24796 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FBI 118] 

RIN 1110–AA29 

FBI Records Management Division 

National Name Check Program Section 

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 

name-based background checks 

conducted by the National Name Check 

Program (NNCP) of the Records 

Management Division (RMD). The rule 

explains the methodology used to 

calculate the fees and provides that 

future fee adjustments will be made by 

notice published in the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 7, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FBI, 

Records Management Division, National 

Name Check Program Section, 170 

Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602, 

Attention: Michael Cannon. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On September 26, 2008, the FBI 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) setting forth the 

FBI’s statutory authority to establish and 

collect fees for named-based NNCP 

checks and other identification services 

performed by the RMD. See 73 FR 

55,794 (2008) (to be codified at 28 CFR 

part 20). The FBI’s user fees are 

differentiated by the FBI Division 

providing the service. The user fees for 

the NNCP checks provided by the RMD 

are the subject of this rulemaking. Fees 

for the criminal history record 

information checks provided by the 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division (CJIS) were the subject of a 

separate rulemaking and associated 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on April 13, 2010 at 75 FR 18751 and 

18887. Because the FBI was uncertain 

which rule would be finalized first, both 

the CJIS fee NPRM and the NNCP fee 

NPRM proposed to amend 28 CFR 20.31 

by adding an identical paragraph (e). 

The NNCP fee NPRM also proposed to 

add a new paragraph (f) regarding the 

collection of fees for named-based 

background checks. Because paragraph 

(e) already has been added to section 

20.31 by the CJIS fee final rule, the 

NNCP final rule has been conformed by 

adding only the new paragraph (f) to 

section 20.31. 

The NPRM regarding the NNCP 

checks explained the methodology used 

to calculate the fees, provided a 

proposed fee schedule and explained 

that the fees may include an amount to 

establish a fund to defray expenses for 

the automation of fingerprint 

identification and criminal justice 

information services and associated 

costs. The NPRM further 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. 

II. Legal Authority to Collect Fees 

The FBI has collected fees for the 

NNCP since 1991, when the authority to 

establish and collect fees to process 

name-based CHRI checks, was set out in 

Public Law (Pub. L.) 101–515. This 

statutory authority was renewed 

annually by subsequent appropriations 

legislation. Under Public Law 101–162, 

the FBI also was 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.’’ The FBI does not 

charge a fee for NNCP services 

performed for criminal justice purposes, 

as those services are supported by 

federal appropriations. 

III. Reasons for the Proposed Fee 

Schedule 

While the RMD has automated some 

portions of the NNCP process, the 

current fees, which have not changed 

since 1991, do not reflect the expense of 

personnel time and other costs involved 

in the analysis of the pertinent 

information. The NNCP disseminates 

information from the FBI’s Central 

Records System (CRS) in response to 

requests submitted by federal agencies, 

Congressional committees, the federal 

judiciary, friendly foreign police and 

intelligence agencies. The CRS contains 

the FBI’s administrative, personnel, and 

investigative files. The NNCP was 

established under Executive Order No. 

10450, issued on April 27, 1953, 18 FR 

2489, which mandated National Agency 

checks in the background investigation 

of prospective Government employees. 

The FBI performs the primary National 

Agency check on all U.S. Government 

employees and provides information to 

more than 40 federal agencies. The 

information from the CRS, disseminated 

under the NNCP, is evaluated by 

governmental agencies before bestowing 

privileges such as visas, naturalization 

or work authorizations under the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, Public 

Law 82–414 as amended, and other 

federal laws. 

The CRS consists of administrative, 

applicant, criminal, personnel, and 

other files arranged by subject matter 

relating to an individual, an 

organization, or other matters. The CRS 

records are maintained at FBI 

Headquarters and FBI Field Offices. The 

CRS can be accessed through the 

General Indices, which are arranged in 

alphabetical order by subject, such as 

the names of individuals and 

organizations. 

In 1995, the FBI implemented the 

Automated Case Support (ACS) system 

to access 105 million records from 

previous automated systems. The ACS 

consists of three automated applications 

that support case management functions 

for all investigative and administrative 

cases. The Investigative Case 

Management application is used to 

open, assign and track leads and close 

investigative and administrative cases. 

The Electronic Case File serves as the 

central electronic repository for the 

FBI’s official text-based documents. The 

Universal Index (UNI) provides a 

complete subject and case index to 

approximately 99 million records in 

investigative and administrative cases. 

The UNI lists the names of individuals 

or entities, with identifying information 

such as date of birth and social security 

number. 

The processing of an NNCP search 

begins with the search of a person’s 

name in the UNI to locate all instances 

of the person’s name and identifying 

information in the main and reference 

files. A main file concerns the subject of 

an FBI investigation, and a reference file 

concerns an individual whose name 

appears in part of an FBI investigation, 

such as an associate or witness. Over 60 

percent of the initial NNCP electronic 

checks in UNI yield no identifiable 

information regarding the person and 

are termed ‘‘No record,’’ and that 

information is reported to the requesting 

agency. If the search of UNI yields 

possibly identifiable information, the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24797 

NNCP request requires additional 

review and an additional manual name 

search is conducted. If identifiable 

information is located, the records are 

retrieved and reviewed for possible 

derogatory information concerning the 

subject of the NNCP request. The FBI 

forwards a summary of the derogatory 

information to the requesting agency. 

By letter, dated August 30, 2007, to all 

RMD customers using the NNCP for 

noncriminal justice purposes, the FBI 

established the proposed fee schedule 

on an interim basis, effective October 1, 

2007. RMD customers were advised of 

the revised fees prior to the start of FY 

2008, thereby avoiding costly and 

confusing mid-year changes. The FBI 

will continue to analyze its costs in 

processing searches in the NNCP and 

will review related fee charges 

periodically, as recommended by Office 

of Management and Budget Circular No. 

A–25, (OMB Circular A–25) User 

Charges. Any adjustments to the FBI’s 

fees will be announced by notice in the 

Federal Register. 

IV. Standards and Guidelines Used To 

Calculate the Fee 

Public Law 101–515 links the user 

fees charged for processing name checks 

and fingerprint identification records to 

the cost of providing these services. 

Such costs not only include the salaries 

of employees engaged in providing the 

services but, in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting 

principles, also include such expenses 

as capital investment, depreciation, 

automation, and so forth. Congress 

recognized these additional expenses of 

processing records by authorizing 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 Office Appropriation Act 

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

implemented by specific guidelines in 

OMB Circular A–25. Since the FBI has 

express 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; however, the FBI did look to 

OMB Circular A–25 for guidance. For 

example, OMB Circular A–25’s 

definition of ‘‘full cost’’ (‘‘all direct and 

indirect costs to any part of the Federal 

Government of providing a good, 

resource, or service’’) was used as a 

model by the FBI in establishing the 

subject user fees, including direct and 

indirect personnel costs, physical 

overhead, and other indirect costs such 

as material costs, utilities and 

equipment. 

V. Calculation of the Revised Fee 

The FBI hired a contractor, Grant 

Thornton LLP., 333 John Carlyle Street, 

Alexandria, Virginia, 22314, (Grant 

Thornton) to conduct an independent 

analysis of pertinent costs and to 

recommend a revised fee schedule for 

the NNCP checks conducted by RMD. 

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, Grant 

Thornton developed a cost accounting 

methodology and related cost models 

based upon the concept and principles 

of activity-based costing (ABC). The cost 

models identified the total resource 

costs associated with the services 

provided to RMD customers, including 

personnel (e.g., salary and benefits), 

non-labor (e.g, material, equipment, and 

facility) and overhead (e.g., management 

and administration) costs, and assigned 

or allocated these costs to the various 

service categories 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. The unit costs for RMD’s NNCP 

services incorporated in this study were 

derived from a robust costing network 

that is based on the principles of ABC, 

a widely recognized and accepted cost 

accounting methodology. Grant 

Thornton generated the revised fee 

schedule based upon these unit costs. 

The methodology focused on 

developing full cost information for 

NNCP’s activities and services to 

provide a basis for the fee 

recommendations. FY 2005 costs were 

used to develop baseline cost 

information, and additional estimated 

costs and adjustments were included to 

estimate resources for FY 2008 and FY 

2009. The projected cost information 

served as the basis for the fee 

recommendations. 

Grant Thornton developed their cost 

accounting methodology using the 

following steps for the non-automation 

portion of the fee. First, NNCP services 

and activities performed for name 

checks were defined. Then operational 

labor costs, support labor costs and nonlabor costs, including appropriate 

overhead and support costs, were 

identified and assigned to activities and 

then to services. Estimated costs, 

transaction volumes and trends were 

analyzed to predict appropriate costs 

and transaction volumes for FY 2008. 

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. Although 

NNCP fees have not included this 

additional amount to date, the FBI 

considers the service provided by the 

NNCP as being a criminal justice 

information service. The costs 

associated with enhancing the NNCP, 

including the automation efforts, were 

identified and included in the name 

check fee study reflected in the rule. 

The estimated costs for these 

automation efforts were based on best 

available information regarding planned 

information technology investments. 

The projected FY 2008 and FY 2009 

volumes were then used to calculate the 

unit costs for this portion of the fee. 

Once the unit costs were calculated, 

Grant Thornton generated the revised 

fee schedule. The FBI then 

independently reviewed the Grant 

Thornton 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. 

VI. Revised Fee Schedule 

As noted above, the FBI established 

the fee schedule on an interim basis, 

effective October 1, 2007. Fee classes 

remained essentially the same, with the 

exception that manual submissions and 

expedited processing requests were 

consolidated into a single class. Under 

the interim fee schedule, the fee was 

increased only 10 cents for users 

submitting electronic requests that are 

limited to batch processing (from $1.40 

to $1.50). The fee increases for name 

checks involving non-electronic 

submissions and other special services 

were more substantial because of the 

higher cost for processing manual 

submissions and expediting responses 

ahead of routine transactions. Unit costs 

are rounded up to the next $0.25. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
24798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

SUMMARY OF FEE CHANGES

Service Previous fee Interim fee Total fee 

increase 

Electronic Submission ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

Batch Process Only ..................................................................................................................... $1.40 $1.50 $0.10 

Batch + File Review ..................................................................................................................... 10.65 29.50 18.85 

Manual Submission ..................................................................................................................... 12.00 56.00 44.00 

Expedited Submission ................................................................................................................. 22.65 56.00 33.35 

The FBI will continue to analyze its 

costs and will review related fee charges 

periodically, as recommended by OMB 

Circular A–25. The final rule advises 

that future adjustments to the FBI’s fees 

will be announced by notice in the 

Federal Register. 

VII. Administrative Consultations With 

Interested Federal Agencies 

The FBI has provided information 

about this rule to the largest three 

customers by volume of submissions, 

the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, the Office of 

Personnel Management and the 

Department of State. The FBI will 

develop standards of performance and 

timeliness with these three federal 

customers. As appropriate, the FBI will 

pursue similar arrangements with its 

other federal customers. 

Discussion of Comments 

Only one comment on the proposed 

rule was received. An organization of 

research universities expressed concern 

that the rule might limit access to FBI 

records for research or medical 

purposes. This rule, however, simply 

sets out the Director of the FBI’s 

authority to establish and collect fees for 

providing name-based background 

checks conducted by the NNCP of the 

RMD. The rule does not have any 

impact on procedures of access to 

research, statistical or human subject 

information. Therefore, after carefully 

reviewing the single comment to the 

NPRM, the FBI has determined that no 

changes to the rule are necessary. 

VIII. 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. 

This rule only concerns federal 

agencies authorized to request namebased record 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 Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This final rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This final 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 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 final 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. 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 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 

the comment it received. 

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 I of Title 28 of the CFR is 

amended as follows. 

PART 20—CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 20 

continues 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. 

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

to read as follows: 

§ 20.31 Responsibilities. 

* * * * * 

(f) The FBI will collect a fee for 

providing noncriminal name-based 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 24799 

background checks of the FBI Central 

Records System through the National 

Name Check Program pursuant to the 

authority in Pub. L. 101–515 and in 

accordance with paragraphs (e)(1), (2) 

and (3) of this section. 

Dated: April 26, 2010. 

Robert S. Mueller, III, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10628 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0081] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations for Marine 

Events; Chester River, Chestertown, 

MD; Correction 

ACTION: Temporary final rule; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register 

published on April 23, 2010, the Coast 

Guard established special local 

regulations during the reenactment 

portion of the ‘‘Chestertown Tea Party 

Festival.’’ The Chestertown Tea Party 

Festival is a marine event to be held on 

the waters of the Chester River, 

Chestertown, MD on May 29, 2010. The 

special local regulation published with 

an error in the heading, specifically, the 

CFR title and part in the heading should 

have read ‘‘33 CFR Part 100,’’ instead of 

‘‘33 CFR Part 165.’’ 

DATES: This correction is effective May 

6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this correction, 

contact Kevin d’Eustachio, Office of 

Regulations and Administrative Law, 

(202) 372–3854 

kevin.m.deustachio@uscg.mil. For 

information about the original 

regulation, contact Mr. Ronald Houck, 

Sector Baltimore Waterways 

Management Division, Coast Guard; 

telephone (410) 576–2674, e-mail 

Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR doc 

2010–9496 appearing on page 21167 in 

the issue of Friday, April 23, 2010, the 

following corrections are made: 

1. In the document heading on page 

21167, correct the CFR citation to read 

‘‘33 CFR Part 100’’. 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

S. Venckus, 

Office of Regulations and Administrative Law 

(CG–0943), U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10606 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0102] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation for Marine 

Events; Temporary Change of Dates 

for Recurring Marine Events in the 

Fifth Coast Guard District; Correction 

ACTION: Temporary final rule; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register 

published on April 19, 2010, the Coast 

Guard temporarily changed the 

enforcement period of two special local 

regulations for recurring marine events 

in the Fifth Coast Guard District, one on 

April 17–18, 2010, and one on May 29– 

30, 2010. That publication contained 

several errors. These errors do not 

impact the events scheduled for this 

year, but could cause confusion about 

future years. 

DATES: This correction is effective May 

6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this correction, 

contact Kevin d’Eustachio, Office of 

Regulations and Administrative Law, 

telephone (202) 372–3854, e-mail 

kevin.m.deustachio@uscg.mil. For 

information about the original 

regulation, contact LT Tiffany Duffy, 

Project Manager, Sector Hampton 

Roads, Waterways Management 

Division, United States Coast Guard; 

telephone (757) 668–5580, e-mail 

Tiffany.A.Duffy@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR doc 

2010–8861 appearing on page 20294 in 

the issue of Monday, April 19, 2010, the 

following corrections are made: 

1. In the summary on page 20294, in 

the first column, remove the words 

‘‘proposes to temporarily change’’ and 

add in their place the words 

‘‘temporarily changes’’. 

2. On page 20294, in the third 

column, revise the ‘‘DATES’’ section to 

read as follows: 

‘‘DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR 

April 19, 2010, through May 31, 2010. This 

rule is effective with actual notice for 

purposes of enforcement from April 7, 2010, 

through May 31, 2010.’’ 

3. On page 20296, in the third 

column, revise amendatory instruction 

number 2 to read as follows: 

‘‘2. In Sec. 100.501, suspend line No. 31 

and 38 in the Table to Sec. 100.501 from 

April 17, 2010 through June 1, 2010.’’ 

4. On page 20296, in the third column 

revise amendatory instruction number 3 

to read as follows: 

‘‘3. In Sec. 100.501 add lines No. 58 and 

59 in Table to Sec. 100.501 to read as 

follows:’’ 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

S. Venckus, 

Office of Regulations and Administrative Law 

(CG–0943), U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10602 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0277] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Tri-City Water Follies 

Hydroplane Races Practice Sessions, 

Columbia River, Kennewick, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the Columbia River in Kennewick, 

Washington for hydroplane race 

practice sessions being held in 

preparation for the Tri-City Water 

Follies Hydroplane Races. The safety 

zone is necessary to help ensure the 

safety of the practice session 

participants as well as the maritime 

public and will do so by prohibiting all 

persons and vessels from entering or 

remaining in the safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

his designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. 

May 7, 2010 through 5:30 p.m. May 8, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

0277 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0277 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES