10650 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

during the specific dates and times 

established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AWP AZ E5 Douglas, AZ [Modified] 

Bisbee Douglas International Airport, AZ 

(Lat. 31°28′08′′ N., long. 109°36′14′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within 3.9 miles 

northeast and 8.3 miles southwest of the 

Bisbee Douglas International Airport 333° 

bearing extending from the airport to 16.1 

miles northwest. That airspace extending 

upward from 1,200 feet above the surface 

within a 7.8-mile radius of Bisbee Douglas 

International Airport, and within a 20-mile 

radius of Bisbee Douglas International 

Airport extending clockwise from the 288° 

bearing to the 075° bearing of the airport, and 

within 4.3 miles east and 7.4 miles west of 

the Bisbee Douglas International Airport 347° 

bearing extending from the airport to 34.5 

miles north. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 

13, 2012. 

John Warner, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4156 Filed 2–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 381 

[Docket No. RM12–5–000] 

Annual Update of Filing Fees 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final rule; annual update of 

Commission filing fees. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with its 

regulations, the Commission issues this 

update of its filing fees. This notice 

provides the yearly update using data in 

the Commission’s Management, 

Administrative, and Payroll System to 

calculate the new fees. The purpose of 

updating is to adjust the fees on the 

basis of the Commission’s costs for 

Fiscal Year 2011. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raymond D. Johnson Jr., Office of the 

Executive Director, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Room 42–66, Washington, DC 

20426, 202–502–8402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Document Availability: In addition to 

publishing the full text of this document 

in the Federal Register, the Commission 

provides all interested persons an 

opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the 

Internet through FERC’s Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

From FERC’s Web site on the Internet, 

this information is available in the 

eLibrary (formerly FERRIS). The full 

text of this document is available on 

eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word 

format for viewing, printing, and/or 

downloading. To access this document 

in eLibrary, type the docket number 

excluding the last three digits of this 

document in the docket number field 

and follow other directions on the 

search page. 

User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and other aspects of FERC’s 

Web site during normal business hours. 

For assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, 

contact (202) 502–8659. 

Annual Update of Filing Fees 

The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) is issuing 

this notice to update filing fees that the 

Commission assesses for specific 

services and benefits provided to 

identifiable beneficiaries. Pursuant to 

18 CFR 381.104, the Commission is 

establishing updated fees on the basis of 

the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2011 

costs. The adjusted fees announced in 

this notice are effective March 26, 2012. 

The Commission has determined, with 

the concurrence of the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of the Office of Management and 

Budget, that this final rule is not a major 

rule within the meaning of section 251 

of Subtitle E of Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission is 

submitting this final rule to both houses 

of the United States Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. 

The new fee schedule is as follows: 

Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act 

1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403) ..................................................................... $12,370 

Fees Applicable to General Activities 

1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a)) ................ 24,860 

2. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order: 

Amount in controversy 

$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ........................................................................................................................................................... 100 

$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) ................................................................................................................................................ 600 

$30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a)) ............................................................................................................................................... 36,290 

3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of adjustment: 

Amount in controversy 

$0–9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) ........................................................................................................................................................... 100 

$10,000–29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)) ................................................................................................................................................ 600 

$30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a)) ............................................................................................................................................... 19,030 

4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of General Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a)) ............................................................... 7,130 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10651 

1The NPRM is available at: http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-12/pdf/2011-8388.pdf. 

Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines 

1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b)) ................................................................ *1,000 

Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers 

1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) .................................................. 21,380 

2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a)) ..................................................................... 24,200 

* This fee has not been changed. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381 

Electric power plants, Electric 

utilities, Natural gas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 16, 2012. 

Charles H. Schneider, 

Executive Director. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission amends Part 381, Chapter I, 

Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

set forth below. 

PART 381—FEES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 381 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w; 16 U.S.C. 

791–828c, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 

U.S.C. 7101–7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. 

U.S.C. 1–85. 

§ 381.302 [Amended] 

2. In § 381.302, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$23,540’’ and 

adding ‘‘$24,860’’ in its place. 

§ 381.303 [Amended] 

3. In § 381.303, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$34,370’’ and 

adding ‘‘$36,290’’ in its place. 

§ 381.304 [Amended] 

4. In § 381.304, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$18,020’’ and 

adding ‘‘$19,030’’ in its place. 

§ 381.305 [Amended] 

5. In § 381.305, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$ 6,750’’ and 

adding ‘‘$7,130’’ in its place. 

§ 381.403 [Amended] 

6. Section 381.403 is amended by 

removing ‘‘$11,720’’ and adding 

‘‘$12,370’’ in its place. 

§ 381.505 [Amended] 

7. In § 381.505, paragraph (a) is 

amended by removing ‘‘$20,240’’ and 

adding ‘‘$21,380’’ in its place and by 

removing ‘‘$22,920’’ and adding 

‘‘$24,200’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4146 Filed 2–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA 2010–0044] 

RIN 0960–AG89 

How We Collect and Consider 

Evidence of Disability 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration 

(SSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are modifying the 

requirement to recontact your medical 

source(s) first when we need to resolve 

an inconsistency or insufficiency in the 

evidence he or she provided. Depending 

on the nature of the inconsistency or 

insufficiency, there may be other, more 

appropriate sources from whom we 

could obtain the information we need. 

By giving adjudicators more flexibility 

in determining how best to obtain this 

information, we will be able to make a 

determination or decision on disability 

claims more quickly and efficiently in 

certain situations. Eventually, our need 

to recontact your medical source(s) in 

many situations will be significantly 

reduced as a result of our efforts to 

improve the evidence collection process 

through the increased use of Health 

Information Technology (HIT). 

DATES: These rules are effective March 

26, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Rudick, Office of Regulations, 

Social Security Administration, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, (410) 965–7102. For 

information on eligibility or filing for 

benefits, call our national toll-free 

number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 

1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet 

site, Social Security Online, at http:// 

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We are making final the proposed 

changes to our rules regarding when we 

will recontact your medical source(s) to 

resolve an inconsistency or 

insufficiency in the evidence he or she 

provided. We proposed these changes in 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) we published in the Federal 

Register on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 

20282). The preamble to the NPRM 

discussed the changes from the current 

rules and our reasons for proposing 

those changes.1 Because we are 

adopting the proposed rules as 

published, we are not repeating that 

information here. 

Public Comments on the NPRM 

In the NPRM, we provided the public 

a 60-day comment period, which ended 

on June 13, 2011. We received 59 public 

comments. The comments came from a 

member of the public, members of the 

disability advocacy community, and 

several national groups of Social 

Security claimants’ representatives. 

We provide below summaries of the 

significant comments that were relevant 

to this rulemaking and our responses to 

those comments. We have tried to 

present the commenters’ concerns and 

suggestions accurately and completely. 

Comment: All of the commenters 

recommended that we keep our current 

requirement to recontact a person’s 

medical source(s) first when we need to 

resolve an inconsistency or 

insufficiency in the evidence he or she 

provided. Some of these commenters 

believed that the proposed modification 

of this requirement was inconsistent 

with sections 223(d)(5)(B) and 

1614(a)(3)(H) of the Social Security Act 

(Act), which require us to make ‘‘every 

reasonable effort to obtain from the 

individual’s treating physician (or other 

treating health care provider) all 

medical evidence, including diagnostic 

tests, necessary in order to properly 

make [a] determination, prior to 

evaluating medical evidence obtained 

from any other source on a consultative 

basis.’’ Other commenters believed that 

any modification of the current 

requirement would make it less likely 

that adjudicators would obtain evidence 

from a person’s medical source(s), and 

more likely that they would try and 

obtain evidence from a consultative 

examination (CE) instead. These 

commenters speculated that some 

adjudicators may even purchase CEs to 

undermine evidence provided by 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES