13330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices 

would have to return any premium 

received under certain conditions. 

These conditions are: (1) If the borrower 

prepays the loan for any reason during 

the first 90 days after the settlement of 

the Secondary Market sale; or (2) if the 

borrower fails to make when due, the 

first three monthly payments within the 

month after the Secondary Market sale 

and the borrower enters uncured default 

within 275 days after the settlement 

date of the Secondary Market sale. This 

warranty provision, added to the Form 

1086, helped to encourage investor 

participation in the Secondary Market 

by extending investment protection 

beyond the principal amount of the 

guaranteed portion to the premium paid 

by the investor. 

It is SBA’s understanding that under 

new FASB guidelines for the accounting 

treatment of a Secondary Market sale, as 

detailed in FAS 166, a lender may not 

treat any premium received as income 

until the expiration of the warranty 

period. In addition, if the lender sells 

the loan and retains cash flow in excess 

of the minimum servicing fee, the 

transaction is considered a borrowing 

and the lender must continue to retain 

capital to support it. As a result, the 

lender would have to hold more capital 

because the original loan would still be 

on the books along with the new 

borrowing. 

In light of the foregoing, SBA is 

soliciting views from the public on the 

effect of FAS 166 on SBA Lender and 

investor participation in the SBA 7(a) 

loan program and the SBA Secondary 

Market Program. In addition, SBA is 

soliciting views from the public on the 

need to modify the structure of the 7(a) 

loan program and/or the SBA Secondary 

Market program. Commenters are 

encouraged to submit suggestions that 

could minimize any adverse impact of 

FAS 166 on the 7(a) loan program and/ 

or SBA Secondary Market participants. 

SBA has received several unsolicited 

suggestions on how to address this 

issue. Some of the suggestions may 

require regulatory changes; others may 

require form or contractual changes. 

SBA has not taken a position on any of 

these proposals. SBA is seeking 

additional suggestions and ideas on how 

to address the ramifications of FAS 166 

on the 7(a) loan program and the SBA 

Secondary Market Program, as well as 

comments on the specific proposals 

received to date, which are as follows: 

1. Eliminate the warranty period from 

the Form 1086 and the SBA Secondary 

Market Program. Under this proposal, 

SBA would modify the Form 1086 to 

remove the warranty language. The 

warranty provision afforded investors 

some protection against early 

prepayment and may have discouraged 

lenders from selling guaranteed portions 

of loans they knew were susceptible to 

early default. However, after the 

warranty language was implemented, 

Congress added a subsidy recoupment 

fee (prepayment penalty) for borrowers, 

which may have reduced the need for 

the warranty provision. The subsidy 

recoupment fee is charged to the 

borrower if it prepays a loan in the first 

three years of the life of the loan. 

Secondary Market sales tend to occur in 

the first year of the life of the loan. 

Thus, borrowers have a financial 

incentive not to prepay early in the life 

of the loan that did not exist when the 

warranty language was originally added 

to the Form 1086. It is also possible that 

SBA’s establishment of the Office of 

Credit Risk Management (OCRM) has 

reduced the need for the warranty 

provision as OCRM monitors lender 

activity and has the ability to scrutinize 

prepayment activity, including a pattern 

of early prepayments. 

2. Permit or Require SBA Secondary 

Market Broker Dealers to provide the 

warranty to their customers. If SBA 

were to permit or require broker dealers 

to provide the warranty protection, the 

selling lender would no longer be in the 

position of having to return any funds 

received from a secondary market sale. 

SBA understands that many broker 

dealers are currently holding many 

loans in excess of ninety (90) days while 

they create pools, so many loans may 

actually be in the broker dealer’s 

inventory during the warranty period. 

While this change would result in a 

liability for the broker dealers, the 

broker dealer may be in a good position 

to know which lender’s loans tend to 

prepay or default during the warranty 

period. This option would require 

modification of the Form 1086 by SBA. 

3. Permit a private sector insurance 

fund to repay investors when a premium 

is lost during the 90 day warranty 

period. Under this proposal, lenders 

would pay a portion of the premium 

received into an insurance fund that 

would be run by an entity not related to 

SBA or to SBA participating lenders. If 

a borrower prepays or defaults, the 

investor would file a claim with the 

insurance fund. SBA’s role in the 

implementation of such an option 

would consist only of removing the 

warranty language from the Form 1086; 

the fund would be established and run 

by a private sector entity. 

4. Make the warranty period optional. 

Under this proposal, SBA would modify 

the Form 1086 and related documents to 

allow the buyers and sellers to decide 

whether they wanted a warranty 

included in the terms of the agreement 

for a particular sale. Commenters are 

requested to provide suggestions on 

how warranty information for a 

particular sale could be communicated 

to potential purchasers under this 

proposal as such purchasers would need 

to know in advance whether a particular 

certificate included a warranty. 

Implementing this change would 

require modifications to both the Form 

1086 and SBA’s contract with its Fiscal 

and Transfer Agent. 

Commenters are encouraged to submit 

other suggestions or actions that could 

minimize any adverse impact of FAS 

166 on the 7(a) loan program and/or 

SBA Secondary Market participants. 

SBA is also seeking comments on 

whether the existing warranty should be 

left in place as it is currently structured. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(7) 

Dated: March 5, 2010. 

Eric R. Zarnikow, 

Associate Administrator of Capital Access. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6101 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6924] 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; 

Statutory Debarment Under the Arms 

Export Control Act and the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Department of State has imposed 

statutory debarment pursuant to 

§ 127.7(c) of the International Traffic in 

Arms Regulations (‘‘ITAR’’) (22 CFR 

parts 120 to 130) on persons convicted 

of violating, attempting to violate or 

conspiring to violate Section 38 of the 

Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 

(‘‘AECA’’) (22 U.S.C. 2778). 

DATES: Effective Date: Date of conviction 

as specified for each person. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Studtmann, Director, Office of Defense 

Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of 

Political-Military Affairs, Department of 

State, (202) 663–2980. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C. 

2778(g)(4), prohibits the Department of 

State from issuing licenses or other 

approvals for the export of defense 

articles or defense services where the 

applicant, or any party to the export, has 

been convicted of violating certain 

statutes, including the AECA. In 

implementing this provision, Section 

127.7 of the ITAR provides for ‘‘statutory 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices 13331 

debarment’’ of any person who has been 

convicted of violating or conspiring to 

violate the AECA. Persons subject to 

statutory debarment are prohibited from 

participating directly or indirectly in the 

export of defense articles, including 

technical data, or in the furnishing of 

defense services for which a license or 

other approval is required. 

Statutory debarment is based solely 

upon conviction in a criminal 

proceeding, conducted by a United 

States Court, and as such the 

administrative debarment procedures 

outlined in Part 128 of the ITAR are not 

applicable. 

The period for debarment will be 

determined by the Assistant Secretary 

for Political-Military Affairs based on 

the underlying nature of the violations, 

but will generally be for three years 

from the date of conviction. At the end 

of the debarment period, export 

privileges may be reinstated only at the 

request of the debarred person followed 

by the necessary interagency 

consultations, after a thorough review of 

the circumstances surrounding the 

conviction, and a finding that 

appropriate steps have been taken to 

mitigate any law enforcement concerns, 

as required by Section 38(g)(4) of the 

AECA. Unless export privileges are 

reinstated, however, the person remains 

debarred. 

Department of State policy permits 

debarred persons to apply to the 

Director, Office of Defense Trade 

Controls Compliance, for reinstatement 

beginning one year after the date of the 

debarment. Any decision to grant 

reinstatement can be made only after the 

statutory requirements of Section 

38(g)(4) of the AECA have been 

satisfied. 

Exceptions, also known as transaction 

exceptions, may be made to this 

debarment determination on a case-bycase basis at the discretion of the 

Assistant Secretary of State for PoliticalMilitary Affairs, after consulting with 

the appropriate U.S. agencies. However, 

such an exception would be granted 

only after a full review of all 

circumstances, paying particular 

attention to the following factors: 

Whether an exception is warranted by 

overriding U.S. foreign policy or 

national security interests; whether an 

exception would further law 

enforcement concerns that are 

consistent with the foreign policy or 

national security interests of the United 

States; or whether other compelling 

circumstances exist that are consistent 

with the foreign policy or national 

security interests of the United States, 

and that do not conflict with law 

enforcement concerns. Even if 

exceptions are granted, the debarment 

continues until subsequent 

reinstatement. 

Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the 

AECA and Section 127.7(c) of the ITAR, 

the following persons are statutorily 

debarred as of the date of their AECA 

conviction: 

(1) Jesus Lorenzo Torres-Lopez, 

November 19, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

District of Arizona, Case # CR 09– 

00616–002–TUC–JMR (HCE). 

(2) Peter K. Spitz, November 25, 2008, 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Florida, Case # 0:08–CR–60128–COHN. 

(3) Traian Bujduveanu, June 12, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Florida, Case # 1:08–20612–CR–SEITZ– 

002. 

(4) Ugur Yildiz, December 23, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Northern District of 

Illinois, Case # 08 CR 480–1. 

(5) Bing Xu, July 2, 2009, U.S. District 

Court, District of New Jersey, Case # 

CR–08–240–01 (RMB). 

(6) Artur (AKA Alex) Solomonyan, 

March 6, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of New York, Case # 

S1:05 cr 00327–01 (RJH). 

(7) Christiaan Dewet (AKA David) 

Spies, July 16, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of New York, Case # 

S1:05 cr 00327–02 (RJH). 

(8) Ioseb (AKA Soso) Kharabadze, 

March 11, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of New York, Case # 

S1:05 cr 00327–03 (RJH). 

(9) John Reece Roth, July 28, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of 

Tennessee, Case # 3:08–CR–00069–1. 

(10) Jose Luis Hernandez-Ochoa, 

December 19, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00586–001. 

(11) Luis Miguel HernandezHernandez, December 19, 2008, U.S. 

District Court, Southern District of 

Texas, Case # 7:07CR00586–002. 

(12) Fernando Venegas-Arias, 

December 31, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00586–003. 

(13) Pedro Javier Lopez-Lopez, 

December 31, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00586–004. 

(14) Amado Iracheta-Delgado, April 9, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 7:07CR00595– 

001. 

(15) Laiza Moreno, April 9, 2009, U.S. 

District Court, Southern District of 

Texas, Case # 7:07CR00595–002. 

(16) Julio Cesar Tamez-Hernandez, 

February 16, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR01349–001. 

(17) Obed Damian Guajardo-Silva, 

February 16, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR01349–002. 

(18) Juan Carlos Bocanegra, August 

12, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 7:08CR00005– 

001. 

(19) Ramon Salazar-Rostro, January 

19, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 7:08CR00956– 

001. 

(20) Justo Manuel FernandezHernandez, February 25, 2009, U.S. 

District Court, Southern District of 

Texas, Case # 1:08CR01058–001. 

(21) Alejandro Reyes-Baez, June 1, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 7:08CR01617– 

001. 

(22) Nestor Rangel, June 12, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Texas, Case # 7:08CR01617–002. 

(23) Juan Vasquez, August 12, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Texas, Case #7:08CR01610–001. 

(24) Reynol Garcia, June 12, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Texas, Case #7:08CR01754–001. 

(25) Antonio Rodriguez-Capetillo, 

January 16, 2010, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:08CR01415–001. 

(26) Mario Hector Quilantan-Garcia, 

December 9, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:09CR00874–001. 

(27) Pedro Cayetano Gonzalez-Flores, 

December 31, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:09CR01019–001. 

(28) Roberto Carlos Garcia-Salazar, 

January 31, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:08CR01045–001. 

(29) Manuel Rangel Rivera, January 9, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Texas, Case # DR–07–CR– 

668(1)–AML. 

(30) Ding Zhengxing (AKA Zhengxing 

Ding and Zheng Xing Ding), July 21, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Texas, Case # EP–07–CR– 

3289–FM(1). 

(31) Su Yang (AKA Yang Su), May 22, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Texas, Case # EP–07–CR– 

3289–FM(3). 

(32) Taipan Enterprises, Ltd., January 

7, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern 

District of Virginia, Case # 

1:10CR00002–001. 

As noted above, at the end of the 

three-year period following the date of 

conviction, the above named persons/ 

entities remain debarred unless export 

privileges are reinstated. 

Debarred persons are generally 

ineligible to participate in activity 

regulated under the ITAR (see e.g., 

sections 120.1(c) and (d), and 127.11(a)). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
13332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices 

1RTD is a political subdivision of the State of 

Colorado. 

2RTD will also acquire an easement over a 

portion of BNSF’s Front Range Subdivision from 

milepost 0 to approximately milepost 6.3, for the 

operation of passenger commuter rail service. RTD 

states BNSF will retain its fee interest in the Front 

Range Subdivision and will continue its existing 

freight operations on that line. 

3RTD states that it will separately file a motion 

to dismiss this notice of exemption because it avers 

that it will not become a rail carrier providing 

transportation subject to Board jurisdiction. 

Also, under Section 127.1(c) of the 

ITAR, any person who has knowledge 

that another person is subject to 

debarment or is otherwise ineligible 

may not, without disclosure to and 

written approval from the Directorate of 

Defense Trade Controls, participate, 

directly or indirectly, in any export in 

which such ineligible person may 

benefit therefrom or have a direct or 

indirect interest therein. 

This notice is provided for purposes 

of making the public aware that the 

persons listed above are prohibited from 

participating directly or indirectly in 

activities regulated by the ITAR, 

including any brokering activities and 

in any export from or temporary import 

into the United States of defense 

articles, related technical data, or 

defense services in all situations 

covered by the ITAR. Specific case 

information may be obtained from the 

Office of the Clerk for the U.S. District 

Courts mentioned above and by citing 

the court case number where provided. 

Dated: March 10, 2010. 

Andrew J. Shapiro, 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6067 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 35358] 

Regional Transportation District— 

Acquisition Exemption—BNSF Railway 

Company in Jefferson County, CO 

Regional Transportation District 

(RTD),1 has filed a verified notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to 

acquire from BNSF Railway Company 

(BNSF) a segment of the property, 

approximately 9.55 miles in length, 

known as the Golden Subdivision in 

Jefferson County, CO, extending from 

milepost 6.3, in Utah Junction, CO, to 

the end of the line at approximately 

milepost 15.85, in Golden, CO. RTD will 

acquire the Golden Subdivision in two 

separate but contiguous segments, 

including: (1) The Gold Corridor East 

portion between milepost 6.3 and 

milepost 10.83; and (2) the Gold 

Corridor West portion between milepost 

10.83 and milepost 15.85.2 According to 

RTD, BNSF will retain an exclusive 

freight easement for the trackage on the 

Golden Subdivision, and BNSF will 

retain the exclusive right to operate 

freight service on the entire line. 

RTD states that RTD and BNSF 

anticipate that they will execute three 

agreements in conjunction with this 

transaction before consummating the 

transaction on or about April 5, 2010, 

after the April 4, 2010 effective date of 

this exemption (30 days after the 

exemption was filed). These agreements 

include: (a) Purchase and Sale 

Agreement; (b) Relocation and 

Construction Agreement; and (c) Joint 

Corridor Use Agreement. According to 

RTD, it will acquire no right or 

obligation to provide freight rail service 

on the Golden Subdivision, and it is 

acquiring the property for the purpose 

of providing intrastate passenger 

commuter rail operations.3 RTD certifies 

that, because it will conduct no freight 

operations on the line segments being 

acquired, its annual revenues from 

freight operations as a result of this 

transaction will not result in the 

creation of a Class I or Class II rail 

carrier. 

If the notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke does not 

automatically stay the transaction. 

Petitions for stay must be filed no later 

than March 26, 2010 (at least 7 days 

before the exemption becomes 

effective). 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to STB Finance 

Docket No. 35358, must be filed with 

the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001. In addition, a copy of each 

pleading must be served on Charles A. 

Spitulnik, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, 

NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: March 15, 2010. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Kulunie L. Cannon, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6037 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Application of Charter Air Transport, 

Inc. for Commuter Authority 

Correction 

In notice document 2010–5555 

appearing on page 12328 in the issue of 

Monday, March 15, 2010, make the 

following correction: 

In the second column, in the first 

paragraph, in the first line, ‘‘ (insert date 

5 business days from publication)’’ 

should read ‘‘March 22, 2010’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–5555 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; 

Notice of Application for Special 

Permits 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of applications for 

modification of special permits. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures governing the application 

for, and the processing of, special 

permits from the Department of 

Transportation’s Hazardous Material 

Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart 

B), notice is hereby given that the Office 

of Hazardous Materials Safety has 

received the applications described 

herein. This notice is abbreviated to 

expedite docketing and public notice. 

Because the sections affected, modes of 

transportation, and the nature of 

application have been shown in earlier 

Federal Register publications, they are 

not repeated here. Requests for 

modification of special permits (e.g. to 

provide for additional hazardous 

materials, packaging design changes, 

additional mode of transportation, etc.) 

are described in footnotes to the 

application number. Application 

numbers with the suffix ‘‘M’’ denote a 

modification request. These 

applications have been separated from 

the new application for special permits 

to facilitate processing. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 5, 2010. 

Address Comments to: Record Center, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials, 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Washington, DC 

20590. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES