27798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 

Evidence-Based Recommendation of 

Client Reminder/Recall for Childhood 

Immunization, FOA IP10–004, initial 

review. 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), 

announces the aforementioned meeting: 

Time and Date: 8 a.m.–5 p.m., June 7, 2010 

(Closed). 

Place: Sheraton Gateway Hotel Atlanta 

Airport, 1900 Sullivan Road, Atlanta, Georgia 

30337, Telephone: (770) 979–1100. 

Status: The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with provisions set 

forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 

U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, 

Management Analysis and Services Office, 

CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92–463. 

Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will 

include the initial review, discussion, and 

evaluation of applications received in 

response to ‘‘Evaluation of Offering and 

Documenting Influenza Vaccination for 

Nursing Home Residents, FOA IP10–001; 

Development, Implementation, and 

Evaluation of a Multi-Component 

Intervention to Vaccinate Adolescents at Risk 

for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, FOA IP10– 

002; Evaluation and Impact of a State Law 

Requiring Mandatory Influenza Vaccination 

of Hospital Employees, FOA IP10–003; and 

Improving the Translation of the EvidenceBased Recommendation of Client Reminder/ 

Recall for Childhood Immunization, FOA 

IP10–004’’. 

For More Information Contact: Gregory 

Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review 

Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., 

Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 

Telephone: (404) 498–2293. 

The Director, Management Analysis and 

Services Office, has been delegated the 

authority to sign Federal Register notices 

pertaining to announcements of meetings and 

other committee management activities, for 

both CDC and the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Director, Management Analysis and Services 

Office, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11886 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Customs and Border Protection 

Notice of Issuance of Final 

Determination Concerning Certain 

Commodity-Based Clustered Storage 

Units 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice of final determination. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice that U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued a final 

determination concerning the country of 

origin of certain Commodity-based 

Clustered Storage Units. Based upon the 

facts presented, CBP has concluded in 

the final determination that the United 

States is the country of origin of 

Commodity-based Clustered Storage 

Units for purposes of U.S. government 

procurement. 

DATES: The final determination was 

issued on May 11, 2010. A copy of the 

final determination is attached. Any 

party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 

177.22(d), may seek judicial review of 

this final determination within 30 days 

from date of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison Umberger, Valuation and Special 

Programs Branch: (202) 325–0267. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that on May 11, 2010, 

pursuant to subpart B of part 177, 

Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, 

subpart B), CBP issued a final 

determination concerning the country of 

origin of Commodity-based Clustered 

Storage Units which may be offered to 

the U.S. Government under an 

undesignated government procurement 

contract. This final determination, in 

HQ H082476, was issued at the request 

of Scale Computing under procedures 

set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, 

which implements Title III of the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979, as amended 

(19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final 

determination, CBP has concluded that, 

based upon the facts presented, the 

Commodity-based Clustered Storage 

Units, assembled in the United States 

from parts made in China, Taiwan, 

India, Thailand, and Malaysia, and 

programmed in the United States using 

software developed in the United States, 

is substantially transformed in the 

United States, such that the United 

States is the country of origin of the 

finished article for purposes of U.S. 

government procurement. 

Section 177.29, Customs Regulations 

(19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of 

final determinations shall be published 

in the Federal Register within 60 days 

of the date the final determination is 

issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations 

(19 CFR 177.30), provides that any 

party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 

177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a 

final determination within 30 days of 

publication of such determination in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

William G. Rosoff, 

Acting Executive Director, Regulations and 

Rulings. 

Office of International Trade 

Attachment 

HQ H082476 

May 11, 2010 

OT:RR:CTF:VS H082476 ARU 

CATEGORY: Marking 

Mr. Joshua Holzer 

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati 

1700 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor 

Washington, DC 20006–3817 

RE: U.S. Government Procurement; 

Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 

1979 (19 U.S.C. § 2511); Subpart B, 

Part 177, CBP Regulations; ICS 

Units 

Dear Mr. Holzer: 

This is in response to your request 

dated October 15, 2009, made on behalf 

of Scale Computing (‘‘Scale’’). You ask 

for a country of origin marking decision 

and final determination relating to 

government procurement pursuant to 

subpart B of Part 177, Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Regulations 

(19 C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq.). Under these 

regulations, which implement Title III 

of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP 

issues country of origin advisory rulings 

and final determinations on whether an 

article is or would be a product of a 

designated country or instrumentality 

for the purpose of granting waivers of 

certain ‘‘Buy American’’ restrictions in 

U.S. law or practice for products offered 

for sale to the U.S. Government. 

This final determination concerns the 

country of origin of Scale’s SN1000, 

SN2000, and SN4000 Commodity-based 

Clustered Storage (‘‘ICS’’) Units. We note 

that Scale is a party-at-interest within 

the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) 

and is entitled to request this final 

determination. 

FACTS: 

Scale Computing produces storage 

appliances that offer a multi-protocol, 

multi-density suite of non-controllerbased, unified NAS/SAN, enterpriseclass storage solutions. Scale’s SN1000, 

SN2000, and SN4000 ICS Units are mass 

data storage devices similar in function 

to Storage Area Network (‘‘SAN’’) or 

Network Attached Storage (‘‘NAS’’) 

devices (i.e., special-purpose networks 

that interconnect different kinds of data 

storage devices—such as tape libraries 

and disk arrays—with associated data 

servers on behalf of a larger network of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 27799 

1See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (23rd Ed., 

2007). 

2Each node contains a number of physical hard 

disk drives. It is the underlying software 

technology, rather than the proprietary hardware 

and controllers, which manages the distribution of 

data across both individual drives and across nodes 

in the grid. See ICS White Paper 2009, available at 

www.scalecomputing.com. 

3 ‘‘Firmware’’ is a category of memory chips that 

hold their content without electrical power and 

include ROM, PROM, EPROM, and EEPROM 

technologies. Firmware becomes ‘‘hard software’’ 

when holding program code. See Alan Freedman’s 

The Computer Glossary (9th Ed., 2001). 

4 You claim that, without the software, the ICS 

Units would behave like a standard, off-the-shelf 

rack storage unit. 

users).1 Their software architecture uses 

both proprietary and licensed 

technologies to create a grid storage 

system from multiple clustered ‘‘nodes’’ 

(small, commodity-based hardware 

devices).2 The models at issue differ 

only in their storage capacity; the 

SN1000 holds 1 Terabyte worth of data, 

the SN2000 holds 2 Terabytes, and the 

SN4000 holds 4 Terabytes. 

The ICS Units consist of the following 

components: 

A. Hardware 

1. A Central Processing Unit (‘‘CPU’’), 

which is used to provide the computing 

power; 

2. An Application Specific Integrated 

Circuit (‘‘ASIC’’) that provides the 

proper processing speeds; 

3. A capacitor and resistors; 

4. Electrically erasable programmable 

read-only memory (‘‘EEPROM’’) to retain 

data in the event of power loss; 

5. A ‘‘motherboard’’, which is a 

printed circuit board populated by 

transistors, diodes, capacitors, and 

communication board; 

6. Additional motherboard 

components that provide additional 

data throughput; 

7. A Western Digital brand Hard Disk 

Drive (‘‘HDD’’) that stores data; 

8. A memory module, which 

enhances overall throughput; 

9. An air shroud, which helps with 

system cooling; 

10. A heat sink that protects internal 

components from heat; 

11. Two five foot patch cables, which 

connect to backplane for 

communication; and 

12. A chassis that encloses all of the 

above listed components. 

The components listed above are 

manufactured in several countries 

including China, India, Malaysia, 

Taiwan, and Thailand. (Significantly, 

the motherboard, which is the most 

expensive hardware component, is 

manufactured in China.) They are 

assembled in the U.S. upon importation 

‘‘through a build and verification 

process that includes approximately 112 

steps [summarized below].’’ 

B. Software 

The ICS Units also contain 

proprietary application software and 

firmware.3 Together, they enable the ICS 

Units to (1) create a cluster of nodes 

which act in unison, and (2) 

independently control the entire 

cluster.4

The application software and the 

firmware were developed in the U.S. by 

Scale. You indicated that the 

development process entailed: (1) a 

requirements analysis; (2) product 

design; (3) code writing; (4) quality 

assurance testing; (5) bug fixing and 

maintenance; and (5) support. By your 

estimation, ‘‘at least 12,480 hours were 

invested in the development of the 

firmware and application software in 

question’’ with ‘‘at least 10,400 more 

hours invested each year in continued 

development and maintenance.’’ 

C. Assembly 

The ICS Units are made from 

components manufactured in China, 

India, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand. 

They are ultimately assembled in the 

U.S., according to the following process: 

1. Initial Quality Control: personnel 

take component inventory and visually 

inspect each component. Serial numbers 

from each component are scanned into 

inventory and grouped with a particular 

ICS Unit. Serial numbers are verified for 

compatibility with other components in 

the group. 

2. Preparation of the System Chassis: 

after clearing the system board area, the 

motherboard is secured to the chassis. 

3. The Serial Advanced Technology 

Attachment (‘‘SATA’’) backplane cabling 

is attached: after lining up the 

appropriate markings, the SATA cable is 

connected to the SATA Backplane by 

using a SATA cable tree. 

4. The molex connector and intrusion 

detectors are attached to the SATA 

backplane. 

5. Preparation of the system board: 

The CPU, CPU Cooler, and Random 

Access Memory (‘‘RAM’’) are attached to 

the system board. 

6. Integration of the system board: the 

system board is integrated into the 

chassis by aligning it with the mounting 

holes and ensuring proper alignment 

with the I/O shield. The system board, 

main power harness, and power 

connector are then secured to the 

chassis. The main power harness is 

attached to the system board. 

7. Fan kit assembly: Fan connectors 

are plugged into internal ports. 

8. Routing and bundling of the front 

panel connectors: Front panel 

connectors are appropriately routed and 

connected. 

9. Air shroud integration: air shroud 

is positioned and attached to power 

cable. 

10. Signal Cables: signal cables are 

connected to the system board in the 

appropriate order, from SATA 0 through 

SATA 3. 

11. Verify and ensure the cable 

routing and connections: the intrusion 

detection cable is bundled and secured, 

and the ‘‘Chassis Intrusion’’ is attached 

next to the SATA connectors. 

12. Hard drive Integration: hard drive 

fillers are removed from chassis. 

13. Install hard drives (parts from Bill 

of Materials) and secure: the capacity of 

all hard drives is verified to ensure they 

are either 500 GB or 1000 GB. The hard 

drives are the systematically distributed 

on all order systems. 

14. Verify hardware integration: the 

hardware is verified to ensure that the 

system boards with CPU, Heat sink, and 

RAM has been properly mounted; the 

heat sink has proper orientation and is 

properly mounted; the cable routing and 

connections are correctly implemented; 

the air-duct (black shroud) is properly 

attached to the system board; the hard 

drives are properly assembled in carrier 

and lock in place; and that the Intrusion 

Detection Switch and Connector has 

been properly integrated. 

15. Secure chassis: the lid of chassis 

is secured with screws. 

16. First power on: the system is 

connected to a power source. The 

Network Interface Card (‘‘NIC’’) is 

connected to the ‘‘Staging Services’’. The 

keyboard and mouse are plugged in. The 

power system is turned and checked for 

any abnormalities. The boot process is 

checked. The POST of system is tested 

to verify that there are no acoustical 

warnings. 

17. BIOS Configuration: each system 

is booted into BIOS and all of the BIOS 

variables are reset to their defaults. The 

BIOS is then customized to run Scale’s 

firmware and application software by 

adjusting fifteen separate settings. 

18. Diagnostic Testing: after the 

system is rebooted, a technician 

performs a general diagnostic test and 

reboots again. 

19. Scale Image Loading: on this 

reboot, a technician connects the ICS 

Unit to power and checks that the 

system’s configuration is correct. After 

connecting the ICS Unit to a network, 

the technician loads the Company’s 

proprietary Operating System (‘‘OS’’) 

application software image, which 

enables the ICS Unit to act as part of a 

Scale system. The technician must 

observe the entire load process to ensure 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

27800 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 

that the ICS Unit is properly configured 

and accepts the OS load. 

20. Verification: the technician now 

runs an MD5 Check-Sum program to 

confirm that the OS image on the ICS 

Unit is identical to Scale’s proprietary 

OS image. 

21. Complete Integration and Verify: 

the technician now reboots the ICS Unit 

again to verify the BIOS settings are 

correctly implemented. The ICS Unit is 

then shut down. 

It takes approximately one hour to 

assemble each ICS Unit. 

ISSUE: 

What is the country of origin of the 

ICU Units for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement? 

LAW AND ANALYSIS: 

Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 

C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq., which 

implements Title III of the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979, as amended 

(‘‘TAA’’; 19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP 

issues country of origin advisory rulings 

and final determinations on whether an 

article is or would be a product of a 

designated country or instrumentality 

for the purposes of granting waivers of 

certain ‘‘Buy American’’ restrictions in 

U.S. law or practice for products offered 

for sale to the U.S. Government. 

Under the rule of origin set forth at 19 

U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B): 

An article is a product of a country or 

instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly 

the growth, product, or manufacture of 

that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in 

the case of an article which consists in 

whole or in part of materials from 

another country or instrumentality, it 

has been substantially transformed into 

a new and different article of commerce 

with a name, character, or use distinct 

from that of the article or articles from 

which it was so transformed. 

See also, 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(a). 

In rendering advisory rulings and 

final determinations for purposes of 

U.S. Government procurement, CBP 

applies the provisions of subpart B of 

Part 177 consistent with the Federal 

Procurement Regulations. See 19 C.F.R. 

§ 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes 

that the Federal Procurement 

Regulations restrict the U.S. 

Government’s purchase of products to 

U.S.-made or designated country end 

products for acquisitions subject to the 

TAA. See 48 C.F.R. § 25.403(c)(1). 

In order to determine whether a 

substantial transformation occurs when 

components of various origins are 

assembled to form completed articles, 

CBP considers the totality of the 

circumstances and makes such 

decisions on a case-by-case basis. The 

country of origin of the article’s 

components, the extent of the 

processing that occurs within a given 

country, and whether such processing 

renders a product with a new name, 

character, and use are primary 

considerations in such cases. 

Additionally, facts such as resources 

expended on product design and 

development, extent and nature of postassembly inspection procedures, and 

worker skill required during the actual 

manufacturing process will be 

considered when analyzing whether a 

substantial transformation has occurred; 

however, no one such factor is 

determinative. 

In Data General v. United States, 4 

CIT 182 (1982), the court determined 

that for purposes of determining 

eligibility under item 807.00, Tariff 

Schedules of the United States, the 

programming of a foreign PROM 

(Programmable Read-Only Memory 

chip) substantially transformed the 

PROM into a U.S. article. In 

programming the imported PROMs, the 

U.S. engineers systematically caused 

various distinct electronic 

interconnections to be formed within 

each integrated circuit. The 

programming bestowed upon each 

circuit its electronic function. That is, 

its ‘‘memory’’ which could be retrieved. 

A distinct physical change was effected 

in the PROM by the opening or closing 

of the fuses, depending on the method 

of programming. This physical 

alteration, not visible to the naked eye, 

could be discerned by electronic testing 

of the PROM. The court noted that the 

programs were designed by a project 

engineer with many years of experience 

in ‘‘designing and building hardware.’’ 

While replicating the program pattern 

from a ‘‘master’’ PROM may be a quick 

one-step process, the development of 

the pattern and the production of the 

‘‘master’’ PROM required much time and 

expertise. The court noted that it was 

undisputed that programming alters the 

character of a PROM. The essence of the 

article, its interconnections or stored 

memory, was established by 

programming. The court concluded that 

altering the non-functioning circuitry 

comprising a PROM through 

technological expertise in order to 

produce a functioning read only 

memory device possessing a desired 

distinctive circuit pattern was no less a 

‘‘substantial transformation’’ than the 

manual interconnection of transistors, 

resistors and diodes upon a circuit 

board creating a similar pattern. 

In Texas Instruments v. United States, 

supra, the court observed that the 

substantial transformation issue is a 

‘‘mixed question of technology and 

customs law.’’ 

In C.S.D. 84–86, CBP stated: 

We are of the opinion that the 

rationale of the court in the Data 

General case may be applied in the 

present case to support the principle 

that the essence of an integrated circuit 

memory storage device is established by 

programming . . . . [W]e are of the 

opinion that the programming (or 

reprogramming) of an EPROM results in 

a new and different article of commerce 

which would be considered to be a 

product of the country where the 

programming or reprogramming takes 

place. 

Accordingly, the programming of a 

device that changes or defines its use 

generally constitutes substantial 

transformation. See also HQ 733085, 

dated July 13, 1990; and HQ 558868, 

dated February 23, 1995 (programming 

of SecureID Card substantially 

transforms the card because it gives the 

card its character and use as part of a 

security system and the programming is 

a permanent change that cannot be 

undone); HQ 735027, dated September 

7, 1993 (programming blank media 

(EEPROM) with instructions on it that 

allows it to perform certain functions of 

preventing piracy of software 

constituted substantial transformation); 

but see HQ 732870, dated March 19, 

1990 (formatting a blank diskette did 

not constitute substantial transformation 

because it did not add value, did not 

involve complex or highly technical 

operations and did not create a new or 

different product); HQ 734518, dated 

June 28, 1993 (concluding that 

motherboards were not substantially 

transformed by the implanting of the 

central processing unit on the board 

because, whereas in Data General use 

was being assigned to the PROM, the 

use of the motherboard had already 

been determined when the importer 

imports it). 

You claim that Scale takes several 

individual components and combines 

them in the United States to make 

otherwise dormant electronic 

components into a usable customized 

data storage device. The motherboard is 

imported from China with integrated 

circuits, an EEPROM, transistors, 

diodes, a capacitor, resistors and 

communication buses. From the 

information provided, the board is 

solely or principally used with an ADP 

storage unit. Once imported, the 

motherboard will be installed in a 

chassis from China, along with various 

other non-originating components 

including a CPU from Malaysia, HDD 

from Thailand, memory module, air 

shroud, cables, and heat sink from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 2010 / Notices 27801 

China, to complete a rack mounted 

server. Each of these components is 

made into a rack mounted storage 

device, classifiable under 8471.70.40, 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTSUS’’). 

The device does not have pairing 

capability until the U.S.-made software 

is downloaded to it, which enables the 

device to function as a cloud computing 

device similar to a network storage 

RAID array (HDDs strung together to 

allow redundancy in different 

locations). The software completes a 

network storage function instead of just 

a HDD found in a rack mounted storage 

device. The RAID array storage 

subsystem components and HDD 

canisters usually include a disk array 

controller frame which effects the 

interface between the subsystem’s 

storage units and a CPU. In this case, the 

software effects the interconnection 

between the CPU and the storage units, 

and the classification of the finished 

item becomes 8471.80.10, HTSUS. 

Thus, the imported components become 

a new product with a new name and 

classification. 

In summary, Scale imports several 

components of foreign-origin, including 

a blank storage medium in the form of 

a hard disk drive, combines them into 

a finished product and loads propriety 

software using skilled technical effort. 

The customization and installation of 

firmware and application software make 

what would otherwise be a nonfunctioning rack storage unit, into 

Scale’s proprietary clustered 

technology. As a result of the U.S. 

processing, we find that the imported 

component parts are substantially 

transformed and therefore, the country 

of origin of the ICS Units is the United 

States. 

Please be advised, however, that 

whether the ICS Units may be marked 

‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ or with similar 

words, is an issue under the authority 

of the Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’). We suggest that you contact the 

FTC, Division of Enforcement, 6th and 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20508, on the propriety 

of markings indicating that articles are 

made in the United States. 

HOLDING: 

Based on the facts provided, the 

processing operations performed in 

United States impart the essential 

character to the ICS Units. As such, the 

ICS Units will be considered products of 

the United States for the purpose of 

government procurement. 

Notice of this final determination will 

be given in the Federal Register as 

required by 19 C.F.R. § 177.29. Any 

party-at-interest other than the party 

which requested this final 

determination may request, pursuant to 

19 C.F.R. § 177.31, that CBP reexamine 

the matter anew and issue a new final 

determination. Any party-at-interest 

may, within 30 days after publication of 

the Federal Register notice referenced 

above, seek judicial review of this final 

determination before the Court of 

International Trade. 

Sincerely, 

William G. Rosoff 

for 

Sandra L. Bell, Executive Director 

Regulations and Rulings 

Office of International Trade 

[FR Doc. 2010–11726 Filed 5–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5421–FA–01] 

Announcement of Funding Awards for 

the Indian Community Development 

Block Grant Program for Fiscal Year 

2009 

AGENCY: Office of Native American 

Programs, Office of Public and Indian 

Housing, HUD. 

ACTION: Announcement of funding 

awards. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 

102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

Reform Act of 1989, this announcement 

notifies the public of funding decisions 

made by the Department in a 

competition for funding under the 

Fiscal Year 2009 (FY 2009) Notice of 

Funding Availability (NOFA) for the 

Indian Community Development Block 

Grant (ICDBG) Program. This 

announcement contains the 

consolidated names and addresses of 

this year’s award recipients under the 

ICDBG. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning the ICDBG 

Program awards, contact the Area Office 

of Native American Programs (ONAP) 

serving your area or Deborah M. 

Lalancette, Office of Native Programs, 

1670 Broadway, 23rd Floor, Denver, CO 

80202, telephone (303) 675–1600. 

Hearing or speech-impaired individuals 

may access this number via TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

program provides grants to Indian tribes 

and Alaska Native Villages to develop 

viable Indian and Alaska Native 

communities, including the creation of 

decent housing, suitable living 

environments, and economic 

opportunities primarily for persons with 

low and moderate incomes as defined in 

24 CFR 1003.4. 

The FY 2009 awards announced in 

this Notice were selected for funding in 

a competition posted on HUD’s Web site 

on May 29, 2009 (http://portal.hud.gov/ 

portal/page/portal/HUD/program_

offices/administration/grants/

fundsavail). Applications were scored 

and selected for funding based on the 

selection criteria in that notice and Area 

ONAP geographic jurisdictional 

competitions. 

The amount appropriated in FY 2009 

to fund the ICDBG was $65,000,000. Of 

this amount $3,960,000 of this amount 

was retained to fund imminent threat 

grants in FY 2009. In addition, a total of 

$2,076,159 in carryover funds from 

prior years was also available. The 

allocations for the Area ONAP 

geographic jurisdictions, including 

carryover, are as follows: 

Alaska ................................... $6,859,040 

Eastern/Woodlands .............. 6,928,622 

Northern Plains .................... 9,194,667 

Northwest ............................. 3,662,163 

Southern Plains ................... 13,734,388 

Southwest ............................. 22,737,279 

Total .................................. $63,116,159 

In accordance with section 102 

(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development Reform Act of 

1989 (103 Stat.1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), 

the Department is publishing the names, 

addresses, and amounts of the 83 

awards made under the various regional 

competitions in Appendix A to this 

document. 

Dated: May 4, 2010. 

Sandra B. Henriquez, 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES