This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

18751 

Vol. 75, No. 70 

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 118 

[Docket No. FDA–2000–N–0190] 

Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in 

Shell Eggs During Production, 

Storage, and Transportation; Change 

of Registration Date, Address, and 

Telephone Number; Technical 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending its 

regulations to correct the date by which 

producers must register their farm with 

FDA, reflect a change in the address and 

telephone number for requesting copies 

of Form No. 3733, and reflect a change 

in the address to which producers must 

send their CD–ROM. This action is 

editorial in nature and is intended to 

improve the accuracy of the agency’s 

regulations. 

DATES: Effective on April 13, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Sheehan, Center for Food Safety and 

Applied Nutrition (HFS–315), Food and 

Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch 

Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301– 

436–1488. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is 

amending its regulations in 21 CFR part 

118 to correct the following information: 

(1) The date by which egg producers 

must register their farm with FDA, (2) 

the address and telephone number for 

requesting copies of Form 3733, and (3) 

the address to which egg producers 

must send their CD–ROM. Publication 

of this document constitutes final action 

on this change under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Notice 

and public procedures are unnecessary 

because FDA is merely updating 

nonsubstantive content. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 118 

Eggs and egg products, Incorporation 

by reference, Recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety. 

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 118 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 118—PRODUCTION, STORAGE, 

AND TRANSPORTATION OF SHELL 

EGGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 118 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331–334, 342, 

371, 381, 393; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271. 

■ 2. In § 118.11, revise paragraphs (a), 

(b)(2)(i), and (b)(3)(vi) to read as follows: 

§ 118.11 Registration requirements for 

shell egg producers covered by the 

requirements of this part. 

(a) Shell egg producers covered under 

§ 118.1(a) are required to register their 

farms with FDA within 30 days of 

becoming an egg producer or, if already 

an egg producer, by each farm’s 

applicable compliance date. 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) You must register using FDA Form 

No. 3733. You may obtain a copy of this 

form by writing to the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane 

(HFS–681), Rockville, MD 20857, or by 

requesting the form by phone at 1–800– 

216–7331 or 301–575–0156. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vi) You must mail the CD–ROM to 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 

5600 Fishers Lane (HFS–681), Rockville, 

MD 20857. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 7, 2010. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8358 Filed 4–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FBI 114] 

RIN 1110–AA26 

FBI Criminal Justice Information 

Services Division User Fees 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This Final Rule sets out the 

Director of the FBI’s authority to 

establish and collect fees for providing 

fingerprint-based and name-based 

Criminal History Record Information 

(CHRI) checks and other identification 

services submitted by authorized users 

for noncriminal justice purposes, 

including employment and licensing. 

The FBI may set such fees at a level to 

include an amount to establish a fund 

to defray expenses for the automation of 

fingerprint identification and criminal 

justice information services and 

associated costs. It further provides that 

future fee adjustments will be made by 

notice published in the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 

13, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FBI 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, 

Module E–3, Clarksburg, West Virginia 

26306, Attention: Christopher L. 

Enourato. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 19, 2008, the FBI published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) setting forth the FBI’s statutory 

authority to establish and collect fees for 

noncriminal justice fingerprint-based 

and name-based CHRI checks and other 

identification services performed by the 

CJIS Division. See 73 FR 34905 (2008) 

(to be codified at 28 CFR part 20). 

The NPRM explained the 

methodology used to calculate the FBI’s 

revised fees, provided a proposed fee 

schedule, and advised that the current 

fees would be published concurrently 

with this Final Rule as a Notice in the 

Federal Register. This Final Rule 

implements the FBI’s statutory fee 

authority. All future fee adjustments 

will be made by Notice published in the 

Federal Register. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
18752 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

II. Legal Authority To Collect Fees 

The FBI has collected user fees for 

fingerprint-based CHRI checks since 

1982, when the authority to establish 

and collect fees to process fingerprintbased CHRI checks for noncriminal 

justice purposes, such as employment 

and licensing, was set out in Public Law 

(Pub. L.) 97–257. This statutory 

authority was renewed annually by 

subsequent appropriations legislation. 

Under Public Law 101–162, the FBI was 

also authorized to establish and collect 

fees for name-based checks and to set 

the fees at a level to include an amount 

to defray expenses for the automation of 

fingerprint identification and associated 

costs. Congress, in Public Law 101–515, 

subsequently authorized the FBI to 

establish and collect these fees on a 

continuing basis. This authority was 

further expanded by Public Law 104–99 

with insertion of the term ‘‘criminal 

justice information services’’ so the FBI 

was authorized to use the collected fees 

to ‘‘defray expenses for the automation 

of fingerprint identification and 

criminal justice information services 

and associated costs.’’ 

III. Fee Calculation 

Standards and Guidelines Used To 

Calculate the Fees 

Public Law 101–515 links the user 

fees charged for processing fingerprint 

identification records and name checks 

to the cost of providing these services. 

This authority also permits the FBI to 

establish user fees at a level to include 

an amount ‘‘to defray expenses for the 

automation of fingerprint identification 

and criminal justice information 

services and associated costs.’’ 

In the absence of express statutory 

authority, Federal agencies are 

authorized to establish fees by the 

Independent Offices Appropriation Act 

of 1952, 31 U.S.C. 9701, which is 

implemented by specific guidelines in 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–25. Since the FBI has 

specific statutory authority to establish 

and collect fees under Public Law 101– 

515, the FBI is not required to follow 

strictly the mandates of OMB Circular 

A–25. In establishing the fees set out in 

this rule, the FBI referred to OMB 

Circular A–25 for guidance in 

calculating fees based on costs. For 

example, in calculating the fees, OMB 

Circular A–25’s definition of full cost 

‘‘as all direct and indirect costs to any 

part of the Federal Government of 

providing a good, resource, or service’’ 

was used to include direct and indirect 

personnel costs, physical overhead, and 

other indirect costs such as material 

costs, utilities, travel, and equipment. 

Congress, in the Volunteers for 

Children Act (VCA), 42 U.S.C. 5119a, 

limited the fee that can be charged to a 

volunteer to $18, or the actual cost of 

providing the service, whichever is less. 

The statutory term ‘‘actual cost’’ does not 

appear in OMB Circular A–25, which 

uses the term full cost, defined as all 

direct and indirect costs of providing a 

service. Thus, the FBI defined the actual 

cost as the full cost of providing this 

service, when calculating the fee for 

checks of volunteers under the VCA. 

Methodology Used To Calculate the 

User Fees 

The FBI hired a contractor, 

BearingPoint, Inc., 1676 International 

Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102 

(BearingPoint), to conduct an 

independent analysis of pertinent costs 

and to recommend a revised fee 

schedule for the fingerprint-based and 

name-based CHRI checks conducted by 

the CJIS Division. Referencing OMB 

Circular A–25; the Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standards 

(SFFAS–4): Managerial Cost Accounting 

Concepts and Standards for the Federal 

Government; and other relevant 

financial management directives, 

BearingPoint developed a cost 

accounting methodology and related 

cost models based upon the concepts 

and principles of activity-based costing 

(ABC). 

ABC is a business management 

process that provides information about 

the relationships between inputs (costs) 

and outputs (products or services) by 

quantifying how work is performed 

(activities). The ABC model used to 

calculate the user fees was developed 

using commercially available ABC 

software and followed generally 

accepted cost accounting procedures for 

cost assignment and unit cost 

calculation. Organizational resources 

were assigned to activities, and then the 

activities were assigned to services 

based upon reported patterns of 

consumption. BearingPoint identified 

the total resources associated with the 

fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI 

check services and assigned these costs 

to the services using relevant cost 

drivers. The cost drivers were selected 

primarily for their strong cause-effect 

linkages between the resources and the 

activities and services that consumed 

them. BearingPoint worked extensively 

with FBI staff, including programmatic 

subject matter experts and statistical 

experts, to gather the information 

necessary to devise the cost accounting 

methodology and to construct a 

representative ABC model. BearingPoint 

developed its cost accounting 

methodology in six steps for the nonautomation portion of the fee. 

1. Operational labor costs were 

reviewed and assigned to activities and 

then to services. 

2. Support labor costs were reviewed 

and assigned to activities and then to 

services. 

3. Nonlabor costs, including 

unfunded personnel and judgment fund 

costs, were reviewed and assigned to 

activities and then to services. 

4. Cost estimates were made for FY 

2008, when the revised user fees are 

expected to be implemented. 

5. Transaction volumes and trends 

were analyzed to predict appropriate 

transaction volumes for FY 2008. 

6. Finally, using the projected FY 

2008 costs and the projected FY 2008 

transaction volumes, the projected unit 

costs for each service were calculated. 

The recommended user fees were based 

on these projected unit costs. 

As explained above, under Public 

Law 101–515, the FBI is also authorized 

to charge an additional amount for the 

automation of fingerprint identification 

and criminal justice information 

services and associated costs. A similar 

process was used to develop this 

portion of the fee. It was determined 

that the most appropriate basis for the 

calculation of this portion of the fee was 

the capital investment and anticipated 

depreciation costs for automated 

fingerprint identification and other 

criminal justice information service 

capabilities and enhancements to 

certain automated systems. The costs for 

these automation efforts were obtained 

from the FBI’s asset management and 

financial management systems and 

records, and program planning 

documentation. By employing this 

methodology, users paying the fee will 

pay for services based on the cost of the 

automation which is already in place at 

the time their request is processed. 

While the funds collected will be used 

to develop future capabilities, the cost 

basis of the fee will be the automation 

in place. The projected FY 2008 

volumes were then used to calculate the 

unit costs for this portion of the fee. 

Once the unit costs were calculated, 

BearingPoint generated the revised fee 

schedule. The FBI then independently 

reviewed the BearingPoint 

recommendations, compared them to 

current fee calculations and plans for 

future services, and determined that the 

revised schedules were both objectively 

reasonable and in consonance with the 

underlying legal authorities. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 18753 

Overview of the Costs Included in the 

Fee Calculation 

The fee calculation was made by 

gathering the labor and nonlabor costs 

of those divisions of the FBI that 

directly or indirectly support the 

provision of the fingerprint-based and 

name-based CHRI check services, and 

then using various drivers to assign 

those costs to the identified activities. 

The activities were then assigned to the 

specific fingerprint-based and namebased CHRI check services or to a 

general category for all other costs. The 

ABC model examined in detail only 

those costs which were related to the 

fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI 

check services. These services included 

both the criminal justice and law 

enforcement and the noncriminal justice 

identification services performed by the 

CJIS Division of the FBI. The discussion 

below is limited to those costs in the 

ABC model which were assigned to the 

fingerprint-based and name-based CHRI 

check services that are supported by the 

user fees. In other words, even though 

the ABC model calculated unit costs for 

various criminal justice fingerprintbased CHRI check services, these costs 

will not be discussed in this regulation 

since they are funded with 

appropriations and not with user fees. 

The costs for providing the feesupported fingerprint-based and namebased CHRI check services include the 

personnel costs for both direct and 

indirect support, as well as nonlabor 

costs such as travel, training, rent, 

equipment, utilities, printing, contract 

support, and supplies. In addition, 

depreciation for existing nonautomation 

assets was included per OMB Circular 

A–25 guidance. Finally, portions of the 

FBI’s costs for workers compensation, 

unemployment compensation, and the 

judgment fund, used to pay judgments 

against the United States where 

appropriations have not otherwise been 

provided, were included. 

These costs were derived from the 

FBI’s financial systems and audited 

financial statements. The FY 2008 

predicted costs were obtained by 

recalculating the depreciation and 

adding an inflation factor for labor and 

other nonlabor expenses. The OMB pay 

raise and inflation factors provided in 

OMB Circular A–11, Preparation, 

Submission, and Execution of an 

Agency Budget, were used. The costs 

associated with providing the services 

do not include any of the automation 

costs which instead were captured in 

the capital investment and depreciation 

costs for the automation portion of the 

fee described below. 

The automation costs are divided into 

those which support fingerprint 

identification services currently in 

operation and those which support 

other criminal justice information 

services. Both types of automation costs 

are authorized by Public Law 101–515. 

The FBI chose to separate these costs to 

facilitate calculation of the cost of 

providing fingerprint-based CHRI 

checks for volunteers, since the VCA 

limits the fee to the actual cost or 

$18.00, whichever is less. The FBI is 

interpreting the actual cost of providing 

the service to include only the costs for 

the automation of fingerprint services 

currently in operation; the actual cost 

does not include the costs for the 

automation of other criminal justice 

information services. 

The costs for the automation of the 

fingerprint identification services 

include depreciation costs for the 

fingerprint identification infrastructure 

and the costs for developing a disaster 

recovery capability which would allow 

the FBI’s essential fingerprint 

identification services to continue in all 

circumstances as required by OMB 

Circular A–130, Management of Federal 

Information Resources (OMB Circular 

A–130). 

The costs for the automation of other 

criminal justice information services are 

based on the depreciation of assets 

already in place and the costs of 

enhancements which have passed 

through the approval gates for the 

planning stages of system development 

under the FBI’s life cycle management 

directive. These enhancements include 

the Next Generation Identification 

program, which will increase the speed, 

capacity, and functionality of the FBI’s 

fingerprint identification process, and 

the Biometric Interoperability Program 

which will provide two-way access to 

information in other major fingerprint 

databases such as the Department of 

Homeland Security’s database of 

nonimmigrant visitors to the United 

States. The costs also include the 

automation of certain aspects of the 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC), the Law Enforcement National 

Data Exchange (N–DEx) program, and 

the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 

program. 

There is one additional component of 

cost which was considered when 

determining the fees. Federal agencies, 

certain State agencies, and approved 

nongovernmental entities that submit 

fingerprint-based CHRI checks function 

as de facto centralized billing service 

providers (CBSPs) by collecting the 

appropriate fee from individuals or 

subordinate agencies and submitting a 

consolidated payment. It is more costeffective for the FBI to bill a CBSP than 

to process individual direct payments 

for single fingerprint-based CHRI check 

submissions. 

The FBI employs this centralized 

billing methodology to collect payment 

for more than 9.8 million fingerprintbased CHRI checks each year. Under the 

fee schedule proposed in this rule, the 

FBI will continue the practice of 

allowing approved CBSPs to retain a 

portion (currently $2.00) of the fee for 

fingerprint-based CHRI checks for 

performing this centralized billing 

service. In order to allow the CBSPs to 

retain this portion of the fee, it is 

necessary to include this cost when 

determining the full costs which the fee 

must cover. At this time, this cost is 

calculated by multiplying the amount 

the CBSPs are allowed to retain by the 

volume of billed transactions. The 

centralized billing process will be 

subject to further analysis and, 

consequently, may be revised in the 

future. 

IV. Proposed Changes to the Fee 

Schedule 

Fingerprint-Based CHRI Checks 

The FBI utilized categories or fee 

classes to set the charges for fingerprintbased CHRI checks. Fee classes are 

determined by the: 

• Type of transaction—manual, 

electronic, or electronic submission 

with manual response, or 

• Volunteer status under the VCA. 

Name-Based CHRI Checks 

The name-based CHRI checks are 

available only to authorized Federal 

agencies for purposes specifically 

authorized by statute, e.g., pursuant to 

the Security Clearance Information Act, 

5 U.S.C. 9101. The fee classes for namebased CHRI checks differentiate 

between manual and electronic 

submissions. 

New Services 

If the FBI offers a new service or 

otherwise requires a new fee class in the 

future, the charge for this new fee class 

will be based upon the closest existing 

fee class until such time as a new fee 

class can be established. Authorized 

users will be advised of the new service 

or new fee class by CJIS Information 

Letter or other CJIS communication. The 

FBI will calculate a fee for the new fee 

class using the methodology discussed 

in the NPRM and will publish a revised 

fee schedule as a notice in the Federal 

Register. See 73 FR 34906–07 (2008). 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
18754 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Discussion of Comments 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

received from two individuals and one 

professional association. 

The comments from the professional 

association and an individual were fully 

supportive of the proposed rule. The 

letter from the professional association 

stated, ‘‘We appreciate the importance of 

maintaining rigorous personnel security 

practices, and believe the FBI’s support 

of non-criminal CHRI checks, whether 

fingerprint or name-based, is necessary 

to the success of these programs.’’ The 

final comment, from an individual, 

concerned the need for increased 

regulation of hazardous materials 

transportation, rather than the NPRM. 

After reviewing the comments, the FBI 

has determined that no changes to the 

proposed rule are necessary. 

VI. Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

When an agency issues a rulemaking 

proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) requires the agency to ‘‘prepare 

and make available for public comment 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis’’ 

which will ‘‘describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA 

allows an agency to certify, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, that the proposed 

rulemaking is not expected to have 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities are defined by the RFA to 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The fees for providing fingerprintbased and name-based CHRI 

background checks for noncriminal 

justice purposes normally are imposed 

upon the individual subject of the 

background check, rather than upon 

small entities. In addition, under the 

new fee schedule that became effective 

October 1, 2007, the fee imposed on 

nonfederal users submitting electronic 

fingerprint-based CHRI dropped nearly 

20 percent per request. This lower fee is 

applicable to more than 90 percent of 

the total nonfederal fingerprint-based 

checks. However, the fee for manual 

searches was increased, reflecting 

comparatively higher processing costs 

for those services. As a result of these 

different fees, the FBI expects that users 

will seek the lower costs associated with 

providing electronic fingerprint 

submissions. 

State and Federal agencies and certain 

private entities serve as CBSPs, or 

entities that collect and submit an 

individual’s fingerprints to the FBI and 

remit the fee charged to the individual. 

There are no small businesses, 

organizations or governmental 

jurisdictions currently providing billing 

services as CBSPs. 

With regard to name-based CHRI 

checks, there is no direct or indirect 

impact on small entities, as only Federal 

agencies are authorized to request namebased CHRI background checks, and 

Federal agencies do not fall within the 

definition of a ‘‘small entity.’’ 

Accordingly, the Director of the FBI 

hereby certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation. The FBI has determined that 

this rule is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 

section 3(f) and accordingly this rule 

has been reviewed by the OMB. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This rule will not have a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The fees for 

providing fingerprint-based and namebased CHRI background checks for 

noncriminal justice purposes are 

imposed upon the individual subject of 

the background check, rather than on 

the State. Some States serve as CBSPs by 

collecting and submitting an 

individual’s fingerprints to the FBI and 

remitting the fee charged to the 

individual. The proposed rule does not 

alter the amount the FBI allows CBSPs 

to retain for providing these services, 

but merely makes small adjustments to 

the fee schedule already in place. The 

proposed rule does not alter any of the 

policy set out at 28 CFR part 20, or 28 

CFR parts 901–906. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain a mandate 

that will result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments (in 

the aggregate) or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year, 

and it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. While CBSPs 

may need to adjust their internal 

automated systems and processes, the 

change in fee amount is a foreseeable 

and expected eventuality and therefore, 

it is expected that these internal systems 

and processes were created with the 

capability of adjusting to changed fees 

without great cost or effort. Therefore, 

no actions were deemed necessary 

under the provisions of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This final rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule will 

not result in an annual effect on the U.S. 

economy of $100 million or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of U.S.-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies 

in domestic and export markets. 

IX. Conclusion 

After careful consideration, the 

Department does not believe that any 

change to the rule is necessary based on 

these comments. Accordingly, pursuant 

to the authority set forth in Public Law 

101–515, as amended by Public Law 

104–99, set out in the notes to 28 U.S.C. 

534, part 20 of chapter I of Title 28 of 

the CFR is amended as follows. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 20 

Classified information, Crime, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Investigations, Law enforcement, 

Privacy. 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

set forth in Public Law 101–515, as 

amended by Public Law 104–99, set out 

in the notes to 28 U.S.C. 534, part 20 of 

chapter 1 of Title 28 of the CFR is 

amended as follows: 

PART 20—CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 20 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 534; Pub. L. 92–544, 

86 Stat. 1115; 42 U.S.C. 3711, et seq., Pub. 

L. 99–169, 99 Stat. 1002, 1008–1011, as 

amended by Pub. L. 99–569, 100 Stat. 3190, 

3196; Pub. L. 101–515, as amended by Pub. 

L. 104–99, set out in the notes to 28 U.S.C. 

534. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 18755 

■ 2. Amend § 20.31 to add paragraph (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 20.31 Responsibilities. 

* * * * * 

(e) The FBI may routinely establish 

and collect fees for noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-based and other 

identification services as authorized by 

Federal law. These fees apply to 

Federal, State and any other authorized 

entities requesting fingerprint 

identification records and name checks 

for noncriminal justice purposes. 

(1) The Director of the FBI shall 

review the amount of the fee 

periodically, but not less than every four 

years, to determine the current cost of 

processing fingerprint identification 

records and name checks for 

noncriminal justice purposes. 

(2) Fee amounts and any revisions 

thereto shall be determined by current 

costs, using a method of analysis 

consistent with widely accepted 

accounting principles and practices, and 

calculated in accordance with the 

provisions of 31 U.S.C. 9701 and other 

Federal law as applicable. 

(3) Fee amounts and any revisions 

thereto shall be published as a notice in 

the Federal Register. 

Dated: March 15, 2010. 

Robert S. Mueller, III, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8385 Filed 4–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0317] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Calcasieu River and 

Ship Channel, LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

disestablishing the permanent safety 

zone at Trunkline LNG in Lake Charles, 

LA and replacing it with a security zone 

with new boundaries. The Coast Guard 

is also establishing two additional 

permanent security zones on the waters 

of the Calcasieu River for the mooring 

basins at Cameron LNG in Hackberry, 

LA and PPG Industries in Lake Charles, 

LA. The Coast Guard is also 

disestablishing the Calcasieu River ship 

channel moving safety zone and 

replacing it with a moving security 

zone. The revised moving security zone 

extends channel edge to channel edge 

on the Calcasieu Channel and shoreline 

to shoreline on the Calcasieu River, 2 

miles ahead and 1 mile astern of certain 

designated vessels while in transit on 

the Calcasieu Channel or Calcasieu 

River. Meeting, crossing or overtaking 

situations are not permitted within the 

security zone unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port. 

The moving security zone may 

commence at any point while certain 

vessels are transiting the Calcasieu 

Channel or Calcasieu River on U.S. 

territorial waters (12 nautical miles) in 

the Captain of the Port (COTP) Port 

Arthur zone. These security zones are 

needed to protect vessels, waterfront 

facilities, the public, and other 

surrounding areas from destruction, 

loss, or injury caused by sabotage, 

subversive acts, accidents, or other 

actions of a similar nature. Unless 

exempted under this rule, entry into or 

movement within these security zones 

is prohibited without permission from 

the Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 13, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2009–0317 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2009–0317 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the Docket Management Facility (M– 

30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety 

Unit Port Arthur, TX, telephone (409) 

719–5086, or e-mail 

scott.k.whalen@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On September 8, 2009, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) entitled ‘‘Security Zone; 

Calcasieu River and Ship Channel, LA’’ 

in the Federal Register (74 FR 46040). 

We received 2 comments on the 

proposed rule. No public meeting was 

requested and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

Heightened awareness of potential 

terrorist acts requires enhanced security 

of our ports, harbors, and vessels. 

This rule establishes new, distinct 

security zones on the waters of the 

Calcasieu River. These zones will 

protect waterfront facilities, persons, 

and vessels from subversive or terrorist 

acts. This rule also eliminates the 

moving safety zone for non-gas free 

LNGs transiting the Calcasieu Channel 

and Calcasieu River and adds a distinct 

moving security zone that may 

commence at any point while certain 

vessels are transiting the Calcasieu 

Channel or Calcasieu River on U.S. 

territorial waters in the Captain of the 

Port, Port Arthur zone. Due to the 

potential for terrorist attacks, this rule 

allows the Captain of the Port to create 

moving security zones around certain 

vessels as deemed necessary, on a caseby-case basis. By limiting access to these 

areas, the Coast Guard is reducing 

potential methods of attack on these 

vessels, and potential use of the vessels 

to launch attacks on waterfront facilities 

and adjacent population centers located 

within the Captain of the Port zone. 

Vessels having a need to enter these 

security zones must obtain express 

permission from the Captain of the Port, 

Port Arthur or a designated 

representative prior to entry. 

These zones are in an area 

concentrated with commercial facilities 

considered critical to national security. 

This rule does not restrict access to 

vessels engaged, or assisting in 

commerce with waterfront facilities 

within fixed security zones, vessels 

operated by port authorities, vessels 

operated by waterfront facilities within 

the fixed security zones, and vessels 

operated by federal, state, county or 

municipal agencies. By limiting access 

to these areas the Coast Guard is 

reducing potential methods of attack on 

vessels, waterfront facilities, and 

adjacent population centers located 

within the zones. Vessels not exempted 

under the provisions of this regulation 

and desiring to enter these zones are 

required to obtain permission from the 

Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a 

designated representative prior to entry. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received two 

comments concerning the NPRM. One 

commenter recommended that the 

boundaries of the proposed security 

zone at PPG Industries (PPG) be 

extended to include the transfer dock 

located at the southern end of PPG 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1