Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Notices 42949 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission 

• Written comments may be mailed to 

the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, attention Office of the 

Secretariat; transmitted by facsimile to 

the CFTC at (202) 418–5521; or 

transmitted electronically to 

secretary@cftc.gov. Reference should be 

made to ‘‘Harmonization of Regulation.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Gillis Hawkins, Special Counsel, at 

(202) 551–5523, or Leigh W. Duffy, 

Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551–5928, 

Division of Trading and Markets, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549; or Sauntia Warfield, (202) 418– 

5084, at the CFTC. 

By the Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

By the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–20356 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P, 6351–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting. 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission will hold a Closed Meeting 

on Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the 

Commissioners, the Secretary to the 

Commission, and recording secretaries 

will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain 

staff members who have an interest in 

the matters also may be present. 

The General Counsel of the 

Commission, or his designee, has 

certified that, in his opinion, one or 

more of the exemptions set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) 

and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) 

and (10), permit consideration of the 

scheduled matters at the Closed 

Meeting. 

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, 

voted to consider the items listed for the 

Closed Meeting in a closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed 

Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 

August 27, 2009 will be: 

Institution and settlement of 

injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of 

administrative proceedings; and 

Other matters relating to enforcement 

proceedings. 

At times, changes in Commission 

priorities require alterations in the 

scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to 

ascertain what, if any, matters have been 

added, deleted or postponed, please 

contact: The Office of the Secretary at 

(202) 551–5400. 

Dated: August 20, 2009. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–20506 Filed 8–21–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6737] 

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: 

Daniel Buzby, Acting 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 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 under 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. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
42950 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Notices 

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) Miguel Alonso Apodaca, November 

6, 2007, U.S. District Court, District 

of Arizona, Case # CR 07–00296– 

002–TUC–DCB (JCG). 

(2) Cedric Lloyd Manuel, November 6, 

2007, U.S. District Court, District of 

Arizona, Case # CR 07–00296–001– 

TUC–DCB (JCG). 

(3) Joaquin Rodriguez-Diaz, February 6, 

2006, U.S. District Court, District of 

Arizona, Case # 2:05–cr–00965– 

ROS–1. 

(4) Chi Mak, March 26, 2008, U.S. 

District Court, Central District of 

California, Case # 8:05–cr–00293– 

CJC. 

(5) Tai Wang Mak, April 21, 2008, U.S. 

District Court, Central District of 

California, Case # 8:05–cr–00293– 

CJC. 

(6) David Mehrdad Talebi, November 

26, 2007, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of California, Case 

# 05CR2213–LAB. 

(7) Ali Danny Talebi, July 7, 2008, U.S. 

District Court, Southern District of 

California, Case # 05CR2213–LAB. 

(8) Murray Rinzler, November 30, 2007, 

U.S. District Court, District of 

Connecticut, Case # 3:07cr61 

(AHN). 

(9) World Electronics, Inc., November 

30, 2007, U.S. District Court, 

District of Connecticut, Case # 

3:07cr61 (AHN). 

(10) Leonard Allen Schenk, December 

11, 2007, U.S. District Court, 

Northern District of Florida, Case # 

3:07cr90–001LAC. 

(11) Jerri C. Stringer, December 13, 

2007, U.S. District Court, Northern 

District of Florida, Case # 3:07cr90– 

002LAC. 

(12) Lance Michael Brooks, May 27, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida, Case # 0:07– 

60265–CR–1 and 0:08–60154–CR–1. 

(13) Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, March 6, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida, Case # 0:05– 

60238–CR–COHN (S) (S) (S). 

(14) Hassan Saied Keshari, May 13, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida, Case # 1:08– 

20612–CR–SEITZ–01. 

(15) Bertrand Lalsingh, February 11, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida, Case # 07– 

60273–CR–MARRA. 

(16) Osmar D. Mejia, August 2, 2008, 

U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida, Case # 

0:08CR60028–001. 

(17) Joseph Piquet, May 18, 2009, U.S. 

District Court, Southern District of 

Florida, Case # 2:08–14031–CR– 

MARTINEZ–1. 

(18) Rigel Optics, Inc., May 12, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Iowa, Case # 4:08–cr– 

00086–001. 

(19) Riad Skaff, July 14, 2008, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of 

Illinois, Case # 07–CR–41–1. 

(20) Haji Subandi, December 19, 2007, 

U.S. District Court, District of 

Maryland, Case # CCB–06–0439. 

(21) Green Supply, Inc., January 22, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Eastern 

District of Missouri, Case # 

4:07CR659 CEJ. 

(22) Jyimin Horng, January 17, 2008, 

U.S. District Court, District of New 

Jersey, Case # 1:05–CR–00612–02. 

(23) Octavio Rodriguez-Gutierrez, 

October 29, 2008, U.S. District 

Court, District of New Mexico, Case 

# 2:08CR01600–001JEC. 

(24) Raul Rodriguez-Gutierrez, October 

27, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

District of New Mexico, Case # 

2:08CR01746–001JEC. 

(25) David M. Janowski, January 26, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Northern 

District of Ohio, Case # 1:08CR389– 

01. 

(26) Master A. Ohene Kwesi Yeboah, 

April 20, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Ohio, Case # 

2:08–CR–138. 

(27) Ken Miller, August 14, 2008, U.S. 

District Court, Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, Case # 07–452. 

(28) Euro Optics, Ltd., July 31, 2008, 

U.S. District Court, Middle District 

of Pennsylvania, Case # 4:07–CR– 

0407. 

(29) Akanonu Fabian Mgbobila, October 

4, 2007, U.S. District Court, Middle 

District of Tennessee, Case # 3:06– 

00126. 

(30) Guillermo Aguilar-Medina, October 

23, 2007, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

1:07CR00279–002. 

(31) Luis Miguel Rodriguez-Vazques, 

October 23, 2007, U.S. District 

Court, Southern District of Texas, 

Case # 1:07CR00279–001. 

(32) Erik Arguelles, March 18, 2008, 

U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

1:07CR00797–001. 

(33) Jose Cipriano-Sanchez, April 13, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR01274–001. 

(34) Jorge Alberto Cervantes-Garcia, 

March 27, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

1:07CR00857–001. 

(35) Rogelio Esparza-Juarez, December 

31, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:08CR01042–001. 

(36) Francisco Gaona-Doval, October 27, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00906–001. 

(37) Roberto Garza-Lopez, March 14, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00671–001. 

(38) Juan Lopez-Martinez, March 14, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00671–002. 

(39) Luis Martin Velasquez-Ibarra, 

March 14, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00671–003. 

(40) Reneberto Velasquez-Velez, March 

14, 2008, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00671–004. 

(41) Jose Fernando Licona-Cruz, April 4, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR01128–001. 

(42) Gregorio Magallan, Jr., February 2, 

2009, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

7:08CR00892–002. 

(43) Rogelio Ramos-Reyes, January 21, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00916–001. 

(44) Lorena Beatriz Salas, February 4, 

2008, U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas, Case # 

1:07CR00753–001. 

(45) Victor Hugo Salazar-Mata, February 

10, 2009, U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas, Case # 

7:07CR00986–001. 

(46) Greg Anthony Belcik, December 10, 

2007, U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Texas, Case # DR–07– 

CR–007(1)–AML. 

(47) Robert Frederick Gibson, August 

24, 2007, U.S. District Court, 

Western District of Texas, Case # 

EP–07–CR–249–DB(2). 

(48) Robert Thomas Caldwell, November 

9, 2007, U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Texas, Case # EP–07–CR– 

249–DB(3). 

(49) Abraham Trujillo, November 12, 

2008, U.S. District Court, District of 

Utah, Case # DUTX 2:07–cr–00714– 

001. 

(50) David John Waye, November 12, 

2008, U.S. District Court, District of 

Utah, Case # DUTX 2:07–cr–00714– 

002. 

(51) Shu Quan-Sheng, April 10, 2009, 

U.S. District Court, Eastern District 

of Virginia, Case # 2:08cr194. 

(52) Jason Dean Smith, June 8, 2007, 

U.S. District Court, Western District 

of Washington, Case # CR05– 

00390RSM–001. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Notices 42951 

(53) Kendall S. George, July 13, 2007, 

U.S. District Court, Western District 

of Washington, Case # CR06– 

0205RSM. 

As noted above, at the end of the threeyear 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)). 

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: August 17, 2009. 

Andrew J. Shapiro, 

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

[FR Doc. E9–20443 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2009–0183] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Extension of a CurrentlyApproved Information Collection 

Request: Training Certification for 

Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle 

(CMV) Operators 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

FMCSA announces its plan to submit to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for approval its request to extend 

a currently-approved information 

collection request (ICR) entitled, 

‘‘Training Certification for Entry-level 

CMV Operators,’’ that relates to the 

training requirements for drivers 

applying for a commercial driver’s 

license (CDL). There is no change from 

the burden estimate approved by OMB 

for this ICR on March 11, 2008. On May 

28, 2009, FMCSA published a Federal 

Register notice (74 FR 25607) allowing 

for a 60-day comment period on the 

extension of this ICR. The Agency did 

not receive any comments in response 

to this notice. 

DATES: Please send your comments by 

September 24, 2009. OMB must receive 

your comments by this date in order to 

act quickly on the ICR. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should 

reference Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) Docket Number 

FMCSA–2009–0183. Interested persons 

are invited to submit written comments 

on the proposed information collection 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget. Comments 

should be addressed to the attention of 

the Desk Officer, Department of 

Transportation/Office of the Secretary, 

and sent via electronic mail to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov, faxed to 

(202) 395–6974, or mailed to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier 

Operations Division, FMCSA, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–4325. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Training Certification for EntryLevel Commercial Motor Vehicle 

Operators. 

OMB Control Number: 2126–0028. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently-approved information 

collection request. 

Respondents: Entry-level CMV 

drivers. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

45,611. 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Expiration Date: September 30, 2009. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

7,602 hours. FMCSA estimates that an 

entry-level driver requires 

approximately 10 minutes to complete 

the tasks necessary to comply with the 

regulation. Those tasks are: 

photocopying the training certificate, 

giving the photocopy to the motor 

carrier employer, and placing the 

original of the certificate in a personal 

file. Therefore, the annual burden for all 

entry-level drivers of CMVs is 7,602 

hours [45,611 respondents × 10 

minutes/60 minutes to complete a 

response = 7,601.8 hours (rounded to 

7,602 hours)]. 

Definitions: ‘‘Commercial Motor 

Vehicle (CMV)’’: A motor vehicle 

operated in commerce and having a 

gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 

pounds or more, regardless of actual 

weight, or designed to transport 16 or 

more passengers, or used to transport 

placardable and dangerous hazardous 

materials (49 CFR 383.5). The term 

‘‘CMV’’ is limited to this definition in 

this document; the term ‘‘CDL driver’’ is 

used because the operators of these 

CMVs are required to have a valid 

commercial driver’s license (CDL). This 

rule currently applies solely to ‘‘entrylevel’’ CDL drivers, i.e. those who have 

less than 1 year of experience operating 

a CMV in interstate commerce (49 CFR 

380.502(b)). 

Background: 

The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 

provides that ‘‘The Secretary of 

Transportation may prescribe 

requirements for (1) qualifications and 

maximum hours of service of employees 

of, and safety of operation and 

equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) 

qualification and maximum hours of 

service of employees of, and standards 

of equipment of, a motor private carrier, 

when needed to promote safety of 

operation’’ [49 U.S.C. 3502(b)]. This Act 

is applicable to interstate commerce and 

not intrastate commerce. The 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

1986 (CMVSA) created the CDL program 

and defined ‘‘commerce’’ in such as way 

as to include interstate and intrastate 

operations (49 U.S.C. 31302(2),(4)]. 

Section 4007(a)(2) of the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102–240, 

December 18, 1991) directed the FHWA 

to ‘‘commence a rulemaking proceeding 

on the need to require training of all 

entry-level drivers of CMVs.’’ The 

Congress did not explicitly provide that 

ISTEA extended to operations in 

intrastate commerce. In view of the 

nature of the concurrent authority 

created by the CMVSA and the Motor 

Carrier Act of 1935, and the absence of 

direction from the Congress in ISTEA, 

FMCSA has decided that entry-level 

training requirements should be 

confined to those drivers applying for a 

CDL who intend to operate CMVs in 

interstate commerce. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES