63184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103, 

45301–45302. 

■ 2. Amend § 61.58 by adding 

paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as follows: 

§ 61.58 Pilot-in-command proficiency 

check: Operation of aircraft requiring more 

than one pilot flight crewmember. 

* * * * * 

(j) A pilot-in-command of a turbojet 

powered aircraft that is type certificated 

for one pilot does not have to comply 

with the pilot-in-command proficiency 

check requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (a)(2) of this section until October 

31, 2012. 

(k) Unless required by the aircraft’s 

operating limitations, a pilot-incommand of an experimental turbojetpowered aircraft does not have to 

comply with the pilot-in-command 

proficiency check requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

section until October 31, 2012. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 4, 

2011. 

Dennis R. Pratte, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26229 Filed 10–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 744 

[Docket No. 110620344–1586–01] 

RIN 0694–AF28 

Addition of Certain Persons on the 

Entity List; Implementation of Entity 

List Annual Review Change; and 

Removal of Persons From the Entity 

List Based on Removal Requests 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) by 

adding two persons to the Entity List. 

The persons who are added to the Entity 

List have been determined by the U.S. 

Government to be acting contrary to the 

national security or foreign policy 

interests of the United States. These 

persons will be listed under the 

destination of Hong Kong on the Entity 

List. In addition, this rule amends the 

Entity List on the basis of the annual 

review of the Entity List conducted by 

the End-User Review Committee (ERC) 

for entities located in Hong Kong. The 

ERC conducts the annual review to 

determine if any entities on the Entity 

List should be removed or modified. 

This rule removes one person located in 

Hong Kong on the basis of the annual 

review. 

Lastly, this rule removes three 

persons from the Entity List consisting 

of one person located in Hong Kong and 

two persons located in New Zealand. 

These three persons are being removed 

from the Entity List as a result of 

requests for removal submitted by each 

of these three persons, a review of 

information provided in the removal 

requests in accordance with BIS 

regulations, and further review 

conducted by the ERC. 

The Entity List provides notice to the 

public that certain exports, reexports, 

and transfers (in-country) to entities 

identified on the Entity List require a 

license from the Bureau of Industry and 

Security and that availability of license 

exceptions in such transactions is 

limited. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 12, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User 

Review Committee, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary, Export 

Administration, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce, 

Phone: (202) 482–5991, Fax: (202) 482– 

3911, E-mail: ERC@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Entity List provides notice to the 

public that certain exports, reexports, 

and transfers (in-country) to entities 

identified on the Entity List require a 

license from the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) and that the availability 

of license exceptions in such 

transactions is limited. Entities are 

placed on the Entity List on the basis of 

certain sections of part 744 (Control 

Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) of 

the EAR. 

The ERC, composed of representatives 

of the Departments of Commerce 

(Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, 

when appropriate, the Treasury, makes 

all decisions regarding additions to, 

removals from or other modifications to 

the Entity List. The ERC makes all 

decisions to add an entry to the Entity 

List by majority vote and all decisions 

to remove or modify an entry by 

unanimous vote. 

ERC Entity List Decisions 

This rule implements decisions of the 

ERC to add two additional persons 

located in Hong Kong to the Entity List 

and to remove two persons located in 

Hong Kong from the Entity List (one 

removal on the basis of a determination 

made under the annual review of the 

Entity List and the other removal on the 

basis of a removal request submitted by 

the listed person). The additions are 

described under Additions to the Entity 

List and the removals are described 

under Removals from the Entity List. 

This rule also removes two listed 

persons from the Entity List located in 

New Zealand on the basis of a removal 

request submitted by the listed persons. 

Additions to the Entity List 

This rule implements the decision of 

the ERC to add two persons to the Entity 

List on the basis of section 744.11 

(License requirements that apply to 

entities acting contrary to the national 

security or foreign policy interests of the 

United States) of the EAR. The two 

entries added to the Entity List are Hang 

Tat Electronics Enterprises Co., an 

electronic components trading 

company, and Cho-Man Wong, an 

employee of Hang Tat, both located in 

Hong Kong. 

The ERC reviewed section 744.11(b) 

(Criteria for revising the Entity List) in 

making the determination to add these 

persons to the Entity List. Under that 

paragraph, persons for which there is 

reasonable cause to believe, based on 

specific and articulable facts, that the 

persons have been involved, are 

involved, or pose a significant risk of 

being or becoming involved in, 

activities that are contrary to the 

national security or foreign policy 

interests of the United States and those 

acting on behalf of such persons may be 

added to the Entity List pursuant to 

section 744.11. Paragraphs (b)(1)–(b)(5) 

include an illustrative list of activities 

that could be contrary to the national 

security or foreign policy interests of the 

United States. These two persons are 

believed to have been involved in 

activities described under paragraphs 

(b)(4) and (b)(5) of section 744.11. 

Specifically, Hang Tat Electronics 

Enterprises Co., an electronic 

components trading company located in 

Hong Kong, and Cho-Man Wong, an 

employee of Hang Tat, have been 

complicit in violations of the EAR 

involving the shipment of items from 

the United States to China through Hong 

Kong. BIS has determined that Hang Tat 

and Cho-Man Wong (hereafter 

collectively, ‘‘Hang Tat’’) purchased 

certain items subject to the EAR from 

WREIER-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 63185 

the United States on multiple occasions 

with the intention of reselling the items 

to persons in China, but did not inform 

the U.S. suppliers that the items would 

be resold to China, and made the sale 

of the items to persons in China 

contingent upon the Chinese customers’ 

receipt of the items in Hong Kong and 

the Chinese customers’ acceptance of 

the responsibility to obtain any 

shipment authorizations required for the 

movement of the items from Hong Kong 

to China. BIS has reason to believe that 

Hang Tat knew that the availability of 

License Exception ‘‘Additional 

Permissive Reexports’’ (APR) (i.e., 

Section 740.16 of the EAR) is limited to 

those transactions that are made in 

accordance with the export 

authorizations issued by the reexporting 

country but did not explicitly inform 

their customers of either the EAR or the 

Hong Kong government’s requirements. 

BIS also has reason to believe that some 

portion of the items sold by Hang Tat to 

persons in China were reexported from 

Hong Kong to China without the 

required authorization from the Hong 

Kong government, and thus were not 

eligible for License Exception APR, and 

required a license from BIS for reexport 

to China. BIS did not issue reexport 

licenses for these transactions, which 

therefore were made in violation of the 

EAR. In addition, the Chinese persons 

purchasing the items from Hang Tat 

may be involved in proliferation-related 

activities. BIS also notes that under the 

EAR, a license is required to export the 

subject items from the United States to 

China. BIS believes that Hang Tat’s 

business practices are contrary to U.S. 

national security and foreign policy 

interests. 

For the two persons added to the 

Entity List, the ERC specifies a license 

requirement for all items subject to the 

EAR and establishes a license 

application review policy of a 

presumption of denial. The license 

requirement applies to any transaction 

in which items are to be exported, 

reexported, or transferred (in-country) to 

such persons or in which such persons 

act as purchaser, intermediate 

consignee, ultimate consignee, or enduser. In addition, no license exceptions 

are available for exports, reexports, or 

transfers (in-country) to those persons 

being added to the Entity List. 

This final rule adds the following two 

persons to the Entity List: 

Hong Kong 

1. Cho-Man Wong, Room 2608, 

Technology Plaza, 29–35 Sha Tsui Road, 

Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong; and 

2. Hang Tat Electronics Enterprises 

Co., Room 2608, Technology Plaza, 29– 

35 Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan, Hong 

Kong. 

Removals From the Entity List 

This rule removes four entities from 

the Entity List consisting of two entities 

from Hong Kong (one from Hong Kong 

on the basis of the annual review of the 

Entity List and one from Hong Kong on 

the basis of a removal request) and two 

entities from New Zealand on the basis 

of removal requests submitted by each 

of those listed persons, as follows: 

a. Removal on the Basis of the Annual 

Review 

This rule implements a decision of 

the ERC to remove one entity, Pelorus 

Enterprises Limited, located in Hong 

Kong, from the Entity List on the basis 

of the annual review of the Entity List 

conducted by the ERC, in accordance 

with the procedures outlined in 

Supplement No. 5 to part 744 

(Procedures for End-User Review 

Committee Entity List Decisions). The 

changes from the annual review of the 

Entity List that are approved by the ERC 

are implemented in stages as the ERC 

completes its review of entities listed 

under different destinations on the 

Entity List. 

This final rule removes the following 

person located in Hong Kong from the 

Entity List on the basis of a decision 

made by the ERC during the annual 

review: 

Hong Kong 

1. Pelorus Enterprises Limited, 12F 

Commercial VIP Building, 112–116 

Canton Rd., Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong. 

b. Removal on the Basis of a Removal 

Request 

This rule implements a decision of 

the ERC to remove three entities 

consisting of one person, Polar Star 

International Co. Ltd., located in Hong 

Kong, and two persons, Leigh Michau 

and Q–SPD (Q-Marine International 

Ltd.), located in New Zealand from the 

Entity List on the basis of a removal 

request. The ERC made a determination 

to remove these three persons as a result 

of these three entities’ requests for 

removal from the Entity List. Based 

upon the review of the information 

provided in each of the three removal 

requests in accordance with section 

744.16 (Procedure for requesting 

removal or modification of an Entity 

List entity), and after review by the 

ERC’s member agencies, the ERC 

determined that these three persons 

should be removed from the Entity List. 

The ERC decision to remove each of 

these three persons took into account 

each of these persons’ cooperation with 

the U.S. Government, as well each of 

these three person’s assurances of future 

compliance with the EAR. In 

accordance with section 744.16(c), the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration has sent written 

notification to each of these three 

persons, informing these entities of the 

ERC’s decision to remove them from the 

Entity List. This final rule implements 

the decision to remove this one Hong 

Kong person and two New Zealand 

persons from the Entity List. 

This final rule removes the following 

persons located in Hong Kong and New 

Zealand from the Entity List: 

Hong Kong 

1. Polar Star International Co. Ltd., 

1905 Yen Sheng Center, 64 Hoi Yuen 

Rd., Kwun Tong, Kin, Hong Kong. 

New Zealand 

1. Leigh Michau, P.O. Box 34–881, 

Birkenhead, Auckland, New Zealand; 

and 

2. Q–SPD (Q-Marine International 

Ltd.), P.O. Box 34–881, Birkenhead, 

Auckland, New Zealand. 

The removal of the above referenced 

four entities from the Entity List 

eliminates the existing license 

requirements in Supplement No. 4 to 

part 744 for exports, reexports and 

transfers (in-country) to these four 

entities. However, the removal of these 

four entities from the Entity List does 

not relieve persons of other obligations 

under part 744 of the EAR or under 

other parts of the EAR. Neither the 

removal of an entity from the Entity List 

nor the removal of Entity List-based 

license requirements relieves persons of 

their obligations under General 

Prohibition 5 in section 736.2(b)(5) of 

the EAR which provides that, ‘‘you may 

not, without a license, knowingly export 

or reexport any item subject to the EAR 

to an end-user or end-use that is 

prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.’’ 

Additionally these removals do not 

relieve persons of their obligation to 

apply for export, reexport or in-country 

transfer licenses required by other 

provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly 

urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to 

part 732 of the EAR, ‘‘BIS’s ‘Know Your 

Customer’ Guidance and Red Flags,’’ 

when persons are involved in 

transactions that are subject to the EAR. 

Savings Clause 

Shipments of items removed from 

eligibility for a License Exception or 

export or reexport without a license 

(NLR) as a result of this regulatory 

action that were on dock for loading, on 

lighter, laden aboard an exporting or 

reexporting carrier, or en route aboard a 

WREIER-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES

63186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

carrier to a port of export or reexport, on 

October 12, 2011, pursuant to actual 

orders for export or reexport to a foreign 

destination, may proceed to that 

destination under the previous 

eligibility for a License Exception or 

export or reexport without a license 

(NLR) so long as they are exported or 

reexported before October 27, 2011. Any 

such items not actually exported or 

reexported before midnight, on October 

27, 2011, require a license in accordance 

with the EAR. 

Although the Export Administration 

Act expired on August 20, 2001, the 

President, through Executive Order 

13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 

Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the 

Notice of August 12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 

(August 16, 2011), has continued the 

Export Administration Regulations in 

effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act. 

Rulemaking Requirements 

1. 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 determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

2. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to respond to nor be subject to a penalty 

for failure to comply with a collection 

of information, subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Control Number. This regulation 

involves collections previously 

approved by the OMB under control 

numbers 0694–0088, ‘‘Multi-Purpose 

Application,’’ which carries a burden 

hour estimate of 43.8 minutes for a 

manual or electronic submission. Total 

burden hours associated with the PRA 

and OMB control number 0694–0088 

are not expected to increase as a result 

of this rule. You may send comments 

regarding the collection of information 

associated with this rule, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), by 

e-mail to 

Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov, or by 

fax to (202) 395–7285. 

3. This rule does not contain policies 

with Federalism implications as that 

term is defined in Executive Order 

13132. 

4. The provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553) requiring notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the opportunity for public 

comment and a delay in effective date 

are inapplicable because this regulation 

involves a military or foreign affairs 

function of the United States. (See 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implements this 

rule to protect U.S. national security or 

foreign policy interests by preventing 

items from being exported, reexported, 

or transferred (in country) to the persons 

being added to the Entity List. If this 

rule were delayed to allow for notice 

and comment and a delay in effective 

date, then entities being added to the 

Entity List by this action would 

continue to be able to receive items 

without a license and to conduct 

activities contrary to the national 

security or foreign policy interests of the 

United States. In addition, because these 

parties may receive notice of the U.S. 

Government’s intention to place these 

entities on the Entity List once a final 

rule was published it would create an 

incentive for these persons to either 

accelerate receiving items subject to the 

EAR to conduct activities that are 

contrary to the national security or 

foreign policy interests of the United 

States and/or to take steps to set up 

additional aliases, change addresses and 

take other steps to try to limit the 

impact of the listing on the Entity List 

once a final rule was published. Further, 

no other law requires that a notice of 

proposed rulemaking and an 

opportunity for public comment be 

given for this rule. Because a notice of 

proposed rulemaking and an 

opportunity for public comment are not 

required to be given for this rule by 5 

U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the 

analytical requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq., are not applicable. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744 

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Terrorism. 

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (15 CFR 

parts 730–774) is amended as follows: 

PART 744—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 744 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 

42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 

U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 

3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 

FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 

12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 

356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 

Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 

CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 

44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 

13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 

786; Notice of August 12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 

(August 16, 2011); Notice of November 4, 

2010, 75 FR 68673 (November 8, 2010): 

Notice of January 13, 2011, 76 FR 3009, 

January 18, 2011. 

■ 2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is 

amended: 

■ a. By adding two entries in 

alphabetical order under Hong Kong; 

■ b. By removing under Hong Kong, the 

two Hong Kong entities: ‘‘Pelorus 

Enterprises Limited, 12F Commercial 

VIP Building, 112–116 Canton Rd., Tsim 

Sha Tsui, Hong Kong’’ and ‘‘Polar Star 

International Co. Ltd., 1905 Yen Sheng 

Center, 64 Hoi Yuen Rd., Kwun Tong, 

Kin, Hong Kong;’’ and 

■ c. By removing the entry for New 

Zealand. 

The additions read as follows: 

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity 

List 

Country Entity License requirement License review policy 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

*******

Hong Kong ........ Cho-Man Wong Room 2608, Technology Plaza 

29–35 Sha Tsui Road Tsuen Wan, Hong 

Kong.

For all items subject to 

the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the EAR).

Presumption of denial 76 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

October 12, 2011. 

WREIER-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 63187 

1Rules Relating to Reparation Proceedings, 59 FR 

9631, 9633 (Mar. 1, 1994) (Final Rule) (increasing 

the ceiling to $30,000 and otherwise amending Part 

12). 

Country Entity License requirement License review policy 

Federal 

Register 

citation 

*******

Hang Tat Electronics Enterprises Co. Room 

2608, Technology Plaza 29–35 Sha Tsui 

Road Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong.

For all items subject to 

the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the EAR).

Presumption of denial 76 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

October 12, 2001. 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: October 3, 2011. 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26072 Filed 10–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 12 

Authority of Judgment Officers to Hear 

Cases 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is 

amending its regulations to authorize 

any Commission Judgment Officer to 

conduct formal decisional proceedings. 

This action will promote the efficient 

use of the Commission’s budget and 

personnel resources. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 12, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Richards, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. Telephone: 

202–418–5126. E-mail: 

lrichards@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 14(b) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 18(b), authorizes 

the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission to promulgate rules, 

regulations, and orders as it deems 

necessary or appropriate for the efficient 

and expeditious administration of its 

reparations program. Pursuant to 

Section 14(b), the Commission is 

amending Rule 12.26(c) to authorize any 

Commission Judgment Officer to 

conduct formal decisional proceedings 

under Subpart E of the Part 12 Rules. 

Rule 12.26(c) currently provides that 

formal decisional proceedings are to be 

conducted by an Administrative Law 

Judge (‘‘ALJ’’). A formal decisional 

proceeding is held when the amount 

claimed in damages exceeds $30,000 

and the parties have not elected a 

voluntary decisional proceeding under 

Subpart C. Voluntary decisional 

proceedings are heard by a Judgment 

Officer without regard to the amount in 

controversy. See Rule 12.26(a). Cases 

where the amount is controversy is less 

than $30,000 are conducted as summary 

decisional proceedings by a Judgment 

Officer under Subpart D. See Rule 

12.26(b). 

From time to time, the Commission 

has raised the ceiling for claims eligible 

to be heard as summary proceedings, 

most recently from $10,000 to $30,000.1

Currently, most reparations cases filed 

involve amounts less than $30,000 and 

are assigned to the Judgment Officer. 

Based on its experience with the 

reparations program, the Commission 

has determined that the current limit of 

$30,000 on the claims that may be 

assigned to a Judgment Officer is no 

longer necessary or appropriate. The 

Commission also has concluded that its 

Judgment Officer will not be 

overburdened if reparations cases 

eligible to be heard as formal decisional 

proceedings are added to his docket. If 

necessary, the Commission may 

designate additional staff as decisional 

employees assigned to hear reparations 

cases. See Rule 12.2 (defining 

‘‘Commission decisional employee’’ to 

mean, inter alia, ‘‘[a] Judgment Officer 

* * * and other Commission employees 

who may be assigned to hear or to 

participate in the decision of a 

particular matter’’). 

There will be no change to the 

procedures applicable to formal 

decisional proceedings and, therefore, 

no impact on any complainant or 

respondent. Parties filing or defending 

claims exceeding $30,000 will have the 

same procedural safeguards and face the 

same obligations as before, and the 

Judgment Officer will exercise all the 

authority previously held by 

Commission ALJs and be subject to the 

same obligations. 

II. Related Matters 

A. No Notice Required Under 5 U.S.C. 

553 

The Commission has determined that 

this rule is exempt from the provisions 

of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 

U.S.C. 553, which generally requires 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

provides other opportunities for public 

participation. In accordance with the 

exemptive language of 5 U.S.C. 553, this 

rule pertains to ‘‘rules of agency 

organization, procedure or practice,’’ as 

to which there exists agency discretion 

not to provide notice. If made effective 

immediately, this rule will promote 

efficiency and facilitate the 

Commission’s core mission without 

imposing a new burden. Thus, the 

Commission has determined to make 

the rule effective immediately. For the 

above reasons, the notice requirements 

under 5 U.S.C. 553 are inapplicable. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires 

agencies with rulemaking authority to 

consider the impact those rules will 

have on small businesses. The RFA 

defines the term ‘‘rule’’ to mean ‘‘any 

rule for which the agency publishes a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

pursuant to section 553(b) of this title 

* * * for which the agency provides an 

opportunity for notice and public 

comment.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Since this 

rule is not being issued pursuant to 

section 553(b), it does not qualify as a 

‘‘rule’’ as defined in the RFA, and the 

analysis and the certification process in 

that section do not apply. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 

(‘‘PRA’’), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies, including the Commission, in 

connection with conducting or 

sponsoring any collection of 

information as defined by the PRA. 

Amended Rule 12.26(c) is not associated 

with an information collection as 

defined by the PRA. Accordingly, the 

Commission certifies that, for the 

purposes of the PRA, this new 

WREIER-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES