This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

67339 

Vol. 70, No. 214 

Monday, November 7, 2005 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 950 

RIN 3206–AK 71 

Solicitation of Federal Civilian and 

Uniformed Service Personnel for 

Contributions to Private Voluntary 

Organizations—Sanctions Compliance 

Certification 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing a final 

regulation for the Combined Federal 

Campaign (CFC). This regulation 

requires that each federation and 

unaffiliated organization applying to 

participate in the CFC must, as a 

condition of participation, certify that it 

is in compliance with all statutes, 

Executive orders, and regulations 

restricting or prohibiting U.S. persons 

from engaging in transactions and 

dealings with countries, entities, and 

individuals subject to economic 

sanctions administered by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark W. Lambert, Senior Compliance 

Officer for the Office of CFC Operations, 

by telephone on (202) 606–2564, by 

FAX on (202) 606–0902, or by e-mail at 

cfc@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background of This Rulemaking 

As a condition of participating in the 

2005 CFC, OPM required organizations 

to certify that they do not knowingly 

employ individuals, or contribute funds 

to entities or persons, on either the 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control’s Specially 

Designated Nationals List or the 

Terrorist Exclusion List. OPM’s Office of 

CFC Operations issued guidance on 

compliance with that certification, CFC 

Memorandum 2004–12, which 

described the rationale for the 

certification and set forth instructions 

for checking these lists. 

On March 29, 2005, OPM issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70 FR 

15783 (March 29, 2005)) (NPRM) to 

modify the certification. The proposed 

rule governs the solicitation of Federal 

civilian and uniformed services 

personnel at the workplace for 

contributions to private non-profit 

organizations through the CFC under 

the authority of Executive Order 12353 

(March 23, 1982). OPM has plenary 

authority under 5 CFR part 950 to 

administer the CFC in compliance with 

legal standards. 

As explained in the NPRM, the 

proposed regulation requires that each 

federation and unaffiliated organization 

applying to participate in the CFC must, 

as a condition of participation, certify 

that it is in compliance with all statutes, 

Executive orders, and regulations 

restricting or prohibiting U.S. persons 

from engaging in transactions and 

dealings with countries, entities, and 

individuals subject to economic 

sanctions administered by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). 

OFAC is the office principally 

responsible for administering and 

enforcing U.S. economic sanctions 

programs imposed pursuant to the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and 

other authorities. These programs 

further U.S. foreign policy and national 

security goals and are directed primarily 

against foreign states and nationals, 

including sponsors of global terrorism 

and foreign narcotics traffickers. OFAC 

acts, pursuant to delegated authority, 

under Presidential wartime and 

peacetime national emergency powers. 

The programs administered by OFAC 

restrict or prohibit U.S. persons from 

engaging in transactions and dealings 

with targeted countries, entities, and 

individuals. OFAC publishes a list of 

Specially Designated Nationals and 

Blocked Persons (SDN List). The 

persons on the SDN List are subject to 

economic sanctions. The SDN List and 

additional information relating to the 

economic sanctions programs that 

OFAC administers are available at 

http://www.treas.gov/ofac. A link to the 

SDN List is available on the CFC Web 

site (http://www.opm.gov/cfc). 

The vulnerability of the charitable 

sector to abuse by terrorists and others 

underscores the importance of due 

diligence within the charitable sector. 

For example, between October 2001 and 

December 2004, the United States: (i) 

Imposed sanctions against five U.S.- 

based charities and thirty-five non-U.S. 

charities for terrorist financing activity 

under the authority of Executive Order 

13224 (Sept. 23, 2001) and the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.; (ii) 

convicted and sentenced the leader of a 

U.S.-based charity for racketeering and 

fraud owing to terrorist-related support; 

(iii) indicted more than one U.S.-based 

charity and its leadership under 

pending terrorist financing charges; and 

(iv) investigated numerous other 

charities operating in the U.S. that were 

suspected of involvement in supporting 

terrorist activities. 

Accordingly, in order to further the 

purposes of the economic sanctions 

imposed by the President, to ensure that 

organizations participating in the CFC 

are exercising appropriate diligence, 

and to help safeguard the integrity of the 

CFC and the interests of Federal 

employees who contribute to the CFC, 

the final regulation requires that each 

federation, federation member, and 

unaffiliated organization applying to 

participate in the CFC must, as a 

condition of participation, complete the 

following certification: 

I certify that the organization named in 

this application is in compliance with all 

statutes, Executive orders, and regulations 

restricting or prohibiting U.S. persons from 

engaging in transactions and dealings with 

countries, entities, or individuals subject to 

economic sanctions administered by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control. The organization 

named in this application is aware that a list 

of countries subject to such sanctions, a list 

of Specially Designated Nationals and 

Blocked Persons subject to such sanctions, 

and overviews and guidelines for each such 

sanctions program can be found at http:// 

www.treas.gov/ofac. Should any change in 

circumstances pertaining to this certification 

occur at any time, the organization will 

notify OPM’s Office of CFC Operations 

immediately. 

67340 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

II. Explanation of Changes 

OPM received 13 written comments 

in response to the NPRM from: four 

Local Federal Coordinating Committees, 

which oversee local campaign activities; 

two Principal Combined Fund 

Organizations, which administer local 

campaigns on behalf of Federal 

employees; four charitable organizations 

that participate or have participated in 

the CFC; one Federal agency; one 

Federal employee; and one citizen. OPM 

has found these comments very helpful, 

and, in several important respects, the 

final rule contains revisions made in 

response to these comments. 

In general, each of the 13 commenters 

believed that the certification and 

regulatory changes proposed in the 

NPRM were improvements over the 

2005 certification and OPM guidance. 

Five of the 13 commenters voiced their 

concurrence with the regulatory changes 

and certification proposed in the NPRM. 

One of the commenters wanted to 

know how the propositions in the 

NPRM would affect the American Red 

Cross. OPM believes that the regulatory 

change and certification will affect all 

organizations in the same manner. Each 

organization wishing to participate in 

the CFC will need to determine the 

steps necessary to ensure that it can 

accurately certify to the sanctions 

compliance statement in order to 

participate in the CFC. 

Another commenter suggested 

clarifying the NPRM wording of 5 CFR 

§ 950.605 to specify that federation 

members, as well as federations and 

unaffiliated organizations, must certify 

to the sanctions compliance statement. 

OPM agrees and has made the change to 

5 CFR § 950.605. 

One commenter recommended that 

we implement the proposed 

certification in the NPRM for the 2005 

CFC. OPM disagrees with the 

commenter, because the certification in 

the NPRM was not finalized as of the 

application deadline for the 2005 CFC. 

The proposed regulation remained 

subject to change based on comments 

from stakeholders during the time 

period that decisions needed to be made 

on the eligibility of CFC applicants for 

the 2005 CFC. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed certification in the NPRM 

continued to contain ambiguities and 

recommended that OPM clarify these 

ambiguities prior to finalizing the 

regulation. The primary concern of the 

commenter was that it was not clear 

what an organization must do to be 

compliant and whether or not checking 

government sanctions lists would still 

be mandatory, as was required by the 

2005 certification and OPM guidance. 

The commenter asserted that if listchecking was mandatory, OPM should 

clarify whether CFC Memorandum 

2004–12 applies in whole or in part to 

the proposed NPRM certification. The 

commenter requested that these 

clarifications be made prior to the 

adoption of the final rule, by the 

issuance by OPM of a second proposed 

rule containing the clarifications and 

providing the public with a chance to 

comment again. 

Under the final rule, effective for 2006 

and subsequent campaigns, OPM does 

not mandate that applicants check the 

Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) 

List or the Terrorist Exclusion List 

(TEL). Charities, however, as a 

minimum, should follow the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury AntiTerrorist Financing Guidelines: 

Voluntary Best Practices for U.S. Based 

Charities, which is located on the OFAC 

Web site at http://www.treas.gov/offices/ 

enforcement/key-issues/protecting/ 

index.shtml. Thus, even though OPM 

will not mandate list-checking by 

applicants for the 2006 and subsequent 

campaigns, it continues to encourage 

charities to check the SDN List and the 

TEL as a way to help ensure compliance 

with applicable regulations and as an 

important part of implementing the type 

of risk-based compliance program 

proposed by the Guidelines. It is the 

intention of OPM that applicants 

enhance their efforts to ensure that 

funds collected through the CFC not be 

used to finance unlawful activities or 

those who engage in them, not that such 

efforts be diminished. This is not a 

departure from prior policy. The new 

certification takes into account the fact 

that the various charities participating 

in the CFC operate under unique 

circumstances and it is ultimately their 

responsibility to ensure compliance 

with the OFAC economic sanctions 

programs. OPM does not believe it is 

necessary to issue a second proposed 

rule and will continue to consider 

feedback from stakeholders throughout 

the current and future campaigns. 

One of the commenters recommended 

changes to the Supplementary 

Information section of the NPRM to 

reflect that more than one U.S. based 

charity and its leadership have been 

indicted for providing material support 

or resources to terrorist organizations. 

The commenter further requested that 

OPM clarify the entry that states ‘‘(iv) 

investigated numerous other charities 

operating in the U.S. and suspected of 

terrorist financing activity’’ to read ‘‘(iv) 

investigated numerous other charities 

operating in the U.S. suspected of 

involvement in supporting terrorist 

activities.’’ OPM agrees and made the 

changes to the Supplementary 

Information in this final regulation. The 

commenter also recommended a final 

regulation similar to the one issued and 

used by the United States Agency for 

International Aid (USAID). Although 

OPM reviewed and considered the 

regulation and guidance used by 

USAID, OPM believes that the proposed 

certification, with revisions based on 

public comments, more appropriately 

meets the needs of the CFC. USAID 

enters into assistance agreements with 

organizations and must ensure that it, as 

an entity, complies with the OFAC 

sanctions program as well as criminal 

statutes against providing material 

support to terrorist groups. As a result, 

USAID requires disclosure of 

contractors and subgrantees of its grants, 

as well as compliance verifications on 

these contractors and subgrantees. 

Although OPM facilitates Federal 

employee support for charitable 

recipients through the CFC, OPM does 

not provide direct support to 

organizations in the manner that USAID 

does, nor does OPM collect comparable 

information from its participating 

organizations. As a result, the burden of 

ensuring compliance with the OFAC 

sanctions programs properly rests with 

the charities that provide the charitable 

benefits, and that are in any event 

charged with compliance with OFAC 

sanctions programs as a matter of law. 

OPM does annually conduct a match of 

participating charities at the national 

level against the OFAC list and requires 

LFCCs to similarly conduct an annual 

match of local charitable organizations 

against the OFAC list. 

One commenter objected to the last 

sentence in the proposed certification, 

stating that it implies the organization 

has violated the law and raises 

Constitutional concerns of selfincrimination. The commenter 

suggested that OPM revise this sentence 

to match the one used in the 2005 

certification. While OPM intends for 

voluntary compliance with this 

regulation to include reporting instances 

of non-compliance, OPM agrees that the 

suggested language accomplishes that 

purpose and has made the change to the 

last sentence of the certification in this 

final regulation. 

One commenter proposed that the 

certification should be clarified to 

recognize that no entity can ensure 

absolute compliance and to provide a 

standard that allows each charity to 

plan its individual approach to 

compliance. The commenter stated that 

by requiring a charity to state that it is 

in compliance, CFC puts the applicant 

in the potential position of having to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 67341 

prove a negative: that there is no 

diversion of funds. The commenter 

cited the certification used by USAID as 

providing a clearer and more realistic 

statement: ‘‘does not knowingly provide 

support or resources * * * to the best 

of its current knowledge.’’ The 

commenter pointed out that the USAID 

guidance states that list checking may 

be used but is not mandatory, defines 

‘‘material support’’ and clarifies what a 

charity must do if it believes recipients 

of its support are involved in terrorist 

acts. The commenter also proposed that 

the CFC provide a process for charities 

that discover noncompliance with the 

certification during the fiscal year to 

cure the problem without interrupting 

their participation in the program and 

that absent negligence in oversight, the 

CFC should not attempt to recoup 

donations already received when a 

charity comes forward to report and 

cure non-compliance. The commenter 

stated that any other approach is 

inherently unfair and discourages 

charities from coming forward to report 

and correct problems. Finally, the 

commenter suggested the removal of 

OPM’s description of a ‘‘pattern of abuse 

of U.S. and foreign charities’’ included 

in the Supplementary Information in the 

NPRM. The commenter based this 

suggestion on a citation from a 2004 

research paper, which disputed that 

U.S. charities were unwittingly being 

used to support terrorist activities. 

OPM agrees with some of the 

comments made by this commenter and 

disagrees with others. As stated 

previously, OPM believes that this final 

rule will provide the required 

clarification and that the best practices 

guidance issued by the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury will assist charities in 

their compliance efforts. As explained 

above, OPM reviewed and considered 

the regulation and guidance used by 

USAID but believes that the proposed 

certification, with revisions based on 

public comments, more appropriately 

meets the needs of the CFC. In regard to 

the comments on charities that discover 

instances of non-compliance and are 

able to resolve them without affecting 

CFC participation, the proposed rule 

and this final regulation state that OPM 

‘‘will take steps it deems necessary.’’

These steps may include the items 

iterated in the NPRM and in this final 

regulation. Historically, OPM has 

chosen to work with charities to correct 

occurrences of non-compliance with 

CFC regulations and will continue to do 

so. However, OPM recognizes that 

circumstances vary. Particularly with 

regard to this sensitive issue, it has 

determined that it must reserve 

discretion to act appropriately given 

unforeseen future events. 

Finally, OPM opted to remove the 

language regarding ‘‘a pattern of abuse’’

noted in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION of the NPRM. While more 

than one U.S. based charity and its 

leadership have been indicted for 

providing material support or revenues 

to terrorist organizations, OPM 

acknowledges that there are differing 

views regarding this assertion. 

Furthermore, OPM does not intend this 

NPRM to be the forum for this debate. 

The final commenter reiterated the 

comments provided by the previously 

described commenter, which we already 

have addressed in this discussion. 

Waiver of Delayed Effective Date 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), I find 

that good cause exists for making this 

rule effective upon the date of 

publication of this notice. In accordance 

with established practice, OPM will 

begin accepting applications for the 

2006 CFC on December 1, 2005. Waiting 

30 days from the date of publication of 

this notice to make the rule effective 

will not provide sufficient time in 

advance of December 1, 2005, for the 

application form for the 2006 CFC to be 

made available to parties wishing to 

complete and submit the form. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Organizations applying to the CFC have 

an existing, independent obligation to 

comply with U.S. sanctions laws. 

Requiring them to execute a certification 

with respect to such compliance is not 

burdensome. OPM has taken steps to 

minimize the economic impact on small 

entities by including in the text of the 

certification the OFAC Web site address 

at which extensive information on U.S. 

sanctions is available via the internet 

free of charge, including the textsearchable OFAC SDN List. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Review 

This rule has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 950 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Charitable contributions, 

Government employees, Military 

personnel, Nonprofit organizations and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

■ Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 

950 as follows: 

PART 950—SOLICITATION OF 

FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND UNIFORMED 

SERVICE PERSONNEL FOR 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRIVATE 

VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 950 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: E.O. 12353 (March 23, 1982), 47 

FR 12785 (March 25, 1982). 3 CFR, 1982 

Comp., p. 139. E.O. 12404 (February 10, 

1983), 48 FR 6685 (February 15, 1983), Pub. 

L. 100–202, and Pub. L. 102–393 (5 U.S.C. 

1101 Note). 

■ 2. In Subpart A § 950.104 add 

paragraph (b)(18) to read as follows: 

§ 950.104 Local Federal Coordinating 

Committee responsibilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(18) Determining whether each local 

federation, federation member, and 

unaffiliated organization that applies to 

participate in the local campaign has 

completed the sanctions compliance 

certification required pursuant to 

§ 950.605. The LFCC must deny 

participation to any federation or 

organization that has not completed the 

sanctions compliance certification. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In Subpart F, add new § 950.605 to 

read as follows: 

§ 950.605 Sanctions compliance 

certification. 

Each federation, federation member 

and unaffiliated organization applying 

for participation in the CFC must, as a 

condition of participation, complete a 

certification that it is in compliance 

with all statutes, Executive orders, and 

regulations restricting or prohibiting 

U.S. persons from engaging in 

transactions and dealings with 

countries, entities or individuals subject 

to economic sanctions administered by 

the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(OFAC). Should any change in 

circumstances pertaining to this 

certification occur at any time, the 

organization must notify OPM’s Office 

of CFC Operations immediately. OPM 

will take such steps as it deems 

appropriate under the circumstances, 

including, but not limited to, notifying 

OFAC and/or other enforcement 

authorities of such change, suspending 

disbursement of CFC funds not yet 

disbursed, retracting (to the extent 

practicable) CFC funds already 

67342 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

disbursed, and suspending or expelling 

the organization from the CFC. 

[FR Doc. 05–22186 Filed 11–3–05; 11:13 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–46–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 CFR Part 1427 

RIN 0560–AH36 

Extra Long Staple Cotton Prices 

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes an interim 

final rule published June 20, 2005 that 

was effective August 5, 2005, amending 

the Extra Long Staple (ELS) Cotton 

Competitiveness Payment Program of 

the Commodity Credit Corporation 

(CCC). The interim rule changed the 

ELS cotton price used to calculate the 

payment rate from the ‘‘average 

domestic spot price quotation for base 

quality U.S. Pima cotton’’ to the 

‘‘American Pima c.i.f. Northern Europe’’

price. The change was made to reduce 

the cost to the Federal Government of 

operating the program by incorporating 

a reference price more indicative of 

actual ELS cotton world market prices. 

This final rule makes changes from the 

interim final rule in the prices used to 

calculate the payment rate from 

‘‘American Pima c.i.f. Northern Europe’’

and ‘‘c.i.f. Northern Europe’’ price 

quotes to ‘‘U.S. Pima C/F Far East’’ and 

‘‘C/F Far East,’’ respectively. This 

change is made in response to 

comments and for other reasons as 

discussed. 

DATES: Effective November 4, 2005. The 

first announcement of a payment rate 

under the new price mechanism will be 

on November 10, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Neff, Economic and Policy 

Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, 

United States Department of 

Agriculture, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., AG STOP 0515, 

Washington, DC 20250–0515; Phone: 

(202) 720–7954; e-mail: 

Steve.Neff@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In an interim final rule published 

June 20, 2005 (70 FR 35367) the 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 

changed the regulations governing how 

payment rates are calculated under its 

Extra Long Staple (ELS) Cotton 

Competitiveness Payment Program to 

change the price used for the calculation 

from the ‘‘average domestic spot price 

quotation for base quality U.S. Pima 

cotton,’’ or ‘‘U.S. spot quotes,’’ to the 

‘‘American Pima c.i.f. Northern Europe 

quote.’’ Before the interim rule, the ELS 

payment rate was the difference 

between U.S. spot prices, as reported by 

the Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), 

and the lowest foreign quote, c.i.f. 

Northern Europe, as published by the 

trade publication Cotton Outlook, 

adjusted to U.S. location and quality. 

This change was made because 

payments to ELS producers calculated 

using the old price had sharply 

increased program outlays. For example, 

the payment rate, which averaged a 

record high of 16.46 cents per pound in 

2004, averaged 80.48 cents per pound 

for 7 weeks in February and March, 

2005. Consequently, fiscal year 2005 

outlays through March, 2005, normally 

budgeted for $50–55 million per year, 

exceeded $150 million. 

The increase in the payment rate 

could be attributed principally to 

increases in U.S. spot market quotes. 

The market for ELS cotton is susceptible 

to price swings because it is a thin 

market. ELS production of 736,000 bales 

in 2004 was only 4 percent of total U.S. 

cotton production and 90 percent of ELS 

is produced in the San Joaquin Valley 

of California. The ELS market also has 

relatively few participants. For example, 

two trading companies received nearly 

60 percent of the payments under this 

program in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. 

Further, growing conditions in 2004 

contributed to a short supply of highquality ELS cotton, excess moisture led 

to color deterioration and lower grade 

classification. These circumstances 

exposed a program weakness which 

allowed high prices and high payment 

rates to influence each other with no 

market-like, self-correcting mechanism. 

AMS collects transaction data from 

market participants whose payments 

depend on the reported prices. If a sale 

is made at a relatively low price, the 

merchant has no incentive to report that 

transaction. With a high payment rate in 

effect for a week, the merchant could 

bid more for existing supplies and 

report higher transaction prices to AMS, 

which led to a higher payment rate in 

the following week. With the higher 

payment rate, the merchant could 

source from the United States and 

remain competitive in international 

markets. 

The interim final rule’s intent was to 

reduce future payment rates by 

comparing foreign quotes to quotes for 

American Pima c.i.f. Northern Europe to 

determine the payment rate. American 

Pima c.i.f. Northern Europe was 

determined to be the most valid price 

measure for this program because it was 

a comparison of foreign and U.S. quotes 

from the same source within the same 

geographical area. This measure is net of 

the payment rate and based on the 

export market. FSA believed that this 

measure was appropriate because 90 

percent of U.S.-produced ELS cotton is 

exported. According to our analysis, the 

payment rate calculated in this manner 

would have resulted in a payment of 

20.69 cents per pound for the first week 

of April, about a quarter of the rate CCC 

actually paid. 

Public Comment 

Section 1601(c) of the Farm Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 

Act) provided that the regulations 

needed to implement Title I of the 2002 

Act, which includes this rule, shall be 

promulgated without regard to the 

notice and comment provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 553 or the Statement of Policy of 

the Secretary of Agriculture effective 

July 24, 1971, relating to notices of 

proposed rulemaking and public 

participation in rulemaking. Therefore, 

the rule was issued as an interim final 

rule and was effective immediately. 

Nonetheless, the Agency requested and 

accepted public comments. 

Discussion of Public Comments 

Eight public comments were received. 

Two letters supporting the interim final 

rule were received from Congress—one 

from the Chairman of the Senate 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & 

Forestry; one from the Chairman of the 

House Committee on Agriculture. Also, 

separate letters were received from two 

cotton industry groups, the National 

Cotton Council and Supima, supporting 

the interim rule. These groups also 

joined in a letter signed by five 

organizations recommending the shift to 

a Far East price quote basis discussed 

below. 

Price Quotes Used To Calculate 

Payments 

A comment from a U.S. cotton 

spinner urged the Agency to change 

both price quotes used to calculate 

payments from the ‘‘American Pima 

c.i.f. Northern Europe’’ adopted in the 

interim final rule and the foreign price 

quote used for comparison, ‘‘c.i.f. 

Northern Europe,’’ to ‘‘U.S. Pima C/F 

Far East’’ and ‘‘C/F Far East,’’

respectively. This change was needed, 

the commenter suggested, because ‘‘very 

little cotton, and especially very little 

American Pima (ELS cotton), is