Cooling Water Intake Structure ( CWIS) Information Data Required Rig Information Rig Name Noble Johnnie Hoffman Rig Type Jackup Total Installed Power Generation Capacity 5,850 HP Number of Cooling Water Intake Structures ( CWISs) 4 Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe) 3 Deep Well Towers 1 Sea Chest Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether onboard CWIS has an existing flange 12" Deep Well; Flanged at tower top 10" Sea Chest; No Flange Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size None Total Design Specifications for Daily Maximum Water Intake Volume of each CWIS 1,364,454 gals ( 34,287 bbls)

Total Daily Water Intake Volume of each CWIS ( Set up/ Drilling) 1,364,454 gals ( 34,287 bbls)

Design Specs for Through Screen Velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( Set up/ Drilling) Deep Well = 1.0 ft. per second Sea Chest = 10.2 ft. per second List of Purposes of Cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes) Brake Water Cooling List of Purposes of Non cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., fire water, hotel loads) Fire pump, Sanitary, CMT unit Total Volume of Water Intake for Ballasting, Duration of the Ballast intake, and the Through Screen Velocity of the Ballast intake 1,366,672 gal ( 31,816 bbls) Ballast Water ( preload) on board approx. 6 hours. Thru screen velocity = 1.0 fps Mitigation Measures for reducing Exotic Species Migration through Ballast water Ballast water not transported. It is taken on and dumped from the same location. Mitigation Measures for reducing Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms, as well as Bio fouling Prevention Measures Cover over sea chest, cathodic protection.

Is the Rig equipped with a Radiator Cooling System for the Main Engines? Yes


[Federal Register: September 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 48337]
[DOCID:fr22se09-143]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Forty-Ninth Meeting, RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).

DATES: The meeting will be held October 5-9, 2009, at 8 a.m. on October
9th and 9 a.m. on the other days.

ADDRESSES: RTCA Conference Rooms at 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805,
Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036,<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202) 833-
9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting. The agenda will include:

Specific Working Group Sessions

Monday, October 5, 2009

 RTCA--All Day, WG-3--1090 MHz MOPS, MacIntosh-NBAA Room &
Hilton-ATA Room.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

 RTCA--All Day, WG-1--ATSA SURF 1A, Colson Board Room.
 RTCA--All Day, WG-3--1090 MHz MOPS, MacIntosh-NBAA Room &
Hilton-ATA Room.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

 RTCA--All Day, WG-1--ATSA SURF 1A, Colson Board Room.
 RTCA--All Day, Joint WG-3/WG-5, 1090 MHz MOPS and UAT MOPS,
MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

 RTCA--All Day, WG-1--ATSA SURF 1A, Colson Board Room.
 RTCA--All Day, Joint WG-3/WG-5, 1090 MHz MOPS and UAT MOPS,
MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.

Friday, October 9, 2009

    Plenary Session/Joint RTCA SC-186/EUROCAE WG-51.
    RTCA--Washington, DC--MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room and
EUROCAE.
    Starting at 8 a.m. at RTCA and 2 p.m. in Europe. (WebEx and Phone
Bridge information to be provided).

 Opening Plenary (Chairman's Introductory Remarks, Review of
Meeting Agenda).
 Review/Approval of the Forty-Eighth Meeting Summary, RTCA
Paper No. 171-09/SC186-283.
 Consider for Approval--Revised Document--DO-260A--Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for 1090 MHz Extended Squitter
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic
Information Services-Broadcast (TIS-B), RTCA Paper No. 188-09/SC186-
284. Consolidated FRAC Comments--RTCA Paper No. 189-09/SC-186-285.
 FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program--Status.
 Review of EUROCAE WG-51 Activities.
 Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting.
 Working Group Reports.
     WG-1--Operations and Implementation.
     WG-2--TIS-B MASPS.
     WG-3--1090 MHz MOPS.
     WG-4--Application Technical Requirements.
     WG-5--UAT MOPS.
     RFG--Requirements Focus Group.
 Consider for Approval--Revised Document--DO-282A--Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Universal Access Transceiver
(UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, RTCA Paper No. 190-
09/SC-286. Consolidated FRAC Comments--RTCA Paper No. 191-09/SC186-287.
 ADS-B ITP Coordination with SC-214 for Data Link Requirements
by December 2009.
 RFG Interval Management (IM) Application--Discussion--Possible
Fast Tracking.
 New Business.
 Other Business.
 Review Action Items/Work Programs.
 Adjourn Plenary.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-22841 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


developed. Also important, however, is investor education during the
standard-setting process, which may occur in two ways. First, active
investor outreach by the standard setters may increase both the
extent and quality of understanding of new standards. In the past,
both Boards have used a number of tools to facilitate investor,
issuer, and auditor education about new standards, including
education sessions, roundtables, and Web casts. Second, the Boards'
convergence projects will be completed in accordance with their due
process procedures, providing investors with time to become familiar
with the new converged standards as they are developed. The Staff
believes the effectiveness of these two areas in educating investors
during the standard-setting process needs to be evaluated.
    The Staff will analyze for the Commission's benefit how to
promote investor understanding of IFRS, as well as the existing
mechanisms to educate investors about changes in the accounting
standards, should the Commission determine in the future to
incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers. Specifically, the Staff will:
     Conduct research aimed at understanding U.S. investors'
current knowledge of IFRS and preparedness for incorporation of IFRS
into the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers.
     Gather input from various investor groups to understand
how investors educate themselves on changes in accounting standards
and the timeliness of such education.
     Consider the extent of, logistics for, and estimated
time necessary to undertake changes to improve investor
understanding of IFRS and the related education process to ensure
investors have a sufficient understanding of IFRS prior to potential
incorporation.

IV. Regulatory Environment

A. Introduction

    In addition to filing financial statements with the Commission,
U.S. issuers commonly provide financial information to a wide
variety of other parties for different purposes. While the federal
securities laws provide the Commission with the authority to
prescribe accounting principles and standards to be followed by
public companies and other regulated entities that file financial
statements with the Commission, the provision and content of
information to other regulators generally is not determined by the
Commission.\149\ However, these other regulators frequently rely on
U.S. GAAP as a basis for their regulatory reporting regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See Proposed Roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, should the Commission determine in the future to
incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers, transitional considerations related to the role of
financial reporting in various regulatory regimes and how such
incorporation would affect issuers, investors, and others in those
contexts, require evaluation to assess the magnitude and logistics
of changes that would be necessary for effective incorporation.
    Accordingly, this section explores considerations related to the
following:
     Manner in which the SEC fulfills its mission;
     Industry regulators;
     Federal and state tax impacts;
     Statutory dividend and stock repurchase restrictions;
     Audit regulation and standard setting;
     Broker-dealer and investment company reporting; and
     Public versus private companies.

B. Manner in Which the SEC Fulfills its Mission

    Incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers may affect the manner in which the Commission fulfills
its mission in two ways. First, the Commission must consider how to
incorporate IFRS into its rules and regulations and Staff
application guidance, to the extent they refer to accounting
standards and requirements. Second, as stated in the Commission's
2003 Policy Statement:

    ``The federal securities laws set forth the Commission's broad
authority and responsibility to prescribe the methods to be followed
in the preparation of accounts and the form and content of financial
statements to be filed under those laws (citations omitted), as well
as its responsibility to ensure that investors are furnished with
other information necessary for investment decisions. To assist it
in meeting this responsibility, the Commission historically has
looked to private-sector standard-setting bodies designated by the
accounting profession to develop accounting principles and
standards.''

    Commenters questioned how a move to IFRS would affect the
Commission's relationship with the standard setter. For example,
some questioned whether, under securities law, as amended by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC has the ability to designate the IASB as
the U.S. standard setter.\150\ If the IASB were designated as the
U.S. standard setter, commenters observed that the Proposed Roadmap
is unclear as to how the Commission would exercise oversight of the
IASB. Accordingly, commenters urged the Commission to determine how
it would react in a crisis situation and how the Commission would
protect U.S. investors if the IASB did not address U.S.-specific
issues in a timely

manner.\151\ For example, some commenters indicated the Commission
should retain the authority to interpret IFRS.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ See, e.g., American Bar Association Business Law Section
(``ABA Committee'').
    \151\ See, e.g., Darden Restaurant, Inc. (``Darden'') and Intel
Corporation (``Intel'').
    \152\ See, e.g., ABA Committee and Travelers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, other commenters have cautioned against a
``U.S. version of IFRS,'' \153\ as follows:

    \153\ See section I.D for further discussion regarding
jurisdictional variations of IFRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``We do not believe the Commission should supplement any missing
accounting or disclosure requirements or the financial statements
would not be considered to be prepared in accordance with IFRS as
issued by the IASB. We believe any additional disclosures the
Commission would consider requiring should be included outside of
the audited financial statements.'' \154\

    \154\ PPL. See also, e.g., Cisco Systems, Inc. (``Cisco'') and
Liberty Global.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these concerns, the 2010 Statement states:

    ``[The Commission] believe[s] the FASB will continue to play a
critical and substantive role in achieving the goal of global
accounting standards. The FASB is the accounting standard setter for
the U.S. capital markets, and it should continue to work with the
IASB to improve accounting standards. Moreover, that role would
remain critical after adoption of global standards.''

    The Staff will analyze for the Commission's benefit the impact
on Commission rules and procedures and potential approaches for the
ongoing role of the FASB in accounting standard setting and
interpretation, should the Commission determine in the future to
incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers. Specifically, the Staff will:
     Analyze references to accounting standards and
requirements in existing Commission rules and interpretations and
Staff application guidance to identify the extent of, logistics for,
and estimated time necessary to implement any changes prior to such
incorporation.
     Consider how, if at all, such incorporation would
affect the nature, manner, or frequency in which the Commission and
its Staff provide interpretative accounting guidance and enforce
accounting standards, and the extent of, logistics for, and
estimated time necessary to implement any changes.
     Analyze approaches to the FASB's ongoing role in
accounting standards used in the United States, and the extent of,
logistics for, and estimated time necessary to undertake these
approaches.

C. Industry Regulators

    In the Proposed Roadmap, the Commission observed:

    ``Various federal and state regulators, including regulators of
financial institutions, insurance companies and public utilities,
are provided with periodic financial information on an on-going
basis. For example, U.S. GAAP financial statements frequently are
used as the basis for determining capital requirements for financial
institutions.''

    Due to the prevalence of financial information provided to
different U.S. regulators, incorporation of IFRS into the financial
reporting system for U.S. issuers may significantly affect different
regulators and issuers subject to those regulators' compliance
requirements. As such, it is important to identify the full range of
regulatory regimes that rely on information developed for financial
reporting purposes.
    A number of commenters suggested that the Commission determine
the extent to which industry regulators would continue to accept
financial statements prepared for SEC reporting purposes as a
starting point for regulatory filings.\155\ Otherwise, commenters
cautioned that a move to IFRS for financial reporting purposes risks
creating costly dual-reporting requirements for issuers.\156\
Further, if regulators continue to accept reporting prepared for SEC
purposes, any changes in the reporting as a result of incorporating
IFRS could have regulatory impacts. The Staff recognizes that
acceptance of IFRS-based financial statements by industry regulators
may have consequences on issuers and others that require analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See, e.g., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and
Office of Thrift Supervision (collectively, ``BankReg''), Committee
of Annuity Insurers, Dominion Resources Services (``Dominion''),
First Data Corporation (``First Data''), and National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (``NARUC'').
    \156\ See, e.g., Boeing and Honeywell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Staff will analyze for the Commission's benefit the effects
on issuer compliance with industry regulatory requirements, should
the Commission determine in the future to incorporate IFRS into the
financial reporting system for U.S. issuers. Specifically, the Staff
will:
     Analyze the effects on issuer compliance with industry
regulatory requirements.
     Consider the impact of a change in SEC reporting on
industry regulators.
     Analyze constituent concerns associated with any
potential changes, or lack thereof, to regulatory regimes.

D. Federal and State Tax Impacts

    Incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers also could affect federal and state tax regulations
(e.g., Internal Revenue Code).\157\ As explained in the Proposed
Roadmap:

    \157\ 26 U.S.C. 1 et seq. [1986.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``As the Internal Revenue Code has developed over an extended
period of time with existing U.S. GAAP as the predominant set of
accounting standards used in the United States, certain interactions
exist between certain provisions of U.S. GAAP and income tax
requirements. For example, the Internal Revenue Code has conformity
provisions related to the method of accounting for inventory for tax
reporting purposes and the method used for reporting to shareholders
(and other owners or beneficiaries) or for credit purposes.\158\
IFRS does not allow for the use of last-in, first-out, or LIFO,
method of accounting for inventory. As a result, a company that
reports in accordance with IFRS would be required to use a method of
accounting for inventory that is acceptable under IFRS, for example
the first-in, first-out, or FIFO, method. U.S. issuers changing to
FIFO for financial reporting purposes may experience a change in
taxable income based on the difference between inventory valued on a
LIFO basis and on a FIFO basis.''

    \158\ See Section 472 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.
472).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If federal and state tax regulators maintained their current tax
codes, companies may experience a significant increase in the number
of book-tax differences they would be required to track upon
incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers. Several commenters expressed that because of the high cost
that otherwise would be incurred in maintaining two sets of records,
the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, as well as state and local tax codes
and related regulations, would need to be modified.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See, e.g., Allergan, Inc. and tw telecom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, if federal and state tax regulators continued to
align their tax codes with reporting for SEC purposes, companies may
experience significant changes to their expected tax liabilities.
Commenters expressed that the SEC should work with the Internal
Revenue Service and other tax authorities to mitigate the LIFO
transitional issue,\160\ as well as address the transfer pricing
arrangements and franchise tax considerations that may be affected
in the transition.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See, e.g., KPMG, The LIFO Coalition (``LIFO''), and
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
    \161\ See KPMG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Staff will analyze for the Commission's benefit the effects
on federal and state tax regulations, as well as issuers subject to
such regulations, should the Commission determine in the future to
incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers. Specifically, the Staff will:
     Analyze the effects on federal and state tax
regulations, as well as issuers subject to such regulations.
     Consider the impact of a change in SEC reporting on
federal and state tax regulators.
     Analyze constituent concerns associated with any
potential changes, or lack thereof, to federal and state tax
regulation.

E. Statutory Dividend and Stock Repurchase Restrictions

    Certain legal standards may be tied to amounts determined for
financial reporting purposes. For example, companies may declare
dividends to or repurchase stock from shareholders. While the
amount, timing, and manner of payment of dividend distributions and
stock repurchases are typically determined by the companies' boards
of directors, the amount available may be restricted by state
statute. For example, some jurisdictions provide that dividends may
only be paid from retained earnings or may be paid from current
earnings despite an accumulated deficit.
    To the extent that jurisdictions base legal standards on amounts
determined for

financial reporting purposes, incorporation of IFRS into the
financial reporting system for U.S. issuers could affect a company's
ability to undertake certain actions and an investor's expectations
in that regard. In addition, to the extent that legal standards do
not change based on changes in SEC reporting, companies would need
to maintain two sets of records. Accordingly, the Staff will analyze
for the Commission's benefit the effects on such legal standards,
should the Commission determine in the future to incorporate IFRS
into the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers. Specifically,
the Staff will:
     Analyze the effect of such incorporation on legal
standards, such as a company's ability to pay dividends or
repurchase stock, on issuers and investors.
     Consider the impact of a change in SEC reporting on
state statutes in this regard.
     Analyze constituent concerns associated with any
potential changes, or lack thereof, to such state statutes.

F. Audit Regulation and Standard Setting

    Another regulatory body that may be affected by incorporation of
IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers is the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB''), which is
responsible for overseeing public company audit firms and
establishing audit, quality control, ethics, and independence
standards used by those firms.\162\ The Proposed Roadmap and
commenters raised two primary considerations related to the PCAOB.
First, commenters questioned whether a move to global accounting
standards should be coupled with a move to global auditing standards
in the United States, for example, through convergence of PCAOB
standards with or adoption of auditing standards issued by the
International Accounting and Assurances Standards Board.\163\
Second, commenters noted that PCAOB auditing standards may require
better alignment with IFRS. For example, one commenter expressed a
general concern that there would be a mismatch between the less
prescriptive standards in IFRS and U.S. auditing standards.\164\ In
addition, the Proposed Roadmap identified a general need for
conforming amendments to PCAOB standards where they refer to current
U.S. GAAP literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See Section 101 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C.
7211).
    \163\ See, e.g., CalPERS and FEE.
    \164\ See AAA-FASC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also provided specific examples of PCAOB auditing
standards that may require better alignment with IFRS. For example,
commenters suggested that the PCAOB issue additional guidance for
auditors engaged in auditing market risk information included in the
audited financial statements pursuant to IFRS 7 (currently U.S.
issuers provide similar information outside the financial statements
pursuant to Item 305 of Regulation S-K).\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See, e.g., KPMG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Proposed Roadmap discussed the audit of legal
contingencies as follows:

    ``One of the conditions under IFRS for recognizing a provision
for a legal contingency is that it is more likely than not that an
obligation exists (footnote omitted). This recognition threshold is
lower than the current recognition threshold in U.S. GAAP, resulting
in the potential for an earlier income statement recognition of
costs associated with litigation (footnote omitted). Concerns have
been raised about an auditor's ability to corroborate the
information furnished by management related to litigation, claims,
and assessments by obtaining an audit inquiry letter from a client's
attorney.'' \166\

    \166\ As further discussed in the Proposed Roadmap:
    Some believe that changes to the American Bar Association
Statement of Policy Regarding Lawyers' Responses to Auditors'
Requests for Information may be necessary. See AU section 337C. The
Statement of Policy, commonly referred to as the ``Treaty,''
recognizes the professional responsibilities of attorneys and
auditors and seeks to preserve confidentiality while providing the
necessary level of assurance for the audit. The Treaty recognizes
that the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and a
client may be impaired by the disclosure of the substance of such
communications to third parties, including auditors. By describing
thresholds for disclosure and limitations on responses, the Treaty
sets the scope of the attorney's responses to audit requests for
information on legal matters. Some believe that the thresholds and
limitations described in the Treaty are inconsistent with certain
provisions within IFRS.
    See also, e.g., ABA Committee (echoed the Commission's
statements in the Proposed Roadmap regarding the audit of legal
contingencies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the above examples of areas where PCAOB auditing
standards may require better alignment with IFRS, most auditors that
responded to the Proposed Roadmap did not have concerns regarding
their ability to opine on financial statements prepared under
IFRS.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See, e.g., CAQ (stated that the U.S. auditing profession
stands ready to support the use of IFRS by all U.S. issuers,
including early adopters under an option), J.H. Cohn LLP (confirmed
its readiness to prepare for audits of IFRS financial statements
once the SEC reaches a decision), and PwC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Staff will analyze for the Commission's benefit the effects
on audit standard setting and auditor requirements, should the
Commission determine in the future to incorporate IFRS into the
financial reporting system for U.S. issuers. Specifically, the Staff
will:
     Consider the impact of such incorporation on PCAOB
standards.
     Consider the extent of, logistics for, and estimated
time necessary to undertake any changes to the auditing standards.

G. Broker-Dealer and Investment Company Reporting

    The Proposed Roadmap excluded investment companies registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and certain other regulated
entities that are required to file or furnish certain types of
financial reports (e.g., broker-dealers).
    Some commenters expressed that no issuers should be exempt from
the scope of the Proposed Roadmap \168\ and that the final Roadmap
should include a plan so that all filings with the SEC are based on
IFRS and allow adequate time for the IASB and SEC to consider the
appropriate financial reporting model for these entities.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See, e.g., BDO Seidman, LLP (``BDO''), CAQ, and Verizon
Communications, Inc.
    \169\ See, e.g., EY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, some commenters supported the exclusion of
investment companies from the rule proposal.\170\ Another commenter
expressed the view that the Commission has not sufficiently
articulated its rationale for excluding investment companies and
other regulated entities from the scope of the Proposed Roadmap and
would agree with excluding these issuers ``only if there are unique
considerations surrounding these entities that could delay the
Commission's decision making process.''\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See, e.g., AICPA and Investment Company Institute (who
expressed that convergence in accounting standards as applied to
investment companies and resolution of conflicts between IFRS and
Article 6 of Regulation S-X should be prerequisites to a move to
IFRS).
    \171\ GT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, commenters also expressed concerns regarding costs
imposed by the reduced comparability introduced by the continued use
of another basis of accounting (e.g., for private companies (see
below), and/or Investment Company Act registrants).\172\ As another
example, excluding broker-dealer reporting could result in a broker-
dealer subsidiary being required to report to the Commission under
one set of standards with the public holding company that
consolidates that subsidiary required to report under another. Also,
to the extent reporting results changed if IFRS were to be
incorporated for these entities, such a change could impact
compliance with financial responsibility rules, such as net capital
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See, e.g., Private Equity Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the different views noted above, the Staff will
analyze for the Commission's benefit possible approaches for
financial reporting requirements for broker-dealers and investment
companies, should the Commission determine in the future to
incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers. Specifically, the Staff will:
     Assess the effects of such incorporation on broker-
dealers, investment companies, and investors, including whether IFRS
includes sufficient standards, and the extent of, logistics for, and
estimated time necessary to undertake any changes, should broker-
dealers and investment companies be included in the scope any
potential Commission decision.
     Evaluate the effect on investors of excluding broker-
dealers and investment companies from the scope of any potential
Commission decision.

H. Public Versus Private Companies

    The Proposed Roadmap focused only on companies that file with
the Commission. However, existing U.S. GAAP also is used by private
companies.
    Commenters expressed concern over the impact a move to IFRS
would have on U.S.

private companies.\173\ One concern raised in the Proposed Roadmap
and echoed by commenters was that, to the extent two sets of
standards existed, a requirement to file different financial
statements with the Commission would increase costs of capital for
private companies considering an initial public offering.\174\ It
could also impact the evaluation of business combinations between
public and private companies. Some commenters acknowledged that
private company reporting is largely outside of the mandate of the
Commission, but stated that the Commission should assess the
consequences its decision on IFRS would have to this large and
important part of the U.S. economy. Specifically, certain of these
commenters believed that if a ``dual-GAAP'' system emerged for
private versus public companies, this could adversely affect the
efficiency of the U.S. capital markets.\175\ Even if U.S. private
companies were to report under IFRS, a ``dual-GAAP'' system may
evolve, if private companies followed IFRS for small- and medium-
sized entities (``SMEs''), which:

    \173\ See, e.g., The New York State Society of Certified Public
Accountants (``NY CPAs'') and Ohio CPAs.
    \174\ See, e.g., ABA Committee, Center for Capital Markets
Competitiveness (``CCMC''), Davey Tree, First Data, and ITAC.
    \175\ See, e.g., CA CPAs and CIGNA Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``[I]s a self-contained standard of about 230 pages tailored for
the needs and capabilities of smaller [private] businesses. Many of
the principles in full IFRSs for recognising and measuring assets,
liabilities, income and expenses have been simplified, topics not
relevant to SMEs have been omitted, and the number of required
disclosures has been significantly reduced. To further reduce the
reporting burden for SMEs revisions to the IFRS will be limited to
once every three years.'' \176\

    \176\ ``IASB publishes IFRS for SMEs,'' IASB press release (July
9, 2009). (available at: http://www.iasb.org/News/Press+Releases/
IASB+publishes+IFRS+for+SMEs.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Staff will analyze for the Commission's benefit the effects
on U.S. private companies, should the Commission determine in the
future to incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers. Specifically, the Staff will:
     Analyze the effects of such incorporation for U.S.
issuers on private companies, auditors, and investors.
     Assess the extent of, logistics for, and estimated time
necessary to undertake changes to accommodate any resulting
implications on private companies.

V. Impact on Issuers

A. Introduction

    Incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers would significantly affect preparers of financial
statements--the several thousand issuers that file reports with the
Commission. Numerous commenters expressed the view that the costs,
effort, and time involved with a move to IFRS would be
considerable,\177\ with many asserting that the benefits of such a
move may not outweigh those costs.\178\ A number of commenters
further asserted that the transition time articulated in the
Proposed Roadmap was not sufficient \179\ and may cause confusion,
thereby damaging investor confidence.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See, e.g., Phil Ameen (``Ameen''), Chevron Corporation,
Eli Lilly, Shawn S. Fahrer, Hot Topic Inc. (``Hot Topic''), Intel,
Graduating Seniors--Jacksonville University (Georgia), Kohl's
Department Stores, Inc. (``Kohl's''), Molson Coors Brewing Company,
NARUC, PPL, Psoras, Mark A. Supin, SIFMA, U.S. Congressman Lee
Terry, Tuesday Morning; and U.S. Congressman Zach Wamp.
    \178\ See, e.g., Davey Tree, Exxon Mobil Corporation (``Exxon
Mobil''), Marriott, McDonald's, Pfizer Inc. (``Pfizer''),
Plantronics, Inc. (``Plantronics''), Regions Financial Corp., and tw
telecom.
    \179\ See, e.g., ABA Committee, American Insurance Association
(``AIA''), AICPA, BankReg, Best Buy Co., Inc., CAQ, Cisco, Cymer
Inc., Deloitte, EY, Fannie Mae, Graybar Electric Company, Inc.,
ICAEW, IMA, KPMG, National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts, NARUC, Progress Energy, Inc., PwC, Reznick Group, P.C.,
TransCanada Corporation, and XenoPort.
    \180\ See, e.g., Association of the Bar of the City of New York,
Community Health, CSX Corporation, and Plantronics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, this aspect of the Work Plan explores the magnitude
and logistics of changes that issuers would need to undertake to
effectively incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers, should the Commission determine in the future to
incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers in the following areas:\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ The human resource impact on issuers is discussed
separately in section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Accounting systems, controls, and procedures;
     Contractual arrangements; and
     Corporate governance.
    The Work Plan will also consider the effect of such
incorporation on the following:
     Accounting for litigation contingencies; and
     Smaller issuers versus larger issuers.

B. Accounting Systems, Controls, and Procedures

    U.S. issuers may be required to significantly modify their
accounting systems, controls, and procedures, if the Commission
incorporates IFRS into the financial reporting system. As stated in
the Proposed Roadmap:

    ``Use of any new accounting standards requires changes to
financial reporting systems and procedures to identify, collect,
analyze and report financial information and the corresponding
controls. Changing numerous accounting standards at the same time,
regardless of the starting point, would require numerous changes in
a company's policies and procedures and system of internal
controls.''

    For example, commenters expressed the need for:
     A complete survey of accounting policies as a first
step because IFRS explicitly requires that all similar transactions
in the enterprise (including affiliates) be accounted for
similarly;\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See, e.g., Ameen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     More detailed company policies, as IFRS is viewed as
less developed than U.S. GAAP;\183\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ See, e.g., Air Products, Community Health, Darden, and
Mead Westvaco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Changes to systems, including ledgers and related
internal controls, and related testing of such changes,\184\
particularly to ensure effectiveness for reporting purposes under
section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See, e.g., Ameen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters noted that the burden of changes to accounting
systems, controls, and procedures would be exacerbated in a number
of ways. First, issuers may be required to maintain dual-accounting
systems for a period of time (e.g., (1) for periods reported under
existing U.S. GAAP after the opening balance sheet date under IFRS
1, First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting
Standards, but before the initial filing under a system
incorporating IFRS, (2) if the SEC were to require supplemental U.S.
GAAP information for a period of time to aid in transition, (3) if
such incorporation were effective in the financial statements of
consolidated entities prior to those of the consolidated entities'
stand-alone subsidiaries, and (4) if other regulators continued to
require reporting based on U.S. GAAP). One commenter stated:

    ``Maintaining dual reporting presents U.S. issuers with a
significant burden since all of the processes, controls, and checks
must occur twice for each transaction. Indeed, it is likely that the
Sarbanes Oxley control testing requirements could nearly double
during the period of parallel reporting.'' \185\

    \185\ UTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, changes to accounting systems, controls, and procedures
require sufficient lead time. However, if IFRS continues to change
at a rapid pace during this lead time, U.S. issuers will experience
additional challenges in planning for incorporation of IFRS into the
financial reporting system. As such, some commenters expressed the
need for a ``stable platform'' for a period of time during which
accounting standards do not change.\186\ However, a ``stable
platform'' may constrain the standard setters' ability to address
emerging issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See, e.g., Eli Lilly, Exxon Mobil, EY, and SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, some commenters asserted that certain industries would be
disproportionately impacted by incorporation of IFRS into the
financial reporting system for U.S. issuers because of differences
between existing U.S. GAAP and IFRS that are specific to their
circumstances. One commenter stated that financial institutions will
need sufficient time to prepare for conversion to IFRS, given the
extent of systems changes and communications that will need to
occur.\187\ Other commenters expressed concerns about specific
differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS for which they believed the
accounting under IFRS would be onerous.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See ICAEW.
    \188\ See, e.g., Mead Westvaco, Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.,
Potlatch Corporation, and Rayonier Inc. (who expressed concerns
regarding the costs of complying with the requirement in
International Accounting Standard 41, Agriculture, to fair value
timberlands). See also, e.g., Hot Topic, J.C. Penney Company, Inc.,
Kohl's, and Tuesday Morning (who expressed concerns about the IFRS
disallowance of the retail inventory method).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Staff will analyze for the Commission's benefit the effects
on U.S. issuers' accounting systems, controls, and procedures,
should the Commission determine in the future to incorporate IFRS
into the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers. Specifically,
the Staff will:
     Determine the extent of, logistics for, and estimated
time necessary to undertake changes to issuer accounting systems,
controls, and procedures to facilitate such incorporation.
     Consider the implications of a ``stable platform,''
including the length of time and means of addressing emerging
issues.

C. Contractual Arrangements

    The Proposed Roadmap also noted that companies' contracts often,
either explicitly or implicitly, require the use of U.S. GAAP or are
based off of current U.S. GAAP reporting. For example, companies may
have issued debt instruments which include financial covenants based
on U.S. GAAP or require periodic reporting of financial statements
prepared under U.S. GAAP. Similarly, lease contracts and employee
compensation plans may be based on metrics computed using U.S. GAAP
financial information.
    Commenters indicated that a move to IFRS for U.S. issuers may
require contract renegotiation or the preparation of two sets of
financial statements, depending on how IFRS is incorporated in the
U.S. capital markets.\189\ In addition, performance under the
existing agreements could be affected if the reported information
changes. Accordingly, the Staff will analyze for the Commission's
benefit the effects on contractual arrangements, should the
Commission determine in the future to incorporate IFRS into the
financial reporting system for U.S. issuers. Specifically, the Staff
will:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See, e.g., AIA, CCMC, Hot Topic, JP Morgan, Psoras, and
Tuesday Morning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Assess the types and pervasiveness of contractual
arrangements that would be affected by such incorporation and the
manner in which they would be affected.
     Determine the costs, ability, plans, and estimated time
required to address concerns regarding affected contractual
arrangements.

D. Corporate Governance

    Incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers may affect an issuer's compliance with corporate
governance requirements. For example, in 2003, as required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC adopted rules that require a registrant
to disclose whether it has at least one ``audit committee financial
expert'' (as defined) serving on its audit committee and, if so, the
name of the expert and whether the expert is independent of
management.\190\ Those rules also indicate the education and
experience through which those attributes must have been acquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ See Disclosure Required by Sections 406 and 407 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Release No. 33-8177 (January 23, 2003)
[68 FR 5110 (January 31, 2003)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Listing rules for U.S. securities exchanges also have
requirements regarding audit committee competence. One commenter
explained:

    ``[R]ules of the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX require members of the
audit committee of each listed company to be financially literate
and each listed company audit committee must have at least one
member who has accounting or related financial management expertise.
Many board members who currently meet the ``financial expertise''
qualifications are not likely to have had experience with IFRS or
its adoption as they have been trained in U.S. GAAP. If a company
adopts IFRS, its board is likely to need additional training in IFRS
in order to meet the level of financial expertise necessary for them
to carry out these functions and satisfy these requirements.'' \191\

    \191\ Metlife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting
system may result in challenges for U.S. issuers in identifying
audit committee financial experts and in listing on securities
exchanges, as well as, more broadly, compliance with other aspects
of corporate governance. Further, similar to the potential effects
on compliance with other regulatory requirements, changes in
financial reporting could impact a company's compliance with certain
quantitative listing standards. The Staff will analyze for the
Commission's benefit the impact on compliance with corporate
governance standards, should the Commission determine in the future
to incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers. Specifically, the Staff will:
     Determine the potential effects on corporate governance
and related concerns of such incorporation.
     Determine possible approaches to address corporate
governance concerns and the extent of, logistics for, and estimated
time necessary to undertake these approaches.

E. Accounting for Litigation Contingencies

    Commenters expressed concerns regarding the treatment of
litigation-related loss contingencies under IFRS. For example, the
ABA Committee asserted that accounting for such contingencies under
IFRS raises serious concerns by its use of a lower recognition
threshold than U.S. GAAP and its requirements to make additional
disclosures. Their concerns included ``avoidance of prejudice to
companies and their shareholders in our highly litigious society''
and erosions of the protections of attorney-client privilege and
work product. Other commenters expressed similar concerns, with one
noting:

    ``[T]he loss contingency disclosures required under IFRS are
similar to those proposed by the FASB in 2008. As these disclosures
were rejected for use in the U.S. primarily due to objections from
the legal community, it is likely that similar issues will arise if
IFRS becomes mandatory.'' \192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Dominion. See also, e.g., FPL and Pfizer. The Staff notes
that the FASB is in the process of re-deliberating loss contingency
disclosure requirements. See also section IV.E regarding concerns
related to the auditing of loss contingencies accounted for under
IFRS.

    Incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers requires careful consideration of the impact of
litigation contingency accounting and disclosure requirements under
IFRS on issuers and investors. Accordingly, the Staff will analyze
for the Commission's benefit the effects on accounting and
disclosure requirements for litigation contingencies under IFRS in
the U.S. legal environment, should the Commission determine in the
future to incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers. Specifically, the Staff will:
     Discuss with issuers, the legal profession, and
investors concerns regarding accounting and disclosure requirements
for litigation contingencies under IFRS.
     Determine possible approaches to address concerns
regarding accounting and disclosure requirements for litigation
contingencies under IFRS and the extent of, logistics for, and
estimated time necessary to undertake these approaches.

F. Smaller Issuers Versus Larger Issuers

    Several commenters asserted that a move to IFRS would be
particularly burdensome for smaller U.S. issuers. For example, one
commenter included studies from two independent consultants
indicating that, while recognizing potential cost savings for some
large, multinational firms, a move to IFRS is likely to impose
substantial transition costs, including disproportionate costs on
smaller issuers.\193\ Conversely, one commenter stated that ``the
impact is expected to be very small and the majority of the impact
will occur in non-routine or one-off transactions which are
typically subject to significant scrutiny in any case.'' \194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ FAF. See also, e.g., Biotechnology Industry Organization,
Business Roundtable, CCMC, CRIFR, and IMA.
    \194\ Xenoport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the above comments, the Staff will analyze for the
Commission's benefit the extent to which incorporation of IFRS into
the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers would affect smaller
issuers differently than larger issuers and the extent of, logistics
for, and estimated time necessary to undertake any changes, should
the Commission determine in the future to do so. Specifically, the
Staff will:
     Determine the manner in which the impact of such
incorporation varies based on issuer size.
     Determine possible approaches to mitigate concerns
regarding any disproportionate effects on smaller issuers of such
incorporation and the extent of, logistics for, and estimated time
necessary to undertake these approaches.

VI. Human Capital Readiness

A. Introduction

    Should the Commission determine in the future to incorporate
IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers,
transitional

considerations related to the readiness of all parties involved in
the financial reporting process, including investors (see section
III for further discussion), issuers, attorneys, auditors,
regulators, and educators require evaluation to assess the magnitude
and logistics of changes that would be necessary to effectively
incorporate IFRS into the financial reporting system for U.S.
issuers. Accordingly, this section explores considerations related
to:
     Education and training; and
     Auditor capacity.

B. Education and Training

    In the Proposed Roadmap, the Commission noted that the education
and ongoing training of most accountants in the United States are
limited to or predominantly focused on the current provisions of
U.S. GAAP. As a result, the Commission acknowledged that many
parties likely would need comprehensive IFRS training, including:
     Investors, as discussed in section III;
     The personnel of issuers, including their accounting,
internal audit, and investor relations departments, and their
governing bodies, such as their audit committees and board of
directors;
     Specialists, such as actuaries and valuation experts,
as they often are engaged by management to assist in measuring
certain assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes;
     Attorneys, who will need to understand financial
statements in order to, for example, advise on disclosures required
under the securities laws and provide legal representations to
external auditors;
     External auditors;
     Regulators, such as the Staff, PCAOB staff, and the
staff of other regulatory bodies; \195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See, e.g., BankReg (noted that they ``collectively employ
thousands of examination and policy support personnel that will need
to be adequately trained in the use of IFRS if it is adopted before
convergence is achieved'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     State licensing bodies, professional associations, and
industry groups, who would need to integrate IFRS into their
training materials, publications, testing, and certification
programs (including the Uniform CPA Examination); and
     Colleges and universities that would need to include
IFRS in their curricula.
    In the Proposed Roadmap, the Commission observed that strategies
taken by those participants in markets where issuers already report
in accordance with IFRS might serve as examples of approaches to
increasing education and awareness of IFRS.
    The Commission also expressed that the private sector may
respond to any increased demand for IFRS education by making
educational materials available.\196\ Since the Commission's
issuance of the Concept Release in August 2007, several of the
largest accounting firms in the United States have made more
material available to the public about IFRS generally, as well as
about the application of specific IFRS standards.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See Proposed Roadmap.
    \197\ These materials include publications (e.g., PwC's IFRS and
US GAAP: similarities and differences; EY's US GAAP v. IFRS The
basics: Oil and gas) and other IFRS-related education initiatives
(e.g., the KPMG IFRS Institute; Deloitte's IFRS University
Consortium; EY's Academic Resource Center; PwC's IFRS Video Learning
Center).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters expressed mixed views in terms of the importance of
this issue, as well as timing for improvements in this area. Some
commenters expressed concerns about the challenges faced in training
and educating both existing and future practitioners.\198\ For
example, the nature of accounting education would require change, as
professionals and students would not only need training in IFRS, but
in utilizing judgment in the application of less prescriptive
standards and in understanding the economic substance of
transactions.\199\ Accordingly, commenters expressed the view that a
move to IFRS for U.S. issuers would be costly for educators,\200\
particularly if a dual-reporting system (e.g., due to different
systems for public versus private companies) evolved in the United
States.\201\ Commenters also asserted that educators would not be
ready in the near term \202\ and that work needs to begin
immediately.\203\ As such, some commenters recommended that the
Commission address how sufficient resources and incentives for
training would be achieved.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See, e.g., CalPERS, CFA, Fund Stockowner Rights, ITAC,
NASBA, NYCPAs, and Ohio CPAs.
    \199\ See, e.g., London Ctr Int'l Corp Gov Law and Shyam Sunder.
    \200\ See, e.g., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Teresa P.
Gordon, and Thomas N. Tyson.
    \201\ See, e.g., Travelers.
    \202\ See, e.g., American Accounting Association, Financial
Accounting and Reporting Section, and Financial Reporting Policy
Committee (pointed to surveys of educators indicating concerns over
readiness).
    \203\ See, e.g., ING Insurance Americas.
    \204\ See, e.g., CalPERS and ICGN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Others, however, were of the view that educators, issuers, and
other impacted parties would be prepared in time, particularly once
a date for moving to IFRS were established.\205\ One commenter
expressed that IFRS education and expertise will grow in the United
States anyway--even if the United States does not move to IFRS--
because of the ongoing increased foreign investment in the United
States.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ See, e.g., ACCA, Alcoa, CAQ, Dell Inc., EY, and PwC.
    \206\ See Pepsi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Staff recognizes that education and training efforts to
facilitate incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system
for U.S. issuers could be significant. Accordingly, the Staff will
analyze for the Commission's benefit the sufficiency of the IFRS
education and training infrastructure and the extent of, logistics
for, and estimated time necessary to undertake changes, should the
Commission determine in the future to do so. Specifically, the Staff
will:
     Evaluate the current level of IFRS expertise and extent
of IFRS education and training needs among constituents.
     Consider the extent of, logistics for, and estimated
time to implement plans for future training among constituents.

C. Auditor Capacity

    Incorporation of IFRS into the financial reporting system for
U.S. issuers could strain audit firm resources if sufficient
training and time are not provided. The Proposed Roadmap noted that
``[a]udit firms would need to consider elements of their systems of
quality control, such as their practices related to hiring,
assigning personnel to engagements, professional development and
advancement activities.'' An increase in the demand for IFRS
expertise may affect the availability of audit services, with
consequences on audit quality, cost, and audit firm concentration.
    While some commenters expressed that moving to IFRS is likely to
have little or no effect on the availability of audit services and
audit quality,\207\ others expressed concerns about a likely
reduction in these areas, along with an increase in both internal
and external audit costs, due to IFRS being less comprehensive and
requiring more application of judgment.\208\ For additional
discussion regarding the impact of IFRS's comprehensiveness on its
auditability, see section I.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ See, e.g., Deutsche Bank, UBS, and UTC.
    \208\ See, e.g., Davey Tree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Others commented that the consequences of a move to IFRS for
U.S. issuers on audit firms may differ based on audit firm size.
With respect to the large audit firms, commenters believed that a
move to IFRS for U.S. issuers is likely to have little or no effect
on the availability of audit services and audit quality.\209\ Two
large audit-firm commenters noted that they currently audit foreign
private issuers as well as subsidiaries of foreign multi-nationals
that report under IFRS.\210\ Further, they anticipated leveraging
personnel from other member firms in countries that have already
moved to IFRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See, e.g., BDO, Deloitte, EY, and PwC.
    \210\ See Deloitte and PwC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, opinions were mixed on the impact of moving
to IFRS on ``smaller'' audit firms. The Proposed Roadmap stated that
the potential use of IFRS by U.S. issuers:

``[M]ay be particularly challenging for less globally-oriented audit
firms, which typically may have fewer resources available through
affiliated or network firms located in jurisdictions in which
issuers already report in accordance with IFRS. This could be a
further factor affecting concentration in the auditing profession.''

    One commenter expressed concern that current IFRS expertise is
concentrated within the ``Big Four'' public accounting firms, which
could allow for opportunistic business behaviors when dealing with
other competitors and regulators.\211\ However, others commented
that an SEC mandate to move to IFRS would not affect the competitive
position of smaller firms.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ See ITAC.
    \212\ See, e.g., ACCA, Deloitte, EY, ICAEW (indicated that a
move to IFRS did not have an identifiable impact on audit
concentration in Europe), and PwC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these differing views, the Staff will analyze for
the Commission's benefit potential auditor capacity constraints with
respect to IFRS and their consequences,

should the Commission determine in the future to incorporate IFRS
into the financial reporting system for U.S. issuers. Specifically,
the Staff will:
     Analyze concerns regarding auditor capacity
constraints, including the effect on audit quality, cost, and audit
firm concentration and competitiveness.
     Determine possible approaches to mitigate these
concerns and the extent of, logistics for, and estimated time
necessary to undertake these approaches.

[FR Doc. 2010-4171 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45962-45965]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18787]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0194; FRL-9709-5]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Idaho;
Boise-Northern Ada County Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-Year
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Idaho (the
State). The Idaho State Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
submitted the Northern Ada County Air Quality Maintenance Area Second
10-year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan on February 10, 2011. In
accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the
Act), EPA is approving the revision because the State adequately
demonstrates that the Boise-Northern Ada County Air Quality Maintenance
Area will maintain air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO)
through the year 2022.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2012, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 4, 2012. If
EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0194, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: John Chi, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: John Chi, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0194. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi at telephone number: (206)
553-1230, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the purpose of this action?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. How have the public and stakeholders been involved in this
rulemaking process?
IV. Evaluation of Idaho's Submittal
V. Transportation and General Conformity
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the purpose of this action?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the second 10-year CO
maintenance plan for the Northern Ada County, Idaho Air Quality
Maintenance Area. The Northern Ada County Area attained the CO national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 2002 and has not violated the
standard since 1986. The second 10-year CO maintenance plan submitted
by the State is designed to keep the Northern

Ada County Area in attainment for the CO standard for a second 10-year
period beyond redesignation.

II. What is the background for this action?

    Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, any area designated before
the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 was to be
designated upon enactment by operation of law. CO nonattainment areas
that had not violated the CO standard in either year for the two-year
period 1988-1989 were to be designated nonattainment and identified as
``not classified'' nonattainment areas. Accordingly, on November 6,
1991, the Boise-Northern Ada County Area was designated nonattainment
for the CO NAAQS and identified as ``not-classified'' (56 FR 56746).
    On January 17, 2002, the State requested EPA redesignate the
Northern Ada County nonattainment area to attainment and submitted a
limited maintenance plan to demonstrate maintenance of the standard for
a 10-year period. EPA published approval of the redesignation request
and maintenance plan on October 28, 2002 (67 FR 65713). The State
submitted a second 10-year maintenance plan to EPA on February 10,
2011.
    The 8-hour CO standard is attained when the daily average 8-hour CO
concentration of 9.0 parts per million (ppm) is not exceeded more than
once a year. Since the redesignation of the Northern Ada County Area to
attainment for CO on December 27, 2002, the second highest
concentration in any calendar year measured by the EPA approved
monitoring network was 3.3 ppm, which is less than 9.0 ppm. Therefore
the area is attaining the CO NAAQS.
    In addition, areas that can demonstrate design values at or below
7.65 ppm (85 percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8
consecutive quarters may use a limited maintenance plan option. The
State has opted to develop a limited maintenance plan to fulfill the
second 10-year maintenance plan required by the Act. The base year in
the State's second 10-year maintenance plan is 2008, which has a design
value of 2.9 ppm. EPA reviewed air quality monitoring data (2010-2011)
and the 8-hour CO design value for the Northern Ada County Area is 1.6
ppm. Thus, the area qualifies to use the limited maintenance plan
option.

III. How have the public and stakeholders been involved in this
rulemaking process?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to EPA. The State of
Idaho held a public hearing on January 26, 2011, in Boise, Idaho. A
notice of public hearing was published in the Idaho Statesman on
December 27, 2010. A notice was also published in the Valley News on
January 10, 2011. This SIP revision became State effective on February
10, 2011, and was submitted by the Governor's designee to the EPA on
February 10, 2011. EPA has evaluated the State's submittal and
determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice
and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the Act.

IV. Evaluation of Idaho's Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the Northern Ada County second 10-year CO
maintenance plan and concludes that the submittal meets the
requirements of section 175A(b) of the Act. The following is a summary
of the requirements and EPA's evaluation of how each requirement is
met.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    The plan must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to
identify a level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain
the CO NAAQS. The Northern Ada County second 10-year CO maintenance
plan contains an emissions inventory for the base year 2008 that is
consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on maintenance plan emission
inventories. The emissions inventory is a list, by source, of the air
contaminants directly emitted into the Northern Ada County CO Area. The
data in the emissions inventory is based on calculations and is
developed using emission factors, which is a method for converting
source activity levels into an estimate of emissions contributions for
those sources. Because violations of the CO NAAQS are most like to
occur on winter weekdays, the inventory prepared is in a ``typical
winter day'' format. The table below shows the tons of CO emitted per
winter day in 2008 by source category.

              2008 Average Winter Day CO Emission Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO Emissions
                  Main source category                       tons per
                                                            winter day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...........................................             0.5
Major Point Sources w/in 25 miles.......................             4.2
Onroad Mobile Sources...................................           146.1
Non-road Mobile Sources.................................            62.5
Area Sources............................................            49.7
Biogenic................................................             1.5
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................           264.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Maintenance

    The maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied for areas using the limited maintenance plan option, which
are required to demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85
percent of exceedance levels of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive
quarters. The State has opted to develop a limited maintenance plan to
fulfill the Northern Ada County Area second 10-year maintenance plam
required by the Act.
    With the limited maintenance plan option, there is no requirement
to project emissions of air quality over the maintenance period. EPA
believes that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below,
85 percent of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS, the applicability of
prevention of significant deterioration requirements, the control
measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide
adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period.
The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS in the Northern Ada County
Area occurred in 1986, the last exceedance was in January 1991, and the
monitored CO levels have been steadily in decline ever since. The 8-
hour CO design value for Northern Ada County is 1.6 ppm based on 2010-
2011 data, which is below the limited maintenance plan requirement of
7.65 ppm. Therefore, the Northern Ada County Area has adequately
demonstrated that it will maintain the CO NAAQS into the future.

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The State has an approved monitoring
network that includes the Northern Ada County Area. The monitoring
network was most recently approved by EPA on September 6, 2011.

In the Northern Ada County second 10-year CO maintenance plan, IDEQ
commits to verify continued attainment through the EPA-approved
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The Northern Ada County second 10-year CO
limited maintenance plan contains a contingency plan that would
institute an oxygenated fuels program or another equivalent CO
reduction measure based on the EPA's guidance and recommendations. The
contingency plan is triggered either when an exceedance of the 8 hour
CO standard is recorded on any monitor, or when a monitor records non-
overlapping 8 hour CO concentrations of 8 ppm on 4 or more days within
a single winter season within the nonattainment area. EPA finds that
the contingency measures provided in the maintenance plan are adequate
to ensure prompt correction of a violation.

V. Transportation and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Act.
EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are funded under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
conform to SIPs. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan.
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating
that a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the
emissions budget for the area.
    While EPA's limited maintenance plan option does not exempt an area
from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may
demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. Under
the limited maintenance plan option, emissions budgets are treated as
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period
because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would
experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO
NAAQS would result. Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general
conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget test''
specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the
budgets are essentially considered to be unlimited.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the limited
maintenance plan option are not subject to the budget test, the areas
remain subject to other transportation conformity requirements of 40
CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the area or the State must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;
    c. The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized CO or
particulate matter violations, in accordance with procedures specified
in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    The lead transportation agency in Northern Ada County is the
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), the MPO.
COMPASS oversees transportation conformity determinations of the
Interagency Consultation Committee established in Idaho Administrative
Rule IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>7, which includes IDEQ, the Idaho Transportation
Department, the Federal Highway Administration, Ada County Highway
District, the City of Boise, Valley Regional Transit, and the EPA; as
specified under 40 CFR part 93. Northern Ada County is currently
meeting the requirements under 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.

VI. Final Action

    In accordance with the requirements of the Act, EPA is approving
this revision to the SIP because the State adequately demonstrates that
the Northern Ada County Air Quality Maintenance Area will maintain air
quality standards for CO through the year 2022. EPA is publishing this
action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be
filed. This rule will be effective October 1, 2012 without further
notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 4,
2012.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on October 1, 2012 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 23, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator EPA Region 10.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. Amend the table in Sec.  52.670(e) entitled ``EPA-Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'' by adding an
entry to the end to read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                   nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Northern Ada County Air Quality   State-wide.........         2/10/11  8/2/12 [Insert page
 Maintenance Area Second 10-year                                        number where the
 Carbon Monoxide Limited                                                document begins].
 Maintenance Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.672 by adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.672  Approval of plans.

    (a) * * *
    (2) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation
Plan, the Northern Ada County Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-
year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan submitted by the State on
February 10, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-18787 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70441-70442]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29244]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-10-000]

Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on October 21, 2011 Saltville Gas Storage Company
LLC (Saltville), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in
Docket No. CP12-10-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon one injection/withdrawal
well in Washington County, Virginia. Specifically, Saltville proposes
to permanently plug and abandon the EH 123 wellbore and remove
associated wellhead and approximately 75 feet of two-inch facility
piping. Saltville states that the proposed abandonment will not result
in the termination of any services to Saltville's customers, all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Lisa
A. Connolly, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, Saltville Gas
Storage Company LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, or call (713)
627-4102, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be

authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as
an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: November 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29244 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P