10526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 

3. AES shall, in writing, within 20 

days of the date of this order, notify the 

Commission (a) if it is unable to comply 

with any of the requirements described 

in the order or (b) if compliance with 

any of the requirements is unnecessary 

based on its specific circumstances. In 

the notification, AES shall provide 

justification for seeking relief from, or 

the variation of, any specific 

requirement. 

Licensees shall submit their responses 

to B.1, B.2, and B.3 above to the 

Director, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555. In addition, licensees shall 

mark their responses as ‘‘SecurityRelated Information—Withhold under 

10 CFR 2.390.’’ 

The Director, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in 

writing, relax or rescind any of the 

above conditions on demonstration of 

good cause by AES. 

IV 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, 

AES must, and any other person 

adversely affected by this order may, 

submit an answer to this order and may 

request a hearing on this order within 

20 days of the date of this order. Where 

good cause is shown, the NRC will 

consider extending the time to request 

a hearing. A request for an extension of 

time in which to submit an answer or 

to request a hearing must be made in 

writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555, and must 

include a statement of good cause for 

the extension. The answer may consent 

to this order. Unless the answer 

consents to this order, the answer shall, 

in writing and under oath or 

affirmation, specifically set forth the 

matters of fact and law by which AES 

or other entities adversely affected rely 

and the reasons as to why the NRC 

should not have issued the order. Any 

answer or request for a hearing shall be 

submitted to the Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 

20555. Copies shall also be sent to the 

Director, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555; to the Assistant General 

Counsel for Materials Litigation and 

Enforcement at the same address; and to 

AES if an entity other than AES submits 

the answer or hearing request. Because 

of possible delays in the delivery of mail 

to U.S. Government offices, the NRC 

requests that answers and requests for 

hearings be transmitted to the Secretary 

of the Commission either by facsimile 

transmission to 301–415–1101 or by email to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also 

to the Office of the General Counsel 

either by facsimile transmission to 301– 

415–3725 or by e-mail to 

OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If an entity 

other than AES requests a hearing, that 

entity shall set forth, with particularity, 

the manner in which its interest is 

adversely affected by this order and 

shall address the criteria set forth in 10 

CFR 2.309, ‘‘Public Inspections, 

Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.’’ 

If AES or a person whose interest is 

adversely affected by this order requests 

a hearing, the Commission will issue an 

order designating the time and place of 

any hearing. If a hearing is held, the 

issue to be considered at this hearing 

shall be whether this order should be 

sustained. 

Under 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), AES 

may, in addition to demanding a 

hearing, at the time the answer is filed, 

or soon thereafter, move that the 

presiding officer set aside the immediate 

effectiveness of the order on the grounds 

that the order, including the need for 

immediate effectiveness, is not based on 

adequate evidence but on mere 

suspicion, unfounded allegations, or 

error. In the absence of any request for 

a hearing or written approval of an 

extension of time in which to request a 

hearing, the provisions, as specified 

above in Section III, shall be final 20 

days from the date of this order without 

further issuance of an order or 

proceedings. 

If an extension of time for requesting 

a hearing has been approved, the 

provisions, as specified above in Section 

III, shall be final when the extension 

expires if a hearing request has not been 

received. An answer or a request for a 

hearing shall not stay the immediate 

effectiveness of this order. 

Dated this 26th day of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael F. Weber, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4829 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[IA–09–068; NRC–2010–0085] 

In the Matter of Mr. Lawrence E. 

Grimm; Order Prohibiting Involvement 

in NRC-Licensed Activities 

I 

Mr. Lawrence E. Grimm was 

employed as a radiation safety officer at 

the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST or Licensee), 

Boulder, Colorado facility. NIST holds 

License 05–3166–05, issued by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 

or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 

30 on December 19, 1966, and amended 

to include 10 CFR parts 40 and 70 on 

April 19, 2007. The license authorizes 

the operation of the NIST-Boulder 

facility in accordance with the 

conditions specified therein. Mr. Grimm 

was listed on the license as the radiation 

safety officer (January 18, 2007, 

Amendment 27, until the issuance of 

Amendment 33, on January 16, 2009). 

II 

On July 22, 2008, the United States 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Office 

of Investigations (OI) initiated an 

investigation to determine if Mr. Grimm 

willfully failed to provide complete and 

accurate information to the NRC in a 

license amendment application dated 

February 15, 2007, regarding written 

procedures for the safe use of 

radioactive sources and security of 

material. A predecisional enforcement 

conference was held on January 7, 2010, 

with Mr. Grimm to obtain Mr. Grimm’s 

perspective on the apparent violation. 

Based on a review of information from 

the investigation and information 

provided during the predecisional 

enforcement conference, a violation of 

the NRC’s rule prohibiting deliberate 

misconduct, 10 CFR 30.10, was 

identified, with two examples, 

involving the dosimetry program and 

the security of materials, which caused 

the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 

30.9. Specifically, on February 15, 2007, 

Mr. Grimm submitted an amendment 

request to expand NIST-Boulder’s 

licensed activities to acquire and use 

source and special nuclear material, 

including plutonium. The 2007 

amendment request stated that the 

‘‘Boulder facility maintains a radiation 

safety procedure manual entitled, 

‘Health Physics Instructions’ (HPIs). 

Drawn from the Gaithersburg radiation 

safety procedures, these procedures 

cover all health physics aspects 

pertinent to Boulder’s radiation safety 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 10527 

program.’’ Those HPIs did not cover all 

health physics aspects pertinent to 

NIST-Boulder’s program, however, 

because they did not address the types 

of materials NIST-Boulder was 

amending its license to acquire. Mr. 

Grimm stated that he had reviewed all 

the HPIs cited throughout the 

amendment request before submitting 

the request to the NRC, and admitted 

believing that they were not all 

appropriate for NIST-Boulder. These 

procedures included NIST’s Dosimetry 

Program Procedures HPI 2–1 through 

HPI 2–7. Mr. Grimm stated during the 

OI interviews and also during the 

predecisional enforcement conference 

that the Gaithersburg procedures were 

cited because it was convenient, but that 

the program described in the 

amendment request was not in place at 

the time of the request, and that he 

never intended to implement the cited 

procedures as written. Notably, there 

were no procedures in place for 

providing internal monitoring of 

occupationally exposed workers, as 

described in Procedure HPI 2–5 (which 

would have been appropriate to assess 

and monitor personnel exposure to 

plutonium). Also, there was no program 

in place for providing dosimetry to 

frequent users of the laboratory, or 

‘‘public dose workers,’’ who did not 

actually work with radioactive 

materials, but who worked in the same 

laboratories while the materials were in 

use. Mr. Grimm admitted having the 

knowledge and understanding that the 

information provided to the NRC in the 

license amendment was required to be 

complete and accurate. Because Mr. 

Grimm knew that he needed to provide 

the NRC with complete and accurate 

information and knew that the 

information he was providing about the 

dosimetry program was not accurate, 

Mr. Grimm’s statements in the 

amendment request regarding the 

dosimetry program constituted 

deliberate misconduct. 

The 2007 amendment request also 

referenced security protocols. Item 9 of 

the request, ‘‘Facilities and Equipment,’’ 

stated that ‘‘access to buildings and 

laboratories requires a coded key card’’ 

and, in the laboratories section of the 

amendment request it stated, ‘‘NIST 

laboratories require a coded key card for 

access.’’ The NRC inspection staff 

identified that laboratories where 

licensed materials were used did not 

have coded key card access. The NRC 

determined that NIST staff members and 

associates assigned to work in the 

Quantum Physics Laboratories at the 

NIST-Boulder facility were issued a key 

to the project laboratories, including the 

laboratory in which the licensed 

materials were used and stored. The 

vast majority of these people were not 

involved in using the licensed material. 

The keys were not controlled in a 

manner to secure the material from 

unauthorized removal or access while in 

storage. While Mr. Grimm worked at 

NIST-Boulder for four months and 

acknowledged visiting the laboratory 

where the material would be stored 

prior to submitting the amendment 

request, Mr. Grimm stated that he did 

not know how the laboratory keys were 

distributed or controlled. In addition, 

Mr. Grimm stated that he never 

intended to rely on locked doors as a 

means of securing the material, because 

he thought the doors would be 

impractical to control in such a research 

environment. During the predecisional 

enforcement conference, Mr. Grimm 

stated that he considered the laboratory 

door to be a secondary barrier and he 

considered a lockable file cabinet and 

cryostat to be the methods used to 

ensure compliance with the regulations. 

While a locked container was described 

in the amendment requests as one of the 

security features, the cryostat was not. 

Mr. Grimm further stated that, in his 

opinion, security for a source in an 

academia situation is not predicated on 

doors. Mr. Grimm knew he needed to 

provide the NRC with complete and 

accurate information, and he knew his 

statement in the amendment request 

regarding security provisions for the 

licensed material was not complete or 

accurate. Accordingly, Mr. Grimm’s 

statements in the amendment request 

regarding security constituted deliberate 

misconduct. 

III 

Based on the above, Mr. Grimm, while 

an employee of the Licensee in 2007, 

has engaged in two instances of 

deliberate misconduct that has caused 

the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 

30.9. Further Mr. Grimm deliberately 

provided to the NRC license reviewers 

information that he knew to be 

incomplete or inaccurate in some 

respect material to the NRC, in violation 

of 10 CFR 30.10. The NRC must be able 

to rely on the Licensee and its 

employees to comply with NRC 

requirements, including the requirement 

to provide information and maintain 

records that are complete and accurate 

in all material respects. Mr. Grimm’s 

misrepresentations to the NRC caused 

the Licensee to violate 10 CFR 30.9 and 

have raised serious doubt as to whether 

he can be relied upon to comply with 

NRC requirements and to provide 

complete and accurate information to 

the NRC. 

Consequently, I lack the requisite 

reasonable assurance that licensed 

activities can be conducted in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

requirements and that the health and 

safety of the public will be protected if 

Mr. Grimm were permitted at this time 

to be involved in NRC-licensed 

activities. Therefore, the public health, 

safety, and interest require that Mr. 

Grimm be prohibited from any 

involvement in NRC-licensed activities 

for a period of one year from the date 

this Order is final. Additionally, Mr. 

Grimm is required to notify the NRC of 

his first employment in NRC-licensed 

activities for a period of three years 

following the prohibition period. 

IV 

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 

161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and the Commission’s regulations in 10 

CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 

150.20, it is hereby ordered that: 

1. Mr. Lawrence E. Grimm is 

prohibited for one year from the date 

this Order is final from engaging in 

NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed 

activities are those activities that are 

conducted pursuant to a specific or 

general license issued by the NRC, or 

order issued by the NRC, including, but 

not limited to, those activities of 

Agreement State licensees conducted 

pursuant to the authority granted by 10 

CFR 150.20. 

2. If Mr. Grimm is currently involved 

in NRC-licensed activities, he must 

immediately cease those activities; 

inform the NRC of the name, address 

and telephone number of the employer; 

and provide a copy of this order to the 

employer. 

3. For a period of three years after the 

one year period of prohibition has 

expired, Mr. Lawrence E. Grimm shall, 

within 20 days of acceptance of his first 

employment offer involving NRClicensed activities or his becoming 

involved in NRC-licensed activities, as 

defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, 

provide notice to the Director, Office of 

Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, of the name, address, and 

telephone number of the employer or 

the entity where he is, or will be, 

involved in the NRC-licensed activities. 

The Director, Office of Enforcement, 

may, in writing, relax or rescind any of 

the above conditions upon 

demonstration by Mr. Grimm of good 

cause. 

V 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. 

Grimm must, and any other person 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
10528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 

adversely affected by this Order may, 

submit an answer to this Order within 

20 days of its publication in the Federal 

Register. In addition, Mr. Grimm and 

any other person adversely affected by 

this Order may request a hearing on this 

Order within 20 days of its publication 

in the Federal Register. Where good 

cause is shown, consideration will be 

given to extending the time to answer or 

request a hearing. A request for 

extension of time must be directed to 

the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 

include a statement of good cause for 

the extension. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule 

(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a 

digital ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/

apply-certificates.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through EIE, users will be 

required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further 

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at (866) 672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket, which is 

available to the public at http://

ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, or the presiding 

officer. Participants are requested not to 

include personal privacy information, 

such as social security numbers, home 

addresses, or home phone numbers in 

their filings, unless an NRC regulation 

or other law requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

If a person other than Mr. Grimm 

requests a hearing, that person shall set 

forth with particularity the manner in 

which his interest is adversely affected 

by this Order and shall address the 

criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Notices 10529 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Minor Classification Change, February 26, 2010 

(Notice). This notice is available on the 

Commission’s Web site, http://www.prc.gov. 

2The Postal Service also notes that on August 3, 

2009, it changed all of its applicable labeling lists 

to effectuate the name change from BMC to NDC. 

It states that mailers were given a 73–day transition 

period to make the appropriate changes to mailing 

software applications. Id. at 2. 

If a hearing is requested by a licensee 

or a person whose interest is adversely 

affected, the Commission will issue an 

Order designating the time and place of 

any hearings. If a hearing is held, the 

issue to be considered at such hearing 

shall be whether this Order should be 

sustained. In the absence of any request 

for hearing, or written approval of an 

extension of time in which to request a 

hearing, the provisions specified in 

Section IV above shall be final 20 days 

from the date this Order is published in 

the Federal Register without further 

order or proceedings. If an extension of 

time for requesting a hearing has been 

approved, the provisions specified in 

Section IV shall be final when the 

extension expires if a hearing request 

has not been received. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of March 2010. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Roy P. Zimmerman, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4831 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2010–19; Order No. 415] 

Mail Classification Change 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

make a minor modification to the Mail 

Classification Schedule. The change 

affects a change in terminology. This 

notice addresses procedural steps 

associated with this filing. 

DATES: Comments are due: March 10, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot 

submit their views electronically should 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

by telephone for advice on alternatives 

to electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 26, 2010, the Postal Service 

filed a notice with the Commission 

pursuant to 39 CFR 3020.90 et seq. 

concerning a change in classification 

which reflects a change in terminology 

from Bulk Mailing Center (BMC) to 

Network Distribution Center (NDC), and 

revises its regulations to change the 

terms in Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, Domestic 

Mail Manual (DMM) and other related 

manuals and publications effective 

March 15, 2010.1 The Postal Service 

states revisions will also be made in its 

service standard regulations in 39 CFR 

part 121 to indicate the terminology 

change from BMC to NDC. The Postal 

Service states it will concurrently file a 

notice explaining these changes in the 

Federal Register. Id. at 1. 

The Postal Service indicates that the 

original BMC network was established 

in the 1970s to process mail which now 

includes Parcel Post, Bound Printed 

Matter, Media Mail, Standard Mail, and 

Periodicals. Id. However, variation in 

volume and changes in the mailing 

habits of the public and large mailers 

require modifications to BMC 

processing and transportation. Id. The 

Postal Service states in order to 

maximize its efficiency, changes have 

been made to mail flow processes 

through the new NDC network, and it is 

converting BMCs to NDCs. Id. at 1–2. It 

notes that as part of the transition to the 

new NDC concept, only a terminology 

change is being implemented now and 

there are no revisions to mailing 

standards, service standards, or 

processes as a result of this notice. Id. 

at 2. The Postal Service states that in the 

future, it intends to propose changes to 

the preparation, entry and deposit of 

mail related to the NDC concept. Id. The 

Postal Service proposes conforming 

Mail Classification Schedule language to 

replace references to the BMC, with 

references to the NDC.2 Id. at 2–3. 

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3020.92, the 

Commission provides notice of the 

Postal Service’s filing and affords 

interested persons an opportunity to 

express views and offer comments on 

whether the proposed classification 

change is inconsistent with 39 U.S.C. 

3642. Comments are due March 10, 

2010. 

Section 3020.91 requires the Postal 

Service to file notice of the proposed 

change with the Commission no less 

than 15 days prior to the effective date 

of the proposed change. The Notice 

states that the classification change is to 

become effective March 15, 2010. 

The Commission appoints Paul L. 

Harrington to serve as Public 

Representative in this docket. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. MC2010–19 for consideration of the 

matters raised in this docket. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L. 

Harrington is appointed to serve as 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in these 

proceedings. 

3. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

March 10, 2010. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4861 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

‘‘Checking in with the SEC’s Enforcement 

Division’’; SEC File No. 270–598; OMB 

Control No. 3235–NEW. 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments 

on the collection of information 

summarized below. The Commission 

plans to submit a questionnaire to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

approval. 

The Commission intends to send the 

questionnaire to Securities Law 

Practitioners, Securities Law Professors 

and Securities Industry Participants. 

The questionnaire consists of three (3) 

questions. It asks participants to identify 

activities that they believe to be 

significant, to explain why and to rank 

the significance of the activities. 

The Commission needs the 

information to develop a balanced, 

informed, and insightful perspective on 

the impact of the Division’s activities. 

Ultimately, this will be used in 

developing a new metrics beyond 

Enforcement statistics, which will assist 

the Division in evaluating and 

prioritizing its activities. A secondary 

purpose is to create an effective medium 

of communication to encourage and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES