This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

30459 

Vol. 74, No. 122 

Friday, June 26, 2009 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 332 

RIN 3206–AL13 

Recruitment and Selection Through 

Competitive Examination 

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is issuing final 

regulations pertaining to recruitment 

and selection through the competitive 

examination process. The purpose of 

this rule is to clarify the distinction 

among objections, pass overs, and 

suitability determinations. OPM is also 

adopting two new definitions to further 

clarify the distinction between an 

objection and a pass over request. 

Additionally, OPM is removing an 

obsolete section in this part dealing 

with filling certain postmaster positions. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on July 

27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Linda Watson by telephone at (202) 

606–0830; by fax at (202) 606–2329; by 

TTY at (202) 418–3134; or by e-mail at 

linda.watson@opm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 2, 2008, OPM published a 

proposed rule with request for 

comments in the Federal Register at 73 

FR 51245 to amend its regulations 

governing recruitment and selection 

through competitive examination, 

primarily to clarify the distinction 

among objections, pass over requests, 

and suitability determinations. OPM 

also proposed to add two new 

definitions, of ‘‘objection’’ and ‘‘pass 

over request,’’ to further clarify the 

differences and relationship between 

them and to improve the readability of 

section 332.102. In addition, OPM 

proposed to remove section 332.103 

because it contained outdated 

information concerning filling positions 

in the U.S. Postal Service. 

Background 

Pursuant to provisions codified in 

title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), and 

Executive orders issued pursuant to 

those provisions, Congress and the 

President have delegated to OPM 

several authorities related to the 

recruitment and selection process for 

individuals seeking competitive service 

positions in the Federal Government. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 3318, Congress confers 

upon OPM the authority to rule on any 

objection or pass over request filed by 

a Federal agency seeking to fill 

vacancies for such positions. In recent 

years, OPM has delegated examining 

authority to Federal agencies to 

adjudicate most objections and pass 

over requests. OPM retains exclusive 

authority to (a) make medical 

qualification determinations pertaining 

to preference eligibles and (b) grant or 

deny an agency’s pass over request of a 

preference eligible with a compensable 

service-connected disability of 30 

percent or more. Except for OPM’s 

exclusive authority, Federal agencies 

with delegated examining authority 

under 5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2) have the 

authority to adjudicate objections and 

pass over requests pertaining to 

applicants for positions in their 

agencies, but do not have such authority 

with respect to positions elsewhere in 

the Federal Government. 

An objection is a request to remove a 

candidate from consideration on a 

particular certificate, and a pass over 

request is an objection filed against a 

preference eligible that results in the 

selection of a non-preference eligible. 

(Throughout this discussion, the use of 

the term ‘‘objection’’ in this document 

should be read to encompass pass overs, 

even if pass overs are not explicitly 

mentioned.) OPM promulgated 

regulations in section 332.406 of title 5, 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in 

which it describes the circumstances 

under which an objection will be 

sustained or a pass over request granted. 

In addition to its authority for 

adjudicating objections and pass overs, 

OPM is authorized to regulate the 

fitness of applicants for competitive 

service positions and for career 

appointment in the Senior Executive 

Service, as well as the conduct of 

employees in competitive service and 

Senior Executive Service positions. 

OPM, exercising this authority, 

published regulations governing 

suitability determinations, which are 

located at 5 CFR part 731. As with 

objections and pass over requests, OPM 

has delegated to Federal agencies the 

authority to make most suitability 

determinations. 

Although the statutory schemes 

related to suitability determinations and 

objections are separate and distinct from 

each other, OPM has, in the recent past, 

unintentionally mingled the two, 

possibly giving rise to the impression 

that the objection regulations and the 

suitability regulations were connected 

in some way. The Merit Systems 

Protection Board’s (MSPB) decisions in 

Edwards v. Department of Justice, 86 

MSPR 365 (2000) and 87 MSPR 518 

(2001), which, to some extent, erased 

the distinction between the two 

regulatory schemes, led OPM to 

conclude that it was essential to restore 

clarity to these two important and 

distinct features of the Federal 

personnel system. To dispel any 

confusion that has been created, OPM is 

proposing to revise this regulation to 

clarify that an agency’s objection 

(including its pass over requests) do not 

constitute suitability actions and that 

decisions on these objections are not 

suitability actions. Consequently, when 

an objection or pass over request is 

made, the regulation at 5 CFR 332.406 

applies, and the procedures set forth in 

5 CFR part 731 do not apply. OPM has 

also clarified its regulations in 5 CFR 

part 731 to ensure that the intended 

distinction between the two procedures 

is understood and maintained (see 73 

FR 20149 (April 15, 2008)). To 

demonstrate the basis for the distinction 

between these two statutory schemes, a 

brief review of each of these schemes is 

helpful. 

Objections/Pass Overs 

In general, agencies may select 

candidates for vacancies in the 

competitive service in one of two 

methods: the traditional ‘‘Rule of Three’’ 

method, in which an agency selects 

from the highest three eligibles available 

for appointment, drawing from a list of 

candidates who have been rated and 

ranked by numerical scores; or alternate 

ranking and selection procedures, 

30460 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

pursuant to which a category rating 

system for evaluating candidates is 

established. The differences are 

straightforward. 

When OPM or an agency’s delegated 

examining office (DEO) uses the 

traditional ‘‘Rule of Three’’ ranking and 

selection procedures, the selecting 

official requests a list of eligible 

candidates who meet the minimum 

qualification requirements. OPM or the 

DEO is required to provide either a list 

of all qualified candidates, 

appropriately rated and ranked, or 

enough names from the top of a register 

of qualified candidates, appropriately 

rated and ranked, to permit an agency 

to consider at least three candidates for 

appointment with respect to each 

vacancy that the agency intends to fill 

(5 U.S.C. 3317(a)). Under this 

procedure, eligible candidates are 

assigned numerical scores, including 

veterans’ preference points of 5 points 

or 10 points, as applicable (5 U.S.C. 

3309, 3313). An appointing official must 

select from the highest three candidates 

available for appointment on the 

certificate furnished by OPM or the 

DEO, except as discussed below (5 

U.S.C. 3318(a)). 

When an agency uses a category-based 

rating method to assess, rate, and rank 

job applicants for positions filled 

through the competitive examination 

process, applicants who meet the 

minimum qualification requirements are 

ranked by being placed in two or more 

pre-defined quality categories instead of 

being ranked in numeric score order. 

Veterans’ preference is applied by 

listing preference eligibles ahead of nonpreference eligibles within the same 

quality category in which they were 

assigned based upon the job-related 

assessment tool(s). No points are 

assigned. Qualified preference eligibles 

with a compensable service-connected 

disability of 30 percent or more and 

those with a compensable serviceconnected disability of at least 10 

percent but less than 30 percent are 

placed at the top of the highest quality 

category (except with respect to 

scientific or professional positions at or 

above the GS–9 level), regardless of the 

quality category in which they would be 

placed based upon their examination 

results. Under category rating, an 

appointing official may select from any 

of the candidates in the highest quality 

category (or, if fewer than three 

candidates have been assigned to the 

highest category, from a merged 

category consisting of the highest and 

the second highest quality categories), 

except that, generally, all the preference 

eligible choices must be exhausted 

before an agency may select a nonpreference eligible candidate (5 U.S.C. 

3319). 

Congress gave agencies the right to 

object to any candidate for employment 

whose name appears on a certificate, 

whether the agency is using the 

traditional ‘‘Rule of Three’’ or category 

rating. The procedures are the same, 

regardless of the method of selection. As 

prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 3318(a), OPM or 

an agency with delegated examining 

authority may sustain an objection that 

is based on a ‘‘proper and adequate 

reason under regulations prescribed by 

the Office (OPM).’’ To ensure that all 

applicants for competitive service 

positions possess the necessary health, 

character, and ability for the 

employment sought, OPM has 

determined that any of the reasons set 

forth as criteria for making suitability 

decisions in 5 CFR part 731 or as bases 

for disqualification by OPM in 5 CFR 

part 339 (Medical Qualification 

Determinations) constitutes a ‘‘proper 

and adequate reason.’’ In addition, OPM 

has reserved to itself the ability to set 

forth in its Delegated Examining 

Operations Handbook additional 

reasons that constitute ‘‘proper and 

adequate’’ reasons for objections. 

As previously indicated, a request for 

a pass over is a specific type of 

objection. As with any objection, an 

agency may not pass over a preference 

eligible (with respect to a Rule-of-Three 

selection process) or select a nonpreference eligible ahead of a preference 

eligible in the same quality category 

(with respect to a category rating 

selection process) unless OPM or the 

appropriate DEO grants the agency’s 

pass over request under 5 U.S.C. 

3318(b)(1). See also 5 U.S.C. 3319(c)(2). 

When an agency seeks to pass over a 

preference eligible candidate who is a 

30 percent or more compensably 

disabled veteran, only OPM possesses 

the authority to adjudicate the agency’s 

pass over request. The standard for 

adjudicating a pass over request is 

identical to the standard for 

adjudicating any other objection. 

Consequently, an agency’s pass over 

request will be granted if that request is 

based on ‘‘proper and adequate 

reasons,’’ including those reasons 

derived from 5 CFR part 339 or 731. 

There is no statutory or regulatory 

right to appeal from a decision 

sustaining an objection, including 

granting a pass over request. For that 

reason, an individual has no right of 

appeal to MSPB from an OPM, agency 

or DEO decision to sustain an objection 

or grant a pass over request, regardless 

of the reason for the decision. 

Suitability Actions 

In 5 U.S.C. 7301, Congress conferred 

upon the President the authority to 

prescribe regulations for the conduct of 

employees in the executive branch. In 

addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3301, the 

President may ‘‘(1) prescribe such 

regulations for the admission of 

individuals into the civil service in the 

executive branch as will best promote 

the efficiency of that service; [and] (2) 

ascertain the fitness of applicants as to 

age, health, character, knowledge, and 

ability for the employment sought 

* * *.’’ Executive Order 10577 directs 

OPM to examine ‘‘suitability’’ for 

competitive Federal employment. 

Pursuant to 5 CFR part 731, OPM, an 

agency, or the DEO, as appropriate, may 

cancel an individual’s eligibility, 

remove an individual from Federal 

employment, and/or debar an 

individual from future Federal 

employment when it determines the 

action will protect the integrity or 

promote the efficiency of the civil 

service. A non-selection (e.g., objection 

or pass over pursuant to 5 CFR part 332) 

for a specific position, however, is not 

a suitability action even if the nonselection is based on reasons set forth in 

5 CFR 731.202(b). 

Prior to taking a suitability action, 

OPM or an agency with delegated 

authority must notify the applicant, 

appointee, or employee in writing of the 

proposed action and must specify the 

reasons for this action. Under 5 CFR 

731.302 and 731.402, the notice must 

also include information on the 

individual’s right to answer to the 

notice in writing. After considering the 

answer of the individual, if any, OPM or 

an agency with delegated authority then 

renders a final decision. In 5 CFR 

731.501, an individual against whom a 

suitability action has been taken is given 

the right of appeal to MSPB. 

In light of these two separate and 

distinct statutory and regulatory 

schemes, an agency that wishes, for 

reasons set forth in 5 CFR 731.202(b), 

not to appoint an individual on a 

certificate has two options. First, the 

agency may make a suitability 

determination under 5 CFR part 731 

with respect to the individual. 

Alternatively, the agency may object to 

or request to pass over the candidate 

pursuant to 5 CFR 332.406. Under this 

latter authority, an agency may choose 

not to appoint a candidate if its 

objection is sustained or its pass over 

request is granted. An agency may 

pursue either route, but must satisfy the 

standards applicable to the chosen 

procedure. It is permissible for an 

agency to object or request to pass over 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 30461 

a candidate on a certificate of eligibles 

and then, if the objection is sustained or 

the pass over request is granted, to refer 

the candidate’s application for 

suitability review and adjudication 

under 5 CFR part 731. When an agency 

objects to an individual on the basis of 

a material, intentional false statement or 

deception or fraud in examination or 

appointment, and the objection is 

sustained, an agency must also refer the 

candidate’s application to OPM for any 

suitability action that may be warranted, 

because of the significance of these 

factors and to ensure uniformity 

throughout the Federal Government. 

OPM is revising 5 CFR 332.406 to 

make it clear that the procedure for 

requesting objections is not part of the 

suitability process. OPM is also 

clarifying that an individual may not 

appeal an OPM or agency decision to 

sustain an objection or pass over request 

to MSPB under 5 CFR part 731, even if 

the decision is based on reasons set 

forth in 5 CFR 731.202(b). 

In section 332.102, OPM is adding 

two new definitions of ‘‘objection’’ and 

‘‘pass over request’’ to clarify the 

process that applies to objections and 

pass over requests and distinguish that 

process from the suitability process. 

OPM is also updating the definitions of 

‘‘active military duty’’ and ‘‘certificate.’’ 

OPM is revising the definition of 

‘‘active military duty’’ to reflect a recent 

change to this definition based on 

OPM’s published final rule on October 

29, 2008. On February 6, 2007, the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 

issued a decision in Edward Thomas 

Hesse v. Department of the Army (AT– 

3443–05–0936–I–1) that affects the 

eligibility criteria for veterans’ 

preference based on a service-connected 

disability under 5 U.S.C. 2108(2). On 

July 27, 2007, OPM issued an interim 

rule with request for comments (Federal 

Register at 72 FR 41215) to amend the 

definition of ‘‘active duty or active 

military duty’’ for veterans’ preference 

entitlement. On October 29, 2008, OPM 

issued a final rule (Federal Register at 

73 FR 64179) amending the definition of 

‘‘active duty or active military duty’’ in 

5 CFR 211.102(f). The revised definition 

of ‘‘active military duty’’ in section 

332.102 refers to 5 CFR 211.102(f) as the 

appropriate definition for the purpose of 

consistency. 

OPM is removing 5 CFR 332.103, 

Filling certain postmaster positions. 

This section is obsolete due to the 

passage of Public Law 91–375, the 

Postal Reorganization Act (Act). The Act 

transformed the former Post Office 

Department into the United States 

Postal Service (USPS) and made it a 

Government corporation of the 

executive branch of the Federal 

Government. The USPS subsequently 

established its own examining and 

hiring system. 

OPM received two written comments 

on the proposed rule. Because these 

comments from two agencies supported 

OPM’s clarification and revisions of 5 

CFR part 332, we are issuing the final 

rule with only a few minor changes in 

wording for clarity, including clarifying 

some references to objections and pass 

over requests so that they are more 

consistent with the way we have 

defined those terms (i.e., reflecting the 

fact that pass over requests are a subset 

of objections). 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review 

This rule has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because they would apply only to 

Federal agencies and employees. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 332 

Government employees. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

John Berry, 

Director. 

■ Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR 

part 332 as follows: 

PART 332—RECRUITMENT AND 

SELECTION THROUGH COMPETITIVE 

EXAMINATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 332 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1103, 1104, 1302, 2108, 

3301, 3302, 3304, 3312, 3317, 3318, 3319; 

E.O. 10577; 3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218; 

SOURCE: 33 FR 12426, Sept. 4, 1968, unless 

otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Revise § 332.102 to read as follows: 

§ 332.102 Definitions. 

In this part: 

Active military duty has the meaning 

given that term in 5 CFR 211.102(f). 

Certificate means a list of eligibles 

from which an appointing officer selects 

one or more applicants for appointment. 

Objection means an agency’s request 

to remove a candidate from 

consideration on a particular certificate. 

Pass over request means an objection 

filed against a preference eligible that 

results in the selection of a nonpreference eligible. 

§ 332.103 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove § 332.103. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—Consideration for 

Appointment 

■ 4. Revise § 332.406 to read as follows: 

§ 332.406 Objections to eligibles. 

(a) Delegated authority. Except as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section, OPM has delegated to 

agencies the authority to adjudicate 

objections to eligibles, including pass 

over requests. 

(1) OPM retains exclusive authority to 

approve the sufficiency of an agency’s 

request to pass over preference eligibles 

who are thirty percent (30%) or more 

compensably disabled. Such persons 

have the right, in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 3318, to respond to the pass over 

request before OPM makes a final 

decision. 

(2) OPM also retains the exclusive 

authority to approve the sufficiency of 

an agency’s reasons to medically 

disqualify or medically pass over a 

preference eligible or disabled veteran 

in certain circumstances, in accordance 

with part 339 of this chapter. 

(3) An agency must refer any 

objection (including a pass over request) 

that is based on material, intentional 

false statement or deception or fraud in 

examination or appointment to OPM for 

a suitability action where warranted, 

under part 731 of this chapter. 

(b) Standard for objections. An agency 

is not required to consider an individual 

for a position when an objection to 

(including a request to pass over) the 

particular individual is sustained or 

granted. An objection, including a pass 

over request, may be sustained only if 

it is based on a proper and adequate 

reason. The reasons set forth for 

disqualification by OPM in part 339 of 

this chapter constitute proper and 

adequate reasons to sustain an 

objection. Similarly, the criteria for 

making suitability determinations in 

part 731 of this chapter constitute 

proper and adequate reasons to sustain 

an objection. In addition, reasons 

published by OPM in the Delegated 

Examining Operations Handbook 

constitute proper and adequate reasons 

to sustain an objection. 

(c) Sufficiency of the reasons for a 

pass over. Subject to the exception set 

forth in paragraph (e) of this section, an 

agency may not pass over a preference 

eligible to select a non-preference 

eligible unless OPM or an agency with 

delegated authority also makes a 

determination that the sufficiency of the 

30462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

reasons is supported by the evidence 

submitted for the pass over request. 

(d) Agency’s obligation while request 

for objection is pending. Subject to the 

exception set forth in paragraph (e) of 

this section, if an agency makes an 

objection against an applicant for a 

position (including seeking to pass over 

the applicant), and the individual that 

the agency wishes to select would be 

within reach of selection only if the 

objection is sustained, or the pass over 

granted, that agency may not make a 

selection for the position until a final 

ruling is made. 

(e) Applicability of paragraphs (c) and 

(d). Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section 

do not apply if the agency has more 

than one position to fill from the same 

certificate and holds open (in the event 

the objection is not sustained or the pass 

over request is denied) a position that 

could be filled by the individual against 

whom an objection or a pass over 

request has been filed. 

(f) Procedures for objections and pass 

overs. Agencies must follow the 

procedures for objecting to or requesting 

to pass over an eligible that are 

published by OPM in the Delegated 

Examining Operations Handbook. 

(g) No appeal rights to Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB). An individual 

may not appeal to the MSPB a decision 

by OPM or an agency with delegated 

authority to sustain an objection 

pursuant to this part, including a 

decision to grant a pass over request, 

irrespective of the reason for the 

decision. 

[FR Doc. E9–15184 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

15 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. 080102004–9266–02; FDMS 

Docket No. ITA–2009–0002] 

RIN 0625–AA75 

Changes in Procedures for Florence 

Agreement Program 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Departments of 

Commerce and Treasury (‘‘the 

Departments’’) and Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) issue this rule to 

amend the regulations governing the 

duty-free entry of scientific instruments 

and apparatus into the United States by 

educational and nonprofit institutions 

to implement technical changes 

required by the passage of the 

Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 

Corrections Act of 2004, to update the 

regulations to comport with current CBP 

practices and changes made in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), to add a Web 

site address for Statutory Import 

Programs Staff (‘‘SIPS’’), and to remove 

references to spectrometers pursuant to 

Presidential Proclamation 7011 of June 

30, 1997. We also amend the regulations 

to reflect the nomenclature changes 

made necessary by the transfer of the 

legacy Customs Service of the 

Department of the Treasury to the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 27, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jesse Cortes, (202) 482–3986, Room 

3712, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Departments and Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), Department of 

Homeland Security, issue this rule to 

amend the regulations found in Part 

301, Chapter III, Subtitle B of Title 15 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

relating to their responsibilities under 

the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (the 

‘‘Act’’) (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by 

Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897). The Act 

implements U.S. treaty obligations 

under Annex D of the Florence 

Agreement, relating to the import of 

scientific instruments and apparatus. 

Treaty signatories agreed to waive 

duties on such imports if there is no 

scientifically equivalent instrument 

being manufactured in the country of 

importation and the instrument is to be 

used by a nonprofit institution 

established for scientific research or 

educational purposes. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

update the regulations by implementing 

various proposed technical and 

conforming changes to part 301 of title 

15 of the CFR. Section 10.114 of the CBP 

regulations (19 CFR 10.114) crossreferences the location of the 

consolidated regulations of the 

Commerce and Treasury Departments 

relating to the entry of instruments and 

apparatus for educational and scientific 

institutions in 15 CFR part 301. A brief 

overview of the amendments to part 301 

of title 15 of the CFR is set forth below. 

A more detailed discussion on the 

background of these amendments may 

be found in the preamble to the notice 

of proposed rulemaking (73 FR 76571, 

December 17, 2008). 

Explanation of Amendments 

This document amends 15 CFR 301 

by making technical changes to replace 

‘‘U.S. Customs Service’’ and similar 

references throughout the regulations 

with its new designation, ‘‘Customs and 

Border Protection’’ or CBP. This 

document also amends 15 CFR 

301.8(a)(4) by deleting, in its entirety, 

any reference to the 180-day time period 

for the suspension of liquidation of 

entries of scientific instruments 

classified under subheading 9810.00.60 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) due to the 

subsequent amendments to 19 

U.S.C.1504 since section 301.8(a)(4) was 

promulgated. Section 301.8(c) is 

amended to delete references to the 90- 

day protest period for such entries due 

to the statutory amendments made by 

the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 

Corrections Act of 2004 to 19 U.S.C. 

1514(c)(3). A technical change is made 

to section 301.3(b) by including the 

Statutory Import Programs Staff (SIPS) 

Web site address to let interested parties 

know that the application for duty-free 

entry of scientific instruments (Form 

ITA–338P) may be obtained from that 

Web site. Finally, sections 301.2(j) and 

(o) are amended to remove the 

references to spectrometers since the 

Presidential Proclamation 7011 of June 

30, 1997, made spectrometers free of 

duty. 

Conclusion 

In light of the fact that no comments 

were submitted in response to the 

solicitation of public comment on the 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 76571) on December 17, 

2008, the Departments are adopting the 

proposed regulations without change. 

Administrative Law Requirements 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 

accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq., the Chief Counsel for Regulation at 

the Department of Commerce has 

certified to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy, Small Business 

Administration, that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification 

was published in the proposed rule and 

is not repeated here. No comments were 

received on the certification or on the 

economic effects of the rule more 

generally. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

rulemaking does not contain revised