This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

13501 

Vol. 76, No. 49 

Monday, March 14, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–NOP–10–0051; 

NOP–10–04FR] 

RIN 0581–AD04 

National Organic Program; 

Amendment to the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(Livestock) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting as final, 

without change, an interim rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 24, 2010 (75 FR 51919). The 

interim rule amended the National List 

of Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(National List) based upon a 

recommendation submitted to the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) by 

the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB) on April 29, 2010. Consistent 

with the recommendation from the 

NOSB, the interim rule revised the 

annotation of one substance on the 

National List, methionine, to extend its 

use in organic poultry production until 

October 1, 2012, at the following 

maximum levels of synthetic 

methionine per ton of feed: laying 

chickens—4 pounds; broiler chickens— 

5 pounds; turkeys and all other 

poultry—6 pounds. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes 

effective March 15, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Bailey, Ph.D., Director, 

Standards Division, National Organic 

Program, USDA–AMS–NOP, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Room 2646– 

So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 

20250, E-mail: 

Melissa.bailey@ams.usda.gov; 

Telephone: (202) 720–3252; Fax: (202) 

205–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 21, 2000, the Secretary 

established within the NOP [7 CFR part 

205] the National List regulations 

§§ 205.600 through 205.607. The 

National List identifies synthetic 

substances that may be used and the 

nonsynthetic (natural) substances that 

may not be used in organic production. 

The National List also identifies 

nonagricultural nonsynthetic, 

nonagricultural synthetic, and 

nonorganic agricultural substances that 

may be used in organic handling. The 

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 

(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501– 

6522), and NOP regulations, in 

§ 205.105, specifically prohibit the use 

of any synthetic substance for organic 

production and handling unless 

included on the National List. Section 

205.105 also requires that any 

nonorganic agricultural, and any 

nonsynthetic, nonagricultural substance 

used in organic handling must also be 

on the National List. 

Under the authority of the OFPA, the 

National List can be amended by the 

Secretary based on proposed 

amendments developed by the NOSB. 

Since established, the NOP has 

published fourteen amendments to the 

National List: October 31, 2003 (68 FR 

61987); November 3, 2003(68 FR 62215); 

October 21, 2005 (70 FR 61217); June 7, 

2006 (71 FR 32803); September 11, 2006 

(71 FR 53299); June 27, 2007 (72 FR 

35137); October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58469); 

December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69569); 

December 12, 2007 (72 FR 70479); 

September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54057); 

October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59479); July 6, 

2010 (75 FR 38693); August 24, 2010 (75 

FR 51919); and December 13, 2010 (75 

FR 77521). Additionally, proposed 

amendments to the National List were 

published on November 8, 2010 (75 FR 

68505). 

As a result of a petition requesting to 

add synthetic methionine to the 

National List, the NOSB initiated a 

review of this substance in 1999. 

Methionine is classified as an essential 

amino acid because it cannot be 

biologically produced by poultry and is 

necessary to maintain viability. The 

petitioners asserted that methionine was 

a necessary dietary supplement for 

organic poultry and that there was an 

inadequate supply of allowable organic 

feeds containing sufficient 

concentrations of naturally occurring 

methionine. In 2001, the NOSB 

evaluated a technical advisory panel 

analysis of methionine against the 

criteria provided in the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6517–6518), and determined that the 

use of synthetic methionine feed 

supplementation is compatible with a 

system of organic poultry production. 

Consistent with the NOSB’s 

recommendation, the Secretary 

amended the National List to allow 

methionine as a synthetic substance for 

use in organic poultry production at 

§ 205.603 of the NOP regulations 

beginning on October 31, 2003, with an 

expiration date of October 21, 2005 (68 

FR 61987). Based upon additional 

NOSB recommendations submitted in 

March 2005 and May 2008, the 

Secretary subsequently amended the 

listing for methionine on the National 

List by extending its allowance in 

organic poultry production through 

October 21, 2008 (70 FR 61217), and 

again through October 1, 2010 (73 FR 

54057). 

On July 31, 2009, a coalition of 

producers identified as the Methionine 

Task Force (MTF) filed a petition that 

requested a five-year extension on the 

allowance for synthetic methionine. The 

MTF proposed to limit the total amount 

of synthetic methionine to be fed over 

the life of the bird calculated as the 

average pounds of synthetic methionine 

per ton of feed. The MTF proposed 

these limits per ton of feed as follows: 

4 pounds for laying chickens, 5 pounds 

for broiler chickens, and 6 pounds for 

turkeys and all other poultry. Based 

upon their deliberations and the public 

comment received, the NOSB concluded 

that wholly natural sources of 

methionine are not currently available 

and that extending the allowance for the 

synthetic form of methionine was 

warranted. However, the NOSB did not 

accept the request to extend its 

allowance on the National List for five 

years at the limitations proposed by the 

petitioners because the NOSB felt that 

averaging the pounds of synthetic 

methionine fed over the life of the bird 

could result in higher levels of the 

substance being fed during certain 

growth stages. As a result, the NOSB 

opted to modify the annotation 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

13502 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed by the petitioner by removing 

the language that would have allowed 

averaging the maximum level of 

methionine over the life of the bird and 

adding different limits on the feed 

allowance over time. On April 29, 2010, 

the NOSB issued a recommendation to 

extend the allowance for synthetic 

methionine for five years until October 

1, 2015, with a step down in the amount 

allowed after two years. Specifically, the 

NOSB recommended that the amount of 

synthetic methionine allowed per ton of 

feed be limited to 4 pounds for laying 

chickens, 5 pounds for broiler chickens, 

and 6 pounds for turkeys and all other 

poultry until October 1, 2012. The 

NOSB further recommended that, after 

October 1, 2012, the allowance be 

reduced to 2 pounds for laying 

chickens, 2 pounds for broiler chickens, 

and 3 pounds for turkeys and all other 

poultry through October 1, 2015. 

On August 24, 2010, the Secretary 

amended the National List through 

publication of an interim rule with 

request for comments in the Federal 

Register to reflect the first part of the 

NOSB’s recommendation (75 FR 51919). 

This action extended the allowance for 

synthetic methionine through October 1, 

2012, at the levels specified by the 

NOSB. In the interim rule, the USDA 

agreed to publish a final rule on the 

listing of methionine, along with any 

changes if warranted, by March 2011. 

Based upon the NOSB 

recommendation and comments 

received, this final rule adopts, without 

change, the interim rule published on 

August 24, 2010 (75 FR 51919). 

Accordingly, this final rule continues 

the exemption at § 205.603(d)(1) for 

methionine as follows: DL-Methionine, 

DL- Methionine-hydroxy analog, and 

DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog calcium 

(CAS # 59–51–8; 63–68–3; 348–67–4)— 

for use only in organic poultry 

production until October 1, 2012, at the 

following maximum levels of synthetic 

methionine per ton of feed: Laying 

chickens—4 pounds; broiler chickens— 

5 pounds; turkeys and all other 

poultry—6 pounds. 

II. Related Documents 

Since September 2001, four notices 

have been published announcing 

meetings of the NOSB and its planned 

deliberations on recommendations 

involving the use of methionine in 

organic poultry production. The four 

notices were published in the Federal 

Register as follows: September 21, 2001 

(66 FR 48654), February 11, 2005 (70 FR 

7224), April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18491), and 

March 17, 2010 (75 FR 12723). 

Methionine was first proposed for 

addition to the National List in the 

Federal Register on April 16, 2003 (68 

FR 18556). Methionine was added to the 

National List by final rule in the Federal 

Register on October 31, 2003 (68 FR 

61987). A proposal to amend the 

annotation for methionine was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43786), and the 

annotation was amended by final rule in 

the Federal Register on October 21, 

2005 (70 FR 61217). A proposal to 

amend the annotation once again was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 14, 2008 (73 FR 40197), and the 

annotation was amended by final rule 

on September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54057). 

The annotation for methionine was most 

recently amended through publication 

of an interim rule with request for 

comments in the Federal Register on 

August 24, 2010 (75 FR 51919). 

III. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 

6501–6522), authorizes the Secretary to 

make amendments to the National List 

based on proposed amendments 

developed by the NOSB. Sections 

6518(k)(2) and 6518(n) of the OFPA 

authorize the NOSB to develop 

proposed amendments to the National 

List for submission to the Secretary and 

establish a petition process by which 

persons may petition the NOSB for the 

purpose of having substances evaluated 

for inclusion or deletion from the 

National List. The National List petition 

process is implemented under § 205.607 

of the NOP regulations. The current 

petition process (72 FR 2167, January 

18, 2007) can be accessed through the 

NOP Web site at http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/nop. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action has been determined not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866, and therefore, has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

B. Executive Order 12988 

Executive Order 12988 instructs each 

executive agency to adhere to certain 

requirements in the development of new 

and revised regulations in order to avoid 

unduly burdening the court system. The 

final rule (68 FR 61987), dated October 

31, 2003, adding methionine to the 

National List was reviewed under this 

Executive Order and no additional 

information related to Executive Order 

12988 has been obtained since then. 

This final rule is not intended to have 

a retroactive effect. 

States and local jurisdictions are 

preempted under the OFPA from 

creating programs of accreditation for 

private persons or State officials who 

want to become certifying agents of 

organic farms or handling operations. A 

governing State official would have to 

apply to USDA to be accredited as a 

certifying agent, as described in 

§ 2115(b) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6514(b)). States are also preempted 

under §§ 2104 through 2108 of the 

OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 6507) 

from creating certification programs to 

certify organic farms or handling 

operations unless the State programs 

have been submitted to, and approved 

by, the Secretary as meeting the 

requirements of the OFPA. 

Pursuant to § 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA 

(7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a State organic 

certification program may contain 

additional requirements for the 

production and handling of organically 

produced agricultural products that are 

produced in the State and for the 

certification of organic farm and 

handling operations located within the 

State under certain circumstances. Such 

additional requirements must: (a) 

Further the purposes of the OFPA, (b) 

not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c) 

not be discriminatory toward 

agricultural commodities organically 

produced in other States, and (d) not be 

effective until approved by the 

Secretary. 

Pursuant to § 2120(f) of the OFPA (7 

U.S.C. 6519(f)), this final rule would not 

alter the authority of the Secretary 

under the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry 

Products Inspections Act (21 U.S.C. 451 

et seq.), or the Egg Products Inspection 

Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), concerning 

meat, poultry, and egg products, nor any 

of the authorities of the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services under the 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 

(21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), nor the authority 

of the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

Section 2121 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6520) provides for the Secretary to 

establish an expedited administrative 

appeals procedure under which persons 

may appeal an action of the Secretary, 

the applicable governing State official, 

or a certifying agent under this title that 

adversely affects such person or is 

inconsistent with the organic 

certification program established under 

this title. The OFPA also provides that 

the U.S. District Court for the district in 

which a person is located has 

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s 

decision. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 13503 

1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, 2009. Data Sets: U.S. Certified 

Organic Farmland Acreage, Livestock Numbers and 

Farm Operations, 1992–2008. http:// 

www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/. 

2Nutrition Business Journal, 2009. U.S. Organic 

Food Sales by Product ($Mil) 1997–2008, 2009(e)– 

2014(e)—Chart 22. Penton Media, Inc. 

consider the economic impact of each 

rule on small entities and evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule without unduly 

burdening small entities or erecting 

barriers that would restrict their ability 

to compete in the market. The purpose 

is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to the action. Section 

605 of the RFA allows an agency to 

certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an 

analysis, if the rulemaking is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the RFA, AMS performed an 

economic impact analysis on small 

entities in the final rule published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2000 

(65 FR 80548). AMS has also considered 

the economic impact of this action on 

small entities. The impact on entities 

affected by this final rule would not be 

significant. The current approval for the 

use of synthetic methionine in organic 

poultry production was extended in the 

interim rule through October 1, 2012, at 

levels that are consistent with current 

industry practice. The effect of this final 

rule is to affirm the continued use of 

synthetic methionine as amended. AMS 

concludes that this action would have 

minimal economic impact on small 

agricultural service firms. Accordingly, 

USDA certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

handlers, and accredited certifying 

agents, have been defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $7,000,000, and small 

agricultural producers are defined as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000. 

Based on USDA data from the 

Economic Research Service (ERS), the 

U.S. organic sector included nearly 

13,000 certified organic crop and 

livestock operations at the end of 2008. 

These operations contained more than 

4.8 million certified acres consisting of 

2,665,382 acres of cropland and 

2,160,577 acres of pasture and 

rangeland. The total acreage under 

organic management represents a twelve 

percent increase from 2007. Organic 

poultry production has steadily 

contributed to the overall growth in the 

organic food market. ERS estimated that 

there were 5,538,011 laying chickens 

and 9,015,984 broiler chickens raised 

under organic management in 2008. ERS 

estimated the number of certified 

organic turkeys raised in the United 

States in 2008 at 398,531.1 The 

Nutrition Business Journal calculated 

the market value for organic laying 

chickens at $252,000,000 in 2008.2 In 

addition to being sold as whole 

products, organic eggs and poultry 

byproducts are used in the production 

of organic processed products including 

soups, broths, prepared meals, ice cream 

and eggnog. 

The USDA accredits certifying agents 

who provide organic certification 

services to producers and handlers. A 

complete list of names and addresses of 

accredited certifying agents may be 

found on the AMS NOP Web site, at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. AMS 

believes that most of these entities 

would be considered small entities 

under the criteria established by the 

SBA. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

No additional collection or 

recordkeeping requirements are 

imposed on the public by this final rule. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required by section 350(h) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. or OMB’s 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320. 

The AMS is committed to compliance 

with the E–Government Act, to promote 

the use of the Internet and other 

information technologies increased 

opportunities for citizen access to 

Government information and services, 

and for other purposes. 

E. Discussion of Comments Received 

AMS received 8 comments on the 

interim rule that extended the use of 

synthetic methionine in organic poultry 

production until October 1, 2012, at the 

following maximum levels of synthetic 

methionine per ton of feed: laying 

chickens—4 pounds; broiler chickens— 

5 pounds; turkeys and all other 

poultry—6 pounds. Comments were 

received from two organic livestock 

producers including one representing 

multiple individuals, two trade 

associations, two non-profit advocacy 

groups and two private individuals. 

Some comments endorsed the 

amendment that extended the allowance 

for synthetic methionine. These 

commenters asserted that continuing the 

allowance was critical to the organic 

poultry industry, citing methionine as a 

nutrient necessary for proper feather 

development and cell growth. These 

comments further voiced that, while 

research continues on meeting the 

nutritional requirements of poultry 

through natural sources of methionine, 

the limited commercial availability of 

feed containing natural sources of 

methionine supports the need for 

continuing the allowance of synthetic 

forms of the substance on the National 

List. 

One comment strongly advocated for 

future inclusion of synthetic methionine 

on the National List for a five-year 

sunset review cycle after the October 1, 

2015, expiration of the current petitionbased NOSB recommendation. The 

interim rule for which we requested 

comments does not address the listing 

of methionine beyond its current 

expiration date of October 1, 2012. We 

plan to address the allowance for 

synthetic methionine after this date 

through a separate rulemaking action. 

Changes Requested But Not Made 

Two comments in favor of extending 

the use of methionine did not believe 

the limitations for use in different types 

of poultry as specified in the interim 

rule are necessary. One of these 

comments indicated concern that 

limiting the use of methionine to certain 

levels may impact the management 

practices of poultry producers by 

reducing the flexibility of producers to 

balance poultry rations with changing 

environmental conditions. However, 

based upon additional statements 

provided in this comment and 

testimony provided during NOSB 

deliberations, we believe that maximum 

levels in the interim rule are consistent 

with current industry practice and, 

therefore, will be feasible for most 

producers without major changes to 

their current management approach. 

The other comment related to limiting 

the allowable levels of methionine in 

specific groups of poultry recommended 

relisting methionine without 

annotation. The rationale provided by 

the comment is that the future ‘‘step 

down’’ proposed by the NOSB has the 

potential for increased recordkeeping by 

the producer and the certification 

agency. Because the action in the 

interim rule did not address the ‘‘step 

down’’ portion of the NOSB 

recommendation, this rationale does not 

apply to the current amendment and, 

therefore, we do not believe a change to 

the annotation as codified in the interim 

rule is warranted. 

A few comments rejected the 

provisions in the amendment and 

argued in favor of an immediate 

prohibition on the use of synthetic 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

13504 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In December 2010, the NCUA Board issued a 

final rule that, in part, reorganized part 708a into 

subparts A through C and redesignated the existing 

section numbers in subpart A as §§ 708a.101 

through 708a.113. 75 FR 81378 (Dec. 28, 2010). As 

reorganized, subpart A applies to conversions of 

federally-insured credit unions to MSBs and former 

§ 708a.1 is now numbered § 708a.101. That final 

rule became effective on January 27, 2011. 

methionine in organic poultry 

production. One comment did not 

express an opinion pertinent to the 

specifics of the amendment. The few 

comments opposing the extension of the 

allowance for synthetic methionine 

stated that use of the substance was 

incompatible with the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘organic production.’’ 

Another comment objecting to 

extending the allowance questioned 

whether OFPA sanctions the use of a 

synthetic amino acid. This comment 

also cited natural alternatives to 

synthetic methionine and suggested that 

the continued allowance of synthetic 

methionine continues to delay the 

commercial development of alternatives 

to the synthetic form. 

In developing their recommendation 

on the continued allowance for 

synthetic methionine on the National 

List, the NOSB reviewed the substance 

against the evaluation criteria of 7 

U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the OFPA. The 

NOSB recommended that, after October 

1, 2012, the annotation for methionine 

be amended to reduce the maximum 

amount of the substance allowed and 

establish October 1, 2015, as the 

expiration date. The NOSB’s intent is 

that a step down in the levels allowed 

after October 1, 2012, will stimulate 

further market development of natural 

alternatives and drive management 

changes in the organic poultry industry. 

We plan to address this step down 

through a future rulemaking action. We 

believe that the current amendment 

should remain as codified in the interim 

rule. At this time, the record supports 

the rationale of the NOSB that synthetic 

methionine remains critical in organic 

poultry production and that its removal 

from the National List would have 

significant adverse impacts on the 

industry. 

Two comments maintained that 

adequate wholly natural sources of 

methionine are in fact available and 

suggested that these alternatives should 

be sufficient for organic poultry 

production. The NOSB considered the 

availability of such alternatives in 

development of their recommendation 

and, based upon the public comment 

received, determined that alternatives 

are not available in sufficient quantities 

to meet the needs of the organic poultry 

industry. We concur with the NOSB’s 

finding and, therefore, disagree with the 

comments suggesting that there are 

presently viable alternatives to justify 

removal of synthetic methionine from 

the National List. 

After full consideration of these 

comments, we have determined that the 

record supports retaining the provisions 

in the interim rule to extend the use of 

synthetic methionine in organic poultry 

production until October 1, 2012, at the 

following maximum levels of synthetic 

methionine per ton of feed: laying 

chickens—4 pounds; broiler chickens— 

5 pounds; turkeys and all other 

poultry—6 pounds. This provision 

remains consistent with the NOSB’s 

April 29, 2010 recommendation. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Agriculture, Animals, 

Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, 

Organically produced products, Plants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil 

conservation. 

PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC 

PROGRAM 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 205, subpart G 

published at 75 FR 51919 on August 24, 

2010, is adopted as a final rule without 

change. 

Dated: March 4, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5716 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 708a and 708b 

RIN 3133–AD84; 3133–AD85 

Conversions of Insured Credit Unions 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NCUA is confirming as final 

a December 23, 2010, interim final rule 

on the definition of the phrase ‘‘Regional 

Director’’ in NCUA’s rule on credit 

union to mutual savings bank 

conversions. For clarification purposes, 

this rule modifies the aforementioned 

definition. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 14, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Lussier, Staff Attorney, 

Office of General Counsel, National 

Credit Union Administration, 1775 

Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314– 

3428, or telephone (703) 518–6540. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 2009, the NCUA Board created the 

NCUA Office of Consumer Protection 

(OCP) to become operational on January 

1, 2010. NCUA is in the process of 

moving responsibility for the review 

and approval of certain types of credit 

union conversions from the Regional 

Directors to the Director of the OCP, 

including credit union conversions to 

mutual savings banks or mutual savings 

associations (MSBs) in 12 CFR part 708a 

and the conversion from National Credit 

Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) 

share insurance to nonfederal share 

insurance in 12 CFR part 708b. To 

accommodate this reassignment of staff 

functions, the NCUA Board issued an 

interim final rule in December 2010, 

adding the Director of the OCP to the 

definition of the phrase ‘‘Regional 

Director’’ in part 708a and adding a new 

definition of the phrase ‘‘Regional 

Director’’ to part 708b that mirrors the 

revised definition in part 708a. 75 FR 

80678 (Dec. 23, 2010). 

NCUA received one comment letter 

that supported inclusion of the Director 

of the OCP in the definition of ‘‘Regional 

Director’’ in parts 708a and 708b. 

Final Rule 

The interim final rule instructed the 

Office of Federal Register (OFR) to 

amend § 708a.1 (now § 708a.101) 1 of 

part 708a by adding a definition of 

‘‘Regional Director’’ to include the 

Director of the OCP. The interim final 

rule, however, should have instructed 

the OFR that § 708a.1 (now § 708a.101) 

be amended not by adding a new 

definition but rather by revising the 

existing definition of ‘‘Regional 

Director.’’ This final rule confirms the 

December 23, 2010, interim rule as final 

and instructs the OFR that the existing 

definition of ‘‘Regional Director’’ in 

§ 708a.101 be revised to include the 

Director of the OCP. 

Immediate Effective Date 

NCUA is issuing this rulemaking as a 

final rule effective upon publication in 

the Federal Register. The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553, requires that a final rule 

must have a delayed effective date of 30 

days from the date of publication, 

except for good cause. In this regard, 

NCUA believes the 30-day delayed 

effective date is inapplicable because 

the amendments to parts 708a and 708b 

are not substantive but merely update 

the regulation to provide NCUA with 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES