56824 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 

*Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(8) and (9). 

1Section 10(d)(1) requires MTOs to establish, 

observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations 

and practices relating to or connected with 

receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property. 

46 U.S.C. 41102(c). Section 10(d)(4) provides that 

an MTO may not give any undue or unreasonable 

preference or advantage or impose any undue or 

unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage with 

respect to any person. 46 U.S.C. 41106(2). An MTO 

may not unreasonably refuse to deal or negotiate. 

46 U.S.C. 41106(3). 

2For the purposes of this order, the City of Los 

Angeles, the Harbor Department of the City of Los 

Angeles and the Board of Harbor Commissioners of 

the City of Los Angeles will be referred to as the 

Port of Los Angeles or POLA. 

used by consumers as tools, to assist 

them in differentiating between similar 

types of products based on distinct, 

verifiable criteria. For example, a logo 

from the National Organic Standards 

Board could assist a grower seeking to 

obtain or maintain organic certification 

for his/her farm. Labels could provide 

information about the comparative 

safety of the product as well as about its 

potential environmental impact, 

allowing consumers to choose among 

products based on their preferences. 

Along with the recommendations from 

the PPDC work group, EPA will 

consider the potential risks associated 

with including these types of statements 

on pesticide labeling and the proper role 

of government in this type of program 

before deciding whether or not to revise 

the current regulations. 

In summary, the Agency is committed 

to ensuring that pesticide labeling is 

utilized as a tool to communicate 

critical information to the user how to 

use the product safely and effectively. In 

order to ensure that protection of public 

health and the environment remain the 

top priorities for EPA, we are not 

encouraging submissions of any label 

claims that detract or distract from the 

use and safety instructions or that could 

be considered false or misleading. We 

remain committed to programs and 

initiatives designed to improve the 

content, organization and enforceability 

of pesticide labeling. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

Debra Edwards, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–22938 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

Farm Credit Administration Board; 

Regular Meeting 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the Government in the 

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of 

the regular meeting of the Farm Credit 

Administration Board (Board). 

DATES AND TIME: The regular meeting of 

the Board will be held at the offices of 

the Farm Credit Administration in 

McLean, Virginia, on October 9, 2008, 

from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board 

concludes its business. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm 

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– 

4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. 

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit 

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, 

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of 

this meeting of the Board will be open 

to the public (limited space available), 

and parts will be closed to the public. 

In order to increase the accessibility to 

Board meetings, persons requiring 

assistance should make arrangements in 

advance. The matters to be considered 

at the meeting are: 

Open Session 

A. Approval of Minutes 

• September 11, 2008. 

B. New Business—Regulation 

• Disclosure and Accounting 

Requirements—Proposed Rule—12 CFR 

Parts 619, 620, and 621. 

C. Reports 

• OE Quarterly Report and Funding 

the Farm Credit System (FCS): 

Æ Financial Condition of FCS. 

Æ Funding the FCS. 

Closed Session * 

• Supervisory and Oversight 

Activities of FCS Institutions. 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. E8–23077 Filed 9–26–08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 08–05] 

City of Los Angeles, CA, Harbor 

Department of the City of Los Angeles, 

Board of Harbor Commissioners of the 

City of Los Angeles, City of Long 

Beach, California, Harbor Department 

of the City of Long Beach, and the 

Board of Harbor Commissioners of the 

City of Long Beach—Possible 

Violations of Sections 10(B)(10), 

10(D)(1) and 10(D)(4) of the Shipping 

Act of 1984; Order of Investigation and 

Hearing 

On November 20, 2006, the governing 

boards of the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach voted to approve the San 

Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan 

(‘‘CAAP’’). The CAAP is a broad effort 

aimed at significantly reducing the 

health risks posed by air pollution from 

port-related ships, trains, drayage 

trucks, terminal equipment and harbor 

craft by at least 45 percent in five years. 

To that end, each port has adopted a 

Clean Truck Program (‘‘CTP’’) as a 

component of the CAAP to address air 

pollution caused by the short haul 

truckers that transport containers to and 

from the ports, i.e., the harbor truck 

drayage system. Each port’s CTP 

becomes effective on October 1, 2008. 

The Federal Maritime Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is responsible for 

enforcing the requirements of the 

Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by 

the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 

(‘‘Shipping Act’’). 46 U.S.C. 40101 et 

seq. As the ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach operate as marine terminal 

operators (‘‘MTOs’’) under the Shipping 

Act, their actions, to the extent they 

impact international transportation, are 

subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction 

and, in particular, to the requirements of 

section 10 of the Shipping Act.1

While the Commission appreciates 

the significant environmental and 

public health benefits of the San Pedro 

Ports CAAP, it is concerned that certain 

aspects of the ports’ CTPs may violate 

the Shipping Act. Accordingly, the 

Commission has determined to initiate 

an Investigation and Hearing of the 

Ports’ Clean Truck Programs under 

section 11 of the Shipping Act with 

respect to possible violations under 

section 10 of the Shipping Act. 

San Pedro Bay Ports 

The Port of Los Angeles (‘‘POLA’’), 

referred to as the Los Angeles Harbor 

Department, is a self-supporting 

department of the City of Los Angeles, 

California. POLA is under the control of 

a five-member Board of Harbor 

Commissioners appointed by the mayor 

of Los Angeles and approved by the City 

Council, and is administered by an 

executive director.2 POLA is the largest 

container port in the United States. 

POLA’s annual loaded container volume 

for 2007 was 5.7 million twenty-foot 

equivalent units (‘‘TEUs’’). 

The Port of Long Beach (‘‘POLB’’) has 

an administrative structure similar to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 56825 

3For the purposes of this order, the City of Long 

Beach, California, the Harbor Department of the 

City of Long Beach and the Board of Harbor 

Commissioners of the City of Long Beach will be 

referred to as the Port of Long Beach or POLB. 

4The concession requirement has been 

challenged in federal court. See American Trucking 

Associations v. City of Los Angeles, et al., No. 08– 

04920, C.D. Calif. The district court has denied a 

request for preliminary injunction, and this 

decision has been appealed. The outcome of the 

legal action by the American Trucking Associations 

does not affect the Commission’s authority to 

institute this investigation. 

POLA. POLB is a public agency 

managed and operated by the City of 

Long Beach Harbor Department. POLB 

is governed by the Long Beach Board of 

Harbor Commissioners, whose five 

members are appointed by the mayor of 

Long Beach and confirmed by the City 

Council. POLB is administered by an 

executive director.3 POLB is the second 

largest port in the United States. POLB’s 

annual loaded container volume for 

2007 was more than 4.9 million TEUs. 

POLA and POLB are located side-byside in San Pedro Bay and together are 

referred to as the San Pedro Bay Ports. 

Together they would constitute the 5th 

largest container port in the world. 

While the two ports compete for 

business, they cooperate on 

infrastructure projects and 

environmental issues pursuant to 

agreements filed with the Commission. 

It is reported that approximately 16,800 

trucks, affiliated with an estimated 600– 

1,200 licensed motor carriers (‘‘LMCs’’), 

transport containers to and from the 

ports. At present, nearly all of the trucks 

are operated by independent owner 

operators. 

The Clean Truck Programs 

Central to each port’s CTP is a system 

to control truck access to the container 

terminals through the issuance of port 

concessions to LMCs. Each CTP 

presently provides that after October 1, 

2008, entry to container terminals at the 

ports will be limited to licensed motor 

carriers that have a concession 

agreement.4 Carriers serving both ports 

must have a separate concession from 

each port. To obtain a concession, an 

LMC must file an application (with a 

$2,500 fee for POLA, and $250 for 

POLB, plus an annual fee of $100 per 

truck in both ports) in which it presents 

an appropriate maintenance plan for 

trucks used at the port; ensures that all 

trucks comply with safety, regulatory 

and security requirements, and that 

drivers have obtained their 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential; agrees to searches; maintains 

prescribed insurance levels; equips 

trucks with prescribed devices to allow 

for the electronic reading of certain data 

concerning the truck; ensures 

compliance with parking ordinances; 

agrees to hiring preferences for drivers 

with port experience; and agrees to 

travel only on specified truck routes 

established by local municipalities or 

the ports. 

There are certain differences between 

the CTPs of the two ports. POLA 

requires that all approved 

concessionaires transition to providing 

port service only with companyemployee drivers. This requirement is 

phased in over a 5-year period 

commencing January 1, 2009. By 

December 31, 2013, all concession 

drivers at POLA must be company 

employees. Independent owneroperators will not be permitted entry to 

the container terminals. POLB has no 

similar mandate and will permit 

concessionaires to continue to provide 

service with either employee drivers, 

independent owner-operators or a 

combination of both, as is presently 

allowed. POLA also requires concession 

applicants to submit for approval a plan 

that limits parking to off-street 

locations. No on-street parking will be 

allowed for trucks not in service. POLB, 

on the other hand, requires applicants to 

submit a parking plan that demonstrates 

either the availability of off-street 

parking or legal on-street parking. POLA 

also requires applicants to submit 

financial statements and a statement of 

business experience at the port, in 

drayage service, and with owneroperators or driver employees, together 

with references to verify this 

information. POLB does not have a 

similar requirement. 

The applications of both ports provide 

that submission of an application does 

not guarantee an award of a concession. 

There are no published criteria or 

standards governing the granting or 

denial of concessions. Both ports 

require the LMC to register its drayage 

vehicles in a Drayage Truck Registry 

(DTR) identifying the vehicle and all of 

its pertinent details, including the 

model year of the truck and its engine. 

Only vehicles registered in the DTR will 

be permitted entry to the container 

terminals. 

Also as part of their CTPs, both ports 

have adopted a truck ban by which 

trucks older than model year 1989 will 

be prohibited from entering terminal 

premises on and after October 1, 2008. 

Thereafter, the program progressively 

bans trucks that do not meet 2007 

federal Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) emission standards by 

January 1, 2012. Each port has adopted 

truck replacement programs to assist 

truckers to purchase or upgrade to 2007- 

compliant trucks through grants and 

lease-to-own plans. State and port 

funds, as well as funds derived from a 

Clean Truck Fee, will be used to finance 

the truck replacement programs through 

a Clean Truck Fund maintained by each 

port. 

Commencing October 1, 2008, a fee of 

$35 per loaded TEU, or $70 per FEU, 

will be collected from the beneficial 

cargo owner on every container entering 

or exiting the terminals by truck. 

Containers entering or leaving the ports 

by rail and those moving between 

terminals at the ports are not subject to 

the fee. Both ports will exempt 

collection of the fee where the truck 

hauling the container was privately 

financed and is compliant with the 2007 

federal EPA standards and meets certain 

conditions. Each port maintains slight 

variations with respect to eligibility for 

the exemption depending on whether 

the truck’s fuel is diesel or an 

alternative fuel such as LNG; when the 

vehicle was purchased; whether an old 

truck was scrapped; and whether it was 

purchased with program funds. 

Verification of eligibility and 

enforcement of access to the terminals 

as well as collection of the Clean Truck 

Fee are to be the responsibilities of the 

MTO tenants of the ports. Provisions 

governing these requirements are 

published in the respective tariffs of the 

ports. 

The Port of Los Angeles Incentive 

Program 

On August 21, 2008, POLA adopted 

two additional incentives to encourage 

companies operating 2007 or newer 

compliant trucks to become 

concessionaires and commit to a stated 

minimum of service at POLA. One 

incentive offers a cash payment of 

$20,000 for each 2007 EPA-compliant 

truck that is privately funded and 

committed to service in the port drayage 

market at a minimum frequency of 6 

trips per week for 5 years. Carriers 

interested in participating were required 

to submit a letter of interest by 

September 19, 2008, stating the number 

of eligible trucks operated, the number 

to be initially committed to port service, 

and the number to be added monthly. 

The other incentive provides for a cash 

payment of $10 per dray by a 2007 EPAcompliant truck, if the truck achieves a 

minimum target of 600 qualified drays 

per year in and out of POLA and POLB, 

and 300 of those drays are for POLA 

cargo. There is a per truck limit on this 

incentive of $10,000 for the year 

commencing October 1, 2008. Incentive 

payments for both programs will be 

made from the Clean Truck Fund and 

other port funds. Successful applicants 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
56826 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 

for the payment will be selected at the 

sole discretion of the port staff. 

Commission Authority 

A marine terminal operator is defined 

as ‘‘a person engaged in the United 

States in the business of furnishing 

wharfage, dock, warehouse or other 

terminal facilities in connection with a 

common carrier, or in connection with 

a common carrier and a water carrier 

subject to sub-chapter 11 of chapter 135 

of title 49, United States Code.’’ 46 

U.S.C. 40102(14). Section 10(d)(1) of the 

Shipping Act states that a ‘‘[c]ommon 

carrier, ocean transportation 

intermediary, or marine terminal 

operator may not fail to establish, 

observe, and enforce just and reasonable 

regulations and practices relating to or 

connected with receiving, handling, 

storing, or delivering property.’’ 46 

U.S.C. 41102(c). Under section 10(d)(4), 

‘‘[a] marine terminal operator may not 

give any undue or unreasonable 

preference or advantage or impose any 

undue or unreasonable preference or 

advantage or impose any undue or 

unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage 

with respect to any person;’’ 46 U.S.C. 

41106(2). Section 10(b)(10) of the 

Shipping Act prohibits a marine 

terminal operator from unreasonably 

refusing to deal or negotiate. 46 U.S.C. 

41106(3). 

The Commission is responsible for 

ensuring that the practices and 

regulations of marine terminal operators 

are just and reasonable. Under Section 

10(d), a regulation or practice must be 

tailored to meet its intended purpose. It 

may have a valid purpose and yet be 

unreasonable because it goes beyond 

what is necessary to achieve that 

purpose. Distribution Services, Ltd. v. 

TransPacific Freight Confer. of Japan, 

24 SRR 714, 722 (FMC, 1988). The test 

of reasonableness as applied to MTOs 

requires that actions and practices ‘‘be 

otherwise lawful, not excessive and 

reasonably related, fit and appropriate 

to the ends in view.’’ Exclusive Tug 

Arrangements in Port Canaveral, 29 SRR 

487, 489 (FMC, 2002) and West Coast 

Maritime Association v. Port of 

Houston, 18 SRR 783, 790 (1978), 610 

F2d 100 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 

449 U.S. 822 (1980). 

Now therefore, it is ordered, That 

pursuant to section 11(c) of the 

Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 

41303(c), an investigation is instituted 

to determine: 

1. Whether Respondent Port of Los 

Angeles has failed to establish, observe, 

and enforce just and reasonable 

regulations and practices in violation of 

section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act by 

mandating, on a phased-in basis, that 

LMCs providing drayage service to the 

Port utilize only employee drivers; 

2. Whether Respondent Port of Los 

Angeles provides an undue or 

unreasonable preference or advantage or 

imposes any undue or unreasonable 

prejudice or disadvantage with respect 

to any person in violation of section 

10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act by 

implementing, on a phased-in basis, a 

ban on independent owner operators 

providing drayage service at the Port; 

3. Whether Respondent Port of Los 

Angeles has failed to establish, observe 

and enforce just and reasonable 

regulations and practices in violation of 

section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act or 

provides an undue or unreasonable 

preference or advantage or imposes any 

undue or unreasonable prejudice or 

disadvantage with respect to any person 

in violation of section 10(d)(4) of the 

Shipping Act, by making payments to 

certain selected motor carriers as 

incentive to provide drayage service at 

the port, but not to others; 

4. Whether Respondent Port of Los 

Angeles has failed to establish, observe 

and enforce just and reasonable 

regulations and practices in violation of 

section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act or 

provides an undue or unreasonable 

preference or advantage or imposes any 

undue or unreasonable prejudice or 

disadvantage with respect to any person 

in violation of section 10(d)(4) of the 

Shipping Act, by denying access to 

terminal facilities to drayage carriers 

absent port-approved arrangements to 

park their vehicles on off-street 

premises; 

5. Whether Respondents Port of Long 

Beach and Port of Los Angeles have 

failed to establish, observe and enforce 

just and reasonable regulations and 

practices in violation of section 10(d)(1) 

of the Shipping Act, or give an undue 

or unreasonable preference or advantage 

or impose any undue or unreasonable 

prejudice or disadvantage with respect 

to any person in violation of section 

10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act, by 

exempting from the $35/TEU Clean 

Truck Fee those beneficial cargo owners 

whose cargo is moved by privately 

financed, 2007 compliant trucks, while 

imposing fees on those beneficial cargo 

owners whose cargo is moved by 

publicly financed 2007 compliant trucks 

and trucks manufactured between 1989 

and 2006; 

6. Whether Respondents Port of Long 

Beach and Port of Los Angeles have 

failed to establish, observe and enforce 

just and reasonable regulations and 

practices in violation of section 10(d)(1) 

of the Shipping Act by requiring motor 

carriers providing container drayage 

service at the ports to submit an 

application for a concession, but not 

publishing standards or criteria by 

which such application will be granted 

or denied; 

7. Whether Respondent Port of Los 

Angeles violated section 10(b)(10) of the 

Shipping Act by refusing to deal or 

negotiate with motor carriers otherwise 

authorized to provide drayage service at 

the port who conduct their port 

operations using independent owneroperators; 

8. Whether, in the event one or more 

violations of section 10 of the Shipping 

Act are found, civil penalties should be 

assessed and, if so, the identity of the 

entities against whom the penalties 

should be assessed and the amount of 

the penalties to be assessed; 

9. Whether, in the event violations are 

found, appropriate cease and desist 

orders should be issued. 

It is further ordered, That a public 

hearing be held in this proceeding and 

that this matter be assigned for hearing 

before an Administrative Law Judge of 

the Commission’s Office of 

Administrative Law Judges at a date and 

place to be hereafter determined by the 

Administrative Law Judge in 

compliance with Rule 61 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.61. The hearing 

shall include oral testimony and crossexamination in the discretion of the 

presiding Administrative Law Judge 

only after consideration has been given 

by the parties and the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge to the use of 

alternative forms of dispute resolution, 

and upon a proper showing that there 

are genuine issues of material fact that 

cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 

statements, affidavits, depositions, or 

other documents or that the nature of 

the matters in issue is such that an oral 

hearing and cross-examination are 

necessary for the development of an 

adequate record; 

It is further ordered, That the 

following entities be designated as 

Respondents in this proceeding: 

City of Los Angeles, California; 

Harbor Department of the City of Los 

Angeles; Board of Harbor 

Commissioners of the City of Los 

Angeles; City of Long Beach, California; 

Harbor Department of the City of Long 

Beach; Board of Harbor Commissioners 

of the City of Long Beach; 

It is further ordered, That the 

Commission’s Bureau of Enforcement be 

designated a party to this proceeding; 

It is further ordered, That notice of 

this Order be published in the Federal 

Register, and a copy be served on all 

parties of record; 

It is further ordered, That other 

persons having an interest in 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 56827 

participating in this proceeding may file 

petitions for leave to intervene in 

accordance with Rule 72 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.72; 

It is further ordered, That all further 

notices, orders, or decisions issued by or 

on behalf of the Commission in this 

proceeding, including notice of the time 

and place of hearing or prehearing 

conference, shall be served on all parties 

of record; 

It is further ordered, That all 

documents submitted by any party of 

record in this proceeding shall be 

directed to the Secretary, Federal 

Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 

20573,in accordance with Rule 118 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 46 CFR 502.118, and shall be 

served on parties of record; and 

It is further ordered, That in 

accordance with Rule 61 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, the initial decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge shall be 

issued by September 24, 2009 and the 

final decision of the Commission shall 

be issued by January 22, 2010. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22942 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank 

Holding Companies 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank 

holding company. The factors that are 

considered in acting on the notices are 

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the office of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than October 

15, 2008. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 

Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 

30309: 

1. James C. France, Daytona Beach, 

Florida, to acquire voting shares of 

CenterBank, Inc., and thereby indirectly 

acquire voting shares of CenterBank of 

Jacksonville, N.A., both of Jacksonville, 

Florida. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, September 25, 2008. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E8–22930 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The applications also will be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Additional information on all bank 

holding companies may be obtained 

from the National Information Center 

website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than October 24, 

2008. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 

Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 

30309: 

1. Broward Financial Holdings, Inc., 

to become a bank holding company by 

acquiring 100 percent of the voting 

shares of Broward Bank of Commerce, 

both of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, September 25, 2008. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc.E8–22929 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency Information Collection 

Request; 30–Day Public Comment 

Request, Grants.Gov; 30-day Notice 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of the Secretary (OS), Department 

of Health and Human Services, is 

publishing the following summary of a 

proposed collection for public 

comment. Interested persons are invited 

to send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, e-mail your request, 

including your address, phone number, 

OMB number, and OS document 

identifier, to 

Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov, or call 

the Reports Clearance Office on (202) 

690–5683. Send written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collections within 30 days 

of this notice directly to the OS OMB 

Desk Officer; faxed to OMB at 202–395– 

6974. 

Proposed Project: SF–424 Short 

Organizational—Revision—OMB No. 

4040–0003—Grants.gov. 

Abstract: This is a request for a 

revision of a previously approved 

collection. The SF–424 Short 

organizational form is used by the 26 

Federal grant-making agencies as a 

simplified alternative to the SF–424 

standard form. Agencies may use the 

SF–424 Short Organizational form for 

grant programs not required to collect 

all the data that is required on the SF– 

424 standard form. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES