21702 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: May 1, 2009. 

J. G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. E9–10750 Filed 5–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Notice of Issuance of Final 

Determination Concerning USB Flash 

Devices 

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 USB flash devices 

(‘‘UFDs’’) which may be offered to the 

United States Government under an 

undesignated government procurement 

contract. Based upon the facts 

presented, in the final determination 

CBP concluded that either Israel or the 

United States is the country of origin of 

the UFDs for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement. 

DATES: The final determination was 

issued on May 5, 2009. 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 June 8, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerry O’Brien, Valuation and Special 

Programs Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade 

(202–325–0044). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that on May 5, 2009, 

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 certain UFDs which may be 

offered to the United States Government 

under an undesignated government 

procurement contract. This final 

determination, in HQ H034843, was 

issued at the request of SanDisk 

Corporation 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 concluded that, 

based upon the facts presented, certain 

goods are substantially transformed in 

either Israel of the United States, such 

that either Israel or 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 5, 2009. 

Sandra L. Bell, 

Executive Director, Office of Regulations and 

Rulings,Office of International Trade. 

Attachment 

HQ H034843 

May 5, 2009 

MAR–2–05 OT:RR:CTF:VS H034843 

GOB 

CATEGORY: Marking 

Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw 

LLP, 975 F Street, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

RE: U.S. Government Procurement; 

Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 

1979 (19 U.S.C. § 2511); Subpart B, 

Part 177, CBP Regulations; Country 

of Origin of USB Flash Drive 

Dear Mr. Connelly: This is in response 

to your letter of July 17, 2008 requesting 

a final determination on behalf of the 

SanDisk Corporation (‘‘SanDisk’’), 

pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

Regulations (19 CFR 177.21 et seq.). 

Pursuant to our request, you provided 

additional information on March 10, 

2009. 

Under the pertinent regulations, 

which implement Title III of the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979 (‘‘TAA’’), as 

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

issues country of origin advisory rulings 

and final determinations as to 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. You 

state that SanDisk ‘‘either manufactures 

or imports the merchandise which is the 

subject of this request.’’ 

This final determination concerns the 

country of origin of certain encrypted 

USB flash devices. We note that 

SanDisk is a party-at-interest within the 

meaning of 19 CFR § 177.22(d)(1) and is 

entitled to request this final 

determination. 

You also request a determination 

concerning the country-of-origin 

marking of the subject goods. 

FACTS: 

You describe the pertinent facts as 

follows. A USB flash device (‘‘UFD’’) is 

a portable device that stores data in a 

non-volatile memory. The data is 

accessed from a host PC when the UFD 

is connected to its USB port. Flash 

memory is a form of block-oriented 

computer memory that can be 

electronically erased and 

reprogrammed. Flash memory is based 

on one of two current principles of 

operation: NOR flash and NAND flash. 

NAND-based flash, which is more 

suitable for mass-data storage devices, 

has faster erase and write times, but its 

interface allows only sequential access 

to data. 

Four different items are involved 

here: Cruzer Professional (Stock 

Keeping Unit (‘‘SKU’’) SDCZ21); Cruzer 

Enterprise (SKU SDCZ22 and SDCZ35); 

Cruzer Enterprise FIPS Edition (SKU 

SDCZ32); and Cruzer Identity (SKU 

SDCZ31). The subject SanDisk UFDs are 

intended for organizations which 

require protection of their data when a 

UFD is lost or stolen. Cruzer Identity 

can also be used for managing a user 

digital identity to authenticate the user 

to different software systems. 

You state that the key hardware 

component of the UFD is the flash 

memory chip, which stores the data. A 

flash chip is created in a generic 

manufacturing process for 

semiconductor device fabrication used 

to create chips and integrated circuits 

present in electronic devices. The 

process is a sequence of photographic 

and chemical processing steps during 

which electronic circuits are stacked on 

a wafer made of semiconducting 

material. Silicon is the most commonly 

used semiconductor material. The entire 

manufacturing process, which is 

performed in highly specialized 

facilities, takes six to eight weeks. The 

flash memory chips are manufactured in 

Japan and are the most expensive 

hardware component of the UFD. 

You state that the UFDs consist of the 

following components: (1) NAND-based 

flash memory chips for mass data 

storage; (2) an application specific 

integrated circuit (‘‘ASIC’’), which acts 

as the mass storage controller and 

provides a linear interface to the blockoriented flash memory; (3) a USB 

connector, which provides the interface 

with the host computer; (4) a crystal 

oscillator, which produces the device’s 

clock signal and controls the data 

output; (5) LEDs, which indicate data 

transfer in progress; (6) capacitors and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Notices 21703 

resistors; (7) electrically erasable 

programmable read-only memory 

(‘‘EEPROM’’) to store secret encryption 

keys in some of the UFD models; (8) a 

printed circuit board, which provides 

the mounting frame and circuitry for the 

electronic components listed above; and 

(9) a robust plastic or metal case. Cruzer 

Identity also contains a USB hub and 

smartcard. 

You further state that the subject 

UFDs consist of firmware and 

application software. The firmware is a 

piece of binary machine code embedded 

or downloaded to the device using 

SanDisk’s proprietary mass production 

machines (‘‘MPUs’’) after the hardware 

is manufactured. The firmware is 

essential to the use of the UFD. The 

firmware is responsible for the 

following: transferring data into and out 

of the flash memory chips; determining 

the storage algorithm; transferring data 

to and from the host PC through the 

USB port by implementing the USB 

different protocols; controlling the 

hardware encryption core in decisions 

such as determining which encryption 

key to use; and establishing secure 

encrypted communication sessions with 

a related software agent running on the 

host PC. During the manufacturing step 

of embedding the firmware, the 

production system is responsible for 

provisioning randomly generated 

encryption keys that are stored in the 

controller internal memory cache. The 

encryption keys are also crucial for the 

operation of the UFD. 

The application software is 

responsible for functions such as login 

and user interface. Without it, the UFD 

does not exhibit its security features and 

behaves like any standard off the shelf 

USB flash drive for storing files in a 

non-protected manner. Without the 

application software, one cannot access 

information already stored in the 

protected encrypted form. The 

application software code is stored in 

the UFD during the manufacturing 

process in a read only storage area. 

The current versions of the firmware 

and the application software were 

developed at SanDisk’s site in Israel. 

SanDisk estimates that at least 70 man 

year hours were invested in the 

development of the firmware and the 

application software and that at least 20 

more man years are invested each year 

in its continuing development. The 

process of software development 

(firmware and application software) is 

composed of requirements analysis, 

design, code writing, quality assurance 

testing, bug fixing and maintenance and 

support. The entire development 

process of the firmware and application 

software is performed in Israel. 

The UFDs are intended for 

organizations that require protection of 

their data when a UFD is lost or stolen. 

They add security by encrypting the 

data secured on them via a 

cryptographic hardware core. The UFD 

user must provide a login password to 

access the data. Cruzer Identity may be 

used for managing a user digital identity 

to authenticate the user to different 

software systems. 

The UFDs are manufactured in a 

manufacturing process, which requires 

approximately five minutes for each 

device. You state that SanDisk will 

perform the first three manufacturing 

operations in China and that it will 

perform the final three manufacturing 

operations in either Israel or the United 

States: 

1. Initial Quality Control. SanDisk 

personnel assemble and visually inspect 

the components. 

2. Component Mounting. SanDisk 

prints a bare circuit board with circuits 

and populates it with various electronic 

components through a solder paste 

surface mounting and reflow process 

(Surface Mounted Technology or 

‘‘SMT’’) to form a printed circuit board 

assembly (‘‘PCBA’’). Assembly of the 

PCBA is performed in a standard SMT 

process. The PCBA is visually inspected 

and tested to verify that all components 

have been properly mounted and the 

connections and power circuitry are 

functioning. 

3. Device Housing. The PCBA is 

joined with a metal USB connector and 

sealed in a plastic case to form the 

device through an ultrasonic housing 

process. The device then undergoes 

quality control to verify that it has not 

been harmed in the ultrasonic housing 

process. 

4. Software Installation and 

Customization. The proprietary software 

(firmware and application software) is 

downloaded and the device is tested for 

functionality. Additional software, such 

as security software, can be added at 

this time or later. During this operation, 

device enumeration and identification 

to the operating system, device 

configuration, and content loading 

occur. Depending on the customer’s 

unique requirements, some or all of the 

following configurable parameters are 

accomplished during this step: device 

enumeration and identification to the 

operating system; device configuration; 

and content. The process is slightly 

different for Cruzer Identity, as it 

contains the controllers, one for storage 

and one for the smartcode reader. 

Cruzer Identity provides capability 

(two-factor authentication (password 

and certificate)) which the Cruzer 

Professional, Cruzer Enterprise, and 

Cruzer Enterprise FIPS Edition do not 

have. 

5. System Diagnostics and Test. The 

device undergoes a systems test 

consisting of many tests that are 

performed with ‘‘Read Only’’ 

diagnostics software and test vectors to 

verify product definition and 

functionality. 

6. Packaging. After the firmware and 

application software are downloaded 

and the system is tested, the completed 

products are packaged and prepared for 

shipment. 

The components used by SanDisk to 

manufacture Cruzer Professional and 

Cruzer Enterprise are a printed circuit 

board, USB connector, LED, crystal 

oscillator, flash memory chip, ASIC 

controller chip, capacitors and resistors, 

and plastic parts for the case. Cruzer 

Enterprise FIPS Edition consists of the 

same components with the addition of 

an EEPROM and epoxy glue, coating 

part of the PCBA. The components used 

to manufacture Cruzer Identity consist 

of a printed circuit board, USB 

connector, two LEDs, crystal oscillator, 

flash memory chips, two ASIC 

controller chips, USB hub, EEPROM, 

smartcard, capacitors and resistors, and 

plastic parts used to make the case. 

As stated above, the flash memory 

chip is manufactured in Japan. The 

other hardware components are 

manufactured in Korea, Taiwan, or 

China. 

You state that the addition of the 

security capabilities of the UFDs, 

through the firmware and application 

software installation and customization 

process, add significant capability and 

value to the UFDs. The software 

installation and customization currently 

drive the price of the UFDs, as the price 

of a UFD with security is currently 

somewhere between seven to nine times 

the price of a UFD without security. 

ISSUES: 

What is the country of origin of the 

UFDs for the purpose of U.S. 

Government procurement? 

What is the country of origin of the 

UFDs for the purpose of marking? 

LAW AND ANALYSIS: 

Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 

CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements 

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 as to 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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
21704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Notices 

or practice for products offered for sale 

to the U.S. Government. 

Under the rule of origin set forth 

under 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 CFR § 177.22(a). 

In determining whether the 

combining of parts or materials 

constitutes a substantial transformation, 

the determinative issue is the extent of 

operations performed and whether the 

parts lose their identity and become an 

integral part of the new article. Belcrest 

Linens v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 

1149 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1983), aff’d, 741 

F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Assembly 

operations that are minimal or simple, 

as opposed to complex or meaningful, 

will generally not result in a substantial 

transformation. See, C.S.D. 80–111, 

C.S.D. 85–25, C.S.D. 89–110, C.S.D. 89– 

118, C.S.D. 90–51, and C.S.D. 90–97. In 

C.S.D. 85–25, 19 Cust. Bull. 844 (1985), 

CBP held that for purposes of the 

Generalized System of Preferences 

(‘‘GSP’’), the assembly of a large number 

of fabricated components onto a printed 

circuit board in a process involving a 

considerable amount of time and skill 

resulted in a substantial transformation. 

In that case, in excess of 50 discrete 

fabricated components (such as 

resistors, capacitors, diodes, integrated 

circuits, sockets, and connectors) were 

assembled. Whether an operation is 

complex and meaningful depends on 

the nature of the operation, including 

the number of components assembled, 

number of different operations, time, 

skill level required, attention to detail, 

quality control, the value added to the 

article, and the overall employment 

generated by the manufacturing process. 

The courts and CBP have also 

considered the essential character of the 

imported article in making these 

determinations. See, for example, 

Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 542 F. 

Supp. 1026, 3 CIT 220, 224–225 (1982) 

(where it was determined that imported 

uppers were the essence of a completed 

shoe) and National Juice Products 

Association, et al v. United States, 628 

F. Supp. 978, 10 CIT 48, 61 (1986) 

(where the court addressed each of the 

factors (name, character, and use) in 

finding that no substantial 

transformation occurred in the 

production of retail juice products from 

manufacturing concentrate). 

In order to determine whether a 

substantial transformation occurs when 

components of various origins are 

assembled into completed products, 

CBP considers the totality of the 

circumstances and makes such 

determinations on a case-by-case basis. 

The country of origin of the item’s 

components, extent of the processing 

that occurs within a country, and 

whether such processing renders a 

product with a new name, character, 

and use are primary considerations in 

such cases. Additionally, factors such as 

the resources expended on product 

design and development, extent and 

nature of post-assembly inspection and 

testing procedures, and worker skill 

required during the actual 

manufacturing process may be 

considered when determining whether a 

substantial transformation has occurred. 

No one 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. The court 

noted that it is undisputed that 

programming alters the character of a 

PROM. Programming changes the 

pattern of interconnections within the 

PROM. A distinct physical change is 

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, 

may be discerned by electronic testing 

of the PROM. The essence of the article, 

its interconnections or stored memory, 

is established by programming. The 

court concluded that altering the nonfunctioning circuitry comprising a 

PROM through technological expertise 

in order to produce a functioning read 

only memory device possessing a 

desired distinctive circuit pattern is no 

less a ‘‘substantial transformation’’ than 

the manual interconnection of 

transistors, resistors and diodes upon a 

circuit board creating a similar pattern. 

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. 

In HQ 563012, dated May 4, 2004, 

CBP considered whether components of 

various origins were substantially 

transformed when assembled to form a 

fabric switch which involved a 

combination of computer hardware and 

software. Most of the assembly of 

computer hardware was performed in 

China. Then, in either Hong Kong or the 

U.S., the hardware was completed and 

the U.S.-origin software was 

downloaded onto the hardware. CBP 

noted that the U.S.-developed software 

provided the finished product with its 

‘‘distinctive functional characteristics.’’ 

In making the determination that the 

product was substantially transformed 

in the U.S., where the fabric switch was 

assembled to completion, CBP 

considered both the assembly process 

that occurred in the U.S. and the 

configuration operations that required 

U.S.-origin software. In the scenario 

where the fabric switch was assembled 

to completion in Hong Kong, CBP 

determined the origin for marking 

purposes was Hong Kong. 

In HQ 559255, dated August 21, 1995, 

a device referred to as a ‘‘CardDock’’ 

was under consideration for country of 

origin marking purposes. The CardDock 

was a device which was installed in 

IBM PC compatible computers. After 

installation, the units were able to 

accept PCMCIA cards for the purpose of 

interfacing such PCMCIA cards with the 

computer in which the CardDock unit 

was installed. The CardDock units were 

partially assembled abroad but 

completed in the United States. The 

overseas processing included 

manufacturing the product’s injection 

molded plastic frame and installing 

integrated circuits onto a circuit board 

along with various diodes, resistors and 

capacitors. After such operations, these 

items were shipped to the United States 

for further processing that included 

mating a U.S.-origin circuit board to the 

foreign-origin frame and board. The 

assembled units were thereafter 

subjected to various testing procedures. 

In consideration of the foregoing, CBP 

held that the foreign-origin components, 

i.e., the ISA boards, frame assemblies 

and connector cables, were substantially 

transformed when assembled to 

completion in the United States. In 

finding that the name, character, and 

use of the foreign-origin components 

had changed during processing in the 

United States, CBP noted that the 

components had lost their separate 

identity during assembly and had 

become an integral part of a new and 

distinct item which was visibly different 

from any of the individual foreign-origin 

components. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Notices 21705 

In HQ 735027, dated September 7, 

1993, a device that software companies 

used to protect their software from 

piracy was under consideration for 

country of origin marking purposes. The 

device, referred to as the ‘‘MemoPlug,’’ 

was assembled in Israel from parts that 

were obtained from Taiwan (such as 

various connectors and an 

Electronically Erasable Programmable 

Read Only Memory, or ‘‘EEPROM’’) and 

Israel (such as an internal circuit board). 

After assembly, these components were 

shipped to a processing facility in the 

United States where the EEPROM was 

programmed with special software. 

Such processing in the United States 

accounted for approximately 50 percent 

of the final selling price of the 

MemoPlugs. In finding that the foreignorigin components were substantially 

transformed in the United States, CBP 

noted that the U.S. processing 

transformed a blank media, the 

EEPROM, into a device that performed 

functions necessary to the prevention of 

software piracy. 

We make our determination herein 

based on the totality of the 

circumstances. In doing so, we take 

particular note of the fact that the 

installation of the firmware and the 

application software makes the UFDs 

functional and executes the security 

features. In addition, the installation 

and customization of the firmware and 

application software greatly increase the 

value of a UFD without security. 

Based upon the above precedents and 

the totality of the circumstances, we 

determine that there is a substantial 

transformation of the component parts 

in either Israel or the United States, the 

location where the final three 

manufacturing operations, including 

installation and customization of the 

firmware and application software, 

occur, i.e., if the final three 

manufacturing operations occur in 

Israel, there is a substantial 

transformation in Israel and if the final 

three manufacturing operations occur in 

the United States, there is a substantial 

transformation in the United States. 

Therefore, the country of origin for 

government procurement purposes is 

such location, either Israel or the United 

States. 

Country of Origin Marking 

Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides 

that, unless excepted, every article of 

foreign origin imported into the United 

States shall be marked in a conspicuous 

place as legibly, indelibly, and 

permanently as the nature of the article 

(or container) will permit, in such 

manner as to indicate to the ultimate 

purchaser in the U.S. the English name 

of the country of origin of the article. 

Part 134, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 

Part 134), implements the country of 

origin marking requirements and 

exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 

134.1(b), CBP Regulations (19 CFR 

134.1(b)), defines the country of origin 

of an article as the country of 

manufacture, production, or growth of 

any article of foreign origin entering the 

United States. Further work or material 

added to an article in another country 

must effect a substantial transformation 

in order to render such other country 

the country of origin for country of 

origin marking purposes. 

Based upon our determination, above, 

with respect to substantial 

transformation of the UFDs, the country 

of origin for marking of these goods is 

Israel or the United States if the final 

three manufacturing steps, described 

above, are performed in either of these 

countries. If the final three 

manufacturing steps are performed in 

Israel, the UFDs should be marked 

‘‘Made in Israel.’’ For a determination as 

to whether SanDisk may mark the UFDs 

‘‘Made in the United States’’ when the 

final three manufacturing operations are 

performed in the U.S., please contact 

the Federal Trade Commission, Division 

of Enforcement, 6th Street and 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

Holdings 

There is a substantial transformation 

of the component parts in either Israel 

or the United States, the location where 

the final three operations, including the 

installation and customization of the 

firmware and application software, 

occur. Therefore, the country of origin 

for government procurement purposes is 

such location, either Israel or the United 

States. 

The country of origin of the UFDs is 

Israel or the United States if the final 

three manufacturing steps, described 

above, are performed in these countries. 

If the final three manufacturing steps are 

performed in Israel, the UFDs should be 

marked ‘‘Made in Israel.’’ For a 

determination as to whether SanDisk 

may mark the UFDs ‘‘Made in the 

United States’’ when the final three 

manufacturing operations are performed 

in the United States, please contact the 

Federal Trade Commission. 

Notice of this final determination will 

be given in the Federal Register, as 

required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any partyat-interest other than the party which 

requested the final determination may 

request, pursuant to 19 CFR § 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, 

Sandra L. Bell, 

Executive Director, Office of Regulations 

and Rulings, Office of International 

Trade 

[FR Doc. E9–10813 Filed 5–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5281–N–34] 

Notice of Submission of Proposed 

Information Collection to OMB; 

Emergency Comment Request 

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid 

Re-Housing Program (HPRP) 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed information 

collection. 

SUMMARY: The proposed information 

collection requirement described below 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

emergency review and approval, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. The Department is soliciting public 

comments on the subject proposal. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: May 15, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Comments must be 

received within seven (7) days from the 

date of this Notice. Comments should 

refer to the proposal by name and/or 

OMB approval number and should be 

sent to: Ms. Kimberly P. Nelson, HUD 

Desk Officer, Office of Management and 

Budget, New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20502; e-mail: 

Kimberly_P._Nelson@omb.eop.gov; fax: 

(202) 395–6974. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management 

Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; 

e-mail: Lillian.L.Deitzer@hud.gov; 

telephone (202) 402–8048. This is not a 

toll-free number. Copies of available 

documents should be submitted to OMB 

and may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Notice informs the public that the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) has submitted to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES