10850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The words ‘‘which will include all 

domestic and foreign articles furnished 

for the repairs or alterations’’ in 

§ 10.8(d) and the words ‘‘which will 

include all domestic and foreign articles 

used in the processing’’ in § 10.9(d) 

were added to those regulatory 

provisions by T.D. 72–119, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 2, 1972 (37 FR 8867). Neither T.D. 

72–119 nor the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (published in the Federal 

Register on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8312)) 

which preceded the T.D. included any 

explanation or discussion regarding the 

above-referenced language added to 

§§ 10.8(d) and 10.9(d). However, the 

addition of this language has had the 

effect of requiring the value of U.S.- and 

foreign-origin parts used in the foreign 

repairs, alterations, or processing to be 

included in the dutiable value of articles 

entered under subheadings 9802.00.40, 

9802.00.50, and 9802.00.60, HTSUS. 

Explanation of Amendments 

As indicated in the above background 

discussion, there is nothing in the 

underlying statutory provisions 

(subheadings 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, 

and 9802.00.60 and U.S. Note 3(a), 

subchapter II, Chapter 98, HTSUS) that 

mandates the inclusion of the value of 

U.S.-origin parts in the dutiable value of 

articles entered under these tariff 

provisions. The policy of requiring the 

value of U.S.-origin parts to be included 

in dutiable value under these 

circumstances, as reflected in the 

implementing regulations, clearly 

provides no incentive to use U.S., as 

opposed to foreign, parts in the foreign 

repairs, alterations, or processing. In 

order to encourage the use of U.S.-origin 

parts in the foreign repairs, alterations, 

or processing of articles entered under 

subheading 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, and 

9802.00.60, CBP is proposing to amend 

§§ 10.8(d) and 10.9(d) by removing the 

words ‘‘domestic and’’ in the second 

sentence of each of these regulatory 

provisions. 

This document also proposes to edit 

§§ 10.8(d) and 10.9(d) by replacing the 

word ‘‘shall’’ each place it appears with 

the word ‘‘will’’. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 12866 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), it is certified that, if adopted, 

the proposed amendments will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed rule would have the effect 

of excluding the value of U.S.-origin 

parts from the dutiable value of articles 

entered under subheadings 9802.00.40, 

9802.00.50, and 9802.00.60, HTSUS, 

thereby providing an incentive to use 

U.S.-origin parts in the foreign repairs, 

alterations, or processing of articles 

entered under these HTSUS provisions. 

As a result, it is expected that the 

proposed amendments will have the 

potential of providing a slight economic 

benefit for U.S. commercial interests. 

Accordingly, the proposed amendments 

are not subject to the regulatory analysis 

or other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 

and 604. This document does not meet 

the criteria for a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as specified in E.O. 12866. 

Signing Authority 

This document is being issued by CBP 

in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP 

Regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)), 

pertaining to the authority of the 

Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her 

delegate) to approve regulations related 

to certain CBP revenue functions. 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 10 

Customs duties and inspection, Entry, 

Imports, Preference Programs, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Shipments. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

It is proposed to amend part 10 of the 

CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 10) as set 

forth below. 

PART 10—ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY 

FREE, SUBJECT TO A REDUCED 

RATE, ETC. 

1. The general authority citation for 

part 10 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General 

Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 

1623, 1624. 3314; 

* * * * * 

§ 10.8 [Amended] 

2. In § 10.8, paragraph (d) is amended 

by removing the word ‘‘shall’’ each 

place it appears and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘will’’, and by removing the 

words ‘‘domestic and’’ in the second 

sentence. 

§ 10.9 [Amended] 

3. In § 10.9, paragraph (d) is amended 

by removing the word ‘‘shall’’ each 

place it appears and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘will’’, and by removing the 

words ‘‘domestic and’’ in the second 

sentence. 

Jayson P. Ahern, 

Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border 

Protection. 

Approved: March 10, 2009. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. E9–5481 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0073] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Perquimans River, Hertford, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the drawbridge operation 

regulations of the US17 Bridge, at mile 

12.0, across Perquimans River at 

Hertford, NC. This proposal would 

allow the drawbridge to operate on an 

advance notice basis during specific 

times of the year. The proposed change 

would result in more efficient use of the 

bridge during months of infrequent 

transit. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

April 27, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2009–0073 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: 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– 

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10851 

Management Specialist, Fifth Coast 

Guard District, at (757) 398–6557. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the DocketManagement Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ 

paragraph below. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0073), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period. We may 

change this proposed rule in view of 

them. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0073) in the 

Search box, and click ‘‘Go>>.’’ You may 

also visit either the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays or at 

Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard 

District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 

233704–5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the 

Department of Transportation’s Privacy 

Act Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible 

for the operation of the US17 Bridge, at 

mile 12.0, across Perquimans River at 

Hertford, NC. NCDOT requested 

advance notification for vessel openings 

during specific times of the year due to 

the infrequency of requests for vessel 

openings of the drawbridge. 

The US17 Bridge has a vertical 

clearance of three feet above mean high 

water in the closed-to-navigation 

position. The existing operating 

regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.835, 

which requires the draw to open on 

signal from 8 a.m. to midnight from 

April 1 through September 30, and from 

10 a.m. to 10 p.m. from October 1 

through March 31. The draw need not 

be opened at all other times. 

Bridge opening data, supplied by 

NCDOT, revealed a significant decrease 

in yearly openings. In the past three 

years from 2006 to 2008, the bridge 

opened for vessels 363, 451 and 266 

times, respectively. (See Table A) 

Table A 

BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2006 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 

15 4 12 18 59 46 59 37 39 23 35 16 

BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2007 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 

12 10 14 18 34 79 94 50 45 42 17 36 

BRIDGE OPENINGS FOR 2008 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 

9 12 22 26 13 23 76 18 26 20 14 7 

Most of the businesses that previously 

brought materials in via barges through 

this drawbridge have ceased to operate 

or they are utilizing different forms of 

transportation to move their materials. 

As such, this dramatic decrease in 

waterway traffic has resulted in much 

less frequent openings of the draw itself. 

Due to the anticipated infrequency of 

requests for vessel openings of the 

drawbridge, NCDOT requested to 

change the current operating regulation 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10852 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

by requiring the draw of the bridge to 

open on signal from May 1 to September 

30 from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., and from 

October 1 to April 30 from 10 a.m. to 

8 p.m., if two hours notice is given. The 

draw need not be opened at all other 

times. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to amend 

33 CFR 117.835, by revising the 

paragraph to read that the draw of the 

US17 bridge, mile 12.0 at Hertford, NC, 

shall open on signal from 8 a.m. to 10 

p.m. from May 1 through September 30; 

and from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. from October 

1 through April 30, if two hours notice 

is given. The draw need not be opened 

at all other times. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

We reached this conclusion based on 

the fact that the proposed changes have 

only a minimal impact on maritime 

traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners 

can plan their trips in accordance with 

the proposed scheduled bridge 

openings, to minimize delays. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because the rule only adds minimal 

restrictions to the movement of 

navigation, and mariners who plan their 

transits in accordance with the 

proposed scheduled bridge openings 

can minimize delay. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Waverly W. 

Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth 

Coast Guard District, (757) 398–6222. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule will not 

result in such expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action.Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10853 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 0023.1 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this is one of a category of actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

section 2.B.2. Figure 2–1, paragraph 

32(e), of the Instruction because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR Part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.835 to read as follows: 

§ 117.835 Perquimans River 

The draw of the US17 Bridge, mile 

12.0, at Hertford, NC shall open on 

signal from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. from May 

1 through September 30; and from 10 

a.m. to 8 p.m. from October 1 through 

April 30, if two hours notice is given. 

The draw need not be opened at all 

other times. 

Dated: February 17, 2009. 

Fred M. Rosa, Jr., 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–5408 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

PRESIDIO TRUST 

36 CFR Part 1012 

Legal Process: Testimony by 

Employees and Production of Records 

AGENCY: Presidio Trust. 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Presidio Trust proposes a 

regulation, limited to the Presidio 

Trust’s organization and management, 

governing access to Presidio Trust 

information and records in connection 

with legal proceedings in which neither 

the United States nor the Presidio Trust 

is a party. This proposed rule will 

establish guidelines for use in 

determining whether Presidio Trust 

employees (as defined in the proposed 

rule) will provide testimony or records 

relating to their official duties. It also 

will establish procedures for requesters 

to follow when making demands on or 

requests to a Presidio Trust employee 

for official documents or to provide 

testimony. This proposed rule will 

standardize the Presidio Trust’s 

practices, promote uniformity in 

decisions, conserve the ability of the 

Presidio Trust to conduct official 

business, preserve its employee 

resources, protect confidential 

information, provide guidance to 

requestors, minimize involvement in 

matters unrelated to the Presidio Trust’s 

mission and programs, avoid wasteful 

allocation of agency resources and avoid 

spending public time and money for 

private purpose. 

DATES: Submit written comments on or 

before April 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Karen A. Cook, General Counsel, 

Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. 

Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129– 

0052. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen A. Cook, General Counsel, 

Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. 

Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129– 

0052. Telephone: 415.561.5300. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Presidio Trust, a wholly-owned federal 

government corporation, on occasion 

receives subpoenas and other requests 

for documents and requests for Presidio 

Trust employees (as defined in the 

proposed rule) to provide testimony or 

evidence in judicial, legislative or 

administrative proceedings in which the 

Presidio Trust is not a party. Sometimes 

these subpoenas or requests are for 

Presidio Trust records that are exempt 

from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act. The Presidio Trust also 

receives requests for Presidio Trust 

employees to appear as witnesses and to 

provide testimony relating to materials 

contained in the Presidio Trust’s official 

records or provide testimony or 

information acquired during the 

performance of the employees’ official 

duties. 

Although many other federal agencies 

currently have regulations in place to 

address these types of requests, and the 

Presidio Trust itself has rules governing 

requests for information under the 

Freedom of Information Act, the 

Presidio Trust has not adopted 

regulations governing subpoenas and 

other information requests for document 

production and testimony of Presidio 

Trust employees in judicial, legislative 

or administrative proceedings in which 

the Presidio Trust is not a party. Issues 

about such requests that have arisen in 

recent years warrant adoption of 

regulations governing their submission, 

evaluation and processing. Responding 

to these requests is not only 

burdensome, but may also result in a 

significant disruption of a Presidio Trust 

employee’s work schedule, involve the 

Presidio Trust in issues unrelated to its 

responsibilities and/or impede the 

Presidio Trust’s accomplishment of its 

budgetary goals. In order to resolve 

these issues, many agencies have issued 

regulations, similar to this proposed 

regulation, governing the circumstances 

and manner for responding to demands 

for testimony or for the production of 

documents. Establishing uniform 

procedures for submission, evaluation 

and response to such demands will 

ensure timely notice and promote 

centralized decision making. The 

United States Supreme Court upheld 

this type of regulation in United States 

ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 

(1951). 

Briefly summarized, the proposed 

rule will prohibit disclosure of official 

records or testimony by the Presidio 

Trust’s employees unless there is 

compliance with the rule. The proposed 

rule sets out the information that 

requesters must provide and the factors 

that the Presidio Trust will consider in 

making determinations in response to 

requests for testimony or the production 

of documents. 

This proposed rule will ensure a more 

efficient use of the Presidio Trust’s 

resources, minimize the possibility of 

involving the Presidio Trust in issues 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS