Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 71089 

applicable to ethnic printed fabrics is 

5208.52.40, not 5208.32.40. 

James C. Leonard III, 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. 

Committee for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements 

November 18, 2005. 

Commissioner, 

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 

Washington, DC 20229. 

Dear Commissioner: The directive issued 

to you on July 21, 2005 regarding articles 

made in Nigeria to be treated as 

‘‘handloomed, handmade, folklore articles, or 

ethnic printed fabrics’’ under the AGOA is 

amended as follows: 

1. Add Atlantic Textiles Manufacturing 

Co. Ltd. to the list of producers of ethnic 

printed fabrics in Nigeria in Annex B. 

2. Strike 5208.32.40 and replace with 

5208.52.40 in Annex B. 

Sincerely, 

James C. Leonard III, 

Chairman, Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements. 

[FR Doc. 05–23280 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS 

COMMITTEE FOR THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE 

AGREEMENTS 

Request for Public Comments on 

Commercial Availability Petition under 

the United States - Andean Trade 

Promotion and Drug Eradication Act 

(ATPDEA) 

November 21, 2005. 

AGENCY: Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements 

(CITA). 

ACTION: Request for public comments 

concerning a petition for a 

determination that certain 100 percent 

cotton, 2 x 2 twill weave, flannel fabrics 

cannot be supplied by the domestic 

industry in commercial quantities in a 

timely manner under the ATPDEA. 

SUMMARY: On November 18, 2005, the 

Chairman of CITA received a petition 

from Oxford Industries alleging that 100 

percent cotton woven flannel fabrics, 

made from 21 through 36 NM single 

ring-spun yarns, of 2 X 2 twill weave 

construction, weighing not more than 

200 grams per square meter, classified 

under subheading 5208.43.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), cannot be 

supplied by the domestic industry in 

commercial quantities in a timely 

manner. The petition requests that such 

fabrics, for use in the manufacture of 

shirts, trousers, nightwear, robes and 

dressing gowns and woven underwear 

in an ATPDEA beneficiary country for 

export to the United States, be eligible 

for preferential treatment under the 

ATPDEA. CITA hereby solicits public 

comments on this petition, in particular 

with regard to whether these fabrics can 

be supplied by the domestic industry in 

commercial quantities in a timely 

manner. Comments must be submitted 

by December 12, 2005 to the Chairman, 

Committee for the Implementation of 

Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United 

States Department of Commerce, 14th 

and Constitution, NW., Washington, 

D.C. 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria K. Dybczak, International Trade 

Specialist, Office of Textiles and 

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

(202) 482-3400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: Section 204 (b)(3)(B)(ii) of the 

ATPDEA, Presidential Proclamation 7616 of 

October 31, 2002, Executive Order 13277 of 

November 19, 2002, and the United States 

Trade Representative’s Notice of Further 

Assignment of Functions of November 25, 

2002. 

BACKGROUND: 

The ATPDEA provides for quota- and 

duty-free treatment for qualifying textile 

and apparel products. Such treatment is 

generally limited to products 

manufactured from yarns and fabrics 

formed in the United States or a 

beneficiary country. The ATPDEA also 

provides for quota- and duty-free 

treatment for apparel articles that are 

both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or 

otherwise assembled in one or more 

ATPDEA beneficiary countries from 

fabric or yarn that is not formed in the 

United States or a beneficiary country, 

if it has been determined that such 

fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the 

domestic industry in commercial 

quantities in a timely manner. Pursuant 

to Executive Order No. 13277 (67 FR 

70305) and the United States Trade 

Representative’s Notice of Redelegation 

of Authority and Further Assignment of 

Functions (67 FR 71606), the President’s 

authority to determine whether yarns or 

fabrics cannot be supplied by the 

domestic industry in commercial 

quantities in a timely manner under the 

ATPDEA has been delegated to CITA. 

On November 18, 2005, the Chairman 

of CITA received a petition from Oxford 

Industries alleging that certain 100 

percent cotton woven flannel fabrics, 

made from 21 through 36 NM single 

ring-spun yarns, of 2 X 2 twill weave 

construction, weighing not more than 

200 grams per square meter, classified 

under HTSUS subheading 5208.43.00, 

cannot be supplied by the domestic 

industry in commercial quantities in a 

timely manner and requesting quotaand duty-free treatment under the 

ATPDEA for such fabrics, for use in the 

manufacture of shirts, trousers, 

nightwear, robes and dressing gowns 

and woven underwear in an ATPDEA 

beneficiary country for export to the 

United States. 

Specifications: 

Fiber Content: 100% Cotton 

Weight: not more than 200 grams/ 

square meter 

Yarn Number: ring spun 21-36 NM 

Weave: 2 x 2 twill woven flannel 

Finish: Yarn dyed, napped on both 

sides 

The petitioner emphasizes that the 

construction of the fabrics must be 

exactly or nearly exactly as specified or 

the fabrics will not be suitable for their 

intended uses. 

CITA is soliciting public comments 

regarding this request, particularly with 

respect to whether these fabrics can be 

supplied by the domestic industry in 

commercial quantities in a timely 

manner. Also relevant is whether other 

fabrics that are supplied by the domestic 

industry in commercial quantities in a 

timely manner are substitutable for the 

fabrics in question for purposes of the 

intended use. Comments must be 

received no later than December 12, 

2005. Interested persons are invited to 

submit six copies of such comments or 

information to the Chairman, Committee 

for the Implementation of Textile 

Agreements, room 3100, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. 

If a comment alleges that these fabrics 

can be supplied by the domestic 

industry in commercial quantities in a 

timely manner, CITA will closely 

review any supporting documentation, 

such as a signed statement by a 

manufacturer of the fabric stating that it 

produces the fabric that is the subject of 

the request, including the quantities that 

can be supplied and the time necessary 

to fill an order, as well as any relevant 

information regarding past production. 

CITA will protect any business 

confidential information that is marked 

‘‘business confidential’’ from disclosure 

to the full extent permitted by law. 

CITA generally considers specific 

details, such as quantities and lead 

times for providing the subject product 

as business confidential. However, 

information such as the names of 

domestic manufacturers who were 

contacted, questions concerning the 

capability to manufacture the subject 

product, and the responses thereto 

should be available for public review to 

ensure proper public participation in 

71090 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 

1For purposes of this Request, SROs include 

designated contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’), derivatives 

clearing organizations (‘‘DCOs’’), and registered 

futures associations. 

2SROs’ self-regulatory responsibilities include, 

among other things, market surveillance, trade 

practice surveillance, and audits and examinations 

of member firms (e.g., ensuring compliance with 

financial integrity, financial reporting, sales 

practice, and recordkeeping requirements). An 

SRO’s specific responsibilities will depend upon 

whether it is a DCM, DCO, or RFA. 

3The SRO Study was initiated in an address by 

former Commission Chairman James E. Newsome at 

the Futures Industry Association Law and 

Compliance Luncheon (May 28, 2003), available at: 

http://www.cftc.gov/opa/speeches03/opanewsm40.htm. 

4As a prelude to Phase II, the Commission 

encouraged every SRO to reexamine its policies, 

employee training efforts, and day-to-day practices 

to confirm that there are safeguards in place to 

prevent the misuse use of confidential information 

obtained by SROs during audits, investigations, or 

other self-regulatory activities. The Commission 

continues to examine confidentiality of information 

as it moves forward with the SRO Study. See CFTC 

Progresses with Study of Self-Regulation, CFTC 

Press Release No. 4890-04 (Feb. 6, 2004), available 

at: http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press04/opa4890- 

04.htm. 

5CFTC Seeks Comment on How Self-Regulatory 

Exams of Futures Firms Are Coordinated, CFTC 

Press Release No. 4910–04 (Apr. 7, 2004), available 

at: http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press04/opa4910– 

04.htm. 

6SRO Governance, 69 FR 32,326 (June 9, 2004) 

and 69 FR 42,971 (July 19, 2004) (extending 

comment period to Sept. 30, 2004). 

the process. If this is not possible, an 

explanation of the necessity for treating 

such information as business 

confidential must be provided. CITA 

will make available to the public nonconfidential versions of the request and 

non-confidential versions of any public 

comments received with respect to a 

request in room 3100 in the Herbert 

Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Persons submitting comments on a 

request are encouraged to include a nonconfidential version and a nonconfidential summary. 

James C. Leonard III, 

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements. 

[FR Doc. 05–23362 Filed 11–22–05; 2:22 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Self-Regulation and Self-Regulatory 

Organizationsin the Futures Industry 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Request for additional 

comments on self-regulation and selfregulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’).1

SUMMARY: This Request for Comments 

(‘‘Request’’) continues the Commission’s 

ongoing review of self-regulation and 

self-regulatory organizations in the U.S. 

futures industry (‘‘SRO Study’’). The 

Request seeks public comment on a 

range of SRO issues, including 

governance, minimizing conflicts of 

interest within self-regulation, the 

composition of SROs’ boards of 

directors and disciplinary committees, 

and the impact of increasing 

competition, changing business models 

and new ownership structures on SROs’

self-regulatory responsibilities.2

Commenters are also asked to consider 

the impact of securities exchanges’

listing standards and the unique role of 

registered futures associations (‘‘RFAs’’) 

and other third-party regulatory service 

providers. The questions presented 

update the Commission’s prior factfinding on self-regulation, build on 

industry developments since that time, 

and offer interested parties an 

additional opportunity to comment as 

the SRO Study nears conclusion. The 

questions raised in this Request will 

also form the basis of an upcoming 

Commission roundtable on selfregulation. The roundtable will provide 

a forum for industry participants to 

present their views on both the 

challenges and opportunities of selfregulation in a rapidly evolving futures 

industry. 

DATES: Responses must be received 

January 9, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Written responses should be 

sent to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. Responses may also be submitted 

via e-mail at secretary@cftc.gov. ‘‘SelfRegulation and Self-Regulatory 

Organizations’’ must be in the subject 

field of responses submitted via e-mail, 

and clearly indicated in written 

submissions. This document is also 

available for comment at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Braverman, Deputy Director, 

(202) 418–5487; Rachel Berdansky, 

Special Counsel, (202) 418–5429; or 

Sebastian Pujol Schott, AttorneyAdvisor, (202) 418–5641. Division of 

Market Oversight, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Center, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Since its initiation in May of 2003, the 

SRO Study has proceeded through two 

phases.3 Phase I included staff 

interviews with over 100 individuals 

representing every segment of the 

futures industry, including futures 

commission merchants (‘‘FCMs’’), 

DCMs, DCOs, and industry associations. 

Staff also interviewed industry 

executives, academics, consultants, and 

individuals associated with securitiesside entities. Based on these interviews, 

the Commission identified several 

issues for further attention and 

launched Phase II of the SRO Study in 

February of 2004.4

Phase II of the SRO Study has 

pursued two lines of inquiry. The first 

addresses issues relating to the 

cooperative regulatory agreement by 

which DCMs and the National Futures 

Association (‘‘NFA’’) coordinate 

compliance examinations of FCMs 

(‘‘DSRO System’’). In April of 2004, 

Commission staff sought public 

comment on the governance and 

operation of the Joint Audit Committee 

(‘‘JAC’’) and on the effectiveness of JAC 

and NFA examination programs.5

Commission staff also sought comment 

on certain proposed amendments to the 

Joint Audit Agreement. The proposed 

amendments, among other things, add 

additional parties to the JAC, add 

certain voting eligibility provisions, and 

memorialize certain DSRO assignment 

procedures. The comments received and 

the proposed amendments to the JAC 

remain under consideration by 

Commission staff. 

The second line of inquiry in Phase II 

of the SRO Study focuses primarily on 

conflicts of interest in self-regulation, 

and those factors that may tend to 

increase or ameliorate such conflicts. In 

June of 2004, the Commission sought 

public comment on SRO board 

composition, changing ownership 

structures and business models among 

SROs, and the organization and 

oversight of SROs’ regulatory 

departments and personnel, among 

other things.6 Simultaneously, the 

Commission distributed to each SRO a 

questionnaire to help evaluate the 

governance structures, policies, and 

procedures of the self-regulators under 

the Commission’s authority. The 

comments solicited in 2004 and in the 

earlier interviews generated an array of 

responses and approaches to selfregulation that the Commission is now 

re-examining in light of industry 

developments and findings since that 

time. 

One significant development in selfregulation since the beginning of the 

SRO Study is the creation of exchange 

‘‘regulatory oversight committees’’

(‘‘ROCs’’). In each case, the ROCs are 

board-level committees, composed only