2142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Notices 

APPENDIX—Continued 

[TAA petitions instituted between 12/22/08 and 12/24/08] 

TA–W Subject firm 

(petitioners) Location Date of institution 

Date of 

petition 

64777 ................ AD Graphics (State) ............................................................. Lino Lakes, MN ..................... 12/24/08 12/23/08 

64778 ................ Hamilton Sundsland (State) ................................................. Windsor Locks, CT ............... 12/24/08 12/23/08 

[FR Doc. E9–639 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,645] 

Columbian Chemicals Company 

Marshall Plant Proctor, WV; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on December 

11, 2008, in response to a petition filed 

by the International Chemical Workers 

Union/United Food and Commercial 

Workers International Union, Local 

888C, on behalf of workers of 

Columbian Chemicals Company, 

Marshall Plant, Proctor, West Virginia. 

The Department has determined that 

this petition is a photocopy of petition 

number TA–W–64,606 that was 

instituted on December 8, 2008. The 

Department, on December 29, 2008, 

issued a certification of eligibility to 

apply for trade adjustment assistance 

and alternative trade adjustment 

assistance, applicable to all workers of 

the subject firm separated from 

employment on or after December 8, 

2007 through December 29, 2010. 

Therefore, further investigation in this 

petition would serve no purpose, and 

the investigation is terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of 

December 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–637 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,516] 

JDSU Uniphase, Inc., San Jose, CA; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on November 

24, 2008, in response to a worker 

petition on behalf of workers at JDSU 

Uniphase, Inc., San Jose, California. 

The petitioning group of workers is 

covered by an earlier petition (TA–W– 

64,440) filed on November 17, 2008 that 

is the subject of an ongoing 

investigation for which a determination 

has not yet been issued. Further 

investigation in this case would 

duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; 

therefore the investigation under this 

petition has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

January 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–642 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,542] 

Mannatech, Inc., Coppell, TX; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on November 

26, 2008 in response to a petition filed 

by workers at Mannatech, Inc., Coppell, 

Texas. 

The petitioning group of workers is 

covered by an earlier petition (TA–W– 

64,511) filed on November 21, 2008 that 

is the subject of an ongoing 

investigation for which a determination 

has not yet been issued. Further 

investigation in this case would 

duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; 

therefore the investigation under this 

petition has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of 

December 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–643 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,613] 

Mt. Pleasant Hosiery Mills, Inc.; Mt. 

Pleasant, NC; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on December 

8, 2008 in response to a petition filed by 

a company official on behalf of workers 

of Mt. Pleasant Hosiery Mills, Inc., Mt. 

Pleasant, North Carolina. 

The workers are covered under an 

existing certification (TA–W–64,466) 

issued for all workers of Mt. Pleasant 

Hosiery Mills, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, North 

Carolina, which expires on December 

16, 2010. Consequently, further 

investigation in this case would serve 

no purpose and the investigation has 

been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

December 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–644 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Determination of Eligibility for 

Retroactive Duty Treatment Under the 

Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Agreement 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 205(b) of 

the Dominican Republic-Central 

America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act (the 

Act), the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) is providing 

notice of her determination that Costa 

Rica is an eligible country for purposes 

of retroactive duty treatment as 

provided in Section 205 of the Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2009. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Notices 2143 

1See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59101 

(December 15, 2008), 73 FR 78402. 

2 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 

3 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), 

respectively. 

4 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1). 

5See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report 

of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 94– 

75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975). 

6 17 CFR 240.17d–1 and 17 CFR 240.17d–2, 

respectively. 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 

(April 20, 1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976). 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 

(October 28, 1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 

1976). 

ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed, 

delivered, or faxed to Caroyl Miller, 

Deputy Special Textile Negotiator, 

Office of the United States Trade 

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20508, fax number, 

(202) 395–5639. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caroyl Miller, Office of the United 

States Trade Representative, 202–395– 

3026. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

205(a) of the Act (Pub. L. 109–53; 119 

Stat. 462, 483; 19 U.S.C. 4034) provides 

that certain entries of textile or apparel 

goods of designated eligible countries 

that are parties to the Dominican 

Republic-Central America-United States 

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR) 

made on or after January 1, 2004 may be 

liquidated or reliquidated at the 

applicable rate of duty for those goods 

established in the Schedule of the 

United States to Annex 3.3 of the 

CAFTA–DR. Section 205(b) of the Act 

requires the USTR to determine, in 

accordance with Article 3.20 of the 

CAFTA–DR, which CAFTA–DR 

countries are eligible countries for 

purposes of Section 205(a). Article 3.20 

provides that importers may claim 

retroactive duty treatment for imports of 

certain textile or apparel goods entered 

on or after January 1, 2004 and before 

the entry into force of CAFTA–DR from 

those CAFTA–DR countries that will 

provide reciprocal retroactive duty 

treatment or a benefit for textile or 

apparel goods that is equivalent to 

retroactive duty treatment. 

Pursuant to Section 205(b) of the Act, 

I have determined that Costa Rica will 

provide an equivalent benefit for textile 

or apparel goods of the United States 

within the meaning of Article 3.20 of 

the CAFTA–DR. I therefore determine 

that Costa Rica is an eligible country for 

purposes of Section 205 of the Act. 

Susan C. Schwab, 

U.S. Trade Representative. 

[FR Doc. E9–493 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W9–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–59218; File No. 4–575] 

Program for Allocation of Regulatory 

Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d– 

2; Order Approving and Declaring 

Effective a Plan for the Allocation of 

Regulatory Responsibilities Between 

the Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc. and the Boston Stock 

Exchange, Incorporated 

January 8, 2009. 

On December 8, 2008, the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. 

(‘‘FINRA’’) and the Boston Stock 

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘BX’’) (together 

with FINRA, the ‘‘Parties’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a plan for 

the allocation of regulatory 

responsibilities, dated December 5, 2008 

(‘‘17d–2 Plan’’ or the ‘‘Plan’’). The Plan 

was published for comment on 

December 22, 2008.1 The Commission 

received no comments on the Plan. This 

order approves and declares effective 

the Plan. 

I. Introduction 

Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),2 among 

other things, requires every selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) 

registered as either a national securities 

exchange or national securities 

association to examine for, and enforce 

compliance by, its members and persons 

associated with its members with the 

Act, the rules and regulations 

thereunder, and the SRO’s own rules, 

unless the SRO is relieved of this 

responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) 

or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.3 Without 

this relief, the statutory obligation of 

each individual SRO could result in a 

pattern of multiple examinations of 

broker-dealers that maintain 

memberships in more than one SRO 

(‘‘common members’’). Such regulatory 

duplication would add unnecessary 

expenses for common members and 

their SROs. 

Section 17(d)(1) of the Act 4 was 

intended, in part, to eliminate 

unnecessary multiple examinations and 

regulatory duplication.5 With respect to 

a common member, Section 17(d)(1) 

authorizes the Commission, by rule or 

order, to relieve an SRO of the 

responsibility to receive regulatory 

reports, to examine for and enforce 

compliance with applicable statutes, 

rules, and regulations, or to perform 

other specified regulatory functions. 

To implement Section 17(d)(1), the 

Commission adopted two rules: Rule 

17d–1 and Rule 17d–2 under the Act.6

Rule 17d–1 authorizes the Commission 

to name a single SRO as the designated 

examining authority (‘‘DEA’’) to 

examine common members for 

compliance with the financial 

responsibility requirements imposed by 

the Act, or by Commission or SRO 

rules.7 When an SRO has been named as 

a common member’s DEA, all other 

SROs to which the common member 

belongs are relieved of the responsibility 

to examine the firm for compliance with 

the applicable financial responsibility 

rules. On its face, Rule 17d–1 deals only 

with an SRO’s obligations to enforce 

member compliance with financial 

responsibility requirements. Rule 17d–1 

does not relieve an SRO from its 

obligation to examine a common 

member for compliance with its own 

rules and provisions of the federal 

securities laws governing matters other 

than financial responsibility, including 

sales practices and trading activities and 

practices. 

To address regulatory duplication in 

these and other areas, the Commission 

adopted Rule 17d–2 under the Act.8

Rule 17d–2 permits SROs to propose 

joint plans for the allocation of 

regulatory responsibilities with respect 

to their common members. Under 

paragraph (c) of Rule 17d–2, the 

Commission may declare such a plan 

effective if, after providing for 

appropriate notice and comment, it 

determines that the plan is necessary or 

appropriate in the public interest and 

for the protection of investors; to foster 

cooperation and coordination among the 

SROs; to remove impediments to, and 

foster the development of, a national 

market system and a national clearance 

and settlement system; and is in 

conformity with the factors set forth in 

Section 17(d) of the Act. Commission 

approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 

17d–2 relieves an SRO of those 

regulatory responsibilities allocated by 

the plan to another SRO. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES