend to take subsequent final action to reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d). If no comments are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions and sanction clocks will be permanently terminated on the effective date of a final rule approval.

We are making an interim final determination to stay the imposition of offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of highway sanctions associated with SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 based on our September 14, 2011 proposed approval of the State's SIP revision as correcting deficiencies that initiated sanctions.

Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapproval action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination after the effective date, and EPA will consider any comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.

EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that the State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most likely done all it can to correct the deficiencies that triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the State's submittal. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to stay and defer sanctions while EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action, EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

This action stays and defers Federal sanctions and imposes no additional requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action.

The administrator certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

This rule does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply to this rule because it imposes no standards.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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 to Congress and the Comptroller General. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of September 26, 2011. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 November 25, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which 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 to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

I. Background

There were technical errors in the August 5, 2011 FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule (76 FR 47836). These technical errors are identified and corrected in the “Summary of Errors” and “Correction of Errors” sections below. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they were included in the final rule published on August 5, 2011. Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2011.

In the August 5, 2011 final rule (76 FR 47836), we applied our established formula for calculating the relative weight values for case-mix groups (CMG). The CMG relative weight values for CMGs 1201, 1202, 1203, 1301, 1302, and 1303 in Table 1 on pages 47842 through 47844 of the final rule did not reflect our policy that the relative weight values for higher-paying tiers must always be greater than or equal to the relative weight values for lower-paying tiers. That is, a tier 1 payment for a given CMG must always be at least as high as a tier 2 payment for that same CMG, the tier 2 payment must always be at least as high as the tier 3 payment, and the tier 3 payment must always be at least as high as the “no-comorbidity” tier payment. We have used this policy in calculating the CMG relative weights since the inception of the IRF PPS. However, we inadvertently did not apply this policy correctly for CMGs 1201, 1202, 1203, 1301, 1302, and 1303 in Table 1 on pages 47842 through 47844 of the FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule.

Further, as discussed in “Step 4” in the CMG relative weights discussion, column 1, on page 47841 of the FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule, we normalized the FY 2012 CMG relative weights to the same average CMG relative weight values from the FY 2011 IRF PPS notice (75 FR 42836). As this process utilized the incorrect values that had been listed for the relative weight values for CMGs 1201, 1202, 1203, 1301, 1302, and 1303, upon correction we also needed to reapply the normalization process to the other CMGs using the corrected relative weight values. This process corrects the relative weight values for all CMGs so that we are appropriately applying the policy of normalizing the FY 2012 CMG relative weights to the same average CMG relative weight values from the FY 2011 IRF PPS notice.

Since the FY 2012 payment rates listed in Table 11 on pages 47865 through 47866 of the final rule are based on the CMG relative weights in Table 1 (the payment rates are equal to the CMG relative weights multiplied by the FY 2012 Standard Payment Conversion Factor), we are also providing corrections to Table 11 in the final rule to reflect the corrections to the CMG relative weights in Table 1. In addition, we are correcting the example of computing the IRF FY 2012 Federal prospective payment in Table 12 on page 47867 of the final rule to reflect the correction to the unadjusted Federal prospective payment rate for CMG 0110 (without comorbidities) from Table 11.

Finally, we utilized the CMG payment rates reflected in Table 11 of the IRF PPS final rule to determine the FY 2012 outlier threshold. As described in the final rule, the outlier threshold is to be set so that the estimated total outlier payments in FY 2012 will equal 3 percent of total estimated payments. Since corrections to the FY 2012 payment rates result in slight differences in the amount of outlier payments we estimate for FY 2012, the use of the corrected data results in an outlier threshold for FY 2012 IRF PPS of $10,713. Therefore, we are correcting the outlier threshold amount for FY 2012 from $10,660 to $10,713 to ensure that estimated outlier payments for FY 2012 continue to equal 3 percent of total estimated payments.

We note that the corrections to the CMG relative weight values in Table 1 of the FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule do not affect the average length of stay values, which we have republished here for simplicity. The average length of stay values are the same values that were published correctly in Table 1 of the August 5, 2011 final rule (76 FR 47836).

As a result of the corrections to Table 1 and Table 11 of the final rule, as well as the correction to the FY 2012 outlier threshold amount, some of the numbers in Table 14 on page 47887 of the final rule (the IRF Impact Table for FY 2012), also need to be corrected. We are correcting these numbers both in Table 14 and in the preamble text that references Table 14.

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), we ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect. We also ordinarily provide a 30-day delay in the effective date of the provisions of a rule in accordance with section 553(d) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). However, we can waive both notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delay in effective date if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons into the notice.

The corrections that are laid out in this document were necessitated by an inadvertent error to accurately apply our stated policies as we calculated and laid out the CMG relative weight values in Table 1 of the FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule. As a result of those calculation errors, corrections were needed in Tables 1, 11, 12 and 14. Corrections were also needed as a result of these calculation errors in the places indicated above in the preamble discussion.

Upon recognition of these calculation errors, we reviewed the comments that were submitted in response to our FY 2012 IRF PPS proposed rule. We found that the necessary corrections would not have altered the substantive content of those comments.

As the corrections necessitated by the calculation errors outlined above do not change the stated policies in the FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule, as the policies and payment methodology expressed in the FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule (76 FR 47836) have previously been subjected to notice and comment procedures, and as the public's comments would not have been affected if we had published the correctly calculated data elements, we find it unnecessary to undertake further notice and comment procedures with respect to this correction document. Further, the corrections made in this document will not significantly affect anticipated overall reimbursements to IRF providers and, as such, will only result in negligible changes to anticipated revenues and will not necessitate any actions on the part of individual providers. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delay in the effective date for this correction document.

In the August 5, 2011 FY 2012 IRF PPS final rule (76 FR 47836), make the following corrections:

1. On pages 47842 through 47844, Table 1, “Relative Weights and Average Length of Stay Values for Case-Mix Groups,” is corrected as follows:

2. On pages 47865 through 47866, Table 11, “FY 2012 Payment Rates,” is corrected as follows:

3. On page 47867:

a. In table 12, “Example of Computing the IRF FY 2012 Federal Prospective Payment,” correct the entire table to read as follows:

b. In the 1st column, the 4th paragraph, in line 2, the amount “$31,771.45” is corrected to read “$31,753.31.”

c. In the 1st column, the 2nd paragraph, in line 4, the amount “$30,765.80” is corrected to read “$30,748.23.”

4. On page 47868, in the 3rd column, in the 1st full paragraph, in line 6, the amount “$10,660” is corrected to read “$10,713.”

5. On page 47887, Table 14, “IRF Impact Table for FY 2012,” is corrected as follows:

In FR Doc. 2011-19719 of August 18, 2011 (76 FR 51476), the final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and FY 2012 Rates; Hospitals' FTE Resident Caps for Graduate Medical Education Payment; Corrections” (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2012 IPPS/FY 2012 LTCH PPS final rule) there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section. We have already made changes to our rates through PRICER and joint signature memoranda. Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2011.

On page 51745, in our discussion of quality reporting for long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) for FY 2014 payment determinations, Measure #1, we inadvertently miscounted and omitted a footnote.

On pages 51746 and 51747, in our discussion of the technical expert panel (TEP) we made typographical errors and made a technical error in a footnote.

On page 51747, in our discussion of the TEP, the acronym for Center Line Catheter-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) was inadvertently misspelled.

On page 51748, in our discussion of quality reporting for LTCHs for FY 2014 payment determinations, Measure #2, we inadvertently included an incorrect Web site link for detailed information on the Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR).

On page 51752, in our discussion of quality reporting for LTCHs data submission, we made an error in referencing the number of States in which healthcare associated infections (HAIs) reporting is already or soon will be mandated.

On page 51754, in our discussion of the method of data collection and submission for the pressure ulcer measure, we made typographical and technical errors.

On page 51755, in our discussion of Continuity Assessment Record & Evaluation (CARE), we made a grammatical error.

On page 51780, in our discussion of the information collection requirements (ICRs) for the quality reporting program for LTCHs, we made an error in the number of States that already submitted HAI data to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).

On page 51813, in our discussion of the Web site location for the LTCH PPS tables for the FY 2012 IPPS/FY 2012 LTCH PPS final rule, we made a typographical error in the regulation number.

On pages 51812 and 51813, we list tables 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4J, 9A, 9C, 12A, and 12B as tables that are available only through the Internet.

In Table 2.—Acute Care Hospitals Case-Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 2010; Hospital Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 2012; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Years 2010 (2006 Wage Data), 2011 (2007 Wage Data), and 2012 (2008 Wage Data); and 3-Year Average of Hospital Average Hourly Wages, we are correcting technical errors in hospitals' wage data or geographic classifications that were used in calculating the wage index that was published in the FY 2012 IPPS/FY 2012 LTCH PPS final rule. We are correcting Table 2 by including corrections to the wage data for providers 010001 and 340039; the providers' corrected wage data were inadvertently omitted from the final FY 2012 wage index database. In addition, we are correcting errors in geographic classification for 3 providers (providers 150112, 180017, and 190246). As a result of the wage data and geographic classification corrections made for the 5 providers noted, we are also correcting the wage index for other providers that are located in or reclassified to the same geographic area.

In Table 3A.—FY 2012 and 3-Year Average Hourly Wage for Acute Care Hospitals in Urban Areas by CBSA and Table 3B—FY 2012 and 3-Year Average Hourly Wage for Acute Care Hospitals in Rural Areas by CBSA, we are correcting certain area average hourly wages based on corrections to errors in hospital wage data. As discussed previously, in Table 2 we are correcting the wage data for 2 providers. The corrections for one of these 2 providers (010001) require a correction in the associated area average hourly wage. The correction of the geographic classification of provider 190246 also requires corrections to the associated area average hourly wages. Therefore, we are correcting the area average hourly wage for CBSA 20020 (Dothan, AL) and CBSA 33740 (Monroe, LA) in Table 3A and also correcting the area average hourly wage for CBSA 19 (rural Louisiana) in Table 3B. The correction to the wage data for provider 340039 does not result in a change in the associated area wage index.

In Table 4A.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals in Urban Areas; Table 4B.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals in Rural Areas; and Table 4C.—Wage Index and Capital Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Acute Care Hospitals that are Reclassified, we are correcting technical errors in hospitals' wage data and geographic classifications that were used in calculating the wage index that was published in the FY 2012 IPPS/FY 2012 LTCH PPS final rule. In addition to correcting the wage data for provider 010001, provider 150112 should have been withdrawn from its reclassification to CBSA 26900 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN (that is, removing the provider from Table 9A); provider 180017 had reinstated a prior reclassification to CBSA 14540 Bowling Green, KY (that is, adding the provider to Table 9A) and provider 190246 was incorrectly listed in CBSA 19 (rural Louisiana), but should have been listed in CBSA 33740 Monroe, LA. CBSA 14 (rural Illinois) is removed from Table 4C because the only provider in Illinois that was reclassified to CBSA 14 cancelled its rural status under § 412.103 (as noted in Table 9C).

In Table 4J.—Out-Migration Adjustment for Acute Care Hospitals—FY 2012, we are adding provider 140167 to Table 4J to receive the outmigration adjustment because it cancelled its Lugar redesignation in order to receive the outmigration adjustment. Two additional counties are now listed in Table 4J. Coffee County, AL has two providers now receiving an outmigration adjustment (010027 and 010049). Dale County, AL has one provider now receiving an outmigration adjustment (010021). The outmigration adjustment for Caldwell County, LA has changed and affects one provider (190184).

In Table 9A.—Hospital Reclassifications and Redesignations—FY 2012, we are correcting technical errors in hospitals' geographic reclassifications that were used in calculating the wage index that was published in the FY 2012 IPPS/FY 2012 LTCH PPS final rule. Provider 150112 was erroneously listed in Table 9A of the Addendum to the final rule as being reclassified; and therefore, we are correcting the table by removing this provider from Table 9A. Conversely, provider 180017 is reclassified but was inadvertently omitted from Table 9A; and therefore, we are correcting this error by adding the provider to Table 9A.

In Table 9C.—Hospitals Redesignated as Rural Under Section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Act—FY 2012, we erroneously listed provider 140167 in Table 9C. Therefore, we are correcting this error by removing provider 140167 from Table 9C.

In Table 12A.—LTCH PPS Wage Index for Urban Areas for Discharges Occurring From October 1, 2011 Through September 30, 2012 and Table 12B.— LTCH PPS Wage Index for Rural Areas for Discharges Occurring From October 1, 2011 Through September 30, 2012, we are correcting errors in the LTCH wage indices for 3 CSBAs (20020, 33740, and 19) as a result of the corrections we are making to the IPPS wage data that affects Tables 4A, 4B, and 4C described in this section of the document.

The corrections to the tables 2 through 9C discussed in this section of the correction document will be posted on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/01_overview.asp. Click on the link on the left side of the screen on titled, “FY 2012 IPPS Final Rule Home Page” or “Acute Inpatient—Files for Download.”

The corrections to the tables 12A and 12B discussed in this section of the correction document will be posted on the CMS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/LongTermCareHospitalPPS/LTCHPPSRN/list.asp under the list item for regulation number CMS-1518-F.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

In our view, this document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This document merely corrects typographical and technical errors in the preamble and addendum of the FY 2012 IPPS/FY 2012 LTCH PPS final rule and does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this document is intended to ensure that the FY 2012 IPPS/FY 2012 LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that rule.

In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would delay these corrections beyond the October 1 start of the fiscal year, and would be contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering the policies that were already subject to comment and finalized in our final rule.

Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2011-19719 of August 18, 2011 (76 FR 51476), make the following corrections:

1. On page 51745, third column—

a. Fourth full paragraph, lines 13 and 14, the footnote reference number “ 2 ” is corrected to read “ 59a ”.

b. Footnote text at bottom of the column, after line 4, the footnotes are corrected by adding a footnote to read as follows:

2. On page 51746,

a. First column, first full paragraph, lines 19 through 21, the phrase “The TEP convened by the our” is corrected to read “The TEP convened by our”.

b. Third column, footnote text at bottom of column is corrected to read as follows:

3. On page 51747, third column, second full paragraph, line 3, the acronym “CLASBIs” is corrected to read as “CLABSI”.

4. On page 51748, second column, last paragraph, lines 20 through 21, the Web site link “ http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/7pscCAUTIcurrent.pdf ” is corrected to read “ http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/4psc_clabscurrent.pdf ”.

5. On page 51752, third column, last paragraph, last line, the figure “11” is corrected to read “over 20”.

6. On page 51754, third column—

a. First partial paragraph, line 4, the phrase “nursing home” is corrected to read as “skilled nursing facility”.

b. Second full paragraph, line 3 and 4, the phrase “using a CARE subset of standardized data elements to collect” is corrected to read as “using a subset of standardized CARE data elements to collect”.

7. On page 51755, second column, first full paragraph, lines 9 and 10, the phrase “during the PAC-PRD” is corrected to read “during the Post Acute Care Payment Reform Demonstration (PAC-PRD).

8. On page 51780, second column, fifth paragraph, line 9, the figure “80” is corrected to read “over 200”.

9. On page 51813, third column, sixth paragraph, line 6, the reference “CMS-1518-P” is corrected to read “CMS-1518-F”.

I. Background

In FR Doc. 2011-19544 of August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48486), there were three technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this document. The corrections in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the August 8, 2011 Federal Register document. Accordingly, the corrections are effective October 1, 2011.

The Addendum to the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Prospective Payment System (PPS) final rule (76 FR 48486, 48540) inadvertently included several technical errors in wage index values in Table A (“FY 2012 Wage Index for Urban Areas Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas”) and Table B (“FY 2012 Wage Index Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas for Rural Areas”). Tables A and B provide the urban and rural wage index values, respectively, that are used to calculate the labor-related portion of the FY 2012 payment rate for SNFs. We inadvertently omitted corrected wage and geographic classification data for two providers from the final FY 2012 wage index database that should have been included in the wage index calculation of the FY 2012 payment rates for SNFs. This resulted in incorrect wage index values being displayed in Table A for two CBSAs. Therefore, we are correcting the wage index values for those two CBSAs in Table A of the Addendum, in order to reflect the hospital wage index's most current wage data. The first correction in Table A of the Addendum (76 FR 48546) involves the wage index for CBSA 20020 (Dothan, AL-Geneva County, AL-Henry County, AL-Houston County, AL), and reflects the receipt of revised wage data from an Alabama provider. The second correction in Table A of the Addendum (76 FR 48552) involves the wage index for CBSA 33740 (Monroe, LA-Ouachita Parish, LA-Union Parish, LA), and reflects a change in geographic classification for a Louisiana provider.

Finally, in Table B of the Addendum (76 FR 48561), we are correcting the wage index value for State Code 19 (Louisiana), in order to reflect the previously-cited change in geographic classification for a Louisiana provider. As these revisions involve only a limited number of individual entries in Tables A and B, we are not republishing these tables in their entirety in this document; however, we note that the corrected versions of both tables are available on the SNF PPS Web site, which can be accessed online at http://www.cms.gov/SNFPPS/ .

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if we find, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporate a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the document.

We also ordinarily provide a 30-day delay in the effective date of the provisions of a notice in accordance with section 553(d) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). However, we can waive this delay if we find good cause and publish in the notice an explanation of our good cause.

We find for good cause that it is unnecessary to undertake notice and comment rulemaking because this document merely provides technical corrections to the FY 2012 SNF PPS final rule. We are not making substantive changes to our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, are simply implementing correctly the payment methodologies and policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correction document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2012 SNF PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe that undertaking further notice and comment rulemaking activity in connection with it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

Further, we believe a delayed effective date is unnecessary because this correction document merely corrects inadvertent technical errors. The changes noted above do not make any substantive changes to the SNF PPS payment methodologies or policies. Moreover, we regard imposing a delay in the effective date as being contrary to the public interest. We believe that it is in the public interest for providers to receive appropriate SNF PPS payments in as timely a manner as possible and to ensure that the FY 2012 SNF PPS final rule accurately reflects our payment methodologies, payment rates, and policies. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures, as well as the 30-day delay in effective date.

In FR Doc. 2011-19544 of August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48486), make the following corrections:

1. On page 48546, in Table A (“FY 2012 Wage Index for Urban Areas Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas”), in the first set of columns, in the eighth row (CBSA 20020), third column, the wage index “0.7130” is corrected to read “0.7390”.

2. On page 48552, in Table A, in the second set of columns, in the fifth row (CBSA 33740), third column, the wage index “0.7915” is corrected to read “0.7964”.

3. On page 48561, in Table B (“FY 2012 Wage Index Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas for Rural Areas”), in the second set of columns, in the 19th row (State Code 19 (Louisiana)), third column, the wage index “0.7769” is corrected to read “0.7749”.

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal Register .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection.

The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

This document announces that, on September 16, 2011, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C)( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ), and ( 7 ); 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(M); 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)( 1 )( v ); and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)( 2 ). The Commission publishes this document to announce the effective date of these rule sections. See, In the Matter of Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51; FCC 11-54, published at 76 FR 24393, May 2, 2011, and corrected on May 27, 2011, published at 76 FR 30841. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1145, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to PRA@fcc.gov.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995 and 44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on September 16, 2011, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(C)( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ), and ( 7 ); 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(M); 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)( 1 )( v ); and 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)( 2 ).

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number.

The OMB Control Number is 3060-1145 and the total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1145.

OMB Approval Date: September 16, 2011.

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2014.

Title: Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program; CG Docket No. 10-51.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 20 respondents; 1,423 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .017 (1 minute) to 25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual, monthly, on occasion, one-time, and semi-annually reporting requirements; recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefit. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements is found at Section 225 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69.

Total Annual Burden: 4,632 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $35,600.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On April 6, 2011, in document FCC 11-54, the Commission released a Report and Order, adopting final rules designed to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse that has plagued the VRS program and had threatened its ability to continue serving Americans who use it and its long-term viability. The Report and Order contains information collection requirements with respect to the following eight requirements, all of which aims to ensure the sustainability and integrity of the TRS program and the TRS Fund. Though the Report and Order emphasizes VRS, many of the requirements also apply to other or all forms of TRS—which includes the adoption of the interim rule, several new information collection requirements; and all the proposed information collection requirements, except the “ Transparency and the Disclosure of Provider Financial and Call Data” requirement, as previously proposed and published at 75 FR 51735, August 23, 2010.

(a) Provider Certification Under Penalty of Perjury. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), or other senior executive of a TRS provider shall certify, under penalty of perjury, that: (1) Minutes submitted to the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) administrator for compensation were handled in compliance with section 225 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders, and are not the result of impermissible financial incentives, or payments or kickbacks, to generate calls, and (2) cost and demand data submitted to the Fund administrator related to the determination of compensation rates or methodologies are true and correct.

(b) Requiring Providers to Submit Information about New and Existing Call Centers. VRS providers shall submit a written statement to the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator containing the locations of all of their call centers that handle VRS calls, including call centers located outside the United States, twice a year, on April 1st and October 1st. In addition to the street address of each call center, the rules require that these statements contain (1) The number of individual CAs and CA managers employed at each call center; and (2) the name and contact information (phone number and e-mail address) for the managers at each call center. (2) VRS providers shall notify the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator in writing at least 30 days prior to any change to their call centers' locations, including the opening, closing, or relocation of any center.

(c) Data Filed with the Fund Administrator to Support Payment Claims. VRS providers shall provide the following data associated with each VRS call for which a VRS provider seeks compensation in its filing with the Fund Administrator: (1) The call record ID sequence; (2) CA ID number; (3) session start and end times; (4) conversation start and end times; (5) incoming telephone number and IP address (if call originates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (6) outbound telephone number and IP address (if call terminates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (7) total conversation minutes; (8) total session minutes; (9) the call center (by assigned center ID number) that handles the call; and (10) the URL address through which the call was initiated.

(2) All VRS and IP Relay providers shall submit speed of answer compliance data to the Fund administrator

(d) Automated Call Data Collection. TRS providers shall use an automated record keeping system to capture the following data when seeking compensation from the Fund: (1) The call record ID sequence; (2) CA ID number; (3) session start and end times, at a minimum to the nearest second; (4) conversation start and end times, at a minimum to the nearest second; (5) incoming telephone number (if call originates with a telephone) and IP address (if call originates with an IP-based device) at the time of the call; (6) outbound telephone number and IP address (if call terminates to an IP-based device) at the time of call; (7) total conversation minutes; (8) total session minutes; and (9) the call center (by assigned center ID number) that handles the call.

(e) Record Retention. Internet-based TRS providers shall retain the following data that is used to support payment claims submitted to the Fund administrator for a minimum of five years, in an electronic format: (1) The call record ID sequence; (2) CA ID number; (3) session start and end times; (4) conversation start and end times; (5) incoming telephone number and IP address (if call originates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (6) outbound telephone number and IP address (if call terminates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (7) total conversation minutes; (8) total session minutes; and (9) the call center (by assigned center ID number) that handles the call.

(f) Third-party Agreements. (1) VRS providers shall maintain copies of all third-party contracts or agreements so that copies of these agreements will be available to the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator upon request. Such contracts or agreements shall provide detailed information about the nature of the services to be provided by the subcontractor.

(2) VRS providers shall describe all agreements in connection with marketing and outreach activities, including those involving sponsorships, financial endorsements, awards, and gifts made by the provider to any individual or entity, in the providers' annual submissions to the TRS Fund administrator.

(g) Whistleblower Protection. TRS providers shall provide information about these TRS whistleblower protections, including the right to notify the Commission's Office of Inspector General or its Enforcement Bureau, to all employees and contractors, in writing. Providers that already disseminate their internal business policies to their employees in writing ( e.g. in employee handbooks, policies and procedures manuals, or bulletin board postings—either online or in hard copy) must also explicitly include these TRS whistleblower protections in those written materials.

(h) Required Submission for Waiver Request. Potential VRS providers wishing to receive a temporary waiver of the provider's eligibility rules, shall provide, in writing, a description of the specific requirement(s) for which it is seeking a waiver, along with documentation demonstrating the applicant's plan and ability to come into compliance with all of these requirements (other than the certification requirement) within a specified period of time, which shall not exceed three months from the date on which the rules become effective. Evidence of the applicant's plan and ability to come into compliance with the new rules shall include the applicant's detailed plan for modifying its business structure and operations in order to meet the new requirements, along with submission of the following relevant documentation to support the waiver request:

• A copy of each deed or lease for each call center operated by the applicant;

• A list of individuals or entities that hold at least a 10 percent ownership share in the applicant's business and a description of the applicant's organizational structure, including the names of its executives, officers, partners, and board of directors;

• A list of all of the names of applicant's full-time and part-time employees;

• Proofs of purchase or license agreements for use of all equipment and/or technologies, including hardware and software, used by the applicant for its call center functions, including but not limited to, automatic call distribution (ACD) routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS fund, and registration;

• Copies of employment agreements for all of the provider's executives and CAs;

• A list of all financing arrangements pertaining to the provision of Internet-based relay service, including documentation on loans for equipment, inventory, property, promissory notes, and liens;

• Copies of all other agreements associated with the provision of Internet-based relay service;

and;

• A list of all sponsorship arrangements ( e.g., those providing financial support or in-kind interpreting or personnel service for social activities in exchange for brand marketing), including any associated agreements.

Regulations Schedule for 2011

On April 8, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 19876) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2011-12 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were also identified in the April 8 proposed rule. Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under numbered headings and that subsequent documents would refer only to numbered items requiring attention.

On June 22, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 36508) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 22 supplement also provided information on the 2011-12 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and summer (July) Flyway Council meetings.

On June 22 and 23, 2011, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants where the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed recommendations for the 2011-12 regulations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the development and selection of the regulatory packages for the 2011-12 regular waterfowl seasons.

On July 26, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 44730) a third document specifically dealing with the proposed frameworks for early-season regulations. On August 30, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 54052) a final rule which contained final frameworks for early migratory bird hunting seasons from which wildlife conservation agency officials from the States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands selected early-season hunting dates, hours, areas, and limits. Subsequently, on September 1, 2011, we published a final rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 54658) amending subpart K of title 50 CFR part 20 to set hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for early seasons.

On July 27-28, 2011, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl and developed recommendations for the 2011-12 regulations for these species. Proposed hunting regulations were discussed for late seasons. We published proposed frameworks for the 2011-12 late-season migratory bird hunting regulations in an August 26, 2011 Federal Register (76 FR 53536). We published final late-season frameworks for migratory game bird hunting regulations, from which State wildlife conservation agency officials selected late-season hunting dates, hours, areas, and limits for 2011-12, in a September 21, 2011, Federal Register .

The final rule described here is the final in the series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations for 2011-12 and deals specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for species subject to late-season regulations and those for early seasons that States previously deferred.

NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled “Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands” is available from the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES .

In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as detailed in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). We released the draft SEIS on July 9, 2010 (75 FR 39577). The draft SEIS is available either by writing to the address indicated under ADDRESSES or by viewing our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, “The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (and) shall “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat. * * *.” Consequently, we conducted formal consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Additionally, these findings may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed, and the final frameworks reflect any such modifications. Our biological opinions resulting from this section 7 consultation are public documents available for public inspection at the address indicated under ADDRESSES .

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. OMB bases its determination of regulatory significance upon the following four criteria:

(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.

(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.

(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

An economic analysis was prepared for the 2008-09 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2007-08 season, (2) Issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2007-08 season.

For the 2008-09 season, we chose alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $205-$270 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10 and the 2010-11 seasons. In the April 8 proposed rule, we proposed no changes to the season frameworks for the 2011-12 season, and as such, we again considered these three alternatives. Population status information discussed in the August 26 proposed rule supported selection of alternative 3 for the 2011-12 season. For these reasons, we have not conducted a new economic analysis, but the 2008-09 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0014.

The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, and 2008. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2008 Analysis was based on the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.2 billion at small businesses in 2008.

Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird Management (see ADDRESSES ) or from our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0014.

This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule would establish hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, subpart K, are utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations.

Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements of our Migratory Bird Surveys and assigned control number 1018-0023 (expires 4/30/2014). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information collection requirements of the Alaska Subsistence Household Survey, an associated voluntary annual household survey used to determine levels of subsistence take in Alaska, and assigned control number 1018-0124 (expires 4/30/2013). A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, these rules would allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in the April 8 Federal Register , we solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2011-12 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals were contained in a separate August 8, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 48694). By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact assessment.

The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. We find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), these regulations will take effect less than 30 days after publication. Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: