Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21843 

amended by decreasing the assessment 

rate established for the Committee for 

the 2011–12 and subsequent crop years 

from $0.27 to $0.22 per ton of salable 

dried prunes handled. The decrease in 

the per salable ton assessment rate 

allows the Committee to lower its 

assessment rate because of a substantial 

decrease in wage and salary expenses. 

The current excess funds carried 

forward along with the estimated 

interest income, combined with the 

funds generated from the decreased 

assessment rate and decreased crop to 

provide adequate income to cover 

anticipated 2011–12 expenses. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

considered the economic impact of this 

rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 800 

producers of dried prunes in the 

California area and approximately 21 

handlers subject to regulation under the 

marketing order. Small agricultural 

producers are defined by the Small 

Business Administration as those 

having annual receipts less than 

$750,000 and small agricultural service 

firms are defined as those whose annual 

receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 

CFR 121.201) 

Committee data indicates that about 

64 percent of the handlers ship under 

$7,000,000 worth of dried prunes. 

Dividing the average dried prune crop 

value for 2010 reported by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of 

$149,860,000 by the number of 

producers (800) yields an average 

annual producer revenue estimate of 

about $187,325. Thus, the majority of 

handlers and California dried prune 

producers may be classified as small 

entities. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that decreased the assessment 

rate established for the Committee and 

collected from handlers for the 2011–12 

and subsequent crop years from $0.27 to 

$0.22 per ton of salable dried prunes. 

The Committee unanimously 

recommended 2011–12 expenditures of 

$46,497 and an assessment rate of $0.22 

per ton of salable dried prunes for the 

2011–12 crop year. The assessment rate 

of $0.22 is $0.05 lower than the rate 

previously in effect. Applying the $0.22 

per ton assessment rate to the 

Committee’s 122,000 ton estimate 

should provide $26,840 in assessment 

income. Thus, the current excess funds 

carried forward along with the 

estimated interest income, combined 

with funds generated from the 

decreased assessment rate and 

decreased crop is expected to provide 

adequate income to cover anticipated 

2011–12 crop year expenses. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that decreased the assessment 

obligation imposed on handlers. 

Assessments are applied uniformly on 

all handlers, and some of the costs may 

be passed on to producers. However, 

decreasing the assessment rate reduces 

the burden on handlers, and may reduce 

the burden on producers. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

California dried prune industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the June 

16, 2011, meeting was a public meeting 

and all entities, both large and small, 

were able to express views on this issue. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, 

Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No 

changes in those requirements as a 

result of this action are anticipated. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This action imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large California dried 

prune handlers. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. In addition, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

October 31, 2011. No comments were 

received. Therefore, for reasons given in 

the interim rule, we are adopting the 

interim rule as a final rule, without 

change. 

To view the interim rule, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-11-0068- 

0001. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

the Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, 

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

chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act (44 

U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 53813, August 30, 2011) 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993 

Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES 

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 993, which was 

published at 76 FR 53813 on August 30, 

2011, is adopted as a final rule, without 

change. 

Dated: April 6, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8820 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1206 

[Document No. AMS–FV–11–0021] 

Mango Promotion, Research, and 

Information Order; Assessment 

Increase 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Mango 

Promotion, Research, and Information 

Order (Order) to increase the assessment 

rate on first handlers and importers of 

mangos from one-half cent per pound to 

three-quarters of a cent per pound. The 

increase is permitted under the Order, 

which is authorized by the Commodity 

Promotion, Research, and Information 

Act of 1996 (Act). The National Mango 

Board (Board), which administers the 

Order, recommended this action to 

ensure that the Board’s research and 

promotion programs continue to be 

adequately funded. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: Effective Date: September 1, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Veronica Douglass, Marketing 

Specialist, Research and Promotion 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Stop 0244, Room 1406–S, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0244; telephone: 

888–720–9917; fax: 202–205–2800; or 

email: veronica.douglass@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under the Mango Promotion, 

Research, and Consumer Information 

Order (Order) [7 CFR part 1206]. The 

Order is authorized under the 

Commodity Promotion, Research, and 

Information Act of 1996 (Act) [7 U.S.C. 

7411–7425]. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has waived the review process 

required by Executive Order 12866 for 

this action. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. It is not intended to have a 

retroactive effect. 

Section 524 of the Act provides that 

the Act shall not affect or preempt any 

other State or Federal law authorizing 

promotion or research relating to an 

agricultural commodity. 

Under the Act, a person subject to an 

order may file a petition with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (Department) 

stating that an order, any provision of an 

order, or any obligation imposed in 

connection with an order, is not 

established in accordance with the law, 

and requesting a modification of an 

order or an exemption from an order. 

Any petition filed challenging an order, 

any provision of an order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

an order, shall be filed within two years 

after the effective date of an order, 

provision, or obligation subject to 

challenge in the petition. The petitioner 

will have the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. Thereafter, the 

Department will issue a ruling on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States for 

any district in which the petitioner 

resides or conducts business shall have 

the jurisdiction to review a final ruling 

on the petition, if the petitioner files a 

complaint for that purpose not later 

than 20 days after the date of the entry 

of the Department’s final ruling. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601– 

612), the Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) has considered the economic 

impact of this rule on small entities that 

would be affected by this rule. The 

purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory 

action to scale on businesses subject to 

such action, so that small businesses 

will not be disproportionately 

burdened. 

The Small Business Administration 

defines small agricultural producers as 

those having annual receipts of no more 

than $750,000, and small agricultural 

service firms as those having annual 

receipts of no more than $7 million (13 

CFR part 121). First handlers and 

importers would be considered 

agricultural service firms, and the 

majority of mango producers, first 

handlers and importers would be 

considered small businesses. Although 

this criterion does not factor in 

additional monies that may be received 

by producers, first handlers and 

importers of mangos, it is an inclusive 

standard for identifying small entities. 

First handlers and importers who 

market or import less than 500,000 

pounds of mangos annually are exempt 

from the assessment. Mangos that are 

exported out of the United States are 

also exempt from assessment. In 

addition, domestic and foreign 

producers are not subject to assessment 

under the Order, but such individuals 

are eligible to serve on the Board along 

with importers and first handlers. 

Currently, fewer than five first handlers 

and 193 importers are subject to 

assessment under the Order. 

Under the current Order, first 

handlers and importers of 500,000 

pounds or more of mangos per year each 

pay a mandatory assessment of one-half 

cent per pound of mangos handled or 

imported. The amendment to the Order 

would increase the rate of assessment 

currently paid by first handlers and 

importers of mangos to three-quarters of 

a cent per pound. Exempt handlers and 

importers would remain exempt from 

assessment. While this amendment will 

have an economic impact on handlers 

and importers of more than 500,000 

pounds of mangos per year, the impact 

is expected to be offset by the benefits 

to the mango industry. Assessment 

revenue is used by the Board to finance 

promotion, research, and information 

programs designed to increase consumer 

demand for mangos. Assessments at the 

current rate of one-half cent per pound 

generate about $3.4 million in annual 

revenue. The Order is administered by 

the Board under the Department’s 

supervision. 

According to the Board, additional 

revenue is needed to avoid reductions 

in the promotions budget and to 

increase investment in marketing and 

research programs. At its September 

2009 meeting, the Board voted to 

propose a 50 percent increase in the 

mango assessment rate upon completion 

of the March 2010 referendum to 

determine whether mango handlers and 

importers favored continuation of the 

Order. The increase in the assessment 

rate is consistent with section 

1206.42(b) of the Order, which permits 

modification of the assessment rate by 

the Board with the approval of the 

Secretary, after the first referendum is 

conducted. 

Mango assessment collections began 

on January 3, 2005, however, Board 

activities did not begin until 2006. 

Consequently, the Board was able to 

grow a considerable reserve that was 

used to supplement annual assessment 

revenues from 2007 until 2009. In 2010, 

higher than expected assessment 

revenue made it possible for the Board 

to operate without exceeding the total 

assessments collected for that year and 

to begin 2011 with approximately $1.6 

million in available resources. However, 

with 2011 spending projected at 

approximately $4.3 million and 

assessment income projected at 

approximately $3.2 million, the Board is 

expected to begin 2012 with a reserve of 

$505,244. With no extra funds available 

from reserves, and if the assessment rate 

is kept at the current level, the Board’s 

budget would have to be decreased. 

In 2010, an econometric study of the 

effects of the Board’s promotion 

activities on U.S. mango demand was 

conducted by Dr. Ronald Ward of the 

University of Florida (2010 economic 

study). The study indicates that from 

2005 through 2009, the value of mango 

imports to the U.S. grew from $169 

million to $217 million. This is 

significant as the vast majority of 

mangos consumed in the U.S. are 

imported. The growth in value is the 

result of both higher prices and greater 

volumes imported. The study also found 

that the Board’s activities have had a 

positive economic impact on the 

demand for mangos, both in attracting 

more buyers and in increasing the 

number of mangos purchased per buyer. 

According to the study, increased 

spending by the Board would 

correspond to increases in market 

penetration and the number of 

households purchasing mangos. 

Likewise, decreased spending would 

correspond to declines in both of those 

areas. Based on the analysis of these two 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21845 

factors and the value of mango imports, 

the study concludes that every $1 

invested in the Board adds an additional 

$7 to mango freight on board revenues. 

This study is available from the Board 

and on the Agricultural Marketing 

Service Web site (www.ams.usda.gov/ 

fvpromotion). 

An increase of one quarter of a cent 

per pound in the mango assessment rate 

is expected to add an additional $1.6 

million per year to the Board’s 

assessment revenue. With the additional 

revenue collected, the Board intends to 

invest primarily in marketing and 

research programs. In addition, the 

Board would be able to establish a 

contingency fund to ensure consistent 

funding in the face of market instability. 

The Board considered three 

alternatives prior to recommending that 

the assessment rate be increased. First, 

the Board considered reducing 

investment in its research program. 

However, postponing research projects, 

such as the human nutrition studies that 

may help the Board to develop health 

messages that increase demand for 

mangos, could hinder expansion of the 

U.S. mango market. Second, the Board 

considered limiting investment in 

programs designed to improve the 

quality of mangos available at the retail 

level. Delivering higher quality mangos 

to U.S. consumers is one of the Board’s 

top priorities because higher quality 

often translates to higher demand. 

Third, the Board considered reducing 

funding for its marketing programs. 

Lowering the funding level for 

marketing programs would significantly 

reduce the Board’s ability to conduct 

promotion and consumer marketing 

activities, thereby hindering its efforts to 

increase demand for mangos. 

This rule does not impose additional 

recordkeeping requirements on first 

handlers, importers, or producers of 

mangos. First handlers or importers of 

less than 500,000 pounds of mangos per 

year are exempt. 

There are no Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. Additionally, section 517(c) of the 

Act states that not more than one 

assessment may be levied on a first 

handler or importer. 

In accordance with OMB regulation [5 

CFR part 1320] that implements 

information collection requirements 

imposed by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501–3520], there 

are no new requirements contained in 

this rule. The information collection 

requirements imposed by the Order 

have been previously approved under 

OMB control number 0581–0093. This 

rule does not result in a change to the 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Background 

Under the Order, the Board 

administers a nationally coordinated 

program of research and promotion 

designed to strengthen the position of 

mangos in the marketplace and to 

establish, maintain, and expand U.S. 

markets for mangos. The program is 

financed by assessments on first 

handlers and importers of 500,000 

pounds or more of mangos per year. The 

Order specifies that first handlers are 

responsible for submitting assessments 

to the Board on a monthly basis and 

maintaining records necessary to verify 

their reporting. Assessments paid by 

importers are collected and remitted to 

the Board by the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection Service. 

This rule increases the mango 

assessment rate, by one quarter of a cent 

per pound, to three quarters of a cent 

per pound. Currently, the assessment 

rate is one half cent per pound of 

mangos handled domestically or 

imported into the United States. In 

order to sustain and expand its 

promotion, research, and 

communications programs, the Board 

contends that additional revenue is 

required. The assessment rate increase 

is expected to generate an additional 

$1.6 million annually, depending on the 

volume of mangos handled in the 

United States or imported into the 

United States. In 2010, a total of 

717,830,404 pounds of mangos were 

subject to assessment, resulting in 

approximately $3.6 million in 

assessment revenue. Less than one 

percent of the total assessments were 

from domestic handlers as the vast 

majority of assessments were collected 

from importers. The Board states that 

the assessment rate increase will enable 

it to make additional investments in its 

marketing and research programs. In 

addition, the Board states that some of 

the additional revenue may be used to 

establish a contingency fund to ensure 

consistent funding for its programs. 

The Board, whose members represent 

domestic producers, first handlers, 

importers, and foreign producers, voted 

at its September 12, 2009 meeting to 

increase the assessment rate by one 

quarter of a cent per pound after the 

March 2010 continuance referendum. Of 

the members present at the meeting, 9 

voted in favor and 4 opposed proposal 

of the assessment rate increase. The four 

Board members who voted against the 

assessment increase stated that the 

increase would be passed on to mango 

producers. The assessment will be 

imposed on first handlers and importers 

who pay assessments under the Order. 

Business decisions on how to manage 

assessments, including whether to pass 

back the cost of assessments to 

producers, are made by handlers and 

importers based on their respective 

business practices. 

Accordingly, this action will amend 

the Order by changing the current 

assessment rate of one half cent per 

pound of mangos, as stated in section 

1206.42(b), to three quarters of a cent 

per pound. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on May 10, 2011 [76 FR 26946]. 

Copies of the proposed rule were made 

available on the Internet at 

www.ams.usda.gov/fvpromotion and 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, AMS 

published a press release announcing 

the comment period. The proposed rule 

provided a 60-day comment period, 

which ended July 11, 2011. Twenty 

comments were received by the 

deadline. 

Summary of Comments 

Of the 20 comments received 

regarding the proposed rule, 17 

supported and three opposed the 

proposed amendment. 

A total of 11 commenters supported 

the assessment rate increase based on 

positive results already achieved by the 

Board. Their comments stated that the 

Board has increased mango 

consumption and market penetration, 

fostered better relations between 

consumers and the mango industry, and 

educated consumers and industry 

stakeholders about mangos. One 

commenter noted that because of the 

Board’s efforts, more than 4,000 in-store 

mango tasting events have been 

conducted, the number of restaurants 

offering mango dishes has grown, more 

benefits stemming from mango 

consumption have been discovered, and 

the mango industry has a united 

consumer marketing message. Two 

commenters noted specific support for 

the Board’s health research activities. 

Six commenters supported the 

assessment rate increase as a means of 

ensuring the Board’s programs are 

adequately funded. Two commenters 

stated that the Board’s programs are 

essential to maintain the growth in U.S. 

demand for mangos. One commenter 

also stated that the proposed increase in 

assessments is needed to keep up the 

momentum of the Board’s current 

promotion and research activities. One 

commenter noted that any additional 

revenue should be used primarily for 

promotion and research programs rather 

than overhead expenses. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

One supportive commenter noted that 

all Board expenditures must be 

approved by the Board members, who 

represent the interests of different 

regions and countries. Because the 

Board is comprised of members from six 

countries and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the ability of the Board to 

come to a consensus on activities and 

expenditures is valuable to the entire 

mango industry. One comment cited the 

geographic diversity of the Board as a 

key reason for its success because a 

wide variety of viewpoints are 

represented by the Board members. The 

fact that the assessment increase is 

favored by a majority of Board members 

demonstrates the breadth of support for 

the increase from throughout the mango 

industry. 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed assessment increase has been 

discussed with all mango industry 

stakeholders, and is favored by 

organizations in Mexico, Peru, 

Guatemala, Haiti, Ecuador and Brazil. In 

order to determine whether foreign 

producers would support an assessment 

increase, the Board held informational 

meetings in each of the countries that 

export mangos to the United States. At 

these meetings, Board representatives 

explained the activities conducted with 

assessment funds and received positive 

feedback from attendees on the 

proposed assessment increase. 

One of the comments in support of 

the assessment increase was received 

from a Mexican mango industry 

organization. In addition to their own 

comments, several commenters 

submitted correspondence from foreign 

agricultural organizations indicating 

their support for the assessment 

increase. Letters of support were 

received on behalf of organizations in 

Haiti, Peru, Guatemala, Ecuador, and 

Brazil. 

One commenter opposed the 

assessment increase, stating that the 

Board can fulfill its objectives at its 

current funding level. As the Board 

stated in its proposal, without an 

increase in the assessment rate, 

spending on mango research and 

promotion programs would need to be 

reduced. As stated previously, the 2010 

econometric study concluded that 

decreased spending on the Board’s 

programs would correspond to declines 

in mango purchases. 

One commenter opposed the 

assessment increase, stating that raising 

the assessment rate would harm mango 

importers already coping with higher 

freight rates and poor currency 

exchange rates. In response, another 

commenter argued that the assessment 

is an investment rather than an expense. 

This same commenter further stated that 

the investment in the Board would be 

used to improve market penetration, 

thereby improving returns to growers 

and shippers, and offsetting the higher 

costs. Additionally, the 2010 

econometric study found that increased 

spending by the Board provides a large 

increase in revenues to importers. 

One commenter opposed the 

assessment increase, stating that the 

current assessment provides a negative 

return on investment. Another 

commenter also noted that the Board 

should ensure that its investments are 

yielding reasonable returns. One 

commenter further stated that the 

assessment rate needed to sufficiently 

fund promotion programs would likely 

be 20 times the proposed rate of three 

quarters of a cent per pound. No 

evidence was offered to support this 

claim. According to the 2010 

econometric study, every $1 currently 

spent by the Board adds an additional 

$7 to mango freight on board revenues. 

The Department has considered all of 

the comments and is not making any 

changes to the proposed rule. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, the Board’s 

recommendation, public comments and 

other information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as published in the 

Federal Register on May 10, 2011 [76 

FR 26946], is consistent with and will 

effectuate the purpose of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1206 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Mango promotion, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 1206 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 1206—MANGO PROMOTION, 

RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1206 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

■ 2. In § 1206.42, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 1206.42 Assessments. 

* * * * * 

(b) The assessment rate shall be 3⁄4 of 

a cent per pound on all mangos. The 

assessment rate will be reviewed and 

may be modified by the Board with the 

approval of the Department, after the 

first referendum is conducted as stated 

in § 1206.71(b). The Department will 

amend this section if the assessment 

rate is modified. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 6, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8825 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

12 CFR Part 204 

[Regulation D; Docket No. R–1433] 

RIN 7100–AD83 

Reserve Requirements of Depository 

Institutions: Reserves Simplification 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Board is amending 

Regulation D, Reserve Requirements of 

Depository Institutions, to simplify the 

administration of reserve requirements. 

The final rule creates a common twoweek maintenance period for all 

depository institutions, creates a 

penalty-free band around reserve 

balance requirements in place of 

carryover and routine penalty waivers, 

discontinues as-of adjustments related 

to deposit report revisions, replaces all 

other as-of adjustments with direct 

compensation, and eliminates the 

contractual clearing balance program. 

The amendments are designed to reduce 

the administrative and operational costs 

associated with reserve requirements for 

depository institutions, the Board, and 

Federal Reserve Banks. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on July 12, 2012, except that 

effective on January 24, 2013, the 

following sections are further amended: 

§ 204.2(z), (ff), (gg) and (hh); § 204.5 

(b)(2), (d)(4)(i), and (e); § 204.6 (a) and 

(b); § 204.10 (b)(1), (b)(3), and (c). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara 

Handzlik, Senior Attorney (202) 452– 

3852, Legal Division, or Margaret Gillis 

DeBoer, Assistant Director (202) 452– 

3139, or Heather Wiggins, Senior 

Financial Analyst (202) 452–3674, 

Division of Monetary Affairs, or for 

questions regarding the Private Sector 

Adjustment Factor, Gregory Evans, 

Deputy Associate Director (202) 452– 

3945, or Brenda Richards, Manager 

(202) 452–2753, Division of Reserve 

Bank Operations and Payment Systems; 

for users of Telecommunications Device 

for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 

263–4869; Board of Governors of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES