3372 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

[A] presiding officer’s exercise of his 

authority under the reparation rules must ‘‘be 

guided by his general responsibility for the 

‘fair and orderly conduct of a formal 

decisional proceeding.’ ’’ Jenne v. Paine 

Webber, Inc., [1987–1990 Transfer Binder] 

Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 24,329 at 35,424 

(CFTC Aug. 31, 1988) (quoting Commission 

Regulation 12.304(a)). * * * The principles 

of fairness and orderliness must be 

understood in light of Congress’s intent that 

our procedures provide an ‘‘inexpensive’’ and 

expeditious alternative to the courts and 

arbitration. Anderson v. Beach, [2007–2009 

Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) 

¶ 30,763 at 61,607 (CFTC Feb. 14, 2008). 

[Current Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. 

Rep. (CCH) ¶ 31,322 at 62,685 (CFTC 

Mar. 3, 2009). 

Notwithstanding this guidance, we 

have noticed that parties in some 

matters have been held to an unusually 

strict interpretation of the rules of 

practice, including nonsubstantive rules 

relating to document formatting. As a 

result, it is necessary and appropriate to 

issue this policy statement to clarify and 

provide further guidance to Commission 

staff and affected parties. 

Rule 12.1(a), 17 CFR 12.1(a), requires 

that rules of practice relating to 

reparation proceedings under 17 CFR 

part 12 ‘‘shall be construed liberally so 

as to secure the just, speedy and 

inexpensive determination of the issues 

presented with full protection for the 

rights of all parties.’’ 

For example, the requirement in Rule 

12.11, 17 CFR12.11, for documents filed 

with the Proceedings Clerk to be signed 

in ink should not be applied literally to 

documents filed by e-mail or facsimile. 

The formatting requirements need not 

be strictly enforced, as long as pleadings 

are legible. This policy statement does 

not affect the existing right of pro se 

parties to file handwritten pleadings. 17 

CFR 12.11(c). 

In another example, the forum does 

not require claimants to cite specific 

provisions of the Act, despite language 

in Rule 12.13(b)(iv)(A) requiring 

complainants to allege ‘‘each and every 

act or omission which it is claimed 

constitutes a violation of the Act.’’ 17 

CFR 12.13(b)(iv)(A). The discussion of 

these rules is meant to be illustrative, 

not exhaustive. We expect the 

Commission’s presiding officers, all of 

whom have extensive experience in this 

forum, to apply the Part 12 Rules 

generally in accordance with Rule 

12.1(a). 

III. Related Matters 

A. No Notice Required Under 5 U.S.C. 

553 

The Commission has determined that 

this policy statement is exempt from the 

provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, 

which generally requires notice of 

proposed rulemaking and provides 

opportunity for public participation. In 

accord with the exemptive language of 

5 U.S.C. 553, this policy statement gives 

guidance to staff members and affected 

parties pertaining to the administration 

of reparation proceedings under 17 CFR 

part 12. In addition, this policy 

statement relates solely to ‘‘rules of 

agency * * * practice.’’ Therefore, the 

notice requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553 

are not applicable. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires 

agencies with rulemaking authority to 

consider the impact those rules will 

have on small businesses. With respect 

to persons involved in reparations 

proceedings, the interpretive rule 

imposes no additional burden, and in 

fact provides greater flexibility in 

complying with Part 12. Thus, the 

Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, 

hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), that this policy statement will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

businesses. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This policy statement concerning Part 

12 does not impose a burden within the 

meaning and intent of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. 

D. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

19(a), requires the Commission to 

consider the costs and benefits of its 

actions before issuing a new regulation. 

The Commission understands that by its 

terms, Section 15(a) does not require it 

to quantify the costs and benefits of a 

new regulation or to determine whether 

the benefits of the regulation outweigh 

its costs. Nor does it require that each 

rule be analyzed in isolation when that 

rule is a component of a larger package 

of rules or rule revisions. Rather, 

Section 15(a) simply requires the 

Commission to ‘‘consider the costs and 

benefits’’ of its action. 

Section 15(a) further specifies that 

costs and benefits shall be evaluated in 

light of five broad areas of market and 

public concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competiveness, and financial 

integrity of futures markets; (3) price 

discovery; (4) sound risk management 

practices; and (5) other public interest 

considerations. Accordingly, the 

Commission can, in its discretion, give 

greater weight to any one of the five 

enumerated areas of concern, and can, 

in its discretion determine that 

notwithstanding its costs, a particular 

rule is necessary or appropriate to 

protect the public interest, or to 

effectuate any of the provisions, or 

accomplish any of the purposes, of the 

Commodity Exchange Act. 

This policy statement will not create 

any significant change in the 

Commission’s reparation proceedings. 

This statement will enhance the 

protection of market participants and 

the public by providing greater 

flexibility in complying with Part 12. 

This statement will make it easier for 

parties to participate in reparations 

proceedings, either as complainants or 

respondents. The cost-benefit factors are 

not influenced by this policy statement, 

which simply articulates and clarifies 

applicable law and precedent in 

reparation proceedings. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 

2010, by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1101 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–1072] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Congress Street Bridge, 

Pequonnock River, Bridgeport, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the waters surrounding the Congress 

Street Bridge over the Pequonnock River 

in Bridgeport, Connecticut. This zone is 

necessary to protect vessels transiting in 

the area from hazards imposed by 

construction barges and equipment that 

are being utilized for partial demolition 

of the Congress Street Bridge. Entry into 

this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Long Island Sound, New Haven, 

Connecticut. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:59 

p.m. on January 31, 2010, through 11:59 

p.m. on April 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

1072 and are available online by going 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3373 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–1072 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the 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, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail, Chief Petty Officer 

Christie Dixon, Prevention Department, 

USCG Sector Long Island Sound at 203– 

468–4459, Christie.M.Dixon@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because 

immediate action is necessary to protect 

the public from the dangers inherent in 

the bridge demolition project. Also, 

establishing a safety zone on the 

Pequonnock River at this time of year 

should not hinder any appreciable 

recreational traffic and commercial 

traffic does not transit the portion of the 

river that will be impacted by the 

closure. The need for immediate action 

to protect the public makes a comment 

period impractical as a delay in the 

bridge demolition is contrary to public 

interest. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. In addition to the reasons 

stated above, any delay encountered in 

the temporary rule’s effective date 

would be contrary to the public interest 

given the immediate need to minimize 

danger to mariners prior to, during, and 

after demolition. 

Background and Purpose 

The Congress Street Bridge, owned by 

the City of Bridgeport, was closed in 

January 1999 due to deterioration of the 

structural and mechanical/electrical 

components. It is approximately 419 

feet from abutment face to abutment 

face and consists of a center movable 

span and two fixed spans on each 

approach. The center movable span is a 

double leaf rolling bascule span. The 

bascule span was opened to allow 

marine traffic to pass and the leaves 

locked into the open position. 

From January 1, 2010 through May 15, 

2010 the City of Bridgeport’s 

Engineering Department will be 

removing both bascule spans and the 

associated operating machinery of the 

Bridge. The existing fender system will 

remain in place and power will be rerouted on the bridge to allow the 

existing navigation lights to continue to 

function during and after construction. 

Mariners are advised to transit the area 

with extreme caution during this time. 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

safety zone in all waters of the 

Pequonnock River within 100-yards to 

either side of the Congress Street Bridge 

from February 1, 2010 through April 16, 

2010 during the removal of the bascule 

spans. This portion of the Pequonnock 

River will be closed to all marine traffic 

due to construction hazards posed to 

recreational vessels attempting to transit 

the waterway. This safety zone is 

necessary to protect the safety of the 

boating community who wish to utilize 

the Pequonnock River during 

demolition. With the exception of the 

Bridgeport Fire Rescue Boats, entry into 

this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Long Island Sound. 

Discussion of Rule 

This regulation establishes a 

temporary safety zone on the waters of 

the Pequonnock River, at mile 0.4 

within 100-yards to either side of the 

Congress Street Bridge. This action is 

intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a 

portion of the Pequonnock River in the 

City of Bridgeport, Connecticut to 

provide for the safety of the boating 

community due to the hazards posed by 

significant construction equipment and 

barges located in the waterway for the 

partial demolition of the bridge. The 

safety zone is being established from 

11:59 p.m. on January 31, 2010, to 11:59 

p.m. on April 16, 2010. Marine traffic 

may continue to transit the area during 

the January 1 to January 31 and April 17 

to May 15 portions of the project. While 

the channel is open and the safety zone 

is not in place, mariners are still advised 

to transit the area with extreme caution. 

In the event of an emergency, a ten (10) 

foot wide passage will be maintained for 

the duration of the project exclusively 

for the passage of Bridgeport Fire 

Rescue boats. With the exception of 

these Fire Rescue boats, entry into this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port, Long Island 

Sound. 

Any violation of the safety zone 

described herein is punishable by, 

among other things, civil and criminal 

penalties, in rem liability against the 

offending vessel, and the initiation of 

suspension or revocation proceedings 

against Coast Guard-issued merchant 

mariner credentials. 

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 Analyses 

We developed this 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 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. 

This regulation may have some 

impact on the public, but the potential 

impact will be minimal for the 

following reasons: We do not anticipate 

that there will be any appreciable 

recreational traffic during the time the 

project will be taking place and 

commercial traffic does not transit the 

portion of the Pequonnock River that 

will be impacted by the closure. Vessels 

may transit in all areas of the 

Pequonnock River other than the area 

delineated for the safety zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3374 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule may affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: the owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor in 

those portions of the Pequonnock River 

in the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut 

covered by the safety zone. For the 

reasons outlined in the Regulatory 

Evaluation section above, this rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. 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, Chief Petty 

Officer Christie Dixon, Prevention 

Department, USCG Sector Long Island 

Sound at 203–468–4459, 

christie.m.dixon@uscg.mil. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls 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 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 rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not affect 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 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have Tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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 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 

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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this temporary 

final rule under Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 023–01 and Commandant 

Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the 

Coast Guard in complying with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), 

and have concluded this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

creation of a regulation that establishes 

a safety zone and therefore is 

categorically excluded, under figure 2– 

1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination will be available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3375 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–1072 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–1072 Safety Zone: Congress 

Street Bridge, Pequonnock River, 

Bridgeport, Connecticut. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Pequonnock River in Bridgeport, 

Connecticut, from surface to bottom, 

within 100 yards to either side of the 

Congress Street Bridge. 

(b) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

Designated on-scene patrol personnel, 

means any commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the Coast Guard on 

board Coast Guard, Coast Guard 

Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal 

law enforcement vessels who have been 

authorized to act on the behalf of the 

Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 

apply. 

(2) In accordance with the general 

regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry 

into or movement within this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP), Long Island 

Sound. 

(3) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the Coast Guard Captain of 

the Port or designated on-scene patrol 

personnel. 

(4) Upon being hailed by siren, radio, 

flashing light or other means from a U.S. 

Coast Guard vessel or other vessel with 

on-scene patrol personnel aboard, the 

operator of the vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) Persons and vessels may request 

permission to enter the zone on VHF– 

16 or via phone at (203) 468–4401. 

(d) Effective dates. The safety zone is 

being established from 11:59 p.m. on 

January 31, 2010, to 11:59 p.m. on April 

16, 2010. Marine traffic may continue to 

transit the area during the January 1 to 

January 31 and April 17 to May 15 

portions of the project. While the 

channel is open and the safety zone is 

not in place, mariners are still advised 

to transit the area with extreme caution. 

Dated: December 29, 2009. 

D.A. Ronan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1003 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0010] 

RIN 1810–AB06 

School Improvement Grants; American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as Amended (ESEA) 

ACTION: Interim final requirements for 

School Improvement Grants authorized 

under section 1003(g) of Title I of the 

ESEA; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of 

Education (Secretary) amends the final 

requirements for School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) authorized under section 

1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA and 

funded through both the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111– 

8) and the ARRA to incorporate new 

authority included in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

117) applicable to fiscal year (FY) 2010 

SIG funds and FY 2009 ARRA SIG 

funds. Specifically, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 expands the 

group of schools that are eligible to 

receive SIG funds. In addition, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

raises the maximum amount of SIG 

funds that a State educational agency 

(SEA) may award to a local educational 

agency (LEA) for each participating 

school from $500,000 to $2,000,000. 

This notice incorporates these changes 

into the final SIG requirements that the 

Department published on December 10, 

2009. 

DATES: These requirements are effective 

February 8, 2010. We must receive your 

comments by February 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time, in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these interim final 

requirements, address them to Dr. Zollie 

Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 3W320, Washington, DC 20202. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including those 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Zollie Stevenson, Jr. Telephone: 202– 

260–0826 or by e-mail: 

Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding these interim final 

requirements. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final requirements, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

section or sections of the interim final 

requirements that each of your 

comments addresses and to arrange your 

comments in the same order as the 

interim final requirements. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these interim final requirements. Please 

let us know of any further opportunities 

we should take to reduce potential costs 

or increase potential benefits while 

preserving the effective and efficient 

administration of the SIG program. 

During and after the comment period 

you may inspect all public comments 

about these interim final requirements 

by accessing Regulations.gov. You may 

also inspect the comments, in person, in 

room 3W100, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC, between the 

hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, Monday through 

Friday of each week except Federal 

holidays. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES