Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14809 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including using 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Information Collection Requirement 

OMB Control Number 1652–0039; 

TSA Claims Management Program 

allows the agency to collect information 

from claimants in order to thoroughly 

examine and resolve tort claims against 

the agency. TSA receives approximately 

1,900 tort claims per month arising from 

airport screening activities and other 

circumstances, including motor vehicle 

accidents and employee loss. The 

Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 

1346(b), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2671–2680) is 

the authority under which the TSA 

Claims Management Branch adjudicates 

tort claims. 

The data is collected whenever an 

individual believes s/he has 

experienced property loss or damage, a 

personal injury, or other damages due to 

the negligence or wrongful act or 

omission of a TSA employee, and 

decides to file a Federal tort claim 

against TSA. Submission of a claim is 

entirely voluntary and initiated by 

individuals. The claimants (or 

respondents) to this collection are 

typically the traveling public. Currently, 

claimants file a claim by submitting to 

TSA a Standard Form 95 (SF–95), which 

has been approved under OMB control 

number 1105–0008. Because TSA 

requires further clarifying information, 

claimants are asked to complete a 

Supplemental Information page added 

to the SF–95. If TSA determines 

payment is warranted, TSA will send 

the claimant a form requesting banking 

information (routing and accounting 

numbers) in order to direct payment to 

the claimant. This form has been 

approved under OMB control number 

1652–0039. 

Claim instructions and forms are 

available through the TSA Web site at 

http://www.tsa.gov. Claimants must 

download these forms and mail or fax 

them to TSA. On the Supplemental 

Information page, claimants are asked to 

provide additional claim information 

including: (1) E–Mail address, (2) 

location of incident within the airport, 

(3) airport, (4) complete travel itinerary, 

(5) whether baggage was delayed by 

airline, (6) why they believe TSA was 

negligent, (7) whether they used a thirdparty baggage service, (8) whether they 

were traveling under military orders, 

and (9) whether they submitted claims 

with the airlines or insurance. 

If TSA determines payment is 

warranted, TSA sends the claimant a 

form requesting: (1) Claimant signature, 

(2) banking information, and (3) Social 

Security number (required by the U.S. 

Treasury for all Government payments 

to the public pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

3325). 

Under the current system of claims 

submitted by mail or fax, TSA estimates 

there will be approximately 22,800 

respondents on an annual basis, for a 

total annual hour burden of 11,400 

hours. 

TSA will use all data collected from 

claimants to examine and analyze tort 

claims against the agency to determine 

alleged TSA liability and to reimburse 

claimants when claims are approved. In 

some cases, TSA may use the 

information to identify victims of theft 

or to aid any criminal investigations 

into property theft. 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on March 26, 

2009. 

Ginger LeMay, 

Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of 

Information Technology. 

[FR Doc. E9–7256 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Customs and Border Protection 

[Docket No. USCBP–2008–0112] 

Enhanced Bonding Requirement for 

Certain Shrimp Importers 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: General notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice ends the 

designation of shrimp subject to 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

orders as a special category or covered 

case subject to an enhanced bonding 

requirement (EBR). A recent World 

Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate 

Body Report held that the application of 

this requirement to shrimp from 

Thailand and India was inconsistent 

with U.S. WTO obligations. In response 

to this report, Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) is ending the 

designation of shrimp subject to 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

orders as a special category or covered 

case subject to the EBR. The shrimp 

importers affected by this requirement 

may request termination of any existing 

continuous bonds pursuant to 19 CFR 

113.27(a) and submit a new bond 

application pursuant to 19 CFR 

113.12(b). 

DATES: Effective Date: The notice is 

effective on April 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Genovese, AD/CVD & Revenue 

Policy & Programs Division, Trade 

Policy and Programs, Office of 

International Trade, 

David.Genovese@dhs.gov, (202) 863– 

6092. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

A key U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) mission is to collect all 

import duties determined to be due to 

the United States. Under CBP statutes 

and regulations, release of merchandise 

prior to the determination of all duties 

that may be owed is ordinarily 

permitted, provided the importer posts 

a bond or other security to insure 

payment of duties and compliance with 

other applicable laws and regulations. 

The final assessment of duties occurs at 

liquidation of the entry. 

The United States maintains a 

retrospective antidumping and 

countervailing duty system. The 

retrospective system means that in the 

case of goods subject to antidumping or 

countervailing (AD/CV) duties, the 

actual rates of AD/CV duties owed are 

calculated after the entry is made, in an 

assessment review conducted by the 

Department of Commerce (DOC). There 

is a delay between entry and final duty 

collection, and the United States 

requires that a security be provided. 

When an importer requests an 

assessment review of an AD/CV duty 

order, the amount of the duty that is 

ultimately assessed, based on the final 

AD/CV duty rate, sometimes does not 

correspond to the amount of security 

posted. 

CBP follows instructions from the 

DOC. The DOC determines the actual 

AD/CV duty rates owed on merchandise 

subject to an AD/CV duty order. CBP 

assesses the duties owed on specific 

entries upon liquidation, pursuant to 

DOC instructions as to the final rates. 

However, CBP has found that many 

importers subject to AD/CV duties fail 

to pay the additional duties determined 

to be due at liquidation. As a result, 

because defaults on AD/CV duty 

supplemental bills have increased 

significantly, CBP conducted an internal 

policy review of revenue protection 

strategies. 

14810 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

1Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, 70 FR 5143 (Feb. 1, 2005); Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 

5145 (Feb. 1, 2005); Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 

2005); Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5149 (Feb. 

1, 2005); Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 

(Feb. 1, 2005); and Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 70 FR 5156 (Feb. 

1, 2005). 

2Panel Report, United States—Measures Relating 

to Shrimp from Thailand, WT/DS343/R, adopted 

August 1, 2008. 

3Annexes I and II to WTO Appellate Body 

Report, United States—Measures Relating to 

Shrimp from Thailand and United States—Customs 

Bond Directive for Merchandise Subject to AntiDumping/Countervailing Duties, WT/DS343/AB/R 

and WT/DS345/AB/R, adopted August 1, 2008. 

(WTO AB Report.) 

4Annexes III and IV to WTO AB Report. 

5WTO AB Report. 

CBP’s Enhanced Bonding Requirement 

(EBR) 

In response to importers’ increasing 

failure to pay additional duties 

determined to be due at liquidation, 

CBP reconsidered the general bond 

formula which provides that the 

minimum continuous bond may be in 

an amount equal to the greater of 

$50,000 or ten percent of the amount of 

the previous year’s duties, taxes and 

fees. In order to address the growing 

collection problem, CBP issued four 

documents. ‘‘Amendment to Bond 

Directive 99–3510–004 for Certain 

Merchandise Subject to Antidumping/ 

Countervailing Cases,’’ July 9, 2004; 

‘‘Current Bond Formulas,’’ January 25, 

2005; ‘‘Clarification to July 9, 2004 

Amended Monetary Guidelines for 

Setting Bond Amounts for Special 

Categories of Merchandise Subject to 

Antidumping and/or Countervailing 

Duty Cases,’’ August 10, 2005; and 

Monetary Guidelines for Setting Bond 

Amounts for Importations Subject to 

Enhanced Bonding Requirements, 71 FR 

62276 (October 24, 2006) (all four 

documents are referred to collectively as 

the Amended Customs Bond Directive). 

CBP applied the Amended Customs 

Bond Directive to merchandise subject 

to the first antidumping orders 

involving agriculture and aquaculture 

merchandise imposed after the issuance 

of the July 2004 Amendment to the 

Bond Guidelines.1 Known as the 

enhanced bonding requirement (EBR), 

CBP required that continuous bond 

amounts for importers of shrimp subject 

to AD/CV duty orders be increased to 

the rate established in the final AD/CV 

duty order, multiplied by the value of 

the importer’s entries of the subject 

merchandise in the previous 12-month 

period. 

World Trade Organization Disputes 

Regarding EBR 

On April 24, 2006, Thailand 

requested consultations with respect to 

certain issues relating to the imposition 

of antidumping measures on shrimp 

from Thailand, including the 

application of the EBR to importers of 

shrimp from Thailand. Thailand 

requested the establishment of a dispute 

settlement panel on September 15, 2006, 

and the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) 

established a panel on October 26, 2006. 

On June 6, 2006, India requested 

consultations with respect to certain 

issues relating to the Amended Customs 

Bond Directive and the EBR. India 

alleged that the United States had 

imposed on importers a requirement to 

maintain a continuous entry bond in the 

amount of the anti-dumping duty 

margin multiplied by the value of 

imports of subject shrimp imported by 

the importer in the preceding year, and 

that this action breached several 

provisions of the General Agreement on 

Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), 

the WTO Agreement on Implementation 

of Article VI of the General Agreement 

on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (AD 

Agreement), and the Agreement on 

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 

(SCM Agreement). India requested the 

establishment of a panel on October 13, 

2006, and the DSB established a panel 

on November 21, 2006. 

The panels circulated the reports in 

both disputes on February 29, 2008. 

Among other things, the panels found 

that the EBR as applied to importers of 

shrimp from Thailand and India was a 

‘‘specific action against dumping’’ 

inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the AD 

Agreement and was inconsistent with 

the Ad Note to paragraphs 2 and 3 of 

GATT 1994 Article VI because it did not 

constitute ‘‘reasonable’’ security.2

Thailand and India disagreed with 

several of the panels’ findings with 

respect to the additional bond 

requirement and appealed those 

findings on April 17, 2008.3 The United 

States cross-appealed one aspect of 

those findings on April 29, 2008.4

The Appellate Body report was issued 

on July 16, 2008.5 The Appellate Body 

agreed with the panels in finding that 

the Amended Customs Bond Directive 

was not ‘‘as such’’ inconsistent with the 

AD Agreement or the SCM Agreement. 

Id. at paras. 270, 275. The Appellate 

Body found that the panels properly 

concluded that the EBR as applied to 

importers of shrimp from Thailand and 

India did not constitute reasonable 

security. The Panel and Appellate Body 

reports were adopted by the DSB on 

August 1, 2008. On August 29, 2008, the 

United States indicated that it intended 

to comply with the recommendations 

and findings of the DSB. 

Notice of Proposed Modification 

On January 12, 2009, CBP published 

a notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 

1224) that proposed to end the 

designation of shrimp covered by 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

orders as a special category or covered 

case subject to the requirement of 

additional bond amounts, to comply 

with the recommendations of the DSB. 

The notice also proposed that shrimp 

importers may request termination of 

existing continuous bonds pursuant to 

19 CFR 113.27(a) and submit a new 

continuous bond application pursuant 

to 19 CFR 113.12(b). The notice of 

proposed modification solicited 

comments from the public, and the 

comment period closed on February 11, 

2009. 

Discussion of Comments 

Twelve parties responded to the 

solicitation of comments in the notice of 

proposed modification. A description of 

the comments contained in the 

submission and CBP’s analysis is set 

forth below. 

Comment: One commenter argues that 

CBP should devise a bonding 

mechanism for imports of shrimp and 

other agriculture and aquaculture 

products subject to antidumping or 

countervailing duties that will provide 

additional assurance that all such duties 

will be collected, that it should explain 

how any new bonding mechanism 

addresses ‘‘the large and increasing’’ 

amount of uncollected or uncollectible 

duties, and that it must ‘‘implement any 

new bonding mechanism prospectively 

only, as required by law.’’ The 

commenter notes that revenue loss 

continues to be an issue with agriculture 

and aquaculture products subject to 

AD/CV duty orders including shrimp 

and therefore CBP’s concerns that led to 

the EBR were appropriate. 

The commenter further contends that 

CBP’s proposal to no longer require the 

EBR with respect to shrimp importers 

rewards and further encourages the 

refusal by certain importers to abide by 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14811 

their legal requirements. The 

commenter states that as CBP is well 

aware from its past efforts to enforce the 

trade laws and collect duties owed, for 

many agriculture/aquaculture products 

(and, separately, non-agriculture/ 

aquaculture products of Chinese origin), 

the companies that become the importer 

of record for such goods frequently have 

little intent, much less ability, to pay 

duties above the deposit rate. 

The commenter requests that CBP 

immediately withdraw its proposal to 

terminate the designation of shrimp 

covered by AD/CV orders as a special 

category or covered case subject to the 

requirement of additional bond 

amounts. Instead, the commenter 

recommends that CBP issue a proposal 

and/or seek comments on amending the 

EBR in order to both comply with the 

WTO’s Appellate Body report and 

address the under-collection of AD/CV 

duties. 

Another commenter states that CBP 

should use the proposal as an 

opportunity to include an individual 

importer risk assessment into its bond 

analysis. The commenter asserts that the 

‘‘one size fits all’’ EBR policy based on 

a sector or category wide risk 

assessment usurps the core factors of 

objective risk analysis and imposes a 

severe strain on the balance sheets of 

otherwise healthy companies. The 

commenter contends that a bond based 

on an assessment for individual 

importers is not only good Federal 

policy, but also a necessary analysis for 

defense of CBP’s actions before 

reviewing panels of the WTO. The 

commenter further contends that a 

transparent system supported by 

substantial evidence is essential to an 

effective EBR. The commenter 

maintains that the tools are present for 

CBP to give proper emphasis to 

companies with proven track records 

and solid balance sheets. 

CBP’s Response: Although CBP is no 

longer designating shrimp subject to 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

orders as a special category or covered 

case subject to the EBR, CBP is not 

abandoning its duty to protect revenue 

or its requirement of sufficient security. 

In its report, the WTO Appellate Body 

concluded that the United States could 

impose ‘‘reasonable security’’ on entries 

made after the imposition of an 

antidumping duty order and before the 

final assessment of antidumping duties, 

but that the EBR, as applied to 

importers of shrimp from Thailand and 

India was not ‘‘reasonable security’’. 

Consistent with that finding, CBP is 

ending the designation of shrimp as a 

covered case or special category subject 

to the EBR. 

As for the other commenter’s 

suggestions for possible methods for 

future bonding requirements, CBP 

continues to explore options to protect 

revenue and address issues of 

uncollected AD/CV duties, consistent 

with U.S. international obligations. 

Comment: Several commenters 

support the withdrawal of the 

designation of shrimp under the EBR, 

but argue that it should apply 

retroactively to all entries of subject 

merchandise covered by bonds 

calculated using the EBR, and not just 

to entries made on or after the effective 

date of the final notice. 

Supporters of retroactive application 

of the proposal contend that because the 

WTO Appellate Body upheld the 

panel’s findings that the EBR is 

inconsistent with WTO agreements, 

compliance with the WTO’s rulings 

would preclude CBP from continuing to 

treat pre-existing EBR-calculated bonds 

as valid and enforceable security after 

the date of implementation or from 

taking any future action to make a claim 

against the bonds. Consequently, 

commenters in support of the 

retroactive application of the proposal 

argue that in order to comply with the 

WTO reports, CBP must not only stop 

applying the EBR to imports of subject 

shrimp going forward, but must also 

‘‘cancel’’ (as one commenter describes 

it) or ‘‘retroactively eliminate’’ (as 

another commenter argues), bonds to 

which the EBR has been applied and 

replace them with bonds based on the 

standard bond formula of 10% of the 

previous year’s duties, taxes, and fees, 

or $50,000, whichever is greater. 

Supporters assert that retroactively 

applying the proposal is necessary to 

address surety collateral requirements 

which have burdened importers’ credit 

lines, causing significant economic 

harm. 

One supporter of the retroactive 

application of the proposal cites to 

National Fisheries Institute, Inc. v. 

United States Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection (465 F. Supp. 2d 

1300, 1335–36 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006)) 

(National Fisheries) to argue that CBP 

has authority to do this, and claim that 

this authority has been recognized by 

the courts. 

One commenter argues that canceling 

the bonds to which the EBR was applied 

would not be retroactive because the 

United States would be agreeing to 

make no future claims against the EBRcalculated bonds. 

One commenter urges CBP to 

automatically terminate all existing 

continuous bonds and institute new 

bonds at the minimum required 

obligation rather than require individual 

importers to submit individual 

termination requests in order to 

expedite U.S. compliance with rulings 

of the DSB. 

Another commenter argues that 

allowing importers to terminate existing 

continuous bonds would risk CBP’s 

ability to fully collect duties owed. 

CBP’s Response: CBP is ending the 

designation of frozen warmwater shrimp 

subject to AD/CV duties as a special 

category or covered case for purposes of 

the EBR, and is providing importers 

with an opportunity to request that 

existing bonds be terminated pursuant 

to 19 CFR 113.27(a) and submit a new 

continuous bond application pursuant 

to 19 CFR 113.12(b). These actions bring 

the United States into compliance with 

the recommendations and rulings of the 

DSB regarding the EBR. The effective 

date is the publication date of this 

notice. 

CBP disagrees with the commenters’ 

statement that CBP must apply the 

proposal retroactively. When a bond is 

terminated, no further obligations 

arising from post-termination customs 

transactions may be charged against the 

bond. See 19 CFR 113.27(c); see also HQ 

211485 (May 12, 1980). The principal 

(in this case, the importer) and the 

surety remain liable for the obligations 

incurred before the date the bond was 

terminated. See 19 CFR 113.3. 

Termination of the bond does not alter 

the obligations charged against the bond 

before it was terminated, but does 

prevent any obligations arising from 

post-termination customs transactions 

from being charged against the bond. 

See 19 CFR 113.27(c); see also HQ 

211485 (May 12, 1980). 

CBP has determined that it will 

permit importers to terminate EBRcalculated bonds. The only legal 

authority commenters cite for the 

proposition that CBP could ‘‘cancel’’ or 

otherwise retroactively apply the policy 

is the decision of the U.S. Court of 

International Trade in National 

Fisheries. However, the court made no 

such finding in that case, nor did it 

order cancellation or ‘‘retroactive 

elimination’’ of bonds. National 

Fisheries at 1335–1336. Moreover, 

bonds are contracts between principals 

and sureties, and are thus contracts 

between private parties. CBP is reluctant 

to interfere in that relationship. See 

Customs Bond Structure, Revision, 49 

FR 41152, 41155 (October 19, 1984). In 

addition, the existence of two bonds 

covering the same period could pose 

legal confusion. If different sureties 

issued the bonds, each would raise the 

other as a defense in a collection action, 

posing serious risk to the agency’s 

ability to collect duties lawfully owed 

14812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

through court action. Furthermore, 

canceling an existing bond and 

replacing it with another bond with a 

different limit of liability (either lower 

or higher) and with retroactive effect is 

contrary to sound administrative 

practice. There are approximately 

140,000 bonds currently on file with 

CBP. The possibility that each and every 

one of these bonds may be reconsidered 

and liability reassessed anytime after 

execution would cause administrative 

chaos. Finally, to avoid confusion, 

termination will not occur automatically 

and importers must request termination 

pursuant to 19 CFR 113.27(a). 

CBP requires bonds to protect revenue 

and assure compliance with any 

provision of law, regulation, or 

instruction the agency is authorized to 

enforce. See 19 U.S.C. 1623. CBP is also 

required to collect debts aggressively. 

See 31 U.S.C. 3711 and 31 CFR 901.1. 

In order to fulfill its mandate and also 

facilitate trade, CBP does not 

retroactively raise or lower bond 

security amounts that cover past 

customs transactions. When CBP 

determines that an existing bond does 

not provide sufficient security, the 

principal is only required to terminate 

the existing bond and obtain a new 

bond with additional security for future 

importations. The obligation of the 

earlier bond for the earlier time period 

remains in place. See 19 CFR 113.3. 

It is incorrect to state that if the 

United States were to agree to make no 

future claims against the EBR-calculated 

bonds, then the cancellation of the 

bonds would not be retroactive. 

Cancelling the bonds would be 

retroactive because the bonds secure 

customs transactions, which are, in this 

case, entries already made into the 

United States. As discussed in the 

Background section of this notice, even 

though the actual amount of AD/CV 

duties owed may be determined at a 

later date, the obligation is incurred and 

security is posted at the time of entry. 

Finally, the U.S. Court of International 

Trade in National Fisheries did not 

order CBP to cancel the bonds at issue 

in that case, and therefore does not 

support the commenters’ argument that 

CBP should cancel the EBR-calculated 

bonds. National Fisheries at 1335–1336. 

Therefore, on or after the publication 

of this notice, an importer with a 

current bond that was calculated using 

the EBR may request termination 

pursuant to 19 CFR 113.27(a), such that 

no further obligations would be charged 

against that bond. For existing bonds, 

CBP will enforce the bonds up to the 

date of termination, which will be no 

earlier than the effective date of this 

notice. 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommend that even though the 

proposal indicates that it applies to 

shrimp imports from all of the countries 

subject to an AD order, to avoid 

confusion, CBP should specifically state 

this in the final notice and list the 

individual countries. 

Another commenter asserts that the 

proposal should only apply to India and 

Thailand because the WTO dispute was 

initiated by these countries and 

therefore, the recommendation only 

applies to those countries and not 

Brazil, China, and Vietnam. The 

commenter states that continuing to 

apply the EBR to Brazil, China, and 

Vietnam would help to offset any 

revenue loss on those cases. The 

commenter also states that 

discontinuing application to those 

countries would be contrary to CBP’s 

commitment to Congress to address the 

issue of non-collection of AD duties and 

is irrational, unwarranted, and a clear 

perversion of CBP’s mission to collect 

all import duties determined to be due 

to the United States. 

CBP’s Response: Based on a careful 

evaluation of the WTO reports and 

available evidence, CBP has decided to 

end the designation of shrimp subject to 

AD/CV duty orders as a special category 

or covered case subject to the 

requirement of additional bond amounts 

for all countries. For a list of orders 

currently covering shrimp, see footnote 

1 of this document. 

Conclusion 

After analysis of the comments and 

further review of the matter, CBP has 

decided to end the designation of 

shrimp covered by antidumping or 

countervailing duty orders as a special 

category or covered case subject to the 

requirement of additional bond 

amounts. Shrimp importers may request 

termination of existing continuous 

bonds pursuant to 19 CFR 113.27(a) and 

submit a new continuous bond 

application pursuant to 19 CFR 

113.12(b). The requirements for 

submitting a new bond application 

pursuant to 19 CFR 113.12 are available 

on the CBP Web site at http:// 

www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/ 

priority_trade/revenue/bonds/ 

pilot_program/news_develop/ under the 

‘‘Policy and Procedures’’ section. 

Dated: March 27, 2009. 

Jayson P. Ahern, 

Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. E9–7281 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R9–IA–2009–N0068; 96300–1671– 

0000–P5] 

Receipt of Applications for Permit 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications 

for permit. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, invite the public to 

comment on the following applications 

to conduct certain activities with 

endangered species. The Endangered 

Species Act requires that we invite 

public comment on these permit 

applications. 

DATES: Written data, comments or 

requests must be received by May 1, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents and other 

information submitted with these 

applications are available for review, 

subject to the requirements of the 

Privacy Act and Freedom of Information 

Act, by any party who submits a written 

request for a copy of such documents 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Management 

Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 

Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; 

fax 703/358–2281. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Division of Management Authority, 

telephone 703/358–2104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Endangered Species 

The public is invited to comment on 

the following applications for a permit 

to conduct certain activities with 

endangered species. This notice is 

provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Written data, comments, or requests for 

copies of these complete applications 

should be submitted to the Director 

(address above). 

Applicant: Jonathan Davis, Malibu, CA, 

PRT–208563 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import the sport-hunted trophy of one 

male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus 

pygargus) culled from a captive herd 

maintained under the management 

program of the Republic of South Africa, 

for the purpose of enhancement of the 

survival of the species.