20568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

Administration, respecting Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Mexico, NAFTA Secretariat File 

Number USA–MEX–2007–1904–01. The 

binational panel affirmed in part and 

remanded in part the International 

Trade Administration’s determination, 

with one dissenting opinion. Copies of 

the panel decision are available from the 

U.S. Section of the NAFTA Secretariat. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marsha Ann Y. Iyomasa, Acting United 

States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, 

Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution 

Avenue, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 

482–5438. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 

19 of the North American Free-Trade 

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a 

mechanism to replace domestic judicial 

review of final determinations in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

cases involving imports from a NAFTA 

country with review by independent 

binational panels. When a Request for 

Panel Review is filed, a panel is 

established to act in place of national 

courts to review expeditiously the final 

determination to determine whether it 

conforms with the antidumping or 

countervailing duty law of the country 

that made the determination. 

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, 

which came into force on January 1, 

1994, the Government of the United 

States, the Government of Canada and 

the Government of Mexico established 

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). 

These Rules were published in the 

Federal Register on February 23, 1994 

(59 FR 8686). The panel review in this 

matter has been conducted in 

accordance with these Rules. 

Panel Decision: The panel affirmed in 

part and remanded in part the 

International Trade Administration’s 

determination respecting Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico 

with one dissenting opinion. The panel 

remanded on the following issues: 

1. On the issue of the permissibility 

of zeroing, the Panel remands this 

matter back to Commerce to re-calculate 

Mexinox’s dumping margins without 

zeroing; 

2. On the issue of whether 

Commerce’s adjustments to the U.S. 

indirect selling expense ratio are not in 

accordance with law, the Panel remands 

this matter back to Commerce to recalculate the indirect selling expense 

ratio in a manner not inconsistent with 

the panel’s opinion; and 

3. Commerce is further directed to 

issue its Final Re-Determination on 

Remand within forty-five days from the 

date of this Panel Decision. 

The Department’s decision in the final 

results of the 2004/2005 antidumping 

review was, in all other respects upheld. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

Marsha Ann Y. Iyomasa, 

Acting U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9015 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Sea Grant Advisory Board 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for 

nominations for potential National Sea 

Grant Advisory Board members and 

notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice responds to 

Section 209 of the Sea Grant Program 

Improvement Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94– 

461, 33 U.S.C. 1128), which requires the 

Secretary of Commerce to solicit 

nominations at least once a year for 

membership on the National Sea Grant 

Advisory Board, an advisory committee 

that provides advice on the 

implementation of the National Sea 

Grant College Program. 

DATES: Solicitation of nominations is 

open ended: resumes may be sent to the 

address specified at any time. 

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent 

to Dr. James D. Murray; Designated 

Federal Official, National Sea Grant 

Advisory Board; Deputy Director, 

National Sea Grant College Program; 

1315 East-West Highway, Room 11841; 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Established by Section 209 of the Act 

and as amended the National Sea Grant 

College Program Amendments Act of 

2008 (Pub. L. 110–394), the duties of the 

Board are as follows: 

(1) In general—The Board shall advise 

the Secretary and the Director 

concerning— 

(A) Strategies for utilizing the sea 

grant college program to address the 

Nation’s highest priorities regarding the 

understanding, assessment, 

development, management, utilization, 

and conservation of ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes resources; 

(B) The designation of sea grant 

colleges and sea grant institutes; and 

(C) Such other matters as the 

Secretary refers to the Board for review 

and advice. 

(2) Biennial Report—The Board shall 

report to the Congress every two years 

on the state of the national sea grant 

college program. The Board shall 

indicate in each such report the progress 

made toward meeting the priorities 

identified in the strategic plan in effect 

under section 204(c). The Secretary 

shall make available to the Board such 

information, personnel, and 

administrative services and assistance 

as it may reasonably require to carry out 

its duties under this title. 

The Board shall consist of 15 voting 

members who shall be appointed by the 

Secretary. The Director and a director of 

a sea grant program who is elected by 

the various directors of sea grant 

programs shall serve as nonvoting 

members of the Board. Not less than 8 

of the voting members of the Board shall 

be individuals who, by reason of 

knowledge, experience, or training, are 

especially qualified in one or more of 

the disciplines and fields included in 

marine science. The other voting 

members shall be individuals who, by 

reason of knowledge, experience, or 

training, are especially qualified in, or 

representative of, education, marine 

affairs and resource management, 

coastal management, extension services, 

State government, industry, economics, 

planning, or any other activity which is 

appropriate to, and important for, any 

effort to enhance the understanding, 

assessment, development, management, 

utilization, or conservation of ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes resources. No 

individual is eligible to be a voting 

member of the Board if the individual 

is (A) the director of a sea grant college 

or sea grant institute; (B) an applicant 

for, or beneficiary (as determined by the 

Secretary) of, any grant or contract 

under section 205 [33 USCS § 1124]; or 

(C) a full-time officer or employee of the 

United States. 

The Director of the National Sea Grant 

College Program and one Director of a 

Sea Grant Program also serve as nonvoting members. Board members are 

appointed for a 4-year term. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

Mark E. Brown, 

Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrator 

Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9100 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KA–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 20569 

1 ‘‘Interpretative Statement With Respect to the 

Commission’s Exemptive Authority Under § 30.10 

of its Rules,’’ l7 CFR part 30, Appendix A. 

2The 13 foreign entities are represented by the 

following jurisdictions: The United Kingdom, 

Australia, Brazil, Germany, Canada, France, Spain, 

New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) 

abstracted below has been forwarded to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and comment. The 

ICR describes the nature of the 

information collection and its expected 

costs and burden; it includes the actual 

data collection instruments [if any]. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before May 20, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY

CONTACT: Andrea Musalem at CFTC, 

(202) 418–5167; FAX: (202) 418–5547; 

e-mail: amusalem@cftc.gov and refer to 

OMB Control No. 3038–0023. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Proposed Questionnaire to 

Regulation 30.10 Relief Recipients 

(OMB Control No. 3038–0023). This is 

a request for approval of a new 

information collection. 

Abstract 

I. Background 

CFTC Regulation 30.10 allows 

persons located and doing business 

outside the U.S., who are subject to a 

comparable regulatory framework in the 

country in which they are located, to 

seek an exemption from the application 

of certain of the Part 30 regulations. 

Regulation 30.10 expressly states that, 

upon petition, the Commission may 

exempt any person from any 

requirement of the Part 30 regulations. 

If the Commission grants an exemption, 

persons located and doing business 

outside the U.S. may solicit or accept 

orders directly from U.S. customers for 

foreign futures or options transactions 

without registering under the Act as 

FCMs. 

A petition for exemption pursuant to 

Regulation 30.10 is typically filed on 

behalf of persons located and doing 

business outside the U.S. that seek 

access to U.S. customers by (1) a 

governmental agency responsible for 

implementing and enforcing the foreign 

regulatory program, or (2) a selfregulatory organization (SRO) of which 

such persons are members. A petitioner 

who seeks an exemption pursuant to 

Regulation 30.10, based on substituted 

compliance with a non-U.S. regulatory 

framework that is comparable to the Act 

and rules thereunder, must set forth 

with particularity the comparable 

regulations applicable in the 

jurisdiction in which that person is 

located. In essence, a petitioner under 

Regulation 30.10 must present, with 

particularity, the factual basis for a 

finding of comparability and the reasons 

why the policies and purposes of the 

Commission’s regulatory program are 

met, notwithstanding any differences of 

degree or kind in the petitioner’s 

regulatory program. 

Appendix A to Part 30 (Appendix A) 

articulates standards to be used by staff 

in assessing whether a foreign 

regulatory system is comparable.1 These 

standards involve inquiry into the 

following areas: (1) Registration, 

authorization or other form of licensing, 

fitness review or qualification of 

persons through which customer orders 

are solicited and accepted; (2) minimum 

financial requirements for those persons 

that accept customer funds; (3) 

protection of customer funds from 

misapplication; (4) recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements; (5) minimum 

sales practice standards, including 

disclosure of the risks of futures and 

options transactions and, in particular, 

the risk of transactions undertaken 

outside the jurisdiction of domestic law; 

(6) compliance; and (7) informationsharing. 

II. The Proposed Questionnaire 

Currently, there are 13 foreign 

entities 2 (two regulators and 11 futures 

exchanges) that have a Regulation 30.10 

exemption some of which date back to 

the late eighties, early nineties. 

Consequently, the Commission’s 

Division of Clearing and Intermediary 

Oversight (DCIO) would like to embark 

upon a program whereby each year, 

DCIO sends out a questionnaire to 

exemption recipients inquiring as to 

material and other relevant changes that 

impacted our could impact the 

fundamentals for which exemptive 

relief was granted in the first place. 

The proposed 2010 Questionnaire 

will ask the following questions: The 

following questions relate to material 

changes that have occurred since the 

original filing of the 30.10 petition. 

Please answer the following questions 

in detail. 

1. Have there been any material 

changes with regards to the identity or 

organization of the original Petitioner 

(i.e. change in control, change in name, 

change in structure, etc.)? 

2. Has there been a change in the role 

of the government, the regulator, or the 

self-regulatory organization(s) which 

has or could potentially impact their 

supervision of and their enforcement 

powers over the exchange and its 

members? 

3. Has there been any material change 

in the legal framework which impacted 

or could impact any of the following: 

a. Registration, authorization or other 

form of licensing, fitness review or 

qualification of persons through which 

customer orders are solicited and 

accepted; 

b. Minimum financial requirements 

for those persons that accept customer 

funds; 

c. Protection of customer funds from 

misapplication; 

d. Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements; 

e. Minimum sales practice standards, 

including disclosure of risks of futures 

and options transactions and, in 

particular, the risk of transactions 

undertaken outside the jurisdiction of 

domestic law; and 

f. Compliance (i.e. any change in 

oversight structure which impacted or 

could impact the governmental 

authority or the self-regulatory 

organization’s ability to audit Part 30 

firms for compliance with, or take 

action against persons that violate the 

requirements of the Part 30 program). 

4. What changes, if any, have 

occurred in insolvency laws as they 

affect futures customers? If there have 

been changes to insolvency laws, have 

the changes occurred within the past 

two to three years? To what extent do 

you view any recently proposed changes 

to insolvency laws as resulting from the 

2008–09 financial crisis? 

5. Security futures products have both 

an equity component and a futures 

component. Consequently, in what 

accounts are security futures products 

held (i.e. the equity account, the futures 

account, or a combined account)? Are 

security futures products subject to 

separate disclosure and margin 

requirements than those required for 

plain vanilla futures products? 

6. Please provide an updated list of all 

firms with relief under the Regulation 

30.10 exemption. 

7. Since the granting of the original 

exemption, please affirm whether 30.10 

firms have been subject to arbitration 

and/or disciplinary proceedings arising 

from transactions with U.S. customers. 

To the best extent possible, please 

provide the number of times and a brief 

description of such proceedings. 

8. Please provide the name and 

contact information for individuals to 

whom follow up questions might be 

directed. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
20570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the CFTC’s regulations 

were published on December 30, 1981. 

See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The 

Federal Register notice with a 60-day 

comment period soliciting comments on 

this collection of information was 

published on February 10, 2010 (75 FR 

6637). 

Burden statement: The respondent 

burden for this collection is estimated to 

average one hour per response. These 

estimates include the time needed to 

review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining information 

and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train 

personnel to be able to respond to a 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 13. 

Estimated number of responses: 13. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 169 hours. 

Frequency of collection: Annually. 

Send comments regarding the burden 

estimated or any other aspect of the 

information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the addresses listed below. Please refer 

to OMB Control No. 3038–0023 in any 

correspondence. 

Andrea Musalem, Division of Clearing 

and Intermediary Oversight, U.S. 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581; and 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 

CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9014 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Information Collection; Submission for 

OMB Review, Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), has submitted a public 

information collection request (ICR) 

entitled the Community Stakeholder 

Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP 

Grantees to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

approval in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 

35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation, may be 

obtained by calling the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, 

Katharine Delo Gregg at (202) 606–6965. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTY–TDD) may call (202) 606–3472 

between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern 

time, Monday through Friday. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted, identified by the title of the 

information collection activity, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB 

Desk Officer for the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, by 

any of the following two methods 

within 30 days from the date of 

publication in this Federal Register: 

(1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974, 

Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk 

Officer for the Corporation for National 

and Community Service; and 

(2) Electronically by e-mail to: 

smar@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB 

is particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Propose ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and 

• Propose ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submissions of responses. 

Comments 

A 60-day public comment Notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 12, 2010. This comment period 

ended March 15, 2010. A total of 12 

commenters submitted 33 comments. 

Comment 1. The Corporation is urged 

to take a step back and consider other 

ways in which ‘‘true stakeholder 

support’’ can be obtained. 

Response—Corporation disagrees and 

believes that the proposed collection is 

at least one valid method assessing 

stakeholder support. 

Comment 2. The federal registry 

explains the purpose of the survey is to 

help provide TTA to existing projects. 

The purpose statement on the survey 

does not talk about TTA. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

will be edited per comment. 

Comment 3. Two commenters 

suggested that the language needs to be 

simplified. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 4. The tool asks 

assessments that I believe may be well 

beyond the reach of our stakeholders to 

properly assess. 

Response—The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

why the intended recipients should be 

able to adequately respond. 

Comment 5. The burden of 

administrative demand far exceeds any 

perceived benefit from my perspective. 

Response The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

that the benefit of the survey depends 

on its use by the grantee. 

Comment 6. Speaking more generally, 

this assessment should reflect how 

successfully respondents feel their 

respective RSVP’s are doing to fulfill 

their missions and provide volunteers 

and services that have a meaningful and 

significant impact on the needs of the 

communities they operate in. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 7. Questions should better 

address the processes and guidelines 

applied to RSVP projects. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 8. Three commenters 

suggested that there should be fewer 

questions about how projects are 

perceived by the community and a few 

more about the operations of the project. 

Response—The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

that the purpose of the instrument is to 

measure community impact of RSVP 

grantees. 

Comment 9. Three commenters 

suggested that there are some 

similarities of the current questions. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 10. I would also like to have 

the issue of a project that does not have 

a formal advisory council addressed. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

have been edited per comment. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES