Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73955 

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES AUTHORITIES ADMINISTERED BY FDA AND ADJUSTED MAXIMUM PENALTY AMOUNTS— 

Continued 

U.S.C. Section 

Former 

maximum 

penalty 

amount 

(in dollars)1

Assessment method 

Date of last 

penalty figure 

or adjustment 

Adjusted maximum penalty 

amount 

(in dollars) 

333 note ....................... N/A For the fourth violation within a 24-month period by a retailer without an approved training program.2009 2,000 (not adjusted). 

333 note ....................... N/A For the fifth violation within a 36-month period by a retailer without an approved training program.2009 5,000 (not adjusted). 

333 note ....................... N/A For the six or subsequent violation within a 48-month 

period by a retailer without an approved training program.

2009 10,000 (not adjusted). 

335b(a) ........................ 275,000 Per violation for an individual ........................................... 2008 300,000. 

335b(a) ........................ 1,100,000 Per violation for ‘‘any other person’’ ................................. 2008 1,200,000. 

360pp(b)(1) .................. 1,100 Per violation per person ................................................... 2008 1,100 (not adjusted). 

360pp(b)(1) .................. 330,000 For any related series of violations .................................. 2008 355,000. 

42 U.S.C. 

263b(h)(3) .................... 11,000 Per violation ...................................................................... 2008 11,000 (not adjusted). 

300aa–28(b)(1) ............ 110,000 Per occurrence ................................................................. 2008 120,000. 

1 Maximum penalties assessed under The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act do not have a ‘‘former maximum penalty.’’ 

Dated: November 23, 2010. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30039 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

REVIEW COMMISSION 

29 CFR Part 2700 

Penalty Settlement Procedure 

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) is an independent 

adjudicatory agency that provides 

hearings and appellate review of cases 

arising under the Federal Mine Safety 

and Health Act of 1977, or Mine Act. 

Hearings are held before the 

Commission’s Administrative Law 

Judges, and appellate review is provided 

by a five-member Review Commission 

appointed by the President and 

confirmed by the Senate. The 

Commission is publishing a final rule to 

streamline the process for settling civil 

penalties assessed under the Mine Act. 

DATES: The final rule takes effect on 

December 30, 2010. The Commission 

will accept written and electronic 

comments received on or before 

December 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be mailed to Michael A. McCord, 

General Counsel, Office of the General 

Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission, 601 New 

Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9500, 

Washington, DC 20001, or sent via 

facsimile to 202–434–9944. Persons 

mailing written comments shall provide 

an original and three copies of their 

comments. Electronic comments should 

state ‘‘Comments on Penalty Settlement 

Rule’’ in the subject line and be sent to 

mmccord@fmshrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. McCord, General Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel, 601 New 

Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9500, 

Washington, DC 20001; telephone 202– 

434–9935; fax 202–434–9944. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 27, 2010, the Commission 

published in the Federal Register an 

interim rule regarding the Commission’s 

civil penalty settlement procedures. 75 

FR 21987. The Commission explained 

that since 2006, the number of new 

cases filed with the Commission has 

dramatically increased, and that in 

order to deal with that burgeoning 

caseload, the Commission is considering 

methods to simplify how it processes 

civil penalty settlements. The interim 

rule became effective on May 27, 2010, 

and the Commission accepted 

comments on the rule through June 28, 

2010. The Commission received 

comments from the Secretary of Labor 

(the ‘‘Secretary’’) through the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Office of the 

Solicitor, individual Conference and 

Litigation Representatives (‘‘CLRs’’), and 

a few members of the mining 

community. 

Under section 110(k) of the Mine Act, 

30 U.S.C. 820(k), a proposed civil 

penalty that has been contested before 

the Commission may be settled only 

with the approval of the Commission. 

Under the Commission’s practice prior 

to the effective date of the interim rule, 

a party submitted to a Commission 

Administrative Law Judge a motion to 

approve a penalty settlement that 

included for each violation the amount 

of the penalty proposed by the 

Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (‘‘MSHA’’), the 

amount of the penalty agreed to in 

settlement, and facts in support of the 

penalty agreed to by the parties. 29 CFR 

2700.31(b) (2009). A Commission Judge 

considered the motion and evaluated 

the penalty agreed to by the parties 

based on the criteria set forth in section 

110(i) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 820(i). 

If the Judge concluded that the 

settlement was consistent with the 

statutory criteria, the Judge issued a 

decision approving the settlement and 

setting forth the reasons for approval. 

The interim rule changed the current 

procedure by adding two new 

requirements. First, in all penalty 

proceedings, except for discrimination 

proceedings arising under section 105(c) 

of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c), or 

proceedings against individuals 

pursuant to section 110(c) of the Mine 

Act, 30 U.S.C. 820(c), the interim rule 

requires that a party filing a motion to 

approve a penalty settlement submit a 

proposed decision approving settlement 

(‘‘proposed order’’) with the motion. 

Second, it requires the filing party to 

submit the motion and proposed order 

electronically. The basic requirements 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
73956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

for content of a motion to approve 

settlement are relatively unchanged in 

that the interim rule requires that a 

movant include in the motion for each 

violation the amount of the proposed 

penalty, the amount of the penalty 

agreed to in settlement, and facts that 

support the penalty agreed to by the 

parties. The Commission explained in 

the preamble to the interim rule that a 

filing party may set forth this 

information in the proposed order and 

incorporate the proposed order by 

reference in the motion. 

The interim rule also includes a new 

requirement that the party filing the 

motion must certify that the opposing 

party has reviewed the motion and has 

authorized the filing party to represent 

that the opposing party consents to the 

granting of the motion and the entry of 

the proposed order approving 

settlement. In addition, the interim rule 

requires that, if a motion had been filed 

by a CLR on behalf of the Secretary of 

Labor, the accompanying proposed 

order must include a provision in which 

the Judge accepts the CLR to represent 

the Secretary in accordance with the 

notice of either limited or unlimited 

appearance previously filed with the 

Commission. The Commission has made 

sample forms for proposed orders 

approving settlement available on the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.fmshrc.gov). 

The interim rule provides that in all 

penalty proceedings, except 

discrimination and section 110(c) 

proceedings, parties must file any 

settlement motion electronically in 

accordance with the rule and the 

Commission’s Web site instructions. 

The Commission provides in the interim 

rule that a party may file nonelectronically only with the permission 

of the Judge. 

The interim rule further requires that 

a copy of a motion and proposed order 

be served on the opposing party as 

expeditiously as possible. In recognition 

that some parties may not have the 

capability of being served with the 

motion and proposed order by e-mail, 

facsimile transmission, or commercial 

delivery, the interim rule provides that, 

in such circumstances, the filing party 

may serve the motion and proposed 

order on the opposing party by mail. 

The interim rule also provides that if 

a party filing a motion to approve 

settlement and proposed order fails to 

include required information in the 

motion and proposed order, the 

Commission will not accept for filing 

the motion and proposed order. Rather, 

the Commission will inform the filing 

party of the need for correction and 

resubmission. 

As previously mentioned, before the 

interim rule became effective parties 

were required to include in a motion to 

approve settlement the amount of the 

proposed penalty, the amount of the 

penalty agreed to in settlement, and 

facts in support of the penalty agreed to 

by the parties. The final rule provides 

that such factual support must be 

submitted in the motion to approve 

settlement and proposed order. 

However, in order to minimize any extra 

work required of parties, the 

Commission has clarified in the final 

rule that a filing party need only submit 

the amount of the proposed penalty, the 

amount of the penalty agreed to in 

settlement, and facts in support of the 

penalty agreed to by the parties in the 

proposed order, and may incorporate 

that factual support by reference in the 

motion. Thus, the parties need to 

provide the factual support for a 

settlement only in one document filed 

with the Commission, as was the 

practice before the interim rule became 

effective. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

Commission intends for each proposed 

order to be able to stand alone as a 

description of the settlement and 

reasons for any approval of the 

settlement without reference to the 

motion. Thus, although the motion may 

be brief and incorporate by reference the 

factual support set forth in detail in the 

proposed order, the reverse is not true. 

A party may not submit a brief order 

that incorporates by reference the 

factual support set forth in detail in the 

motion. If a party submits a motion that 

contains detailed factual support and a 

proposed order that merely incorporates 

by reference the detailed information 

provided in the motion, the Commission 

will not accept the motion and proposed 

order for filing in accordance with the 

provisions of paragraph (f) of the final 

rule. The proposed order must set forth 

the amount of the proposed penalty, the 

amount of the penalty agreed to in 

settlement, and facts in support of the 

penalty agreed to by the parties. 

Although motions may be submitted 

in PDF format, it is important that 

proposed orders not be submitted in 

PDF format. Judges are unable to make 

electronic changes to proposed orders 

that are submitted in PDF format. The 

Commission will be able to process 

settlements more efficiently if orders are 

submitted in a format in which the 

Judge may easily make any necessary 

changes. 

Commenters have also complained 

that they are having technical 

difficulties with the forms available on 

the Commission’s Web site, and that the 

interim rule is ambiguous as to whether 

parties are required to use the forms. 

The Secretary suggested that the final 

rule should clarify that the proposed 

order does not have to conform to one 

of the templates on the Commission’s 

Web site as long as the proposed order 

includes the required information. The 

Secretary also commented that the final 

rule should require that the proposed 

order include language telling operators 

where to send penalty checks. 

The Commission has clarified in the 

final rule that parties are not required to 

use the proposed order forms available 

on the Commission’s Web site. The final 

rule provides, however, that if a 

proposed order fails to include pertinent 

information, the motion and proposed 

order may be rejected for filing by the 

Commission in accordance with 

paragraph (f) of the final rule. The 

Commission has not included in the 

final rule a requirement that a proposed 

order must include language telling 

operators where to send penalty checks. 

Such language is provided in the 

Commission’s proposed order forms, 

however. The Commission notes that 

parties may include such language in 

the proposed orders even if they do not 

use the forms. 

As to the certification requirement set 

forth in the interim rule, the Secretary 

commented that her attorneys and CLRs 

have difficulty verifying that operators 

have actually reviewed the settlement. 

She suggests that the purpose of the 

rule, i.e., streamlining the settlement of 

penalty proceedings, would be better 

served if the filing party were only 

required to certify that the opposing 

party has authorized the granting of the 

motion and the entry of the proposed 

order. 

In a related comment, a member of the 

mining community stated that on 

occasion CLRs have unilaterally filed 

‘‘joint’’ settlement motions that have not 

been reviewed or approved by the 

operator. The commenter suggested that 

the Commission should require that any 

settlement motions must either be 

signed by both parties’ representatives 

or, prior to filing, a settlement motion 

and proposed order must be submitted 

to the opposing party for review at least 

three business days prior to filing. 

The Commission agrees with these 

comments and has revised the language 

of the rule accordingly. The final rule 

provides that the party filing a motion 

must certify that the opposing party has 

authorized the granting of the motion 

and the entry of the proposed order. The 

final rule does not require a certification 

that the opposing party has reviewed 

the motion and proposed order. In order 

to ensure that an opposing party has 

reviewed the motion and proposed 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 73957 

order, the Commission has added a 

provision to the final rule requiring that 

a settlement motion and proposed order 

must be served on all parties or if the 

parties are represented, on their 

representatives, at least five business 

days before the motion and proposed 

order are filed with the Commission. 

The Commission has included a fiveday requirement rather than a three-day 

requirement in order to provide as much 

review time as possible to the parties, 

particularly if the settlement motion and 

proposed order are served by mail. The 

Commission notes that both the five-day 

service requirement and the certification 

requirement apply in every case where 

a settlement motion and proposed order 

are filed. 

The Secretary commented that the 

final rule should clarify that before 

filing a settlement motion on behalf of 

the Secretary, a CLR does not need to 

have obtained Commission 

authorization to represent the Secretary 

in that proceeding. The Commission has 

included that change in the final rule. 

One commenter stated that section 

110(c) proceedings are frequently 

consolidated with, and/or are settled 

with, the related civil penalty 

proceeding against the operator. The 

commenter stated that in such 

circumstances, it makes sense to discuss 

the settlement of both cases in a single 

motion. The commenter suggested that 

section 110(c) proceedings should be 

covered by the final rule and should not 

be specifically excluded. The 

Commission agrees and has made this 

change. Thus, discrimination cases are 

the only cases in which a party must 

submit a hard paper copy of a motion 

to approve settlement to the Judge that 

includes for each violation the amount 

of the proposed penalty, the amount of 

the penalty agreed to in settlement, and 

the supporting facts. In discrimination 

proceedings, a proposed order need not 

be submitted. Filing and service in 

discrimination proceedings shall be 

accomplished in accordance with the 

provisions of 29 CFR 2700.5 and 2700.7. 

Notice and Public Procedure 

Although notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’) 

do not apply to rules of agency 

procedure (see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)), 

the Commission invites members of the 

interested public to submit comments 

on the final rule. The Commission will 

accept public comments until December 

15, 2010. 

The Commission is an independent 

regulatory agency and, as such, is not 

subject to the requirements of E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13132, or the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq. 

The Commission has determined 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Therefore, a Regulatory 

Flexibility Statement and Analysis has 

not been prepared. 

The Commission has determined that 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) does not apply because this 

rule does not contain any information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the OMB. 

The Commission has determined that 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801) is not applicable here because, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C), this rule 

‘‘does not substantially affect the rights 

or obligations of non-agency parties.’’ 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2700 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Mine safety and health, 

Penalties, Whistleblowing. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission amends 29 CFR 

part 2700 as follows: 

PART 2700—PROCEDURAL RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2700 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 815, 820, 823, and 

876. 

■ 2. Section 2700.5 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 2700.5 General requirements for 

pleadings and other documents; status or 

informational requests. 

* * * * * 

(b) Where to file. Unless otherwise 

provided for in the Act, these rules, or 

by order: 

(1) Until a Judge has been assigned to 

a case, all documents shall be filed with 

the Commission. Documents filed with 

the Commission shall be addressed to 

the Executive Director and mailed or 

delivered to the Docket Office, Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, 

NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC 

20001; facsimile delivery as allowed by 

these rules (see section 2700.5(e)), shall 

be transmitted to (202) 434–9954. 

(2) After a Judge has been assigned, 

and before a decision has been issued, 

documents shall be filed with the Judge 

at the address set forth on the notice of 

the assignment. 

(3) Documents filed in connection 

with interlocutory review shall be filed 

with the Commission in accordance 

with section 2700.76. 

(4) After the Judge has issued a final 

decision, documents shall be filed with 

the Commission as described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 2700.31 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 2700.31 Penalty settlement. 

(a) General. A proposed penalty that 

has been contested before the 

Commission may be settled only with 

the approval of the Commission upon 

motion. In all penalty proceedings, 

except for discrimination proceedings 

arising under section 105(c) of the Mine 

Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c), a settlement 

motion must be accompanied by a 

proposed order approving settlement. In 

discrimination proceedings, a party 

shall file a motion to approve settlement 

that includes the factual support 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, and that shall be filed and 

served in accordance with the 

provisions of 29 CFR 2700.5 and 2700.7, 

respectively. In discrimination 

proceedings, a party need not file a 

proposed order. 

(b) Content of motion. 

(1) Factual support. A motion to 

approve a penalty settlement shall 

include for each violation the amount of 

the penalty proposed by the Secretary, 

the amount of the penalty agreed to in 

settlement, and facts in support of the 

penalty agreed to by the parties. Rather 

than setting forth such information in 

detail, the motion may incorporate by 

reference the information which has 

been included in the accompanying 

proposed order as required by paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section. 

(2) Certification. The party filing a 

motion must certify that the opposing 

party has authorized the filing party to 

represent that the opposing party 

consents to the granting of the motion 

and the entry of the proposed order 

approving settlement. 

(c) Content of proposed order. 

(1) Factual support. A proposed order 

approving a penalty settlement shall 

include for each violation the amount of 

the penalty proposed by the Secretary, 

the amount of the penalty agreed to in 

settlement, and facts in support of the 

penalty agreed to by the parties. Forms 

for proposed orders approving 

settlement are available on the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.fmshrc.gov). Although parties are 

not required to use the forms on the 

Commission’s Web site, if proposed 

orders fail to include pertinent 

information, the motion and proposed 

order may be rejected for filing by the 

Commission in accordance with 

paragraph (f) of this section. Proposed 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
73958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

orders shall not be submitted in PDF 

format. 

(2) Appearance by CLR. If a motion 

has been filed by a Conference and 

Litigation Representative (‘‘CLR’’) on 

behalf of the Secretary, the proposed 

order approving settlement 

accompanying the motion shall include 

a provision in which the Judge accepts 

the CLR to represent the Secretary in 

accordance with the notice of either 

limited or unlimited appearance 

previously filed with the Commission. 

A CLR does not need to obtain 

authorization from the Commission to 

represent the Secretary before the CLR 

files a motion to approve settlement and 

proposed order. 

(d) Filing and service of motion 

accompanied by proposed order. 

(1) Electronic filing. A motion and 

proposed order shall be filed 

electronically according to the 

requirements set forth in this rule and 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site (http://www.fmshrc.gov). Filing is 

effective upon the date of the electronic 

transmission of the motion and 

proposed order. The transmitting party 

is responsible for retaining records 

showing the date of transmission, 

including receipts. 

(i) Signatures. Any signature line set 

forth within a motion to approve 

settlement submitted electronically 

shall include the notation ‘‘/s/’’ followed 

by the typewritten name of the party or 

representative of the party filing the 

document. Such representation of the 

signature shall be deemed to be the 

original signature of the representative 

for all purposes unless the party 

representative shows that such 

representation of the signature was 

unauthorized. See 29 CFR 2700.6. 

(ii) Status of documents. A motion 

and proposed order filed electronically 

constitute written documents for the 

purpose of applying the Commission’s 

procedural rules (29 CFR part 2700), 

and such rules apply unless an 

exception to those rules is specifically 

set forth in this rule. Any copies of the 

motion and proposed order which have 

been printed and placed in the official 

case file by the Commission shall have 

the same force and effect as original 

documents. 

(2) Filing by non-electronic means. A 

party may file a motion to approve 

settlement and an accompanying 

proposed order by non-electronic means 

only with the permission of the Judge. 

(3) Service. A settlement motion and 

proposed order shall be served on all 

parties or, if parties are represented, 

upon their representatives, by the most 

expeditious means possible and at least 

five business days before the motion 

and proposed order are filed with the 

Commission. If a party cannot be served 

by e-mail, facsimile transmission, or 

commercial delivery, a copy of the 

motion and proposed order may be 

served by mail. A certificate of service 

shall accompany the motion and 

proposed order setting forth the date 

and manner of service. 

(e) Filing of motion and proposed 

order prior to filing of petition. If a 

motion to approve settlement and 

proposed order is filed with the 

Commission before the Secretary has 

filed a petition for assessment of 

penalty, the filing party must also 

submit as attachments, electronic copies 

of the proposed penalty assessment and 

citations and orders at issue. If such 

attachments are filed, the Secretary need 

not file a petition for assessment of 

penalty. 

(f) Non-acceptance of motion and 

proposed order. If a party filing a 

motion to approve settlement and a 

proposed order fails to include in the 

motion and proposed order pertinent 

information required by this rule and 

the Commission’s instructions posted 

on the Commission’s Web site, the 

Commission will not accept for filing 

the motion and proposed order. Rather, 

the Commission will inform the filing 

party of the need for correction and 

resubmission. 

(g) Final order. Any order by the 

Judge approving a settlement shall set 

forth the reasons for approval and shall 

be supported by the record. Such order 

shall become the final order of the 

Commission 40 days after issuance 

unless the Commission has directed that 

the order be reviewed. A Judge may 

correct clerical errors in an order 

approving settlement in accordance 

with the provisions of 29 CFR 

2700.69(c). 

Dated: November 23, 2010. 

Mary Lu Jordan, 

Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30117 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6735–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

31 CFR Part 548 

Belarus Sanctions Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (‘‘OFAC’’) is amending the 

Belarus Sanctions Regulations (‘‘BSR’’) 

in the Code of Federal Regulations to 

authorize U.S. persons to engage in 

otherwise prohibited transactions with 

two blocked entities, Lakokraska OAO 

and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, 

until May 31, 2011. In addition, OFAC 

is amending the BSR to make a 

technical correction to the authority 

citation. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 30, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assistant Director for Compliance, 

Outreach & Implementation, tel.: 202/ 

622–2490, Assistant Director for 

Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, Assistant 

Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622–4855, 

Office of Foreign Assets Control, or 

Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), 

tel.: 202/622–2410, Office of the General 

Counsel, Department of the Treasury 

(not toll free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic and Facsimile Availability 

This document and additional 

information concerning OFAC are 

available from OFAC’s Web site 

(http://www.treas.gov/ofac). Certain 

general information pertaining to 

OFAC’s sanctions programs also is 

available via facsimile through a 24- 

hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/ 

622–0077. 

Background 

The Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 

CFR part 548 (‘‘BSR’’), implement 

Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, 

‘‘Blocking Property of Certain Persons 

Undermining Democratic Processes or 

Institutions in Belarus’’ (‘‘E.O. 13405’’). 

Pursuant to E.O. 13405, on May 15, 

2008, OFAC designated the entities 

Lakokraska OAO and Polotsk 

Steklovolokno OAO, blocking their 

property and interests in property (73 

FR 29849, May 22, 2008). On September 

4, 2008, before the publication of the 

BSR, OFAC issued and posted on its 

Web site Belarus General License No. 1, 

which authorized all transactions 

between U.S. persons and Lakokraska 

OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno 

OAO from September 4, 2008, until 

March 2, 2009. This authorization was 

subject to the proviso that all property 

and interests in property of Lakokraska 

OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO 

that previously had been blocked 

pursuant to E.O. 13405 were to remain 

blocked. OFAC subsequently amended 

Belarus General License No. 1 four 

times to extend its authorization for 

transactions between U.S. persons and 

the two entities. The latest of those 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES