Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 5711 

3EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas. See supra 

footnote 2. 

1The name of the NIOSH Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support (OCAS) was changed to the 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

(DCAS) in March 2010. 2 42 U.S.C. 7384n(c)(2), 7384o(b)(1). 

these states in the final Transport Rule 

with respect to the 1997 ozone season 

NAAQS or finalize ozone season NOX

budgets for these states, but instead 

published a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPR) (76 FR 

40662) to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment on the 

conclusion that these states significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in downwind states. EPA 

finalized the supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking on December 15, 

2011, which was published in the 

Federal Register on December 27, 2011 

(SNFR) (76 FR 80761). The SNFR found 

that emissions of NOX from sources in 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin either 

significantly contributed to 

nonattainment or interfered with 

maintenance in downwind states. The 

SNFR also finalized FIPs for Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin that required sources within 

the states to comply with the Transport 

Rule.3

After publication of the final 

Transport Rule, various parties filed 

petitions for review of EPA’s action in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

and consolidated cases). On December 

30, 2011, upon the motions of various 

petitioners, the Court ordered the 

Transport Rule stayed pending the 

completion of its review. 

II. This Notice of Intent 

The Court did not explicitly address 

the effect of its order on the SNFR 

affecting Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. 

Because the underlying programs of the 

Transport Rule have been stayed by the 

Court, there is no practical way for 

covered sources under the SNFR to 

comply with those programs. The SNFR 

employs the same methodology, 

modeling, and analysis as the final 

Transport Rule and extends the 

programs established in the Transport 

Rule to additional states. The agency 

will therefore treat the new rule in the 

same manner as the underlying 

Transport Rule, which has been stayed. 

EPA does not expect covered sources 

under the SNFR to comply with the 

provisions of that rule for the duration 

of the Court’s stay. 

Dated: January 26, 2012. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2328 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 81 

[Docket Number NIOSH–209] 

RIN 0920–AA39 

Guidelines for Determining Probability 

of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000; 

Revision of Guidelines on NonRadiogenic Cancers 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In a notice of proposed 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on March 21, 2011, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) proposed to treat 

chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as 

a radiogenic cancer under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA) (76 FR 15268). Under this 

final rule, CLL will be treated as being 

potentially caused by radiation and 

hence as potentially compensable under 

EEOICPA. HHS reverses its decision to 

exclude CLL from such treatment. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stuart Hinnefeld, Director, Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support,1

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 

Columbia Parkway, MS–C46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513– 

533–6800 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Information requests can also 

be submitted by email to dcas@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Technical Review 

by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health 

II. Background 

A. Introduction 

B. NIOSH Reconsideration of CLL 

C. Purpose of the Rule 

III. Summary of Final Rule 

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice) 

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental, Health 

Risks and Safety Risks) 

I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

J. Plain Writing Act of 2010 

I. Public Participation and Technical 

Review by the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 

On March 21, 2011, HHS published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (76 FR 

15268), proposing to treat CLL as a 

radiogenic cancer. HHS initially 

solicited public comments from March 

21, 2011, to June 20, 2011. Upon 

request, HHS extended the comment 

period to July 20, 2011 (76 FR 36891, 

June 23, 2011). 

HHS received comments from seven 

stakeholders, including the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

which was required by EEOICPA to 

provide a technical review of a 

proposed amendment to the probability 

of causation guidelines.2 All of the 

comments offered support for the 

inclusion of CLL under the coverage 

provided by EEOICPA. Specifically, the 

Advisory Board concurred with the 

NIOSH position that ‘‘given that the law 

requires the use of the upper 99 percent 

credibility level in making 

compensation decisions, the inclusion 

of CLL despite the limited evidence of 

radiogenicity, is considered appropriate 

by NIOSH.’’ Furthermore, the Advisory 

Board agreed that the risk model 

proposed by NIOSH is based on the best 

available science and methodological 

approaches to express the dose-response 

relationship between radiation exposure 

and CLL. In addition to the technical 

review submitted by the Advisory 

Board, three of the seven comments 

were personal stories submitted by 

family members of deceased energy 

employees who developed CLL, and the 

remaining three comments argued that 

to be fair to claimants, CLL should be 

included as a radiogenic cancer under 

Part B of EEOIPCA. There were no 

comments opposing this change. 

II. Background 

A. Introduction 

The Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer 

Statistics Review 1975–2007; Table 1.14. Lifetime 

risk (percent) of being diagnosed with cancer by site 

and race/ethnicity: both sexes, 17 SEER areas, 

2005–2007. 

2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384–7385, 

established a compensation program to 

provide a lump-sum payment of 

$150,000 and prospective medical 

benefits as compensation to covered 

employees suffering from designated 

illnesses incurred as a result of their 

exposure to radiation, beryllium, or 

silica while in the performance of duty 

for the Department of Energy (DOE) and 

certain of its vendors, contractors, and 

subcontractors. This legislation also 

provided for lump-sum payments for 

certain survivors of these covered 

employees. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

primary responsibility for administering 

the compensation program; HHS 

performs several technical and 

policymaking roles in support of the 

DOL program. One of these is to develop 

guidelines, by regulation, to be used by 

DOL to assess the likelihood that an 

employee with cancer developed that 

cancer as a result of exposure to 

radiation in performing his or her duty 

at a DOE facility or an atomic weapons 

employer facility. The guidelines are 

published in 42 CFR part 81, and 

comprise a set of policies and 

procedures by which DOL determines 

whether it is ‘‘at least as likely as not’’ 

that the cancer of a nuclear weapons 

employee was caused by radiation doses 

the employee incurred while employed 

at a facility both involved in the 

production of nuclear weapons and 

covered under EEOICPA. The guidelines 

being amended by this final rule 

designate CLL as non-radiogenic, and 

hence had required DOL to assign a 

probability of causation value of ‘‘zero.’’ 

There were two related scientific 

reasons for designating CLL as nonradiogenic at the time the HHS 

guidelines were promulgated in 2002. 

The first was that the epidemiological 

studies did not demonstrate radiation as 

the cause of CLL, a conclusion reached 

by a number of expert scientific 

committees, as well as by NIOSH. 

The second reason was that, even if 

NIOSH had determined that CLL should 

be treated as radiogenic, NIOSH 

scientists judged it would not have been 

feasible to develop a quantitative risk 

model, specifying a dose-response 

relationship between radiation and CLL, 

given the existing scientific evidence at 

that time. Hence, it was not feasible to 

include CLL as a radiogenic cancer 

under the guidelines. 

B. NIOSH Reconsideration of CLL 

In the March 21, 2011, notice of 

proposed rulemaking, NIOSH discussed 

the results of a panel convened in 2005 

to provide judgment on evidence of an 

association between exposure to 

ionizing radiation and the risk of 

developing CLL, and whether CLL 

should continue to be excluded from 

eligibility for compensation under 

EEOICPA (76 FR 15268, 15269–70). 

NIOSH also discussed four subject 

matter expert reviews, conducted in 

2009, of a draft report of the CLL risk 

model (76 FR 15268, 15270–71). 

NIOSH’s recent review found the 

evidence of radiogenicity offered by 

epidemiology studies to be nondeterminative. NIOSH weighed the nondeterminative epidemiologic evidence, 

along with other factors that included: 

(1) The mechanistic argument for CLL 

causation; (2) the similarities between 

CLL and other compensated cancers; (3) 

the classification of CLL by the World 

Health Organization and the National 

Cancer Institute as a form of nonHodgkin’s lymphoma; and (4) the 

treatment of CLL as a potentiallycompensable radiogenic cancer by the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Upon review of these facts, the Agency 

no longer believes that it is possible to 

state that the probability of causation for 

CLL equals zero. Because NIOSH finds 

sufficient evidence to include CLL as a 

compensable cancer under EEOICPA, 

claimants with CLL will be eligible for 

dose reconstruction under EEOICPA. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

also discussed NIOSH’s efforts to 

develop a quantitative radiation risk 

model for CLL. 

C. Purpose of the Rule 

The purpose of this rule is to provide 

for coverage of CLL under part B of 

EEOICPA. This revision removes sec. 

81.30 from the probability of causation 

guidelines. CLL is considered 

radiogenic for the purposes of this 

compensation program; DOL will no 

longer be required to assign a 

probability of causation for CLL of zero, 

when presented with a claim for dose 

reconstruction under part B of 

EEOICPA. In concert with this change, 

NIOSH adds a CLL risk model to 

NIOSH–IREP and DOL will refer CLL 

claims under part B of EEOICPA to 

NIOSH for dose reconstructions, to be 

followed by determinations of 

probability of causation by DOL under 

these revised guidelines. 

III. Summary of Final Rule 

This final rule removes 42 CFR 81.30 

from part 81, thus rescinding the 

designation of CLL as a non-radiogenic 

cancer under this part. The effect of this 

rescission will be that a qualified claim 

for CLL under part B of EEOICPA will 

be referred by DOL to NIOSH for 

radiation dose reconstruction and, upon 

completion of the dose reconstruction, 

DOL will determine the probability of 

causation and complete the adjudication 

of the claim on that basis. Presently, 

such claims are not referred to NIOSH 

for dose reconstruction, since under the 

language of sec. 81.30, DOL was 

required to assign a probability of zero 

to CLL. 

Upon promulgation of this final 

regulation, DOL will identify open and 

closed cases (NIOSH estimates the 

number of closed cases to be about 363) 

under part B of EEOICPA involving CLL 

claims and attempt to notify the 

claimants of the new provision. In 

addition, NIOSH will assist DOL in 

identifying active and closed cases 

involving multiple primary cancers 

including CLL, to identify those whose 

outcome might be affected by the new 

provision. For all cases involving CLL, 

NIOSH will revise the dose 

reconstruction to take into account 

radiation doses relevant to CLL, and 

DOL will recalculate the probability of 

causation accordingly. 

IV. Regulatory Assessment 

Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

has been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ although not 

economically significant, under sec. 3(f) 

of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the rule has been reviewed by the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

The rule is consistent with the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7384n(c). The 

rule does not interfere with State, local, 

or Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

The rule is not considered 

economically significant, as defined in 

sec. 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. CLL is a rare 

cancer, with a lifetime risk of 0.48 

percent; according to data provided by 

NCI, an estimated 1.1 percent of all 

cancers will be CLL.3 This low risk 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 5713 

4This figure represents the number of individual 

cases requiring dose reconstruction that have been 

forwarded to NIOSH by DOL. 

5NIOSH further estimates the upper bounds of 

potential costs associated with CLL compensation. 

To address any potential uncertainty in the 

incidence estimate, multiplying by a factor of 2 will 

increase the CLL incidence rate from 1.1 percent to 

2.2 percent. Doing so will result in a total of 990 

cases, or 98 CLL cases per year for the first 5 years. 

Reconstructing 198 cases per year will likely cost 

NIOSH $2,376,000 per year, DOL $1,584,000 per 

year, and DOE $112,860 per year for an estimated 

total cost to the 3 Federal agencies of $4,072,860. 

With an incidence rate of 2.2 percent, NIOSH 

predicts that 30 percent, or 60 cases, will be 

compensated. Given an award of $150,000 per case 

plus medical expenses, NIOSH estimates that the 

rule will result in compensation of $10,200,000. In 

total, NIOSH estimates that this rulemaking will 

cost the Federal government no more than 

$14,272,860 annually. 

among the U.S. population, coupled 

with the weak evidence for CLL’s 

radiogenicity, indicates DOL is unlikely 

to receive a substantial volume of claims 

for CLL, thus limiting the administrative 

expenses associated with such claims 

and the potential compensation costs. 

Since 2001, NIOSH has received 

approximately 33,000 cases 4 that 

included all cancers currently covered 

under EEOICPA; given that an estimated 

1.1 percent of all cancers occurring 

among adults are CLL, NIOSH estimates 

that approximately 363 of those cases 

would have sought compensation for 

CLL. NIOSH also receives an average of 

200 new cases per month from DOL, 

and therefore estimates an expected 

total of 12,000 cases over the next 5 

years; based on the 1.1 percent 

incidence rate, NIOSH estimates that 

approximately 132 of those cases will 

seek compensation for CLL. The Agency 

expects to review the 363 reopened 

cases plus 132 new CLL cases in the 

first 5 years after promulgation of this 

rule—a total of approximately 99 CLL 

cases per year for the first 5 years. The 

estimated cost to NIOSH of conducting 

dose reconstructions is $12,000 per 

reconstructed case ($1,188,000 per 

year); DOL estimates its direct cost per 

adjudicated case to be about $8,000 

($792,000 per year); and DOE estimates 

its cost per case to be $198 per each 

DOL request for employment 

verification, and $372 for responding to 

each NIOSH request for exposure data 

($56,430 per year). In sum, NIOSH 

estimates the administrative costs to the 

three Federal agencies associated with 

CLL cases to be $2,036,430 per year. 

Based on our knowledge of the 

exposure potential for the claimant 

population and the probability of 

causation guidelines discussed above, 

NIOSH expects that approximately 30 

percent of CLL cases—30 cases per 

year—will result in compensation. 

Compensated claimants receive 

$150,000 plus medical expenses, which 

are estimated to cost about $20,000 per 

year (costs tend to be higher in the first 

year of treatment, but benefits are 

payable only from the date of filing a 

claim, and most claimants have already 

begun treatment by that time). The 

financial award granted to successful 

claimants comes directly from the U.S. 

Treasury’s Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Fund (42 U.S.C. 7384f); NIOSH 

estimates that annual compensation will 

amount to $5,100,000. In total, this rule 

is estimated to cost the Federal 

government (the three Federal agencies 

plus the U.S. Treasury) $7,136,430 per 

year, or just over 7 percent of the 

established $100 million annual 

threshold for economic significance.5

There are no feasible alternatives to 

this regulatory action. OMB has 

reviewed this probability of causation 

rule for consistency with the President’s 

priorities and the principles set forth in 

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires each 

agency to consider the potential impact 

of its regulations on small entities 

including small businesses, small 

governmental units, and small not-forprofit organizations. We certify that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the RFA. The rule affects 

only DOL, DOE, HHS, and certain 

individuals covered by EEOICPA. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis as provided for under RFA is 

not required. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires an 

agency to invite public comment on and 

to obtain OMB approval of any 

regulation that requires 10 or more 

people to report information to the 

agency or to keep certain records. This 

rule does not contain any information 

collection requirements. It provides 

guidelines only to DOL for adjudicating 

compensation claims and thus requires 

no reporting or record keeping. 

Information required by DOL to apply 

these guidelines is being provided by 

HHS and by individual claimants to 

DOL under DOL regulations at 20 CFR 

part 30. Thus, HHS has determined that 

the PRA does not apply to this rule. 

D. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

As required by Congress under the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et 

seq.), the Department will report the 

promulgation of this rule to Congress 

prior to its effective date. The report 

will state that the Department has 

concluded that this rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ because it is not likely to result in 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) directs agencies to assess the 

effects of Federal regulatory actions on 

State, local, and Tribal governments, 

and the private sector ‘‘other than to the 

extent that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law.’’ For purposes of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, this rule does not 

include any Federal mandate that may 

result in increased annual expenditures 

in excess of $100 million by State, local 

or Tribal governments in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, adjusted 

annually for inflation. For 2010, the 

inflation adjusted threshold is $135 

million. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice) 

This rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 

and will not unduly burden the Federal 

court system. Probability of causation 

may be an element in reviews of DOL 

adverse decisions in the United States 

District Courts pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

However, DOL has attempted to 

minimize that burden by providing 

claimants an opportunity to seek 

administrative review of adverse 

decisions, including those involving 

probability of causation. HHS has 

provided a clear legal standard for DOL 

to apply regarding probability of 

causation. This rule has been reviewed 

carefully to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguities. 

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule in accordance with Executive Order 

13132 regarding federalism, and has 

determined that it does not have 

‘‘federalism implications.’’ The rule 

does not ‘‘have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5714 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental, Health 

Risks and Safety Risks) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13045, HHS has evaluated the 

environmental health and safety effects 

of this rule on children. HHS has 

determined that the rule would have no 

effect on children. 

I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of 

this rule on energy supply, distribution 

or use, and has determined that the rule 

will not have a significant adverse 

effect. 

J. Plain Writing Act of 2010 

Under Public Law 111–274 (October 

13, 2010), executive Departments and 

Agencies are required to use plain 

language in documents that explain to 

the public how to comply with a 

requirement the Federal Government 

administers or enforces. HHS has 

attempted to use plain language in 

promulgating the final rule consistent 

with the Federal Plain Writing Act 

guidelines. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 81 

Cancer, Government employees, 

Occupational safety and health, Nuclear 

materials, Radiation protection, 

Radioactive materials, Workers’ 

compensation. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Department of Health and 

Human Services amends 42 CFR part 81 

as follows: 

PART 81—GUIDELINES FOR 

DETERMINING THE PROBABILITY OF 

CAUSATION UNDER THE ENERGY 

EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL 

ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM 

ACT OF 2000 

Subpart E—Guidelines To Estimate 

Probability of Causation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384n; E.O. 13179, 65 

FR 77487, 3 CFR, 2000 Comp., p. 321. 

§ 81.30 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 81.30. 

Dated: October 21, 2011. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2527 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

48 CFR Part 422 

RIN 0599–AA19 

Office of Procurement and Property 

Management; Agriculture Acquisition 

Regulation, Labor Law Violations; 

Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Office of Procurement and 

Property Management, Departmental 

Management, Department of 

Agriculture. 

ACTION: Direct Final rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an 

adverse comment, the Office of 

Procurement and Property Management 

(OPPM) of the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is withdrawing the 

December 1, 2011, (76 FR 74722) direct 

final rule adding a new clause to the 

Agriculture Acquisition Regulation at 

subpart 422.70 entitled ‘‘Labor Law 

Violations’’ that would have a 

contractor certify upon accepting a 

contract that it is in compliance with all 

applicable labor laws and that, to the 

best of its knowledge, its subcontractors 

of any tier, and suppliers, are also in 

compliance with all applicable labor 

laws. The Department stated that in the 

event of an adverse comment being 

received by January 30, 2012, the direct 

final rule would be withdrawn in part 

or in whole. On January 27, 2012, USDA 

received a comment. USDA interprets 

this comment as adverse and, therefore, 

USDA is withdrawing the direct final 

rule. 

DATES: As of February 6, 2012, the direct 

final rule published on December 1, 

2011, at 76 FR 74722, is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Calacone, Office of Procurement 

and Property Management, at (202) 205– 

4036 or by mail at OPPM, Mail Stop 

9306, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

300 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20024–9306. Please cite ‘‘48 CFR 

422 Direct Final Rule’’ in all 

correspondence. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USDA is 

withdrawing its direct final rule 

published on December 1, 2011 (76 FR 

74722), entitled ‘‘Agriculture 

Acquisition Regulation, Labor Law 

Violations,’’ as USDA received an 

adverse comment. This document 

officially withdraws the direct final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 422 

Classified information, Computer 

technology, Government procurement, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 1, 

2012. 

Jodey Barnes-Edwards, 

Acting Director, Office of Procurement and 

Property Management. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2638 Filed 2–1–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–98–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 29 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–NWRS–2011–0108; 

FVRS84510900000U2–12X–FF09R50000] 

RIN 1018–AU89 

Change of Addresses for Regional 

Offices, Addition of One New Address, 

and Correction of Names of House and 

Senate Committees We Must Notify 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (we, or the Service), are 

revising our rights-of-way (ROW) 

general regulations, to update or add 

addresses of several Service Regional 

Offices, and to correct the names of the 

House and Senate Committees we must 

notify upon receipt of an application for 

a right-of-way for an oil and gas pipeline 

that is 24 inches or more in diameter 

and again before granting a right-of-way. 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Chief, Division of Realty, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Room 622, Arlington, VA 

22203. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet Bruner, (703) 358–2287. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

revising our ROW general regulations at 

50 CFR part 29, which prescribe the 

procedures for filing applications for 

ROWs over and across Serviceadministered lands and the terms and 

conditions under which we grant these 

ROWs, to update or add addresses of 

several Service Regional Offices and to 

correct the names of the House and 

Senate Committees we must notify upon 

receipt of an application for a right-ofway for an oil and gas pipeline that is 

24 inches or more in diameter and again 

before granting a right-of-way. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES