25150 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 

invoked that agreement to bring claims against a 

consumer in arbitration. The Bureau intends the 

following set of questions to cover such third-party 

claims as well. 

5Prior to July 2009, the National Arbitration 

Forum (‘‘NAF’’) administered each year a 

significant number of debt collection arbitrations 

that various covered persons or third-parties 

brought against consumers. In July 2009, however, 

NAF agreed that it would no longer handle 

consumer arbitrations, including debt collection 

cases brought against consumers. NAF reached this 

agreement to settle claims by the Minnesota 

Attorney General that NAF violated Minnesota’s 

consumer-fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, and 

false-advertising statutes. Following the NAF 

settlement, the American Arbitration Association 

(‘‘AAA’’) announced that it would not administer 

any consumer finance debt collection arbitrations 

filed by companies. The AAA’s policy is still in 

effect according to a ‘‘Notice on Consumer Debt 

Collection Arbitrations’’ that is available on the 

organization’s Web site, www.adr.org. 

The Bureau seeks information 

responsive to the following questions 

about such covered person or thirdparty claims. 

i. The Bureau is not aware of recent 

practice by covered persons to bring 

claims against consumers in 

arbitration.5 Do such arbitrations, in 

fact, exist at this point? If there are such 

arbitrations, should the Bureau 

determine their frequency? If there are 

no longer such arbitrations, should the 

Bureau analyze whether covered 

persons will, in the future, return to 

bringing claims against consumers in 

arbitration? 

ii. Should the Bureau analyze the 

types of claims that covered persons 

bring in arbitration? If covered persons 

no longer bring claims in arbitration, 

should the Bureau seek to answer this 

question for a period in which they did? 

iii. For claims that covered persons 

have brought in arbitration, should the 

Bureau seek to analyze: (a) the cost and 

speed of dispute resolution; and/or (b) 

the outcome of disputes? If covered 

persons no longer bring claims in 

arbitration, should the Bureau seek to 

answer these questions for a period in 

which they did? 

iv. For consumers involved in any 

such cases, should the Bureau seek to 

assess their understanding of, and 

satisfaction with, the resulting 

arbitration process? If covered persons 

no longer bring claims in arbitration, 

should the Bureau seek to answer this 

question for a period in which they did? 

v. If the Bureau should address some 

or all of the issues identified in 2.B.i– 

iv above, what methods of study should 

it use? What new data, if any, should 

the Bureau seek and from which 

entities? What existing studies or 

empirical data, if any, should the 

Bureau use? Should the Bureau focus on 

particular product markets? Should the 

Bureau focus on the impact to arbitral 

proceedings of particular terms in predispute arbitration agreements? 

3. Impact and Use Outside Particular 

Arbitral Proceedings 

Independent of their role in particular 

arbitral proceedings, pre-dispute 

arbitration agreements may impact 

consumers and/or covered persons in 

other ways. Thus, academics and other 

parties have claimed that the existence 

of pre-dispute arbitration agreements 

may impact: 

• The incidence and nature of 

consumer claims against covered 

persons; 

• The price and availability of 

financial services products to 

consumers; 

• Compliance with consumer 

financial protection laws; 

• Consumer awareness of potential 

legal claims against covered persons; 

• Consumer awareness and 

understanding of how potential legal 

claims against covered persons may be 

resolved; and 

• The development, interpretation, 

and application of the rule of law. 

i. Should the Bureau seek to evaluate 

how the use of pre-dispute arbitration 

agreements impacts consumers and/or 

covered persons in one or more of these 

ways? 

ii. Should the Bureau seek to evaluate 

how the use of pre-dispute arbitration 

agreements impacts consumers and/or 

covered persons in any other ways that 

are independent of their role in 

particular arbitral proceedings? 

iii. If so, and in either case, what 

methods of study should the Bureau 

use? What new data, if any, should the 

Bureau seek and from which entities? 

What existing studies or empirical data, 

if any, should the Bureau use? Should 

the Bureau focus on particular product 

markets? Should the Bureau focus on 

the impact of particular terms in predispute arbitration agreements? 

Dated: April 23, 2012. 

Meredith Fuchs, 

Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10189 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Notification of an Open Meeting of the 

National Defense University Board of 

Visitors (BOV); Correction 

AGENCY: National Defense University, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2012 (77 FR 

19265–19266), the National Defense 

University Board of Visitors gave notice 

of a meeting to be held on May 2 and 

3, 2012, from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 

May 2 and continuing on May 3 from 

8 a.m. to 1 p.m. The Department of 

Defense announces that the meeting 

date and time have been changed. All 

other information in the notice remains 

the same. 

DATES: The new meeting date and time 

is May 2, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

The meeting originally scheduled for 

May 3, 2012 has been cancelled. 

ADDRESSES: The Board of Visitors 

meeting will be held at Marshall Hall, 

Building 62, Room 155, the National 

Defense University, 300 5th Avenue 

SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 

20319–5066. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

point of contact for this notice is Ms. 

Dolores Hodge at (202) 685–0082, Fax 

(202) 685–3748 or HodgeD@ndu.edu. 

Dated: April 24, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10226 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

GPS Satellite Simulator Working 

Group; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCY: The United States Air Force, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Amending GPS Simulator 

Working group Meeting Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are requesting to amend 

the date of the GPS Simulator Working 

group meeting notice published on 

April 20, 2012 under 77 FR 23668. The 

date of the meeting will now be 15 May 

2012 from 0730–1600 (Pacific Standard 

Time). This meeting notice is to inform 

the public that the Global Positioning 

Systems (GPS) Directorate will be 

hosting an open GPS Satellite Simulator 

Working Group (SSWG) meeting for 

manufacturers of GPS constellation 

simulators utilized by the federal 

government on 15 May 2012 from 0730– 

1600 (Pacific Standard Time). The 

purpose of this meeting is to 

disseminate information about GPS 

simulators, discuss current and on-going 

efforts related to simulators and form a 

functioning GPS Satellite Simulator 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 25151 

Working Group with industry and 

government participation. 

The GPS Satellite Simulator Working 

Group is open to any current 

manufacturer of GPS constellation 

satellite simulators who supply 

products to the Department of Defense. 

Please note that participants must 

possess a SECRET clearance to attend. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: We 

request that you register for this event 

no later than 8 May 2012. Please send 

the registration to 

justin.deifel@losangeles.af.mil and 

wayne.urubio@losangeles.af.mil and 

provide your name, organization, 

telephone number, address and security 

clearance information. 

Henry Williams Jr, 

Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, DAF. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10148 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive 

Patent Licenses to TroCept Micro Ltd. 

L.L.C. 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with 35 U.S.C. 

209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), the 

Department of the Army hereby gives 

notice of its intent to grant to TroCept 

Micro Ltd. L.L.C., a corporation having 

its principle place of business at 2711 

Centerville Rd, Suite 400, Wilmington, 

DE 19808, exclusive licenses relative to 

the following U.S. Patents: 

• 6,501,099; ‘‘Modified-anode gate 

turn-off thyristor;’’ December 31, 2002. 

• 6,703,642; ‘‘Silicon carbide (SiC) 

gate turn-off (GTO) thyristor structure 

for higher turn-off gain and larger 

voltage blocking when in the off-state;’’ 

March 9, 2004. 

• 6,734,462; ‘‘Silicon carbide (SiC) 

gate turn-off (GTO) thyristor structure 

for higher turn-off gain and larger 

voltage blocking when in the off-state,’’ 

February 8, 2000. 

• 6,759,683; ‘‘Formulation and 

fabrication of an improved Ni based 

composite Ohmic contact to n-SiC for 

high temperature and high power device 

applications;’’ July 6, 2004. 

• 6,900,477; ‘‘Processing technique to 

improve the turn-off gain of a silicon 

carbide gate turn-off thyristor and an 

article of manufacture;’’ May 31, 2005. 

• 7,297,626; ‘‘Process for nickel 

silicide Ohmic contacts to n-SiC;’’ 

November 20, 2007. 

• 7,304,363; ‘‘Interacting current 

spreader and junction extender to 

increase the voltage blocked in the off 

state of a high power semiconductor 

device;’’ December 4, 2007. 

• 7,851,274; ‘‘Processing technique to 

improve the turn-off gain of a silicon 

carbide gate turn-off thyristor;’’ 

December 14, 2010. 

DATES: The prospective exclusive 

licenses may be granted unless within 

fifteen (15) days from the date of this 

published notice, the U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory receives written 

objections including evidence and 

argument that establish that the grant of 

the licenses would not be consistent 

with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 

and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing 

applications completed and received by 

the U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

within fifteen (15) days from the date of 

this published notice will also be 

treated as objections to the grant of the 

contemplated exclusive licenses. 

Objections submitted in response to 

this notice will not be made available to 

the public for inspection and, to the 

extent permitted by law, will not be 

released under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

ADDRESSES: Send written objections to 

Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory, Office of Research and 

Technology Applications, Attn: RDRL– 

DB/Bldg. 434, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD 21005–5425. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael D. Rausa, telephone (410) 278– 

5028. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10169 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

Notice of Availability for the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed San 

Acacia to Bosque del Apache Project, 

Socorro County, NM 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Albuquerque District, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

has prepared a draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

on the findings of a flood risk 

management study along the Rio Grande 

from San Acacia downstream to San 

Marcial in Socorro County, New 

Mexico. The recommended plan is to 

replace the existing embankment 

between the Low Flow Conveyance 

Channel and the Rio Grande with a 

structurally competent levee capable of 

containing high-volume, long-duration 

flows. This engineered levee would 

substantially reduce the risk of damage 

from floods emanating from the Rio 

Grande. The local cost-sharing sponsors 

of the proposed project are the Middle 

Rio Grande Conservancy District and 

the New Mexico Interstate Stream 

Commission. 

DATES: All comments must be submitted 

or postmarked no later June 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, questions, 

requests for copies of the draft SEIS, and 

requests for notification of the public 

meeting can be addressed to: William 

DeRagon, email: 

william.r.deragon@usace.army.mil; or 

Mark Doles, email: 

mark.w.doles@usace,army.mil; U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 4101 Jefferson 

Plaza NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 

87109. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

William DeRagon, telephone: (505) 342– 

3358; or Mark Doles, telephone: (505) 

342–3364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previously, an environmental impact 

statement (1992) and a supplement 

(1977) were published regarding this 

project. Currently, a new draft SEIS has 

been prepared to evaluate effects of 

revised levee design and additional 

alternatives. The draft SEIS is integrated 

with a draft General Reevaluation 

Report, and the integrated document is 

entitled: Draft General Reevaluation 

Report and Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement II: Rio 

Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque 

del Apache Unit, Socorro County, New 

Mexico (hereafter referred to as the draft 

GRR/SEIS–II). 

Alternatives developed and evaluated 

during the current and previous studies 

consist of levee reconstruction; flood 

and sediment control dams; local levees; 

intermittent levee replacement; 

watershed land treatment; floodproofing 

of buildings; levee-alignment setbacks; 

and no action. Issues analyzed in the 

development of the draft GRR/SEIS–II 

included the effect of alternatives on 

flood risk, developed lands and 

structures, water quality, ecological 

resources, endangered species, social 

welfare, cultural resources, and 

aesthetic qualities. 

Public Review: The 45-day long 

review public review period for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES