Subtitle A of Title V of the GLB Act, 1 captioned “Disclosure of Nonpublic Personal Information,” limits the instances in which a financial institution may disclose nonpublic personal information about a consumer to nonaffiliated third parties and requires financial institutions to provide certain privacy notices to their consumers and customers. 2 Prior to July 21, 2011, rulemaking authority for the privacy provisions of the GLB Act was shared by eight Federal agencies: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the National Credit Union Association (NCUA), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Each of the agencies issued rules (which were consistent and comparable) to implement the GLB Act's privacy provisions. 3

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) 4 amended a number of consumer financial protection laws, including the GLB Act. Among other changes, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for most of Subtitle A of Title V of the GLB Act, with respect to financial institutions described in section 504(a)(1)(A) of that Act, from the Board, FDIC, FTC, NCUA, OCC, and OTS (collectively, the transferor agencies) to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. Pursuant to the GLB Act, the FTC retains rulemaking authority over any financial institution that is a person described in 12 U.S.C. 5519. 5 The SEC and the CFTC, which are not transferor agencies, also retain rulemaking authority over certain institutions described in sections 504(a)(1)(A)-(B) of the GLB Act. 6   See sections 1061 and 1093 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and the GLB Act, as amended, the Bureau is publishing for public comment an interim final rule establishing a new Regulation P (Privacy of Consumer Financial Information), 12 CFR part 1016, implementing those privacy provisions of the GLB Act for which the Bureau has rulemaking authority.

The interim final rule combines the transferor agencies' existing rules, with the exception of the FTC's existing rule as it relates to entities described in section 504(a)(1)(C) of the GLB Act  7 as the Bureau's new Regulation P, 12 CFR part 1016. The Bureau's new Regulation P makes only certain non-substantive, technical, formatting, and stylistic changes. To minimize any potential confusion, the Bureau is substantially preserving the numbering of the Board's Regulation P, other than the new part number. While this interim final rule generally incorporates the transferor agencies' existing regulatory text and appendices (including model forms), the rule has been edited as necessary to reflect nomenclature and other technical amendments required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Notably, this interim final rule does not impose any new substantive obligations on regulated entities.

References to the transferor agencies and their administrative structure have been replaced with appropriate references to the Bureau. Conforming edits have been made to internal cross-references and to reflect the scope of the Bureau's authority pursuant to the GLB Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. Historical references that are no longer applicable, and references to effective dates that have passed, have been removed as appropriate. Appendix B, which listed sample clauses for privacy notices and provided a safe harbor for privacy notices issued with those sample clauses before January 1, 2011, has also been removed, as have any internal cross-references to it. Appendix B was scheduled to be eliminated from each of the transferor agencies' privacy regulations on January 1, 2012. 8 Financial institutions that delivered annual notices to consumers on or before December 31, 2010 were entitled to rely on the safe harbor for one additional year until their next annual notice was due. 9 The removal of Appendix B by this interim final rule as of December 30, 2011 does not nullify the validity of privacy notices issued before January 1, 2011 using Appendix B's sample clauses, including during the intervening two days of December 30 and 31, 2011.

Certain changes have been made to preserve substantive differences in the transferor agencies' rules. To the extent the transferor agencies' rules substantively differed from one another, the interim final rule contains separate provisions for the financial institutions previously subject to the respective transferor agencies' rulemaking authority. For example, special rules related to joint relationships and loans were applicable to credit unions under the NCUA's privacy regulation. To preserve those special rules applicable to credit unions, the interim final rule contains separate sections for “joint relationships in the case of credit unions” and “special rule for loans in the case of credit unions.” Similarly, the FTC's privacy regulation defined “financial institution” more narrowly than the other transferor agencies' privacy regulations. The interim final rule therefore contains a separate definition of “financial institution” for entities subject to the FTC's enforcement jurisdiction. The interim final rule also incorporates specific examples from the NCUA and FTC's privacy rules.

The Bureau is issuing this interim final rule pursuant to its authority under the GLB Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. Effective July 21, 2011, section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau the “consumer financial protection functions” previously vested in certain other Federal agencies. The term “consumer financial protection function” is defined to include “all authority to prescribe rules or issue orders or guidelines pursuant to any Federal consumer financial law, including performing appropriate functions to promulgate and review such rules, orders, and guidelines.” 10 Sections 502 through 509 of the GLB Act, except for section 505 as it applies to section 501(b) ( i.e., enforcement of the GLB Act's requirements concerning data privacy safeguards), are a Federal consumer financial law. 11

Accordingly, effective July 21, 2011, the transferor agencies' authority to issue regulations pursuant to those sections of the GLB Act transferred to the Bureau, with the exception of the FTC's authority to issue regulations for certain motor vehicle dealers, as described in section 504(a)(1)(C) of the GLB Act. 12

The GLB Act, as amended, authorizes the Bureau to “prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [Subtitle A of Title V of the GLB Act],” with respect to institutions subject to the Bureau's enforcement jurisdiction under section 505 of the GLB Act (and notwithstanding Subtitle B of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act). 13 As already noted, the GLB Act excludes from the Bureau's rulemaking authority certain motor vehicle dealers described in 12 U.S.C. 5519 and provides the FTC rulemaking authority for those entities. The SEC and CFTC, which are not transferor agencies, also retain rulemaking authority over certain institutions described in sections 504(a)(1)(A)-(B) of the GLB Act.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)  14 generally requires public notice and an opportunity to comment before promulgation of regulations. 15 The APA provides exceptions to notice-and-comment procedures, however, where an agency for good cause finds that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest or when a rulemaking relates to agency organization, procedure, and practice. 16 The Bureau finds that there is good cause to conclude that providing notice and opportunity for comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest under these circumstances. In addition, substantially all changes made by this interim final rule, which were necessitated by the Dodd-Frank Act's transfer of rulemaking authority for Subtitle A of Title V of the GLB Act from the transferor agencies to the Bureau, relate to agency organization, procedure, and practice and are thus exempt from the APA's notice-and-comment requirements.

The Bureau's good cause findings are based on the following considerations. As an initial matter, the transferor agencies' existing regulations were the result of notice-and-comment rulemaking to the extent required. Moreover, the interim final rule published today does not impose any new, substantive obligations on regulated entities. Rather, the interim final rule makes only non-substantive, technical changes to the existing text of those regulations, such as renumbering, changing internal cross-references, and replacing appropriate nomenclature to reflect the transfer of authority to the Bureau. Given the technical nature of these changes, and the fact that the interim final rule does not impose any additional substantive requirements on covered entities, an opportunity for prior public comment is unnecessary. In addition, recodifying the transferor agencies' regulations to reflect the transfer of authority to the Bureau will help facilitate compliance with Subtitle A of Title V of the GLB Act and its implementing regulations, and the new regulation will help reduce uncertainty regarding the applicable regulatory framework. Using notice-and-comment procedures would delay this process and thus be contrary to the public interest.

The APA generally requires that rules be published not less than 30 days before their effective dates. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). As with the notice and comment requirement, however, the APA allows an exception when “otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Bureau finds that there is good cause for providing less than 30 days notice here. A delayed effective date would harm consumers and regulated entities by needlessly perpetuating discrepancies between the amended statutory text and the implementing regulations, thereby hindering compliance and prolonging uncertainty regarding the applicable regulatory framework. 17

In addition, delaying the effective date of the interim final rule for 30 days would provide no practical benefit to regulated entities in this context and in fact could operate to their detriment. As discussed above, the interim final rule published today does not impose any new, substantive obligations on regulated entities. Instead, the rule makes only non-substantive, technical changes to the existing text of the regulation. Thus, regulated entities that are already in compliance with the existing rules will not need to modify business practices as a result of this rule.

In developing the interim final rule, the Bureau has conducted an analysis of potential benefits, costs, and impacts. 18 The Bureau believes that the interim final rule will benefit consumers and covered persons by updating and recodifying Regulation P to reflect the transfer of authority to the Bureau and certain other changes mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. This will help facilitate compliance with the GLB Act and its implementing regulations and help reduce any uncertainty regarding the applicable regulatory framework. The interim final rule will not impose any new substantive obligations on consumers or covered persons and is not expected to have any impact on consumers' access to consumer financial products and services.

Although not required by the interim final rule, financial institutions may incur some costs in updating compliance manuals and related materials to reflect the new numbering and other technical changes reflected in the new Regulation P. The Bureau has worked to reduce any such burden by preserving the existing numbering to the extent possible and believes that such costs will likely be minimal. These changes could be handled in the short term by providing a short, standalone summary alerting users to the changes and in the long term could be combined with other updates at the financial institution's convenience. The Bureau intends to continue investigating the possible costs to affected entities of updating manuals and related materials to reflect these changes and solicits comments on this and other issues discussed in this section.

The interim final rule will have no unique impact on depository institutions or credit unions with $10 billion or less in assets as described in section 1026(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Also, the interim final rule will have no unique impact on rural consumers.

In undertaking the process of recodifying Regulation P, as well as regulations implementing thirteen other existing consumer financial laws, 19 the Bureau consulted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including with respect to consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives that may be administered by such agencies. 20 The Bureau also has consulted with the Office of Management and Budget for technical assistance. The Bureau expects to have further consultations with the appropriate Federal agencies during the comment period.

Section 1205 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) amended the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) by adding a new section 10C that requires the Director of FHFA to establish housing goals with respect to the Banks' purchase of mortgages, if any. To implement section 10C, FHFA adopted a final rule establishing three single-family owner-occupied purchase money mortgage goals and one single-family refinancing mortgage goal applicable to the Banks' purchases of single-family owner-occupied mortgages, if any, under their Acquired Member Assets (AMA) programs. See 75 FR 81096 (Dec. 27, 2010).

The Bank housing goals regulation requires each Bank to collect and compile computerized loan-level data on each AMA-approved mortgage purchased. See 12 CFR 1281.21(a). Each Bank is required to submit to the Director, on a semi-annual basis, a Mortgage Report containing aggregations of the loan-level mortgage data for year-to-date AMA-approved mortgage purchases, as well as year-to-date dollar volume, number of units, and number of AMA-approved mortgages on owner-occupied properties purchased that do, and do not, qualify under each housing goal. See 12 CFR 1281.21(b). The first semi-annual Mortgage Report must be submitted within 45 days of the end of the second quarter, and the annual Mortgage Report must be submitted within 60 days of the end of the calendar year. See 12 CFR 1281.21(c). In addition, the Bank housing goals regulation currently provides that a Bank may revise its first semi-annual Mortgage Report for a year at any time before submission of its annual Mortgage Report. See 12 CFR 1281.21(d).

FHFA has established separate data reporting requirements for the Banks under the Data Reporting Manual (DRM). The data reporting requirements under the Bank housing goals regulation are similar to existing data reporting requirements under the DRM, but the requirements are not identical. Specifically, the DRM provides that data that is required to be reported on a semi-annual basis must be submitted within two calendar months of the end of the second quarter, or within two calendar months of the end of the year, as applicable. In addition, the DRM requires that any corrections to data submitted by a Bank must be made within 30 days of identifying the need for a correction. This requirement effectively limits a Bank's ability to submit a revised semi-annual Mortgage Report pursuant to 12 CFR 1281.21(d).

In order to make the mortgage reporting schedule for the Banks under the Bank housing goals consistent with the DRM reporting schedule, the final rule amends § 1281.21(c) to allow the Banks two calendar months, rather than 45 days, from the end of the second quarter to submit the semi-annual Mortgage Report, and two calendar months, rather than 60 days, from the end of the year to submit the annual Mortgage Report.

In order to make the data integrity provisions under the Bank housing goals consistent with the data integrity requirements under the DRM, the final rule removes paragraph (d) from § 1281.21. This change does not impose any new requirements on the Banks. The change simply makes clear that the data integrity reporting requirements established under the DRM continue to apply to all data submissions from the Banks.

Section 1313 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 4513(f), requires the Director of FHFA to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) whenever promulgating regulations that affect the Banks. The changes in this final rule are intended to conform the data reporting requirements under the Bank housing goals to the Bank data reporting requirements under the DRM. FHFA has considered these procedural changes in light of the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises and has determined that the final rule is appropriate.

The final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

FHFA has determined that this rulemaking is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because the changes are procedural in nature and will not significantly affect a Bank's substantive rights, FHFA has concluded that notice and comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). In addition, because the changes to part 1281 are minor technical changes that conform regulatory provisions to the data reporting requirements that FHFA has already imposed on the Banks, FHFA for good cause has concluded that notice and comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to regulations that are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1430c, FHFA amends part 1281 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008-14-07, Amendment 39-15602 (73 FR 39574, July 10, 2008). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2011 (76 FR 8661). That NPRM proposed to inspect, replace if necessary, and properly clamp externally mounted fuel injector fuel lines. That AD also states that it is not applicable to engines that have a Maintenance and Overhaul Manual with an Airworthiness Limitations Section that requires inspection and replacement, if necessary, of externally mounted fuel injector lines.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response to the comment.

One commenter asked why the AD requirements are only for Lycoming engines, and not also for Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) engines. The commenter inferred that we write ADs, just to make owners maintain their aircraft.

In response, any AD made applicable to TCM engines with externally mounted fuel injector lines, would have to be written by the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), because that office has oversight of TCM. The Atlanta ACO has informed us that at this time, there is insufficient data to justify an AD for TCM engines with externally mounted fuel injector lines, however, they realize there may be justification for issuing a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), for TCM engines on this subject. They are looking into possibly issuing an SAIB.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD affects 21,180 four-cylinder engines, 21,449 six-cylinder engines, and 256 eight-cylinder engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0.2 work-hour to inspect all lines on a four-cylinder engine, 0.5 work-hour to inspect all lines on a six-cylinder engine, and 0.7 work-hour to inspect all lines on an eight-cylinder engine. We also estimate that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We do not anticipate any additional costs on U.S. operators, as the inspection would be done in conjunction with other work performed concurrently. We anticipate no parts to be required. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators for one inspection of the fleet is $1,286,875.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On September 21, 2011, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that set forth revised reporting criteria for the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (76 FR 58420-58424). No comments on the proposed rule were received. Thus the proposed rule is adopted without change. This final rule amends 15 CFR 806.17 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States.

The BEA conducts the BE-12 survey under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.” Section 3103(b) of the Act provides that “with respect to foreign direct investment in the United States, the President shall conduct a benchmark survey covering year 1980, a benchmark survey covering year 1987, and benchmark surveys covering every fifth year thereafter.”

The benchmark survey covers the universe of foreign direct investment in the United States in terms of value, and is BEA's most detailed survey of such investment. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of ten percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.

The purpose of the benchmark survey is to obtain universe data on the financial and operating characteristics of U.S. affiliates, and on positions and transactions between U.S. affiliates and their foreign parent groups (which are defined to include all foreign parents and foreign affiliates of foreign parents). These data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of foreign direct investment in the United States, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. economy. Such data are generally found in enterprise-level accounting records of respondent companies. These data are used to derive current universe estimates of direct investment from sample data collected in other BEA surveys in nonbenchmark years. In particular, they serve as benchmarks for the quarterly direct investment estimates included in the U.S. international transactions and national income and product accounts, and for annual estimates of the foreign direct investment position in the United States and of the operations of the U.S. affiliates of foreign companies.

BEA will make the survey available via eFile, BEA's electronic filing system, in March 2012, for the convenience of respondents who may wish to file as soon as their 2012 fiscal year ends. BEA will send printed survey forms to potential respondents in March 2013; responses will be due by May 31.

The changes revise the regulations and the survey forms for the BE-12 benchmark survey. These amendments include changes in reporting thresholds and data items collected, as well as changes in the names and design of the survey forms. Several of these amendments are part of a larger program to align the data collection program for multinational companies with available resources.

Under the revised regulations, U.S. affiliates report their information, regardless of industry, on one of four forms—BE-12A, BE-12B, BE-12C, or BE-12 Claim for Not Filing. Data on U.S. affiliates that are banks, bank holding companies, or financial holding companies are collected on the same survey forms as data on other U.S. affiliates.

The amount of information required to be reported by each U.S. affiliate is determined by the size of the affiliate's assets, sales or gross operating revenue, and net income. The reporting requirements for the four forms are—

(a) Form BE-12(A)—Report for majority-owned U.S. affiliates with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income greater than $300 million, positive or negative.

(b) Form BE-12B—Report for majority-owned U.S. affiliates with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income greater then $60 million, positive or negative, but not greater than $300 million, positive or negative, and minority-owned U.S. affiliates with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income greater than $60 million, positive or negative.

(c) Form BE-12(C)—Report for U.S. affiliates with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income less than or equal to $60 million, positive or negative. The smallest U.S. affiliates—those with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income less than or equal to $20 million, positive or negative—file only a few items on Form BE-12(C).

(d) Form BE-12 Claim for Not Filing—Report to be filed by U.S. persons who are not subject to the reporting requirements for the BE-12 benchmark survey, but have been contacted by BEA concerning their reporting status.

In addition to the changes in the reporting criteria, BEA hereby adds and deletes some items on one of the benchmark survey forms. The following items are added to Form BE-12A (no additions are made to the other BE-12 forms):

(1) Questions are added regarding the use of fair value accounting on the balance sheet. Companies that indicate that they used fair value accounting are asked to provide the amount of: net property, plant, and equipment; of total assets; and of total liabilities recorded at fair value.

(2) Questions are added to collect information on assets, liabilities, and interest receipts and payments that are related to banking activities.

(3) Several check-box questions are added asking whether U.S. affiliates purchased contract manufacturing services from others or performed contract manufacturing services for others. They are also asked whether they owned the materials used in contract manufacturing and if the company that performed or purchased the service was located in the United States or abroad.

(4) A question is added asking if the U.S. affiliate has equity in its foreign parent(s) (reverse investment). An item is added to collect voting percentage, equity percentage, and the dollar amount of the investment.

(5) Several check-box questions are added to ensure that certain types of finance companies do not report intercompany debt to BEA that is already reported on Treasury International Capital surveys.

BEA also eliminates the following items from the benchmark survey: selected balance sheet items (BE-12A); the breakdown of sales of services to foreign persons into sales of services to the foreign parent group, to foreign affiliates owned by the affiliate, and to other foreign persons (BE-12A); the breakdown of employment and employee compensation by occupational classification (BE-12A, BE-12B); the breakdown of total employee compensation into wages and salaries and employee benefit plans (BE-12A); data on the composition of external finances (BE-12A); manufacturing employment by state (BE-12A, BE-12B); gross property, plant, and equipment by state (BE-12A, BE-12B); commercial property by state (BE-12A, BE-12B); the location of the primary U.S. headquarters of the U.S. affiliate (BE-12A, BE-12B, BE-12C); number of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements (BE-12A); acres of U.S. land owned (BE-12A, BE-12B, BE-12C); basis (shipped or charged) for trade data (check-box questions) (BE-12A); exports/imports shipped to/by foreign affiliates owned by U.S. affiliate by country of origin/destination (as in the benchmark surveys for 2002 and earlier years, these columns will be combined with the columns “shipped to/by all other foreign persons;” BE-12A); and withholding taxes on intercompany interest payments and interest receipts (BE-12A).

In addition, BEA renames and redesigns the survey forms. The new design incorporates improvements made to other BEA surveys. Survey instructions and data item descriptions are changed to improve clarity, make the benchmark survey forms more consistent with those of other BEA surveys, and provide updated information on accounting standards.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The collection of information in this final rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB approved the information collection under OMB control number 0608-0042.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The BE-12 survey is expected to result in the filing of reports from approximately 19,950 U.S. affiliates. The respondent burden for this collection of information will vary from one company to another, but is estimated to average 9.7 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus the total respondent burden for this survey is estimated at 194,150 hours, compared to 209,650 hours for the previous (2007) benchmark survey. The decrease in burden hours is due to a reduction in the number of data items on the form which reduces the average burden per form, and increased reporting thresholds which allow more respondents to file on shorter forms.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule should be sent to both BEA via email at David.Galler@bea.gov or by FAX at (202) 606-2894, and to OMB, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0042, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via email at pbugg@omb.eop.gov or by FAX at (202) 395-7245.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified at the proposed rule stage to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification or the economic impact of the rule more generally. No final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 806 as follows:

Over the last two years, the Commission has issued amendments to its Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR part 305) in two separate Federal Register Notices involving: (1) Light bulbs (75 FR 41696 (July 19, 2010)), and (2) television labels (76 FR 1038 (Jan. 6, 2011)). The effective dates of these two final rules differ. The television label amendments, published on January 6, 2011, became effective on May 10, 2011 while the earlier light bulbs amendments will not become effective until January 1, 2012. 1 As a result, two amendatory instructions in the earlier light bulb notice are not consistent with the Rule's current language as amended by the television Notice. In a separate notice, the Commission has issued a correction removing the obsolete instructions from the July 19, 2010 notice. Now, the Commission revises the Rule's language to ensure its accuracy. In doing so, the Commission is also correcting an inadvertent error in the definition of “incandescent lamp.”  2 Otherwise, the corrections in this Notice contain no substantive changes to the previously announced Rule amendments.

For the reasons stated above, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR part 305 as follows:

Over the last two years, the Commission has issued amendments to its Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR part 305) in two separate Federal Register Notices involving: (1) Light bulbs (75 FR 41696 (July 19, 2010)), and (2) television labels (76 FR 1038 (Jan. 6, 2011)). The effective dates of these two final rules differ. The television label amendments, published on January 6, 2011, became effective on May 10, 2011, while the earlier light bulb amendments will not become effective until January 1, 2012. 1 As a result, two amendatory instructions in the light bulb notice are not consistent with current Rule provisions. This notice removes those two instructions. The Commission is also issuing a separate technical correction notice to replace these instructions with revised rule language.

Technology Transfer, Inc., 33 East Broadway, suite 190, Columbia, MO 65203 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 141-217 for NEUTERSOL (zinc gluconate) Injectable Solution to Ark Sciences, Inc., 1101 East 33rd St., suite B304, Baltimore, MD 21218. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 522.2690 to reflect the transfer of ownership.

Following this change of sponsorship, Technology Transfer, Inc., is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, § 510.600 (21 CFR 510.600) is being amended to remove the entries for this firm.

In addition, Ark Sciences, Inc., is not currently listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, § 510.600 is being amended to add entries for this sponsor.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 522 are amended as follows:

Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a supplement to NADA 95-735 that provides for use of RUMENSIN 90 (monensin, USP) Type A medicated article in a free-choice Type C medicated feed for growing cattle on pasture or in dry lot (stocker and feeder cattle and dairy and beef replacement heifers). The supplement revises the percent monensin Type A medicated article in the codified free-choice feed specifications to reflect use of a product containing 90.7 grams of monensin per pound. The supplemental NADA is approved as of May 24, 2011, and the regulations in 21 CFR 558.355 are amended to reflect the approval.

Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows:

The SR127 Bridge, across the Annisquam River/Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at Gloucester, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 7 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.586.

The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to facilitate bridge rehabilitation repairs, replacement of deck purlins on the bascule spans.

Under this temporary deviation the SR127 Bridge may remain in the closed position from December 19, 2011 through January 18, 2012.

A work platform will be located under the bascule spans across the navigable channel reducing vertical clearance under the bridge by six feet. The work platform will in place during working hours, 6:30 a.m. through 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The platform shall be removed upon request by calling the bridge at (978) 283-0243 or by marine radio on VHF FM channel 13 and 16. On weekends and during non-working hours the platform shall be removed. Vessels that can pass under the draw in the closed position may do so on weekends and non-working hours.

The Gloucester Harbor Master and the local marinas were notified and no objections were received.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Mississippi Export Railroad Company has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the swing span bridge across Escatawpa River, mile 3.0, at Moss Point, Jackson County, Mississippi. The swing span bridge has a horizontal clearance of 69 feet and a vertical clearance of 6 feet above mean high water (based on the National Geodatic Vertical Datum of 1929) in the closed-to-navigation position.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, except as otherwise authorized or required by this part, drawbridges must open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request or signal to open is given in accordance with this subpart. This deviation allows the swing span of the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position beginning at 6 a.m. on Tuesday, January 3 through 11 p.m. Thursday, January 5, 2012 with no openings.

The closure is necessary to perform the work continuously in replacing the cracked center housing and other repair work. This maintenance is essential for the continued operation of the bridge. Notices will be published in the Eighth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and will be broadcast via the Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to Mariners System.

Navigation on the waterway consists of commercial tugs with tows, fishing vessels, and other recreational crafts. There is only one company that transits above the bridge. Based on experience and coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closures will not have a significant effect on vessels that use the waterway. The Coast Guard has coordinated the closure with waterway users, industry, and other Coast Guard units. There are no alternate routes. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Union Pacific Railroad requested a temporary deviation for the Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 518.0, at Clinton, Iowa to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given for 61 days from 12:01 a.m., January 2, 2012 to 9 a.m., March 2, 2012 to allow the bridge owner time for preventive maintenance. The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridge shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.

There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.

Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 16 (Mile 457.2 UMR), Lock No. 17 (Mile 437.1 UMR) and Lock No. 18 (Mile 410.5 UMR) until 4:30 p.m., March 2, 2012 will preclude any significant navigation demands for the drawspan opening.

The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 18.7 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. The drawbridge will open if at least 24-hours advance notice is given. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 9 p.m. to 9:20 p.m. on December 31, 2011 to allow community celebration of New Year's Eve. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. There are no scheduled river boat cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation period. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Sections 1725 and 1728 of title 38, United States Code, authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reimburse eligible veterans for costs related to non-VA emergency treatment furnished at non-VA facilities, or to pay providers directly for such costs. Specifically, section 1725 authorizes reimbursement for emergency treatment for eligible veterans with nonservice-connected conditions, and section 1728 authorizes reimbursement for emergency treatment for eligible veterans with service-connected conditions. These statutory provisions are implemented at 38 CFR 17.1000 through 17.1008 for eligible veterans with nonservice-connected conditions, and at 38 CFR 17.120 and 17.121 for eligible veterans with service-connected conditions.

As explained in a notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33216), prior to recent amendments to the law, VA was not authorized to reimburse or pay for treatment provided after “the veteran c[ould] be transferred safely to a [VA] facility or other Federal facility” under 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(1)(C) (2007). Thus, under 38 U.S.C. 1725 and pursuant to regulations implementing 38 U.S.C. 1728, VA was unable to provide payment to the veteran or medical provider for services rendered beyond the point the veteran was determined to be stable enough for transfer, even if no VA or other Federal facility could immediately accept the transfer and the veteran required continued, non-emergency treatment.

On October 10, 2008, the Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008, Public Law 110-387, was enacted, and it made several amendments to our authority to reimburse for the cost of non-VA emergency care.

Section 402 of Public Law 110-387 amended the definition of “emergency treatment” in section1725(f)(1), extending VA's payment authority until “such time as the veteran can be transferred safely to a [VA] facility or other Federal facility and such facility is capable of accepting such transfer,” or until such transfer was accepted, so long as the non-VA facility “made and documented reasonable attempts to transfer the veteran to a [VA] facility or other Federal facility.” This amendment extended our authority to pay for treatment post-stabilization.

Section 402(a)(1) amended section 1725(a)(1) by striking the term “may reimburse” and inserting “shall reimburse” in its place. This amendment requires VA to reimburse the covered costs for emergency care received at non-VA facilities for eligible veterans, rather than leaving the decision to make such reimbursement at the discretion of the Secretary.

Section 402(b) of Public Law 110-387 amended 38 U.S.C. 1728. First, section 402(b)(1) authorized VA to reimburse or pay for “customary and usual charges of emergency treatment” when a veteran makes payment directly to a non-VA provider of emergency care. The statute had previously authorized reimbursement for “the reasonable value of such care or services.” This amendment relates to the amount of payment and is the subject of another rulemaking, RIN 2900-AN37, “Payment for Inpatient and Outpatient Health Care Professional Services at Non-Departmental Facilities and Other Medical Charges Associated with Non-VA Outpatient Care”. 75 FR 7218 (Feb. 18, 2010).

Second, section 402(b)(3) made the definition of “emergency treatment” in section 1725(f)(1) applicable to section 1728. As described above, that definition of emergency treatment now includes care or services furnished until “such time as the veteran can be transferred safely to a [VA] facility or other Federal facility and such facility is capable of accepting such transfer,” or until such transfer was accepted, so long as the non-VA facility “made and documented reasonable attempts to transfer the veteran to a [VA] facility or other Federal facility.”

In the proposed rule published on June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33216), we proposed to amend the following VA regulations to comply with the amendments made to 38 U.S.C. 1725 and 1728, and make technical changes such as correcting grammatical errors and updating obsolete regulatory citations: 38 CFR 17.120, 17.121, 17.1002, 17.1005, 17.1006, and 17.1008.

We received four comments on the proposed rule. One commenter fully supported the rule because it will improve veterans' ability to obtain emergency care from non-VA facilities. The remainder of the comments are addressed below.

One commenter was concerned with our decision in §§ 17.121(a) and 17.1006 to assign a “designated VA clinician” with the task of determining whether treatment should be reimbursed, specifically asserting that VA should place this responsibility in more highly skilled and trained employees. We disagree with this comment, and make no changes to the rule, because this portion of the rule simply adopts customary practice as implemented in the health care industry. The common industry practice is to utilize the services of health care professionals, such as nurses, for purposes of clinical review. Further, we believe that this designation of responsibility will promote greater efficiency in the use of VA physician services. VA employs highly trained clinical staff that is capable of making a clinical determination as to whether emergency care meets the requirements set forth under this rule, and whether a veteran can be safely transferred from the non-VA facility.

We received three comments related to the transfer of veterans from non-VA hospitals. The commenters questioned whether VA was giving enough deference to the treating physician at the non-VA facility to determine when the veteran is stable enough to be transferred to a VA facility. A veteran may not be transferred from a non-VA facility to a VA facility before such veteran has first been released by the physician of the treating facility, and only after such physician determines the veteran has been stabilized. We note that this rule governs the payment for emergency services only, and VA's review of an episode of care for the purposes of determining eligibility for payment is retroactive, meaning the emergency care has already been provided. In reviewing the episode of care for payment purposes, VA will consider the treating physician's assessment of when the veteran returned to a stable condition and could have been transferred to a VA or other Federal facility. Although the procedure for transferring a VA-enrolled patient from a non-VA facility to a VA facility is not governed by this rule, we note that VA's practice is to work with the treating non-VA clinicians to determine when transfer would be safe. If the veteran's stability for transfer is questionable, the designated VA clinician will consult with the attending non-VA physician to determine whether transfer is in the best interest of the veteran. At no time during an episode of care will VA challenge the discretion of the treating non-VA physician with regard to whether an emergency situation has ended. We make no changes based on these comments.

One commenter read the refusal of transfer provisions at proposed § 17.121(c) and § 17.1005(d) to exclude payment for non-emergency care provided up until the point that transfer was available but refused by the veteran. Under the applicable law, VA is authorized to provide reimbursement for emergency care only “until * * * such time as the veteran can be transferred” to a VA or other Federal facility. 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(1)(C). See also 38 U.S.C. 1728(c) (adopting the meaning of “emergency treatment” provided in section 1725(f)(1)). VA intended that the proposed rule provide that the episode of care will be considered for payment up to the point in time where VA was able to accept transfer but the veteran refused or opted not to be transferred to the VA facility. Because the language in the proposed rule did not accurately express this statutory authorization and VA's intent, we have revised the language in both § 17.121(c) and § 17.1005(d). Specifically, in § 17.121(c), we have removed the language referring to the point of “stabilization” and replaced it with language referring to the point of “refusal of transfer by the veteran.” We make the same change in § 17.1005(d).

One commenter suggested that VA should provide payment for ancillary and pharmaceutical treatment in connection with the veteran's emergency care. To the extent the commenter wishes VA to reimburse veterans for the cost of such treatment provided during an episode of emergency care (prior to stabilization and a transfer determination), such treatment is in fact reimbursable as emergency care under this regulation—even if the emergency treatment includes the direct provision by the non-VA facility of a short course of medications needed to enable the discharge or transfer of the veteran. To the extent the commenter wishes VA to pay for medications provided after the episode of emergency care, this is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

In light of the potential for confusion as to what constitutes emergency treatment under the regulation, we have added to § 17.120(b) and § 17.1002 clarification that emergency treatment includes “medical services, professional services, ambulance services, ancillary care and medication (including a short course of medication related to and necessary for the treatment of the emergency condition that is provided directly to the patient for use after the emergency condition is stabilized and the patient is discharged))”. This reflects our original intent, but should reduce or eliminate some of the concerns raised by the commenter.

We propose to clarify the term “Federal facility” in additional subsections of the regulations implementing 38 U.S.C. 1725 and 38 U.S.C. 1728. The term “Federal facility” is used in the definition of “emergency treatment” in subparagraph (C) of section 1725(f)(1) in the context of veterans being stable enough after an emergency to be transferred to a VA or other Federal facility and the availability of such facilities. 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(1)(C). As identified in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33216), the term “Federal facility” as it is used in 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(1)(C) is clarified in this rulemaking in 38 CFR 17.121 and 17.1005 to mean “Federal facility that VA has an agreement with to furnish health care services for veterans”. Practically, VA considers that “emergency treatment” should be considered to continue until transfer is possible and accepted to a VA facility or Federal facility with which VA has an agreement, because determining availability of or eligibly for other Federal facilities will typically not be feasible.

The term “Federal facilities” is also used in the definition of “emergency treatment” in subparagraph (A) of 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(1), to specify that “emergency treatment” under sections 1728 and 1725 means, in pertinent part, “medical care or services furnished, in the judgment of the Secretary—(A) when Department or other Federal facilities are not feasibly available and an attempt to use them beforehand would not be reasonable”. See definition of “emergency treatment” at 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(1)(A) and 38 U.S.C. 1728(c) referencing such definition. Current regulations implementing sections 1728 and 1725 reiterate this requirement, explaining that payment or reimbursement may only be made if a VA or other Federal facility was not feasibly available, and an attempt to use them beforehand would not have been reasonable. See 38 CFR 17.1002(c) and 38 CFR 17.120(c). We propose to clarify the term “Federal facilities” as it is used in subparagraph (A) of section 1725(f)(1), just as we have done as it is used in subparagraph (C) of section 1725(f)(1), to mean only those Federal facilities “that VA has an agreement with to furnish health care services for veterans.” We make this change to allow for VA reimbursement of care provided in Federal facilities with which VA does not have an agreement and where the veteran would be personally liable for payment. Without this qualification, it may not be clear that VA can pay for or reimburse a veteran who obtains emergency care in a Federal facility with which VA does not have an agreement and which holds the veteran personally financially liable for the costs of the care.

Congress did not define “Federal facility” (or “Federal facilities”) in 38 U.S.C. 1728 or 1725, which provide VA's authority to make payment or provide reimbursement for emergency treatment from non-VA providers. As indicated, we propose to interpret “Federal facility” (and “Federal facilities”) to mean facilities that VA has an agreement with to furnish health care services for veterans. From a practical standpoint, this interpretation makes sense because VA would generally have no way of knowing whether other Federal resources are available at any one time without such agreement. Without knowing of the availability of such Federal facilities, it is the Secretary's judgment that those facilities cannot be considered reasonable or feasible in the context of a medical emergency. This interpretation is also consistent with the intent of the statute, which is to cover the costs of care for veterans when such care must be provided outside of the VA setting. If the veteran who has an accident on a military installation is personally financially liable for that care, the intent of the statute was to relieve that burden. We note, however, that we do not interpret the statute as requiring VA to reimburse a Federal facility when the veteran receiving care would not otherwise be financially liable.

Finally, although we have added this clarifying language, we note that this is not a change in VA's interpretation of the statute because VA currently interprets the statute in this way. These regulatory amendments merely codify VA's current interpretation for legal notice purposes. We, therefore, add the clarifying language “that VA has an agreement with to furnish health care services for veterans” after the term “Federal facilities” in § 17.120(c), “Federal facility” in § 17.1001(d), and “Federal facility/provider” in § 17.1002(c). We note the reference to “other Federal facility” in § 17.1001(d) pertains to the veteran's stability for transfer to a VA or other Federal facility, not other Federal facilities being unavailable at the time of the emergency, but was not noted for amendment in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33216). The change reflects VA's existing interpretation of the statute.

For the reasons set forth in the supplementary information to the notice of proposed rulemaking and in this notice, VA is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes discussed above.

The Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this notice, represents the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures are authorized. All VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This action contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order 12866.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. This rule will not cause a significant economic impact on health care providers, suppliers, or entities since only a small portion of the business of such entities concerns VA beneficiaries. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; and 64.011, Veterans Dental Care.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 14, 2011, for publication.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 17 is amended as follows:

On October 18, 2011, the Postal Service filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the PRC, effective on January 22, 2012. In addition, on October 24, 2011, the USPS TM published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (FR 76 65640-65653) based on the PRC filing. This final rule conveys the comments received on the proposal, our responses to comments, and the final mailing standards.

Prices are available under Docket Number R2012-3 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at www.prc.gov, and also on the Postal Explorer® Web site at pe.usps.com.

The Postal Service's final rule includes: several mail classification changes, modifications to mailpiece characteristics, and changes in classification terminology.

The Postal Service received comments from eight submitters on various aspects of the proposed changes. The comments and responses to them are included in the applicable subject matter sections below.

The pricing structure for presorted and automation First-Class Mail® letters changes so that the minimum postage charge would be for a 2-ounce letter instead of the current 1-ounce minimum postage charge.

One commenter thought that the postage for 1-ounce presorted or automation letters would be increasing to the 2-ounce prices; we clarified that instead the prices for 2-ounce letters would be closer to the current prices (with an increase as proposed) for 1-ounce letters.

We received two sets of comments detailing the difficulties that would ensue for some mailers to determine, and apply, proper postage to residual pieces with single-piece postage if they were not also eligible for the reduced postage for 2-ounce letters, and requesting therefore that those single-piece letters also be eligible for reduced postage. They asked multiple questions about postage payment and separation of mail, since the free second ounce does not include residual pieces.

Beginning on January 22, 2012, the Postal Service is revising First-Class Mail pricing to change the first weight increment for presort and automation First-Class Mail letters to include pieces weighing up to two ounces. This is sometimes referred to as “2nd ounce free.” This program was developed in conjunction with customers with the goal of adding value to the mail. For example, customers may use the additional weight for their operational or marketing purposes to realize more value from their mailings. On average, the price of First-Class Mail Presort letters and cards is increasing by 1.58 percent while the price for First-Class Mail single-piece letters and cards increases by 2.47 percent. The lower price increase for presorted First-Class Mail is a direct result of the “2nd ounce free” program. While the single-piece 1-ounce letter price increases by one cent, the price increases for most automation First-Class Mail letters increases by one cent or less.

Regarding residual letters, the standards for how additional postage is paid for those pieces will not change. Regarding permit imprint mailings, the current standards for identical weight pieces will remain; if a mailing contains nonidentical weight pieces (even if the postage for such may be the same) a special postage payment system must be used to document the correct piece counts and postage. Residual pieces that are not eligible for a free second ounce must be separated by postage increment for verification purposes.

The Postal Service also removes standards for Reply Rides Free, because the program ends on December 31, 2011.

The Postal Service modifies the process of submitting mailpieces to the Pricing and Classification Service Center (PCSC) for testing and deletes the provision that pieces with attached release cards be sent to Engineering.

We clarify that overflow Standard Mail® nonmachinable letters that mailers place into existing trays at another level require matching documentation. We received a request to clarify whether there are DSCF entry prices for nonmachinable Standard Mail letters weighing over 3.3 ounces at the mixed ADC sort level. There will be no DSCF entry prices for nonmachinable letters at mixed ADC prices.

We received a comment requesting that we confirm that the prices for Standard Mail basic carrier route letters are the same for automation-compatible and nonautomation letters. The prices are currently the same, and will continue to be the same for both types of letters. One commenter noted that the maximum weight for carrier route letters is “less than 16 ounces.” This is currently the case and will continue to be so.

The USPS clarifies that automation flats must meet the standards for all flats (such as flexibility) in 301.1.0 as well as the standards in 301.3.0. We received two questions about whether the minimum size for automation flats will remain as it is currently. The minimum size for automation flats is not changing; the applicable dimensions for automation flats continue to be in DMM 301.3.2.

Currently, Periodicals flats are allowed on mixed area distribution center (MADC) pallets only when the flats are sacked. We will allow bundles of Periodicals flats to be placed directly on MADC pallets and assign a specific price for MADC pallets as well. One commenter asked if carrier route bundles would be permitted on MADC pallets; with this final rule, we affirm that we will allow carrier route bundles to be placed directly on MADC pallets. The bundle price for carrier route bundles on mixed ADC pallets will be the 5-digit bundle price.

The Postal Service revises a price categorization under nonmachinable flats to insert the correct categorization of nonmachinable flats-nonbarcoded.

The Postal Service is adding language to the pending standards in DMM 705.15. These standards relate to combined mailings of Standard Mail and Periodicals flats, scheduled for implementation on January 22, 2012. This change will clarify that bundles formed in a combined mailing of Standard Mail and Periodicals flats to the carrier route level may be placed on mixed network distribution center (NDC) pallets. The bundle price applicable to the 5-digit bundle placed on the mixed ADC container level will be applied to these bundles. Mailers may continue to claim the applicable carrier route piece price for pieces placed in carrier route bundles, when these bundles are placed on mixed NDC containers.

The Postal Service adds a new term to identify detached address labels (DALs) with advertising. Inclusion of advertising turns DALs into dual-purpose pieces: optional addressing vehicles and marketing vehicles. A DAL with advertising on either side will be named as a detached marketing label (DML). Both DALs and DMLs may be used with saturation flats or with Standard Mail Marketing parcels.

We received several comments unrelated to the standards that suggested the proposed new prices for DALs with flats would be detrimental to continued profitable use of DALs for advertising purposes. As information, the USPS amended its filing to request that the new proposed price be higher than the current price but lower than the price originally proposed.

To align the standards for machinable parcels with current mail processing equipment capability, the Postal Service changes the dimensional criteria for all machinable parcels from the current 34 inches x 17 inches x 17 inches to 27 inches x 17 inches x 17 inches. We additionally reduce the maximum weight of a machinable parcel from 35 pounds to 25 pounds for all parcels except those mailed as Parcel Select® or Parcel Return Service. The maximum weight for machinable parcels that contain books or other printed matter remains at 25 pounds regardless of class of mail. We also modify the processes by which parcels that do not fully meet the machinability standards are evaluated for machinability. In addition, the Postal Service clarifies that parcels that meet the lightweight machinable parcel standards are definitively categorized as machinable parcels.

Standard Mail regular parcels are separated into two groups: Marketing parcels and parcels that will become Parcel Select Lightweight TM parcels. Nonprofit Standard Mail parcels have separate standards for Nonprofit Marketing parcels and other Nonprofit parcels.

Marketing parcels are defined as containing information and/or product samples whose purpose is to encourage recipients to purchase a product or service, make a contribution, support a cause, form a belief or opinion, take an action, or provide information to recipients. Marketing parcels will be required to bear an alternative addressing format (occupant or exceptional addressing, or simplified addressing when allowed for saturation mail), and must be presented for mailing in carrier route (basic, high-density, or saturation sortation) or presort separations. All Marketing parcels would have a maximum size of 12 inches by 9 inches by 2 inches thick. When DALs are used with Marketing parcels, the weight of the DALs is added to the parcels in determining postage, as is currently the case, but there will be no separate charge for the DALs.

Included in this notice is a correction of a previously published error (in Postal Bulletin 22319, 9-8-2011) that allowed Signature Confirmation for Standard Mail parcels. This correction confirms that Standard Mail parcels are not eligible for Signature Confirmation service.

In 2007, the USPS created a temporary NFM price category for Standard Mail items that could not meet revised automation flats standards. In the revised proposed rule Federal Register published on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6250-6257), the Postal Service announced our intention to discontinue the NFM category in May 2010. In the March 25, 2010, Postal Bulletin (22281), we announced that the NFM price category would be extended. We now will eliminate the NFM category as of January 2012. Pieces that would have been mailed as NFMs should qualify as either Standard Mail Marketing parcels or Parcel Select Lightweight parcels.

We received two comments noting that some residual standards that mention NFMs still remained if the proposed new standards were to be adopted. We are grateful for the feedback and have amended the DMM changes to remove those references to NFMs.

One commenter also asked how pieces that have been mailed as NFMs would qualify for new prices and what efforts have been made to communicate with current NFM mailers. Marketing pieces (such as product samples) currently in the NFM category should be able to easily transition to the Marketing parcel category with little impact, assuming they are currently using a form of alternative addressing. If they are fulfillment pieces or the mailer is not willing to use an alternative address, the likely alternative would be Parcel Select Lightweight parcels. This has been communicated extensively through the relevant customer associations and in several Federal Register notices. The USPS will also attempt to contact current known NFM mailers to ensure that they are aware of the new mailing options in January 22, 2012.

The Postal Service eliminates the provision to provide free local forwarding for Package Services pieces.

The USPS also will discontinue the 3-cent barcode discount for all Bound Printed Matter (BPM), Media Mail®, and Library Mail parcels. We received a request to confirm this and to state whether the barcode discount would continue for BPM flats. We will continue to allow a barcode discount for BPM flats as of January 22, 2012.

Mailers may use plant-verified drop shipments (PVDS) during the price change as follows:

• Current Prices —Mailers may use the current prices for PVDS mailings verified and paid for before January 22, 2012. We will accept these mailings at destination entry postal facilities through February 5, 2012 when presented with appropriate verification and payment documentation.

• New Prices —Mailers may use the new prices (effective January 22, 2012) for PVDS mailings verified and paid for beginning January 8, 2012, for deposit at destination facilities on or after January 22, 2012. For mailings with electronic documentation, mailers must enter a Mail Arrival Date that is on or after January 22, 2012. For mailings with hard copy postage statements, USPS acceptance employees must enter a Mail Arrival Date that is on or after January 22, 2012. The Postal Service will accept these mailings at destination entry postal facilities beginning January 22, 2012 when presented with appropriate verification and payment documentation.

In the June 2, 2011, Postal Bulletin (22312), the Postal Service announced a change in the administrative support process for Special Postage Payment Systems from formal agreements to authorizations. For manifest mailing systems, we incorrectly stated that the authorization document is a letter signed by the mailer and the Business Mail Support (BMS) manager. We are revising DMM 705.2.0 to clarify that an authorization letter is signed only by the BMS manager.

We add clarifications in DMM 503.10 and 503.11 that Delivery Confirmation and Signature Confirmation services are available for First-Class Package Service parcels for only the electronic option.

The Postal Service encourages and will permit the use of a hard copy PS Form 3811, Domestic Return Receipt, with Adult Signature service when used with Express Mail® or Priority Mail®, including shipments made under the Prevent All Tobacco Cigarettes Trafficking (PACT) Act. A return receipt fee will be charged in addition to regular postage and the Adult Signature fee.

Customers eligible to mail cigarettes and smokeless tobacco under the business/regulatory purposes and consumer testing exceptions of the PACT Act are currently limited to shipping via Express Mail with Hold For Pickup service. In January 2012, we will offer additional options: Express Mail with Adult Signature or Priority Mail with Adult Signature.

We received a comment suggesting that allowing Express Mail or Priority Mail with Adult Signature under the PACT Act will make it easier for underage smokers to obtain cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. The new standards have not changed insofar as it relates to the statutory exceptions to the PACT Act. The labeling, acceptance, and delivery requirements are not relaxed and still provide ample opportunity to determine if mailings fit within the exceptions. The new standards simply provide mailers other service options that fit within the exceptions.

The Postal Service discontinues Confirm service as a paid subscription service and replaces it with “IMb TM Tracing,” which will provide scan data similar to that provided through Confirm service, but with no paid subscription required. Under IMb Tracing service, mailers will continue to receive the same raw scan data through the same data-provisioning methods.

In response to requests for clarification of the transition process, we provide the following scenarios.

For customers transitioning from Confirm to IMb Tracing, who are using Intelligent Mail® barcodes and have no changes to their profile, the account profile will remain the same and information will flow as it does today. Future profile changes can be handled through emails to the help desk at confirm@usps.gov.

The change would have ended the use of PLANET® Code barcodes for mailers when their current subscription expired. To provide more time for mailers to transition to IMbs, existing Confirm customers who wish to continue using PLANET Code barcodes after their current subscription expires must submit a signed Confirm renewal application and pay the applicable fees for the new subscription period prior to January 22, 2012, for the PLANET code subscription IDs they would like to continue using. No renewed subscription under this provision will extend past January 2013. Subscription IDs associated with IMbs will remain the same. Applications can be mailed, faxed, or emailed to the help desk.

New customers not utilizing a third party must submit a signed IMb Tracing application and complete the application process similar to today's Confirm process.

Third-party service providers for data management currently receiving Confirm or IMb Tracing information may submit a signed application on behalf of new customers under these conditions:

• The signature must be from a representative of the MID owner.

• If the mail pieces will be produced by a company qualified to print the IMb, the customer will not have to submit samples to be tested.

• Applications can be mailed, faxed, or emailed to the help desk.

The Postal Service revises certain requirements for mailers who present full-service (Intelligent Mail) automation mailings. When mailers present only full-service automation mailings of First-Class Mail or Standard Mail letters and flats or BPM flats with 90 percent or more pieces qualifying for full-service automation prices, the Postal Service will waive payment of the annual mailing fees for mailings presented under specific permits. As an additional allowance, when mailers present only qualifying full-service automation mailings with permit imprint indicia, those mailings will be able to be presented at any PostalOne! ® acceptance office without payment of an additional permit imprint application fee or payment of an annual mailing fee at the other office(s).

We received a group of questions from two associations regarding how this initiative will be implemented, primarily about presenting mailings at offices other than the office where a permit is held. A recommendation was made about how to handle an instance of a mailing being submitted that does not meet the 90 percent eligibility, to allow later payment of the annual fee. Because of the many nuances involved in this initiative, we will implementing both aspects—waiver of annual presort fee and multiple entry points for permit imprint mailings—on February 12, 2012 to assure that all processes for employees and mailers are coordinated.

Comment: Is the 90% requirement for pieces per mailing or for all pieces on all mailings for the year?

Response: The requirement applies to each mailing.

Comment: Is it for all mailings of a mailer or by the specific permit, PC, PER account number?

Response: For each permit used with First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, and Bound Printed Matter full-service mailings; Periodicals are not eligible. There is no annual presort fee as long as each postage statement charged to the permit remains at 90% or greater full-service pieces.

Comment: Should a mailer open an additional permit (obtain a separate permit number) for full-service mailings to mail all of their full-service mailings under and use another for non-full service mailings, which effectively negates the fee waiver.

Response: Management of permits is at the mailer's discretion.

Comment: Can a mailer present mail for a permit number from any acceptance office in the nation to their local acceptance office?

Response: Mailers may present qualified full-service mailings with mailpieces bearing a current valid permit imprint (that has been used only to present eligible Full-Service mailings) for acceptance at any USPS acceptance office that has PostalOne! acceptance functions.

Comment: What information needs to be used on the postage statement for the mailing, the permit number of the origin Post Office TM of mailing? Is any other information required?

Response: Hardcopy postage statements are not eligible for full-service mailings and therefore will not qualify to mail at other offices or waiver of fees. See the next comment and response for electronic documentation.

Comment: How are the permits that are used to pay the postage identified in Full Service eDocumentation? What records/fields are supposed to contain what information regarding the Permit numbers?

Response: Mail.dat® file submission:

□ Use of single permit at multiple BMEU locations (verification sites) requires use of account #.

□ MPA Record:

Populate permit type, permit #, and ZIP + 4® fields to identify permit (authorization to mail).

Populate account # field with CAPS number (traditional or non-traditional).

Identification of Mail Preparer & Mail Owner by CRID or MID (cannot identify with a permit).

Customer communications.

□ Segment Record—Verification Facility ZIP + 4 field (Pos 137-145):

Populate with BMEU ZIP Code TM (5 or 9 digit).

Drives the BMEU dashboard.

Comment: What information is required to be in the indicia on the mailpiece?

Response: Issuing office permit number and city/state or company imprint indicia may be printed in the permit imprint indicia on the piece and entered at any location.

Comment: What are the requirements regarding the commingling of permit imprint mail with permits outside the Post Office of mailing of the mailer when using the mailer's permit to pay the postage, or using the permit holder's permit to pay the postage? What will the 90% rule be applied to, the entire mailing or the portion of the mailing under the permit holder's permit?

Response: The 90% rule applies to single statements or the master statement (when there are multiple child statements) as follows:

• For single permit mailings, the statement must meet the 90% threshold.

• For multiple permit mailings, the master statement must meet the 90% threshold.

• Individual permits within the master statement do not have to meet the 90% threshold.

Comment: Can a mail service provider permit number be used for permit mail pieces in a commingled mailing originating from offices other than the mailer's acceptance office?

Response: The permit number used must be the number assigned to permit holders at the issuing office.

Comment: How does this affect mailing into other Post Offices for metered mail?

Response: The provision to mail at other offices under the waiver of fee initiative is limited to permit imprint mailing.

Comment: To not accept the mailing on a first occurrence of failing to meet the 90% rule would cause undue burden and costs on the mail owner.

Recommendation: That if the mail presenter is unable to pay the fee at that time, the mailing would be accepted on the first occurrence with promise to pay later by the permit holder and no further mailings would be accepted until the fee was paid.

Response: Our standards do not allow us to defer payment of fees once they are due. However, we expect that Full-Service mailers will know that their mailing will not meet the 90% requirement before they present the mailing and be able to plan accordingly.

Comment: If a mailing is presented to any acceptance office under the fee waiver provisions and fails to meet the 90% compliance rule, will all subsequent mailings using or bearing that permit number not be allowed entry at any other office other than the office where the permit is held?

Response: Yes, once mailings under a permit number fall below the established 90% full-service threshold, applicable fees must be paid for all subsequent mailings.

The Postal Service will add a new 3-month prepaid Post Office Box TM service payment option, which is only available via recurring automatic payments.

Currently, the Postal Service charges a standard fee for most Stamp Fulfillment Services orders; however Stamp Fulfillment Services shipping fees are not identified in the DMM nor listed in Notice 123— Price List. However, the fees are subject to regulation by the PRC.

The USPS adds new DMM language to explain that there are fees associated with Stamp Fulfillment Services and to refer customers to Notice 123 for the prices. A single standard fee is charged for orders up to $50, and a higher fee for larger orders.

Currently, the USPS does not offer postcard stationery sheets that easily fit on standard computer printers. We will offer four perforated postcards on an 8 1/2 inches x 11 inches sheet that can be fed readily into computer printers. Once separated, each card will be 4 1/4 inches x 5 1/2 inches in size.

Additionally, the USPS does not currently offer personalized stamped postcards. In January 2012, we offer personalized stamped postcards with pre-printed return addresses.

The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

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

Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 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. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act. This interim 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 interim 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 interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism.

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read 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.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations 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.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

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.

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

This document announces that, on November 17, 2011, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 25.114(d)(15)(iv), 25.114(d)(18), 25.264(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f). The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. See, Service Rules and Policies for the Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS), IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 11-93, published at 76 FR 50425, August 15, 2011. 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, 3060-1097, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to PRA@fcc.gov<mailto:PRA@fcc.gov. >

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov<mailto: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 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on November 17, 2011, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 25.114(d)(15)(iv), 25.114(d)(18), 25.264(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f).

Under 5 CFR part 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 3060-1097.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1097.

OMB Approval Date: November 17, 2011.

OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2014.

Title: Service Rules and Policies for the Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS).

Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 8 respondents; 48 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours-36 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The Commission has statutory authority for the information collection requirements under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y) and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308.

Total Annual Burden: 848 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $43,200.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality pertaining to the information collection requirements in this collection.

Needs and Uses: On June 14, 2011 the Commission released Second Report and Order FCC 11-93, published at 76 FR 50245, August, 2011, adopting final rules—containing information collection requirements—for the 17/24 GHz (BSS) to mitigate space path interference between the 17/24 GHz BSS space-to-Earth transmissions and the feeder link receiving antennas of Direct Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS) space stations that operate in the same frequency band.

Below are the new information collection requirements contained in the Second Report and Order:

47 CFR 25.114(d)(15)(iv) —Applicants filing for a space station authorization must file the information required in Section 26.264(a)-(b).

47 CFR 25.114(d)(18) —Applicants filing for a space station authorization in the Direct Broadcast Satellite service or the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service, must provide maximum orbital eccentricity calculations.

47 CFR 25.264(a) —Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service (BSS) must provide a series of tables or graphs with its application, that contain the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain information for each transmitting antenna in the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band. Using a Cartesian coordinate system wherein the X-axis is defined as tangent to the geostationary orbital arc with the positive direction pointing east, i.e., in the direction of travel of the satellite; the Y-axis is defined as parallel to a line passing through the geographic north and south poles of the Earth, with the positive direction pointing south; and the Z-axis is defined parallel to a line passing through the center of the Earth, with the positive direction pointing toward the Earth, the applicant must provide the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis antenna gain information:

(1) In the X-Z plane, i.e., the plane of the geostationary orbit, over a range of ± 30 Degrees from the positive and negative X-axes in increments of 5 degrees or less.

(2) In planes rotated from the X-Z plane about the Z-axis, over a range of up to ± 60 degrees relative to the equatorial plane, in increments of 10 degrees or less.

(3) In both polarizations.

(4) At a minimum of three measurement frequencies determined with respect to the entire portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band over which the space station is designed to transmit: 5 MHz above the lower edge of the band; at the band center frequency; and 5 MHz below the upper edge of the band.

(5) Over a greater angular measurement range, if necessary, to account for any planned spacecraft orientation bias or change in operating orientation relative to the reference coordinate system. The applicant must also explain its reasons for doing so.

47 CFR 25.264(b) —Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz BSS must provide power flux density (pfd) calculations with its application that are based upon the predicted off-axis transmitting antenna gain information submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:

(1) The pfd calculations must be provided at the location of all prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations where the applicant's pfd level exceeds the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m[FN2]/100 kHz in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. In this rule, the term prior-filed U.S. DBS space station refers to any Direct Broadcast Satellite service space station application that was filed with the Commission (or authorization granted by the Commission) prior to the filing of the 17/24 GHz BSS application containing the predicted off-axis transmitting antenna gain information. The term prior-filed U.S. DBS space station does not include any applications (or authorizations) that have been denied, dismissed, or are otherwise no longer valid. Prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations may include foreign-licensed DBS space stations seeking authority to serve the United States market, but do not include foreign-licensed DBS space stations that have not filed applications with the Commission for market access in the United States.

(2) The pfd calculations must take into account the maximum longitudinal station-keeping tolerance, orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity of both the 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space stations, and must:

(i) Identify each prior-filed U.S. DBS space station at whose location the coordination threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m[FN2]/100 kHz is exceeded; and

(ii) Demonstrate the extent to which the applicant's transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m[FN2]/100 kHz at those prior-filed U.S. DBS space station locations.

(3) If the calculated pfd level is in excess of the threshold level of −117 dBW/m[FN2]/100 kHz at the location of any prior-filed U.S. DBS space station, the applicant must also provide with its application certification that all affected DBS operators acknowledge and do not object to the applicants higher off-axis pfd levels. No such certification is required in cases where the DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS assigned operating frequencies do not overlap.

47 CFR 25.264(c) —No later than nine months prior to launch, each 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicant or authorization holder must confirm the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain information provided in accordance with § 25.114(d)(15)(iv) by submitting measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information over the angular ranges, measurement frequencies and polarizations described in paragraphs (a)(1)-(5) of this section. The transmitting antenna off-axis gain information should be measured under conditions as close to flight configuration as possible.