Unknown. Final rule

11,031 words·~50 min read·/register/2007/01/11/07-79

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-01-11.xml --- 72 7 Thursday, January 11, 2007 Contents AID Agency for International Development NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Food for Peace; international food relief partnership transportation and distribution application guidelines and procedures, 1309 E7-222 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Commodity Credit Corporation See Rural Utilities Service Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings;

Sunshine Act, 1317 07-96 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panels, 1334 E7-215 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 1317 E7-224 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations: Connecticut, 1288-1289 E7-239 Massachusetts, 1288 E7-240 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Quality Samples Program, 1309-1311 07-57 Specialty Crops Program, 1311-1313 07-58 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency RULES Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act; implementation, 1274-1276 07-79 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Complex structured finance activities; sound practices concerning elevated risk; interagency statement, 1372-1380 07-55 Defense Defense Department NOTICES Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act: Housing price inflation adjustment, 1319-1320 07-66 Energy Energy Department See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office RULES Energy conservation:

Consumer products; energy conservation program— Ceiling fan light kits; technical amendment, 1270-1274 E7-230 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas: Indiana, 1292-1296 E7-255 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Maryland, 1289-1292 E7-250 E7-252 NOTICES Air pollution control: State operating permit programs— Colorado, 1320 E7-251 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs development, 1320-1325 E7-248 Farm Farm Credit Administration RULES Farm credit system: System institution status; termination; effective date, 1276-1277 E7-214 PROPOSED RULES Farm credit system: Processing and marketing operations; eligibility and scope of financing, 1300 E7-221 Farm Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, 1325 E7-213 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class E airspace, 07-31 1277-1281 07-32 07-51 Standard instrument approach procedures, 1281-1282 E7-31 PROPOSED RULES Class D airspace, 1301 07-33 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act; implementation, 1274-1276 07-79 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:

Complex structured finance activities; sound practices concerning elevated risk; interagency statement, 1372-1380 07-55 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Ada County, ID, 1363-1364 07-64 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act; implementation, 1274-1276 07-79 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 1325-1332 E7-246 E7-247 Banks and bank holding companies:

Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 1332-1333 E7-243 Permissible nonbanking activities, 1333 E7-244 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Complex structured finance activities; sound practices concerning elevated risk; interagency statement, 1372-1380 07-55 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: Goen Technologies Corp., et al., 1333-1334 E7-206 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:

Jacksonville, Florida Rapid Transit System, 1364-1365 07-89 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes converted to High-Occupancy/Toll lanes; classification as fixed guideway miles for funding formulas; final policy statement, 1366-1372 E7-263 Financial Financial Management Service See Fiscal Service Fiscal Fiscal Service RULES Financial Management Service: Federal nontax payments to collect delinquent debts owed to States, 1283-1288 E7-127 MISSING FOR:

Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Iowa Deere & Co.; articulated dump truck manufacturing plant, 1317-1318 E7-267 Michigan Perrigo Co.; ibuprofen-pharmaceutical products manufacturing facility, 1318 E7-218 Minnesota MAPE USA, Inc; crankshafts warehousing and distribution facilities, 1318 E7-268 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:

Organ Transplantation Advisory Committee, 1334-1335 E7-212 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard RULES Acquisition regulations: Revisions, 1296-1298 07-61 IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Procedure and administration: Lien or discharge of property release, 1301-1308 E7-219 International International Trade Administration NOTICES North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); binational panel reviews: Softwood lumber products from— Canada, 1318-1319 E7-265 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations:

Oil country tubular goods— Italy, 1340-1341 E7-260 Polyester staple fiber from— China, 1341-1342 E7-259 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments: EnTire Recycling, Inc., 1342 07-49 Labor Labor Department See Labor Statistics Bureau MISSING FOR: Labor Statistics Bureau Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 1342-1344 E7-162 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Meetings:

Public Interest Declassification Board, 1344 E7-254 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 07-68 1335-1336 07-69 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 1336 07-74 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1337 07-71 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 07-72 1337-1338 07-73 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1336-1337 07-70 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 07-76 1338-1339 07-77 Scientific Review Center, 07-75 1339-1340 07-78 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:

Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Gulf of Mexico reef fish; correction, 1381 C6-9342 NOTICES Meetings: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1319 E7-237 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, 1344-1346 E7-258 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Awards: Performance-based cash awards programs; revisions, 1267-1270 E7-262 Public Public Debt Bureau See Fiscal Service RUS Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 1313-1315 E7-204 E7-205 Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Earth Resources, Inc., 1315 E7-217 Norbone Baseload Plant, 1315-1317 E7-226 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Securities: Derivatives securities; listing and trading of new products by self-regulatory organizations; technical correction, 1282-1283 E7-238 PROPOSED RULES Investment companies: Investment company governance practices Correction, 1301 E7-210 Securities: Foreign private issuer's termination of registration, 1384-1414 E6-22405 NOTICES Investment Company Act of 1940:

NexBank Securities, Inc. and NexBank Series, 1346-1348 E7-209 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Complex structured finance activities; sound practices concerning elevated risk; interagency statement, 1372-1380 07-55 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 1348-1350 E7-233 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 1350-1353 E7-208 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 1353-1356 E7-207 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 1356-1358 E7-236 New York Stock Exchange LLC; correction, 1381 Z6-22201 Options Clearing Corp., 1358 E7-231 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 1358-1363 E7-232 E7-234 E7-235 State State Department RULES Exchange Visitor Program:

Professor and research scholar participation, 1283 E6-22631 NOTICES Meetings: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 1363 E7-257 Transformational Diplomacy Advisory Committee, 1363 E7-256 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office RULES Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act; implementation, 1274-1276 07-79 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Complex structured finance activities; sound practices concerning elevated risk; interagency statement, 1372-1380 07-55 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Transit Administration RULES Workplace drug and alcohol testing programs:

Procedures; revision, 1298-1299 E7-242 Treasury Treasury Department See Comptroller of the Currency See Fiscal Service See Internal Revenue Service See Thrift Supervision Office Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 1384-1414 E6-22405 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 7 Thursday, January 11, 2007 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 451 RIN 3206-AL06 Awards AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management is issuing final regulations to amend the incentive awards regulations. The amended regulations clarify that if agencies grant rating-based awards, they must base such awards on a rating of record of “Fully Successful” (or equivalent) or higher. In addition, agencies must ensure that rating-based awards granted make meaningful distinctions based on levels of performance. DATES: The regulations are effective on February 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Colchao by telephone at

(202)606-2720, by fax at

(202)606-2307, or by e-mail at *pay-performance-policy@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 21, 2006, the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)published proposed regulations amending the incentive awards regulations in part 451 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regarding performance-based cash awards (particularly those authorized under 5 U.S.C. 4505a and 5 CFR 451.101(e) and 451.104(a)(3)). The proposed regulations clarified that agencies using these incentive awards authorities to grant employees performance-based cash awards must base them on a rating of record of “Fully Successful” (or equivalent) or higher and ensure that such awards reflect meaningful distinctions based on levels of performance. The changes to the regulations address only rating-based awards, i.e., those awards given to recognize performance over the course of the appraisal period and that require only the rating of record as justification for granting the award. These changes do not affect other awards agencies may grant, when appropriate, that require independent documentation, such as those based on special acts, suggestions, and gainsharing or goalsharing formulas tied to group performance. In making these changes, OPM intends to retain the flexibilities agencies currently have to design their awards programs while reiterating there is no statutory entitlement to recognition. The proposed regulations provided for a 30-day public comment period that ended July 21, 2006. During the public comment period OPM received about 74 comments in 39 submissions and 5 phone calls that raised multiple questions or concerns. We received written comments from 31 individuals (representing approximately 19 Federal agencies, and 1 from the private sector), 3 letters from 2 labor unions (American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union), and 5 agencies (Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and Veterans Affairs, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Most of the comments can be grouped into ten major themes—support for the proposal, concerns about the influence of favoritism and bias, the need to train rating officials, the impact on two-level (pass/fail) rating systems, funding awards, making meaningful distinctions and calculating the awards, the use of performance review boards or awards committees, opposition to changing the regulations, base pay and other awards, and other miscellaneous observations. The following information summarizes and responds to these issues. Support for the Proposed Regulations We received three comments from individuals in support of the changes. One comment wholeheartedly supports the proposed regulations. Another comment supports the proposed changes and agrees with the emphasis on making meaningful distinctions between levels of performance. An additional comment suggests that the regulations should require employees to have a rating higher than “Fully Successful” to be eligible to receive a performance-based cash award. These regulations are codifying the statutory threshold for performance-based cash awards established under 5 U.S.C. 4505a, as regulated under 5 CFR 451.101(e) and 451.104(a)(3). Neither the statute nor the regulations require granting awards on the basis of any specific rating level or to all employees who receive such a rating. Therefore, agencies continue to have the flexibility to design their awards programs to support their performance culture and can establish threshold performance levels that are appropriate for them as long as those levels are not lower than the one set forth in statute. Those agencies using rating-based awards typically design their programs so that the awards increase for employees with higher rating levels. Such a design complies with these regulations. Agencies must ensure that in applying their rating-based awards program they retain this aspect of their design. In doing so, they also retain the flexibility to take into consideration other forms of recognition that have been granted to the employee, especially if it recognizes aspects of the employee's performance that are also captured in the rating of record. Favoritism and Bias By far the most frequent comment expressed in various fashions was the concern that awards would be influenced by favoritism or bias. We received 11 comments (1 union and 10 individuals) regarding a perceived tendency to show favoritism or bias toward particular groups or categories of employees. The union comments that the proposed regulations do not address possible favoritism and bias, such as the prospect that minorities and women might suffer an adverse impact from changes in personnel policies. The union recommends that, before implementing these regulations, OPM order all Federal agencies to conduct an adverse impact analysis to ensure that there will be no adverse impact on classes of employees based on race, national origin, gender, grade or bargaining unit status. A few comments state that men or supervisors and managers would profit from this policy change more than others. Several other comments state that supervisors would grant awards to their favorite employees. OPM understands some employees may fear favoritism will influence the distribution of rating-based awards. However, we believe establishing and maintaining rating-based awards programs with clear guidelines that are applied in a fair and transparent manner and consistently granting awards that make meaningful distinctions based on differences in levels of performance are effective ways to confront favoritism, either real or perceived. Agencies need to inform supervisors and employees on the specifics of their rating-based awards program and the effective use of recognition and incentives. Since rating-based awards are not the only type of award agencies have in their award programs, it is important for all involved to understand the criteria used to grant different types of awards and how they can be used most effectively. Understanding the full range of the types of awards available and the bases for which they might be granted supports the transparency of any awards program. Regarding the union's comment on conducting an impact analysis, these regulations formalize a practice that has been prevalent in agencies for a long time, i.e., granting performance-based awards so that larger awards go to employees with higher ratings of record. We concur agencies should include in their evaluation of their awards programs the type of analysis recommended by the union comment. We also strongly encourage agencies to include checks and balances in the design and implementation of their incentive awards and recognition programs to further ensure openness and fairness. Training for Rating Officials We received eight comments (two unions, one agency, and five individuals) requesting additional training for managers and supervisors. Several comments state rating officials need more specific guidance and oversight in order to implement a fair and unbiased system. Other comments say the regulations are unclear regarding what procedure should be followed to ensure “meaningful distinction.” One union comment recommends funding should be made available for performance management training and that legislation should be in place to make performance management training mandatory. Two comments concern the ability of supervisors who lack training in performance management to evaluate employees with special work assignments that cannot be compared to the work assignments of their co-workers. Several comments, including those from the unions, recommend increasing training for managers and holding them accountable for implementing good management practices, including the skills to recognize and reward employee contributions to their agency. We agree that everyone affected by agency awards programs, both those who administer them and those who might be eligible to participate in them, should understand the types of awards available and their eligibility criteria, i.e., the bases for the different types of awards. We encourage agencies to provide training to all managers and supervisors administering awards programs to ensure these programs are administered fairly. We also encourage agencies, as specified in existing regulations, to inform employees about the various agency awards programs so they understand what is required to be eligible for an award. However, we note again that there is no entitlement to an award. Although these regulations do not amend the performance appraisal regulations, we agree that for rating-based awards programs to be applied in a way that makes meaningful distinctions based on differences in levels of performance, supervisors and managers must have the necessary skills to practice effective performance management. Agencies are responsible for seeing that their supervisors and managers receive the appropriate training to ensure they have these skills. Furthermore, we encourage agencies to hold supervisors responsible, through their own individual performance plans, for the effective management and appraisal of their employees. Two-Level (Pass/Fail) Rating System We received three comments (one union and two individuals) concerning the impact of these regulations on employees covered by a two-level performance appraisal system, commonly referred to as a pass/fail performance appraisal system. Two comments observe agencies still using a pass/fail system are unable to make meaningful distinctions because these systems do not make distinctions above “Fully Successful.” One comment wants to know how these requirements for rating-based awards would affect an agency using a pass/fail system. While at one time pass/fail appraisal programs covered nearly half of all non-Senior Executive Service employees, in recent years the trend has shifted. Under the President's Management Agenda and its performance culture initiative, most agencies have returned to using appraisal systems that provide for differentiating multiple levels of performance. Also, agencies with pass/fail performance appraisal programs tend to “de-link” awards from ratings and, therefore, did not and do not use rating-based awards, which use the rating of record as the sole justification for the award. Instead, they commonly use other available award authorities to reward specific employee accomplishments rather than recognizing year-long performance based on their ratings of record, which do not provide differentiation among their successful performers. Therefore, even with these regulatory changes employees who may still be covered by pass/fail performance appraisal programs could be eligible for awards granted on other bases. Funding and Budgetary Concerns Four comments (one union and three individuals) raised concerns about the effect of lack of funding or other budgetary constraints on awards programs. The union comment notes that any changes involving the distribution of performance-based cash awards require extensive training for managers, supervisors, and employees and would require adequate funding for such training. The union also states OPM should mandate that awards budgets for bargaining unit and nonbargaining unit employees should be kept separate and distinct and developed based on an equitable formula. Individual comments express concerns about agency-specific awards funding issues, how award amounts are derived, and agencies' ability to operate an awards program with little or no money. While training and retraining is always an agency concern and responsibility, as we have stated previously, many agencies have been using rating-based awards for many years. Where they are used and employees with higher ratings of record receive larger awards than those with lower ratings, these programs would not appear to need to be changed since they already would comply with these regulations. Agencies retain the flexibility for the design and application of these awards programs. OPM recognizes that there are various ways to meet these requirements and does not intend to restrict agency flexibility. The changes in the award regulations do not directly impact agency award funding. Agency funding for awards programs has remained fairly constant, around 1 percent of payroll, for many years. Given the reality of funding and budget constraint concerns, the judicious and effective use of limited funds is even more important. To support high performance cultures, agencies must ensure that the application of their rating-based awards programs makes meaningful distinctions based on differences in performance levels, thus reinforcing the message that performance matters. In addition, the appropriate use of the full complement of employee incentives and recognition can help achieve agencies' performance culture objectives, even in times of lean resources. Making Meaningful Distinctions and Calculating Awards While not as numerous as the comments on favoritism, perhaps the areas that generated the most confusion were the phrase, “making meaningful distinctions based on levels of performance,” and the explanation that this could be exemplified by employees with higher ratings of record receiving larger awards, as a percentage of base pay, than those with lower ratings. We received a total of 15 comments regarding these two issues (1 union, 4 agencies, and 10 individuals). One comment said the terminology regarding meaningful distinctions is unnecessarily vague and subject to varying interpretation. Several comments inquire whether agencies have the discretion to make the distinctions in performance based on the dollar amount of the awards, rather than their percentage of base salary. Other comments make specific recommendations such as a suggested mathematical formula for determining award amounts, or requiring the same dollar amount for the same performance rating level by grade, or using a mid-point of the grade as the basis for the award rather than the individual employee's specific rate of pay. Other comments request additional guidance on what procedures agencies should put in place to ensure that managers are making meaningful distinctions in performance from one rating level to another and how to ensure that the highest awards are granted to the highest performers. The union comment suggests that lack of uniformity in awards for employees performing at the same high level will cause problems and trigger doubts about the credibility and validity of the system. Current statute provides a specific authority to pay cash awards on the basis of an employee's most recent rating of record. Because this type of award requires no additional justification beyond the rating of record, these regulations require agencies using this authority to ensure the amounts of these award payments reflect meaningful distinctions based on levels of performance. OPM is confident that agencies using ratings of record as the sole basis for granting cash awards are doing this already. The regulation codifies this practice to ensure that all agencies choosing to use this rating-based award authority do so appropriately. Because OPM views the concept of making meaningful distinctions as a principle and recognizes that there is more than one way meet the requirement to make meaningful distinctions, we believe it is essential to retain Governmentwide flexibility in this area. Such flexibility is certainly not intended and is not expected to result in chaos at the agency level. Each agency program must determine how acting on those distinctions can be translated into agency procedures that are accurately described and applied fairly. Furthermore, OPM does not intend to restrict how agencies calculate rating-based awards, whether as a lump-sum dollar amount or a percentage of base pay. We believe that expressing the award as a percentage of base pay is a common and easily understood way to explain that making meaningful distinctions in performance means employees with higher performance ratings who get rating-based awards receive larger awards than those with lower ratings. Our choice to use percentage of base pay in our explanation does not affect agencies' ability to make these distinctions by granting employees with higher ratings higher lump-sum dollar payments. Performance Review Boards and Awards Committees We received three comments on this issue (one union and two individuals). Two comments suggest the establishment of performance review boards would provide oversight of the process. In addition, the union recommends the use of award committees to assist in keeping the awards process open and transparent. The union states performance review boards and awards committees will counteract some of the perceived secrecy surrounding the awards process, including why specific employees receive awards. While these regulations do not mandate review boards for awards (as required for the Senior Executive Service), agencies have the flexibility to establish such boards. OPM encourages agencies to have mechanisms in place to provide oversight of and to evaluate their awards programs. However, we do not consider it appropriate to mandate the establishment of such boards and thus leave that decision to the discretion of the agency. Opposition to Changing the Regulations We received six comments (two unions, one agency, and three individuals) stating their opposition to the revisions. The agency comments that the regulation would result in unnecessarily rigid rules that would hinder making meaningful distinctions. One union comments that the regulations would undermine the merit principle of equal pay for equal work. Another union states there is no need for the regulation. Two comments recognize that while they consider the General Schedule system to be flawed, it is fair, and they express skepticism about the presence of fairness in the regulations. One comment opposes the change because it is seen as legislating awards. Many of these comments confuse rating-based awards with position classification and with pay-for-performance systems that would affect the rate of basic pay. Much of the opposition expressed is more directly related to pay for performance than to the revisions in the awards regulations. The practical effect of these regulations does not restrict agency flexibility in its awards programs. Rather, the regulations codify a statutory threshold and ensure the appropriate use of a specific authority. Base Pay and Other Awards We also received four comments (three individuals and one agency) concerning what effect the regulations would have on time-off awards, within-grade increases, raises, and gainsharing programs. The regulations affect only rating-based awards. Other agency incentive and recognition programs are not affected. Furthermore, agencies can continue to establish and use decision criteria that take into account other pay decisions made so that the total aggregation of all forms of compensation and additional recognition do not result in unintended, disproportionate rewards for the employee. While time-off awards are not direct additional payments to an employee, they do represent an expense to the agency and a valued form of recognition to the employee. As such, it may be appropriate to consider substantial time-off awards granted to recognize an employee's accomplishments that are reflected in a rating of record when contemplating the total “amount” of compensation/recognition the agency is providing. Miscellaneous Issues One individual comment objects to the waiver of the 60-day comment period. OPM provided a 30-day comment period in lieu of the 60-day comment period to enable issuance of final regulations when most agencies are making their awards decisions, which will give practical effect to these regulations. A union comment expresses concern that the regulation violates the merit system principle. In addition, an agency observed that the legal citation for the merit system principle is incorrect. The union further questions the appropriateness of limiting the awards to employees with ratings of record of “Fully Successful” or higher since an employee with a lower rating may have accomplished something exemplary in a single aspect of the job. The regulations clearly support the merit system principle that provides for appropriate incentives and recognition for excellence in performance. Regarding the limitation to employees rated “Fully Successful” or higher, this restriction applies only to rating-based awards and is the statutory threshold. Other authorities within 5 CFR part 451 permit agencies to provide recognition for other performance when appropriate. The rating-based award is only one way of providing recognition. Also, OPM acknowledges that the correct citation for the merit system principle referenced is 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(3). One comment questions if the regulations would lead employees rated at the “Fully Successful” level to feel entitled to a cash award. Others said requiring distinctions would result in the forced distribution of ratings. As we have stated, and we believe most employees understand, awards are not an entitlement. Furthermore, the requirement for making distinctions in rating-based awards reflects and supports rather than drives those distinctions already made in the levels of performance. One comment recommends that OPM require agencies to base cash awards programs on methodologies that have been shown through research to result in improved productivity or quality of performance in the entire organization. OPM regulations set up broad frameworks within which individual agencies design and operate their own specific awards programs. To best support their own performance cultures, agencies have the flexibility to establish and adapt awards policies and the criteria and conditions under which awards may be granted, as long as they do not violate regulation or statute. One comment asks whether the rate used to compute a rating-based award includes locality pay. Yes, a recent change in law removed a previous requirement to exclude locality pay from rating-based awards when computed as a percentage of base pay. These regulations do not change the regulations affecting when locality pay is considered to be basic pay. Other comments are outside the scope and intent of these regulations and thus are not addressed here. These comments include concerns about the National Security Personnel System and the perceived possible adverse impact of pay for performance in the Federal Government, including a decrease in teamwork, low morale and competition among employees, and increased departure from Government service. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget as a significant regulatory action in accordance with E.O. 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will apply only to Federal agencies and employees. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 451 Decorations, Medals, Awards, Government employees. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, the Office of Personnel Management is amending 5 CFR part 451 as follows: PART 451—AWARDS 1. The authority citation for part 451 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4302, 4501-4509; E.O. 11438, 33 FR 18085, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 755; E.O. 12828, 58 FR 2965, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 569. Subpart A—Agency Awards 2. In § 451.101, paragraph

(e)is revised to read as follows: § 451.101 Authority and coverage.

(e)An agency may grant performance-based cash awards on the basis of a rating of record at the fully successful level (or equivalent) or above under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 4505a and the provisions of this part to eligible non-GS employees who are covered by 5 U.S.C. chapter 45 and this part and who are not otherwise covered by an explicit statutory authority for the payment of such awards, including 5 U.S.C. 5384 (SES performance awards). 3. In § 451.104, paragraph (a)(3) is revised and a new paragraph

(h)is added to read as follows: § 451.104 Awards.

(a)* * *

(3)Performance as reflected in the employee's most recent rating of record (as defined in § 430.203 of this chapter), provided that the rating of record is at the fully successful level (or equivalent) or above, except that performance awards may be paid to SES members only under § 534.405 of this chapter and not on the basis of this subpart.

(h)Programs for granting performance-based cash awards on the basis of a rating of record at the fully successful level (or equivalent) or above, as designed and applied, must make meaningful distinctions based on levels of performance. [FR Doc. E7-262 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 10 CFR Part 430 RIN 1904-AB54 Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Ceiling Fan Light Kits AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE)is publishing this technical amendment in order to place in the Code of Federal Regulations the energy conservation standards for ceiling fan light kits with sockets other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps that Congress prescribed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Graves, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121,

(202)586-1851, e-mail: *Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov* , or Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

(202)586-7432, e-mail: *Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Summary of Today's Action III. Procedural Requirements and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Congressional Notification IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Background The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) (Pub. L. 109-58) was enacted on August 8, 2005. In addition to provisions directing DOE to undertake rulemakings to promulgate new or amended energy conservation standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, Congress prescribed new efficiency standards and related definitions for certain consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment. By today's action, DOE is placing in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)the energy conservation standards that Congress prescribed for ceiling fan light kits with sockets other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. DOE is not exercising its discretionary authority, provided in section 135(c)(4) of EPACT, (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(A)) for the Secretary of Energy to consider and issue requirements, by rule, for any ceiling fan lighting kit with sockets other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. Instead, the Secretary is adopting the statutory standard in section 325(ff)(4)(C) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C)) That section, which was added by section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005, establishes requirements for these ceiling fan light kits if the Department does not take action by January 1, 2007. In the future, DOE may exercise its discretion under section 325(ff)(5) of EPCA, after January 1, 2010, to consider and issue amended energy conservation standards for all types of ceiling fan light kits. II. Summary of Today's Action Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 amends section 325 of EPCA to, among other things, add subsection

(ff)with respect to ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits. New section 325(ff) establishes design standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2007. With respect to ceiling fan light kits, EPACT 2005 created three groupings:

(1)Ceiling fan light kits with medium screw base sockets (also called “E26” base types),

(2)ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, and

(3)ceiling fan light kits with any socket type other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. For this third group, while the statute specifically mentions the example of candelabra screw base sockets (also called “E12” base types), this group applies to ceiling fan light kits with any socket type other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. Thus, this third group would include ceiling fan light kits designed with candelabra screw base sockets, intermediate screw-base sockets, 2-pin halogen sockets, bayonet sockets, and all socket types other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. In a final rule published on October 18, 2005, DOE codified the statute's requirements for the first two groupings of ceiling fan light kits—medium screw base and pin-based for fluorescent lamps. 70 FR 60413. In today's technical amendment, DOE is codifying the design standards set out in EPCA's new section 325(ff) for the third grouping, ceiling fan light kits with sockets other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. As previously discussed, section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005, among other things, added section 325(ff)(4)(A) of EPCA, which requires DOE to consider issuing requirements for these ceiling fan light kits by January 1, 2007. The time frame normally allocated to conduct an energy conservation standards rulemaking to determine requirements for a consumer product like this is approximately three years. For these ceiling fan light kits, the time frame that was afforded to DOE by the statute was only 17 months from the date of enactment of EPACT 2005 to the date when these requirements must be in place. After reviewing this statutory requirement, and DOE's backlog of rulemakings and the other new consumer product and commercial equipment rulemakings required in EPACT 2005, DOE stated in its Report to Congress: 1 1 *Energy Conservation Standards Activities, Submitted Pursuant to Section 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and to the Conference Report (109-275) to the FY 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act;* U.S. Department of Energy, January 2006. With regard to the rulemaking for ceiling fan light kits (other than those with standards prescribed by EPACT 2005), it is not feasible to complete a rulemaking by the EPACT 2005 final rule deadline of January 1, 2007. Since EPACT 2005 includes a standard that is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2009, in the event that the Department cannot meet the deadline, the Department plans to adopt and codify the EPACT 2005 standard in fiscal year 2007, conserving Departmental resources for more complex rulemakings with higher potential benefits. Report to Congress at page vi. Thus, in today's technical amendment, DOE is codifying at 10 CFR 430.32(s), requirements for ceiling fan light kits with sockets other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. This statutory standard in section 325(ff)(4)(C) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C)), requires that any ceiling fan light kit with sockets other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps manufactured after January 1, 2009,

(1)shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts; and

(2)shall include the lamps that total not more than 190 watts in the ceiling fan light kit. DOE is interpreting these two requirements as design requirements. The first requirement, that ceiling fan light kits shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts, is being interpreted as requiring manufacturers to incorporate some electrical device or measure, such as a fuse, circuit breaker, or current limiting device, to ensure that the light kit is not capable of operating with a lamp or lamps that draw more than 190 watts. As this is a design requirement, a test procedure is not required to certify compliance. Moreover, this interpretation is consistent with DOE's interpretation of a similar requirement under EPACT 2005 for torchieres. 71 FR 71340 (December 8, 2006). The second requirement, that the ceiling fan light kit shall include lamps that total not more than 190 watts, is being interpreted by DOE as a packaging requirement with two parts: first, that the kits are to be packaged with lamps and second, that the total wattage of all the lamps packaged with the ceiling fan light kit shall not exceed 190 watts. A test procedure is not required to demonstrate compliance with either of these two provisions of the second requirement. Manufacturers can certify without a test procedure that lamps are included in the ceiling fan light kit packaging and that the sum of the total rated wattages of all the lamps packaged with the kit do not exceed 190 watts. EPCA defines the term “manufacture” as “to manufacture, produce, assemble, or import.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(10)) Starting on January 1, 2009, all ceiling fan light kits covered by this final rule must, on the date of manufacture, or in the case of imported products, as of the date of import, meet the standards set forth in today's rule. These requirements apply to the manufacture of covered consumer products for sale in the 50 States as well as all U.S. territories. As background context for how EPACT addressed the two categories of ceiling fan light kits not covered by this rulemaking, i.e., those with medium screw base sockets and pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, the prescribed energy conservation standards for these two types of ceiling fan light kits took effect on January 1, 2007. While products are required to be compliant with the mandatory standards from that effective date, manufacturers are not required to report under DOE's compliance certification and enforcement programs until DOE finalizes its certification and compliance procedures for new covered products and commercial equipment. DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 25, 2006, which proposed certification and enforcement provisions for a range of products, including all types of ceiling fan light kits. 71 FR 42178. Although manufacturers are not subject to DOE certification and enforcement programs until DOE promulgates the final rule on certification and enforcement, manufacturers must meet the required standards for ceiling fan light kits with medium screw base and pin-based for fluorescent lamps starting January 1, 2007. When the certification and enforcement procedures are finalized, manufacturers must represent to DOE that the ceiling fan light kits for which there are effective standards and packaging requirements set by EPACT 2005 are compliant. III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 Today's final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action was not subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA)in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. The Department has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: *http://www.gc.doe.gov* . DOE today is revising the Code of Federal Regulations to incorporate, without substantive change, energy conservation standards prescribed by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Because this is a technical amendment for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rulemaking. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This rulemaking will impose no new information or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 DOE has determined that this rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A.6 of Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. In this instance, DOE is merely codifying the design standards set out in EPACT 2005 section 325(ff)(4)(C) (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C)) for ceiling fan light kits with sockets other than medium screw base or pin-based for fluorescent lamps. EPACT 2005 gives DOE the authority to conduct a rulemaking for this equipment by January 1, 2007. However, EPACT 2005 also provided that if DOE does not issue a final rule by this statutory deadline, the design standards referenced above would become effective for equipment manufactured after January 1, 2009. DOE is not exercising any discretion in today's final rule. E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it does not have a substantial direct effect 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. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's rule. States can petition DOE for exemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:

(1)Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;

(2)write regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3)provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:

(1)Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any;

(2)clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation;

(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;

(4)specifies the retroactive effect, if any;

(5)adequately defines key terms; and

(6)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at *http://www.gc.doe.gov* ). This final rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 The Department has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this rule would not result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that:

(1)Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and

(2)is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or

(3)is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This final rule would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. L. Congressional Notification As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final rule. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Household appliances. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2006. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE hereby amends Chapter II, Subchapter D of Title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 2. Section 430.32 of subpart C is amended by adding new paragraph (s)(4) to read as follows: § 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and effective dates.

(s)*Ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits.*

(4)Ceiling fan light kits with socket types other than those covered in paragraphs

(2)and

(3)of this section, including candelabra screw base sockets, manufactured on or after January 1, 2009—

(i)Shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts; and

(ii)Shall be packaged to include the lamps described in clause

(i)with the ceiling fan light kits. [FR Doc. E7-230 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 26 [Docket No. 2006-16] RIN 1557-AD01 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 212 [Regulation L; Docket No. R-1272] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 348 RIN 3064-AD13 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision 12 CFR Part 563f [Docket No. 2006-47] RIN 1550-AC09 Management Official Interlocks AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury. ACTION: Joint interim rule with request for comment. SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS)(collectively, the Agencies) are amending their rules regarding management interlocks to implement section 610 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (FSRRA) and to correct inaccurate cross-references. DATES: This interim rule is effective on January 11, 2007. Comments on the rule must be received by February 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: *OCC:* You should include OCC and Docket Number 2006-16 in your comment. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *OCC Web Site: http://www.occ.treas.gov.* Click on “Contact the OCC,” scroll down and click on “Comments on Proposed Regulations.” • *E-mail address: regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.* • *Fax:*

(202)874-4448. • *Mail:* Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Mail Stop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 250 E Street, SW., Attn: Public Information Room, Mail Stop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name

(OCC)and docket number or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)for this interim rule. In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket without change, including any business or personal information that you provide. You may review comments and other related materials by any of the following methods: *Viewing Comments Personally:* You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by calling

(202)874-5043. *Board:* You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1272, by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.* Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • *FAX:* 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102. • *Mail:* Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. *FDIC:* You may submit comments, identified by RIN number, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Agency Web Site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.* • *Mail:* Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard station at rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. • *E-mail: Comments@FDIC.gov.* • *Public Inspection:* Comments may be inspected at the FDIC Public Information Center, Room E-1002, 3502 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. *Instructions:* Submissions received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html* including any personal information provided. *OTS:* You may submit comments, identified by No. 2006-47, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail address: regs.comments@ots.treas.gov.* Please include No. 2006-47 in the subject line of the message and include your name and telephone number in the message. • *Fax:*

(202)906-6518. • *Mail:* Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention: No. 2006-47. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, Attention: Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Attention: No. 2006-33. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN)for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to the OTS Internet Site at *http://www.ots.treas.gov/ pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1.* In addition, you may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call

(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov* , or send a facsimile transmission to

(202)906-7755. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *OCC:* Heidi M. Thomas, Special Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division,

(202)874-4688; Sue Auerbach, Counsel, Bank Activities and Structure Division,

(202)874-5300; or Cheryl A. Martin, Senior Licensing Analyst, Licensing Activities Division,

(202)874-4614, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. *Board:* Andrew S. Baer, Counsel,

(202)452-2246, or Jennifer L. Sutton, Attorney,

(202)452-3564, Legal Division. For users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf

(TDD)only, contact

(202)263-4869. *FDIC:* Patricia A. Colohan, Senior Examination Specialist, Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection,

(202)898-7283, or Leneta G. Gregorie, Counsel, Legal Division,

(202)898-3719. *OTS:* David J. Bristol, Senior Attorney,

(202)906-6461, Business Transactions Division, Office of Thrift Supervision, or Donald W. Dwyer, Director of Applications, Examinations and Supervision—Operations,

(202)906-6414, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (12 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* ) (Interlocks Act or Act) prohibits individuals from simultaneously serving as a management official 1 at two unaffiliated depository institutions or their holding companies (collectively, depository organizations) under certain circumstances. For example, section 203(1) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 3202(1)) prohibits interlocks between unaffiliated depository organizations if each depository organization (or a depository institution affiliate thereof) has an office in the same relevant metropolitan statistical area

(RMSA)(RMSA prohibition), unless each of the depository organizations involved has total assets below a specified threshold (small institution exception). Prior to enactment of the FSRRA, this asset threshold was $20 million. However, section 610 of the FSRRA amended the Interlocks Act by raising this asset threshold to $50 million, effective as of October 13, 2006. 2 1 Each of the Agencies' regulations generally define “management official” to include a director, an advisory or honorary director of a depository institution with total assets of $100 million or more, a senior executive officer, a branch manager, a trustee of a depository organization under the control of trustees, and any person who has a representative or nominee serving in such capacity. *See* 12 CFR 26.2(j) (OCC); 12 CFR 212.2(j) (Board); 12 CFR 348.2(j) (FDIC); and 12 CFR 563f.2(j) (OTS). 2 Pub. L. 109-351, § 610, 120 Stat._(Oct. 13, 2006). II. Interim Rule The Agencies are amending their rules in order to implement section 610 of the FSRRA. Specifically, the interim rules modify the RMSA prohibition to allow a management official of one depository organization to serve as a management official of an unaffiliated depository organization that has an office in the same RMSA as the first organization if each of the depository organizations in question (or a depository institution affiliate thereof) has total assets of less than $50 million. This interim rule also makes technical changes to correct inaccurate cross-references in the definition of management official in each of the Agencies' rules. III. Regulatory Analysis Plain Language Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Agencies to use “plain language” in all rules published in the **Federal Register** after January 1, 2000. The Agencies believe the interim rules are presented in a simple and straightforward manner. Administrative Procedure Act The interim rule takes effect upon publication in the **Federal Register** . The interim rule implements a statutory change that took effect upon enactment on October 13, 2006. The new statutory provision itself gives the Agencies no discretion to modify the asset-size threshold for the small institution exception. The technical corrections of cross-references effected by the interim rule have no substantive effect. For the foregoing reasons, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Agencies find good cause for making the rule effective as of January 11, 2007 without first seeking and reviewing public comment. However, the Agencies nonetheless invite public comment on the interim rule and will amend the rules if appropriate after reviewing public comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under section 603 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603) is not required if the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and the agency publishes such certification and a statement explaining the factual basis for such certification in the **Federal Register** along with its rule. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, each of the Agencies certifies that this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agencies expect that this rule will not create any additional burden on small entities. The interim rule relaxes the criteria for obtaining an exemption from the RMSA prohibition, and specifically addresses the needs of small entities by allowing greater numbers of small organizations to qualify for the small institution exception from the RMSA prohibition. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Agencies have determined that no collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the interim rule. OCC and OTS Executive Order 12866 Statement The OCC and OTS each have independently determined that the interim rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory assessment is not required. OCC and OTS Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 Statement Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532), requires the OCC and OTS to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. However, this requirement does not apply to regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. Because this interim rule implements section 610 of the FSRRA, the OTS and OCC have not conducted an Unfunded Mandates Analysis for this rulemaking. List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 26 Antitrust, Holding companies, National banks. 12 CFR Part 212 Antitrust, Banks, banking, Holding companies. 12 CFR Part 348 Antitrust, Banks, banking, Holding companies. 12 CFR Part 563f Antitrust, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Chapter I Authority and Issuance For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, part 26 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 26—MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL INTERLOCKS 1. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a and 3201-3208. § 26.2 [Amended] 2. Amend § 26.2(k)(1)(vi) by removing “(m)(1)” and adding in its place “(k)(1)”. § 26.3 [Amended] 3. Amend § 26.3(b) by removing “$20” and adding in its place “$50”. Federal Reserve System 12 CFR Chapter II Authority and Issuance For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, part 212 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 212—MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL INTERLOCKS 1. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208; 15 U.S.C. 19. § 212.2 [Amended] 2. Amend § 212.2(j)(1)(iii) by removing “12 CFR 225.71(a)” and adding in its place “12 CFR 225.71(c)”. 3. Amend § 212.2(j)(1)(vi), by removing “(p)” and adding in its place “(n)” and by removing “(l)(1)” and adding in its place “(j)(1)”. § 212.3 [Amended] 4. Amend § 212.3(b) by removing “$20” and adding in its place “$50”. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 12 CFR Chapter III Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, part 348 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 348—MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL INTERLOCKS 1. The authority citation for part 348 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1823(k), 3207. § 348.2 [Amended] 2. Amend § 348.2(j)(1)(vi), by removing “(l)(1)” and adding in its place “(j)(1)”. § 348.3 [Amended] 3. Amend § 348.3(b) by removing “$20” and adding in its place “$50”. Office of Thrift Supervision 12 CFR Chapter V Authority and Issuance For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, part 563f of chapter V of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 563f—MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL INTERLOCKS 1. The authority citation for part 563f continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208. § 563f.2 [Amended] 2. Amend § 563f.2(j)(1)(vi) by removing “(l)(1)” and adding in its place “(j)(1)”. § 563f.3 [Amended] 3. Amend § 563f.3(b) by removing “$20” and adding in its place “$50”. Dated: December 6, 2006. John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 8, 2007. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. By order of the Board of Directors. Dated at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of December, 2006. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated: December 4, 2006. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John J. Reich, Director. [FR Doc. 07-79 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 34

Traces to 34 documents

U.S. Code