The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established at the Department of Health and Human Services by Congress in 1976 to identify and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the Department's programs and to promote efficiency and economy in departmental operations. OIG carries out this mission through a nationwide program of audits, investigations, and inspections. To reduce fraud and abuse in the Federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, OIG actively investigates fraudulent schemes that are used to obtain money from these programs and, when appropriate, issues Special Fraud Alerts that identify practices in the health care industry that are particularly vulnerable to abuse.

OIG issues Special Fraud Alerts based on information it obtains concerning particular fraudulent or abusive practices within the health care industry. Special Fraud Alerts are intended for widespread dissemination to the health care provider community, as well as those charged with administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs. To date, OIG has published in the Federal Register the texts of 12 previously issued Special Fraud Alerts.1

This Updated Special Fraud Alert updates the Special Fraud Alert on Telemarketing by Durable Medical Equipment Suppliers originally issued in March 2003 and continues to focus on section 1834(a)(17) of the Social Security Act, which prohibits suppliers of DME, except under limited circumstances, from making unsolicited telephone calls to Medicare beneficiaries regarding the furnishing of a covered item, and possible telemarketing practices by DME suppliers through the use of independent marketing firms.

Section 1834(a)(17)(A) of the Social Security Act prohibits suppliers of durable medical equipment (DME) from making unsolicited telephone calls to Medicare beneficiaries regarding the furnishing of a covered item, except in three specific situations: (i) The beneficiary has given written permission to the supplier to make contact by telephone; (ii) the contact is regarding a covered item that the supplier has already furnished the beneficiary; or (iii) the supplier has furnished at least one covered item to the beneficiary during the preceding 15 months. Section 1834(a)(17)(B) specifically prohibits payment to a supplier that knowingly submits a claim generated pursuant to a prohibited telephone solicitation. Accordingly, such claims for payment are false and violators are potentially subject to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, including exclusion from Federal health care programs.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received credible information that some DME suppliers continue to use independent marketing firms to make unsolicited telephone calls to Medicare beneficiaries to market DME, notwithstanding the clear statutory prohibition. Suppliers cannot do indirectly that which they are prohibited from doing directly. OIG has also been made aware of instances when DME suppliers, notwithstanding the clear statutory prohibition, contact Medicare beneficiaries by telephone based solely on treating physicians' preliminary written or verbal orders prescribing DME for the beneficiaries. A physician's preliminary written or verbal order is not a substitute for the requisite written consent of a Medicare beneficiary.

Except in the three specific circumstances described in the statute, section 1834(a)(17)(A) prohibits unsolicited telemarketing by a DME supplier to Medicare beneficiaries, whether contact with a beneficiary is made by the supplier directly or by another party on the DME supplier's behalf. Moreover, a DME supplier is responsible for verifying that marketing activities performed by third parties with which the supplier contracts or otherwise does business do not involve prohibited activity and that information purchased from such third parties was neither obtained, nor derived, from prohibited activity. If a claim for payment is submitted for items or services generated by a prohibited solicitation, both the DME supplier and the telemarketer are potentially liable for criminal, civil, and administrative penalties for causing the filing of a false claim, as well as criminal and civil penalties for using interstate telephone calls in furtherance of schemes to defraud.

If you have information about DME suppliers or telemarketers engaging in any of the activities described above, contact any of the regional offices of OIG, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at the following locations:

The issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed fish and wildlife permits.

This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast (CCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and threatened Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead (O. mykiss).

A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research permit (14516) was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2009 (74 FR 41373). Permit 14516 was issued to Dr. Smith on October 6, 2009.

Permit 14516 authorizes: (1) capture (by backpack electrofishing and beach seine), handling, sample tissues (fin-clip and scales) and release of adult CCC coho salmon; (2) capture (by backpack electrofishing and beach seine), handling, sample tissues (scales) and release of adult CCC steelhead; (3) capture (by backpack electrofishing and beach seine), marking (using fin-clips), sample tissues (fin-clip and scales), and release juvenile CCC coho salmon; (4) capture (by backpack electrofishing, beach seine), handling, marking (using fin-clips), sample tissues (scales), and release of juvenile CCC steelhead; (5) capture (by beach seine), mark (using fin-clip), sample tissues (fin-clip and scales), and release CCC coho salmon smolts; (6) capture (by beach seine), mark (using fin-clip), sample tissues (scales), and release CCC steelhead; and (7) sample tissues (fin-clip and scales) of adult CCC coho salmon carcasses.

Permit 14516 authorizes unintentional lethal take of: juvenile and smolt CCC coho salmon and CCC steelhead not to exceed 2 percent of the total number of fish captured for each life stage and species. Permit 14516 does not authorize any lethal take of adult ESA-listed salmonids.

Permit 14516 is for research to be conducted in San Gregorio Creek Lagoon, Pescadero Creek Lagoon, and multiple sites in the Gazos, Waddell and Scott creek watersheds (including their lagoons) in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, California. The purpose of the research is to provide ESA-listed salmonid population, distribution, and habitat assessment data which will: (1) continue long-term monitoring of CCC coho salmon and CCC steelhead year class abundance, broodyear strength, and population abundance in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creek watersheds and assess habitat quality and its effects on population dynamics; (2) seasonally monitor salmonid use of Gazos, Waddell and Scott creek lagoons to determine habitat utilization (upstream vs. lagoon) and growth rates; and (3) monitor seasonal abundance and growth of steelhead in Pescadero and San Gregorio lagoons and to acquire smolt and adult life history information from scales. The issued permit does not include creel surveys at Pescadero Lagoon as requested by the applicant. Permit 14516 expires on November 30, 2014.

The overall goal of this project is to build a facility that will allow the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County to meet its objectives to: 1. Augment the population densities and increase the diversity of freshwater mussel and non-game fish species that are in decline or extirpated in the West Branch of the DuPage River,

2. Evaluate the success and impacts of ongoing habitat restoration and remediation projects along the river, thereby benefiting fresh water mussel species, other wildlife, habitat areas, and public communities along the West Branch of the DuPage River,

3. Improve the success of urban aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement along the West Branch of the DuPage River, and

4. Provide educational opportunities for the public and other groups.

The grant recipient, DuPage County Stormwater Management Division, proposes to construct a research and education center on the publicly owned Roy C. Blackwell Forest Preserve. The preferred alternative, Urban Stream Research Center—New Constructed Facility, was created through input from the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, the public, and NOAA.

Currently there are no facilities within Illinois to support common freshwater mussel propagation and augmentation. The Urban Stream Research Center will propagate and augment the population densities and increase the diversity of native freshwater mussel species and non-game fish species. Additionally, the Center will promote and encourage interdisciplinary research between universities and local, state, and federal conservation agencies (e.g., Forest Preserve Distric of DuPage County, Natural History Survey, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey).

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Short-term, temporary, and localized construction-related impacts to air quality and increases in noise from the use of construction equipment are anticipated. However, over the long-term, the Center would benefit fish and wildlife, help to enhance the area's natural resources, and provide opportunities for research and educational programs.

On September 24, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea and intent to rescind the administrative review in part. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review in Part, 74 FR 48716 (September 24, 2009), as corrected in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Correction to the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind Administrative Review in Part, 74 FR 51834 (October 8, 2009). The review covers the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. The final results of the review are currently due no later than January 22, 2010.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the final results within this time period and if the Department did not extend the time for issuing the preliminary results, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the completion of the final results to a maximum of 300 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limit because of certain issues involving new factual information submitted in an untimely manner. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of this review by 31 days until February 22, 2010.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

On May 1, 2009, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register a notice for an opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 20278 (May 1, 2009). Respondent, Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“TMI”), requested a review on May 28, 2009. Alcoa Inc. (“Alcoa”), a U.S. consumer of pure magnesium and importer of the subject merchandise, requested a review of Tianjin Xianghaiqi Resources Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. (“TXR”) on May 29, 2009. Petitioner, US Magnesium LLC (“US Magnesium”) requested a review of TMI, TXR and Pan Asia Magnesium Co., Ltd. on June 1, 2009. The Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of TMI for the period May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009). Currently, the preliminary results of review are due no later than January 31, 2010.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondent's sales practices, factors of production, and to issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, we require additional time to complete these preliminary results. As a result, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 120 days until May 31, 2010. However, since May 31, 2010, falls on a federal holiday, a non-business day, the deadline for the preliminary determination will now be due no later than June 1, 2010, the next business day.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

At the request of interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom for the period May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009), as corrected in Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 2009). The preliminary results of the reviews are currently due no later than February 1, 2010.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month.

We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of these reviews within the original time limit because we received requests from several respondents for extension of time to respond to our supplemental questionnaires and because we have scheduled verifications for several respondents in these reviews which have not yet been completed. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of these reviews by 73 days until April 15, 2010.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

The contracting policy for ocean and coastal mapping services within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is final.

NOAA promulgated an Ocean and Coastal Mapping Contracting Policy in response to the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11), specifically the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act (Act), 33 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., which states: “The Administrator shall continue developing a strategy for expanding contracting with non-governmental entities to minimize duplication and take maximum advantage of non-governmental capabilities in fulfilling the Administration's mapping and charting responsibilities.” House Report 108-56, which accompanied the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, had previously directed NOAA to expand contracting with non-governmental entities, but at that time, Congress limited this to hydrographic services programs funded under the “Mapping and Charting” section of the NOAA Budget. The 2009 contracting policy broadens the scope of NOAA's contracting efforts beyond “hydrographic services” to include “ocean and coastal mapping” services as defined in the Act.

NOAA primarily utilized the Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP), a Federal Advisory Committee, and the public comment process to reevaluate its 2006 Hydrographic Services Contracting Policy. NOAA first sought input from the HSRP on the revised policy during a June 22, 2009, open public meeting/teleconference. During the meeting, the HSRP requested more time to review the revised policy and asked to have the topic discussed at the next regularly-scheduled meeting. NOAA placed the topic on the agenda for the September 23-24, 2009, HSRP meeting in Duluth, Minnesota. In the interim, NOAA published an August 19, 2009, notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the draft policy and providing a Web page whereby the public could review additional relevant documents, including the 2006 policy, a summary of proposed changes, and the Act. In addition to this public comment period, the public had an opportunity to provide both written and verbal comment at the June 22, 2009, and September 23—24, 2009, HSRP open public meetings. The Federal Register Notices announcing these two meetings, published on June 3, 2009, June 9, 2009, and September 2, 2009, stated the opportunities to provide both written and verbal comment at the two meetings. Written public comments were distributed to the members of the HSRP.

At the September 23-24, 2009, public meeting, the HSRP discussed the proposed draft NOAA Ocean and Coastal Mapping Contracting Policy and made the following recommendation: “The HSRP finds that NOAA's existing Hydrographic Services Contracting Policy is fairly and adequately constructed. The HSRP recommends that NOAA limit revisions to the policy, making only those precise language changes required to conform to the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act.”

NOAA subsequently made limited revisions to the 2006 policy. The intent of the revisions is to broaden the scope of the policy beyond hydrographic services to include other NOAA ocean and coastal mapping activities and to clarify some of the wording in the 2006 policy.

Below is a summary of the substance of responsive public comments received and the resulting changes made to the policy based on those comments. Seven sets of comments were received; however, several comments were considered non-responsive to the draft policy.

Public comments were received that expressed concern that the revised language would potentially establish a new policy rationale and justification to avoid contracting, decrease contract support, or increase the opportunity for funds to be used by NOAA to compete with private industry. However, the revised policy does not reflect a change in NOAA's intent, which remains to contract for ocean and coastal mapping services when contracting is determined to be a cost-effective method of obtaining these services and to the extent funding is available.

Public comments were received that included concern over draft language that three conditions must be satisfied before NOAA contracted for ocean and coastal mapping services: the existence of qualified commercial sources, when contracting is determined to be the most cost-effective method of conducting these functions, and funding is available. After consideration, NOAA retained these conditions in the policy.

Public comments were received that included positive feedback concerning NOAA's use of Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (Brooks Act). It was requested that NOAA provide clarification in the policy of the statement “where otherwise deemed appropriate” when applying Title IX. NOAA believes the policy, as written, is clear. NOAA will procure the acquisition of hydrographic data in accordance with Title IX. When procuring the acquisition of data that are not considered hydrographic data, NOAA will, in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, use its discretion in determining the most appropriate contracting vehicle to use, including Title IX.

Public comments were received that included concern over the removal of a reference to NOAA's annual hydrographic training and field procedures workshops. This section was removed from the policy because it was not directly related to the contracting process; however, it is NOAA's intent to invite NOAA contractors to future workshops. Also, as stated in the policy, future training opportunities for contractors are envisioned at NOAA's Ocean and Coastal Mapping Training Center, once established.

Public comments were received that expressed concern over draft language which provided examples of mapping activities that NOAA considers inherently governmental. After review, NOAA concurred that several of the draft examples were not inherently governmental and therefore eliminated those from the final policy.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recognizes that qualified commercial sources can provide competent, professional, and cost-effective ocean and coastal mapping services and expertise to NOAA in support of its diverse mapping missions. NOAA also recognizes that providing mapping services is a core mission requirement of NOAA under the 1947 Coast and Geodetic Survey Act, Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 (as amended), and other laws and authorities. In the interest of public and environmental safety and the furtherance of scientific knowledge, the Federal Government's responsibility for executing its ocean and coastal mapping missions is manifest and non-delegable. However, it is incumbent upon NOAA, as recommended by the Hydrographic Services Review Panel, a Federal Advisory Committee, to maintain operational ocean and coastal mapping core capabilities and supplement its operational capacity by contracting for ocean and coastal mapping services where appropriate and to the extent of available funding.

This policy statement documents the framework and conditions under which contracting will be employed to ensure an open and consistent approach. To support this policy, NOAA will maintain a dialogue with private sector organizations and constituent groups.

For the purposes of this policy and as defined in the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, the term “ocean and coastal mapping” includes the acquisition, processing, and management of physical, biological, geological, chemical, and archeological characteristics and boundaries of ocean and coastal areas. This also includes hydrographic services. As defined in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act, the term “hydrographic services” means the management, maintenance, interpretation, certification, and dissemination of bathymetric, hydrographic, shoreline, geodetic, geospatial, geomagnetic, tide and water level, and current information, including the production of nautical charts, nautical information, databases, and other products derived from hydrographic data. It is NOAA's intent to advance contracting and adhere to the principles of this policy to meet its diverse ocean and coastal mapping requirements.

It is the intent of NOAA to contract for ocean and coastal mapping services when such contracts are determined to be a cost-effective method of obtaining these services and to the extent funding is available. NOAA will procure ocean and coastal mapping services from qualified sources in accordance with its legal authorities, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). Where required by law or where otherwise deemed appropriate, NOAA will procure the acquisition of hydrographic data 1 in accordance with Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (40 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).2

NOAA may determine that a particular ocean and coastal mapping activity is inherently governmental or otherwise not subject to contracting. NOAA ocean and coastal mapping activities not subject to contracting may include, but are not limited to, services necessary to: (1) Monitor the quality of NOAA products; (2) promulgate and promote national and international technical standards and specifications; (3) conduct basic research and development and ensure the rapid transfer of derived technologies to the private sector; and (4) maintain the integrity and accuracy of Federal geodetic, navigational, and other databases.

To facilitate the leveraging of government mapping resources, NOAA will continue to make its coastal geospatial and hydrographic services contracts with private-sector companies available to State and local government entities that have a need for the services provided by these contracts and can provide adequate funding.

NOAA may task qualified commercial sources with ocean and coastal mapping services in any part of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, territorial sea, Great Lakes, inland waters, and coastal watersheds for any mission-related purpose. The government's interests in and responsibilities for mapping vary broadly and experience has shown that maintaining flexibility is key to responding to the nation's changing needs for geospatial data.

As recommended by the Hydrographic Services Review Panel, NOAA will continue to utilize a mix of in-house and private-sector resources to accomplish its ocean and coastal mapping missions. Costs and productivity will be monitored within each category (i.e., public and private) to ensure best use of mapping resources. NOAA will continue to seek the optimal resource allocation between in-house and private-sector resources based on the strength of the governmental interest, the total requirement for ocean and coastal mapping services, and the particular operational capabilities of either government or private-sector resources that may make one resource more suitable for a given situation.

NOAA will continue to examine ways to improve its contracting processes, including minimizing the turnover frequency of contracting personnel and reducing the length of time required to award contracts and task orders. NOAA will continue to offer debriefings to successful and unsuccessful contractors after final contractor selection has been made in order to assist contractors with identifying significant weaknesses or deficiencies in their submissions. NOAA will continue with its efforts to establish an Ocean and Coastal Mapping Training Center, which, as conceived, will support NOAA's in-house hydrographic and acoustic surveying training requirements. In addition, the Center would provide training to NOAA and private sector contractors in techniques, standards, and technologies that support NOAA's many ocean and coastal mapping activities. Such training would be beneficial to current or prospective NOAA contractors seeking to improve their capabilities and proposal submissions.

Council Plenary Session: The agenda for the Council's plenary session will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.

1. Reports:

a. Executive Director's Report (including report on catch shares and marine spatial planning)

b. NMFS Management Report

c. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Report

d. International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Report

e. U.S. Coast Guard Report

f. NMFS Enforcement Report/Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) Report

g. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report

h. Protected Species Report (including update on Biological Opinion and Center for Independent Experts review and seabird update)

2. Halibut/Sablefish Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) Program: Review proposals, receive committee report, and take action as necessary; review discussion paper on Community Quota Entity Program.

3. Observer Program: Progress on Implementation Plan; Progress on Implementation Plan; Observer Advisory Committee report.

4. Bering Sea Aleutian Island (BSAI) Crab Issues: Initial review BSAI Crab Right of First Refusal; Initial review Western Aleutian Golden King Crab Regional Delivery; NOAA/Bering Sea Fisheries Foundation cooperative survey report; review methodology for Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) analysis and performance measures for rebuilding (SSC only).

5. Groundfish ACLs: Initial review of Groundfish ACL requirements.

6. Amendment 80 Cooperatives: Initial review of Amendment 80 Lost Vessel Replacement; Final action Amendment 80 Cooperative Formation.

7. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Rockfish Program: Receive 2009 Cooperative Report; Refine alternatives for analysis.

8. American Fisheries Act (AFA): Receive 2009 Cooperative reports and 2010 Cooperative agreements.

9. Data Collection Discussion paper: Review discussion paper and take action as necessary.

10. Miscellaneous Issues: Review of analytical methods for BSAI Chum salmon bycatch (SSC only); review new area closure options for chum salmon bycatch alternatives; review preliminary Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) report (SSC only); review and adopt Habitats Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) criteria and schedule; report and action as necessary on Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan Addendum; review discussion paper on stranding of BSAI Pacific cod total allowable catch (T); review discussion paper on halibut PSC limits (T).

11. Staff Tasking: Review Committees and tasking.

12. Other Business

The SSC agenda will include the following issues:

1. C-5 (a) Amendment 80 Lost Vessel replacement

2. C-3 (a, b, c, d) BSAI Crab Issues

3. C-4 Groundfish ACLs

4. D-2 Data Collection

5. D-3(a, b, c) Groundfish Issues

6. National Standard 2 Guidelines

The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council, except for # 1 reports. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The New England Fishery Management Council's Monkfish Committee is holding public hearings for Amendment 5 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The primary purpose of this amendment is to address the new requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act that the Council adopt Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) and manage the fishery at long-term sustainable levels. According to the Act, these measures must be adopted by 2011. Amendment 5 will also include revised biological and management reference points to bring the FMP into compliance with revised National Standard 1 Guidelines. Further, Amendment 5 will specify total allowable catch targets and associated days-at-sea (DAS) and trip limits for the directed fishery to supplant the current specifications that it adopted for the 2007-09 fishing years along with an extension provision which will apply for the 2010 fishing year. Amendment 5 contains proposals to make modifications to the FMP to improve the Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program, to minimize bycatch resulting from trip limit overages, to accommodate those vessels fishing in groundfish sectors who would no longer be required to use their allocated groundfish DAS, to require all limited access monkfish vessels to use a VMS when on a monkfish DAS, and to allow the landing of monkfish heads.

The public hearing document, as well as the draft Amendment 5 document incorporating an Environmental Assessment, is available on the Monkfish page of the Council(s website (www.nefmc.org) or from the Council office.

After the close of the public comment period, the Monkfish Oversight Committee and Industry Advisory Panel will review the comments and develop recommendations to the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils on the measures to be submitted as final action for Amendment 5. The Councils will make their decisions in April, 2010 for submission to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). If approved by NMFS, Amendment 5 will take effect at the start of the 2011 fishing year.

The dates, times, locations and telephone numbers of the hearings are as follows:

Monday, February 8, 2010 at 1 p.m. - Hampton Inn, One Hampton Way, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone: (508) 990-8500;

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 1 p.m. - Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries Annisquam River Station, 30 Emerson Avenue, Gloucester, MA 01930; telephone: (978) 282-0308;

Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 8 a.m. - Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay Hotel, 100 Heron Boulevard at Route 50, Cambridge, MD 21613; telephone: (410) 901-1234;

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. - Holiday Inn Express East End, 1707 Old Country Road, Riverhead, NY 11901; telephone: (631) 548-1000;

Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 9 a.m. - Hilton Garden Inn, 1885 Route 70, Lakewood, NJ 08701; telephone: (732) 262-5232;

Friday, March 5, 2010 at 9 a.m. - Samoset Resort, 220 Warrenton Street, Rockport, ME 04856; telephone: (207) 594-2511.

These hearings are physically accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Persons eligible to respond to this survey are those civilians now separated from military service who initially enrolled, gave consent and participated in the Millennium Cohort Study while on active duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or U.S. Coast Guard during the first, second, or third panel enrollment periods in 2001-2003, 2004-2006, or 2007-2008 respectively, as well as civilians that choose to participate in the Millennium Cohort Family Study.

The purpose the meeting is for the commissioners of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission to continue their efforts to address congressional concerns as outlined in the commission charter.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, the meetings on February 11 and 12, 2010, will be open to the public.

However, pursuant to 41 CFR 3.160(b), the Administrative Working Meeting on February 10, 2010 shall be closed to the public.

Please note that the availability of seating is on a first-come basis.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.

Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least five calendar days prior the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission until its next meeting.

The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Military Leadership Diversity Commission Chairperson and ensure they are provided to all members of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the contact under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on January 5, 2010, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 2996, 61 FR 6427).

The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the contact under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on January 5, 2010, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Department of the Air Force systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the contact under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The specific changes to the record system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

This notice of proposed priority is in concert with NIDRR's Final Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). The Plan, which was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 8165), can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.

Through the implementation of the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for RRTC competitions in FY 2010 and possibly later years. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed. Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award for this priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of applications received and available funding.

We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to clearly identify the specific topic that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 6029, 550 12th Street, SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC, time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, to develop methods, procedures and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

The purpose of the RRTC program is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, through advanced research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities in general problem areas, as specified by NIDRR. Such activities are designed to benefit rehabilitation service providers, individuals with disabilities, and the family members or other authorized representatives of individuals with disabilities. In addition, NIDRR intends to require all RRTC applicants to meet the requirements of the General Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTC) Requirements priority that it published in a notice of final priorities in the Federal Register on February 1, 2008 (72 FR 6132). Additional information on the RRTC program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC.

RRTCs must—

• Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation research;

• Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities;

• Provide technical assistance to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties;

• Disseminate informational materials to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties; and

• Serve as centers of national excellence in rehabilitation research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties.

Applicants for RRTC grants also must demonstrate in their applications how they will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)(2).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.

Individuals with disabilities experience lower rates of employment than those without disabilities, and this disparity in employment rates is seen across all sociodemographic groups (Steinmetz, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006; U.S. Department of Labor, 2009).

This disparity in employment rates, as well as differences in other aspects of employment (e.g., retention rates, job satisfaction, wages), appear to reflect, at least in part, differences in employer practices related to hiring, promoting, and retaining employees who have or acquire disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). While it is difficult to obtain employer-level information, there is some recent evidence regarding the relationship between employer practices and outcomes for individuals with disabilities. In 2008, the Office of Disability Employment Policy of the U.S. Department of Labor funded an employer survey that examined employer practices related to hiring, advancing, and retaining employees with disabilities (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). The study indicated that companies reporting that they actively recruit employees with disabilities differ from other companies in several domains. For example, companies that recruited individuals with disabilities were generally less likely than others to identify challenges in hiring individuals with disabilities (e.g., accommodation costs, nature of the work, concern about health care costs) and were more likely to identify strategies that were helpful in recruiting employees with disabilities (e.g., developing a targeted recruitment program, visible top management commitment, providing flexible work schedules). In addition, companies that reported actively recruiting employees with disabilities were less likely to have identified the following concerns regarding hiring individuals with disabilities: That employing workers with disabilities increased the cost of doing business, that workers with disabilities lack relevant skills and experience, and that employees with disabilities posed greater risks to safety and productivity.

Analysis of the responses revealed that employer characteristics, including company size, sector of the economy, and industry type, were related to the employers' responses. Larger employers and employers in the public sector were more likely than other employers to report employing individuals with disabilities and actively recruiting applicants with disabilities. Larger companies were also more likely to report having hired employees with disabilities within the last 12 months. Smaller and medium-sized companies were more likely to report that health care costs, workers compensation costs, and fear of litigation were challenges in hiring individuals with disabilities. When asked about concerns related to hiring employees with disabilities, smaller and medium-sized companies were more likely to cite concerns about costs of employing individuals with disabilities and the belief that workers with disabilities lack relevant skills and experience. In contrast, larger companies were more concerned about supervisors' uncertainty regarding how to take disciplinary action against employees with disabilities. When questioned about perceived challenges to retaining employees with disabilities, smaller companies expressed greater concerns about the cost of health care coverage and workers compensation.

Responses also varied by organization type. Companies in construction, goods-producing, and retail trades were more likely than others to indicate that the nature of the work was a challenge in hiring individuals with disabilities. Public organizations were more likely than private sector agencies to report that they actively recruited employees with disabilities.

The results of this study suggest that organizations of different sizes, and from different industries and sectors of the economy, differ in employer practices with regard to individuals with disabilities. However, these findings are largely based on the attitudes, opinions or perceptions of employers, rather than on objectively measured employer practices and employment outcomes. Building upon these findings by obtaining empirical data about actual employer practices, and further investigating the extent to which these practices are associated with employment for individuals with disabilities, would inform the development of interventions to improve the number and diversity of employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority for a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Employer Practices Related to Employment Outcomes Among Individuals with Disabilities. This RRTC must conduct research that contributes to our knowledge about the differences that exist in employer practices towards hiring individuals with disabilities and the relationship between different practices and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. This new knowledge will contribute to more targeted interventions to improve employer practices related to the employment of individuals with disabilities. Under this priority, the RRTC must contribute to the following outcomes:

(a) New knowledge of specific employer practices most strongly associated with desired employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities and the prevalence of these practices. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by identifying and categorizing employer practices related to the hiring, retention, and advancement of individuals with disabilities and conducting research on the extent to which employers engage in specific practices that have been found in relevant research to promote positive employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Factors that are associated with such practices include, but are not limited to: employer size, geographic regions, sector of industry or the economy (e.g., private sector, public sector, goods-producing, service-producing), employer preconceptions, and experience working with vocational rehabilitation agencies.

(b) Increased knowledge about how these practices relate to employer success in hiring, retention, and promotion of individuals with disabilities. Applicants must propose strategies to collect information about these practices and outcomes directly from employers, taking into account that it can be difficult to collect information about employer practices and outcomes. In addition, applicants are encouraged to use existing databases such as those maintained by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Small Business Administration, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and disability insurance providers.

(c) Increased incorporation of findings into practice and policy. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by:

(1) Collaborating with employer groups to develop, evaluate, or implement strategies to increase utilization of positive practices identified by the RRTC.

(2) Conducting training and dissemination activities to facilitate the utilization of research findings in employment and policy settings.

In addition, this RRTC must collaborate with:

(1) Relevant Rehabilitation Services

Administration grantees, such as the 10 regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education projects.

(2) Relevant grantees and programs in the Department of Labor, including the Office of Disability Employment Policy's National Technical Assistance, Policy, and Research Center for Employers.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Priority: We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Executive Order 12866: This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this proposed regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this proposed regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priority justify the costs.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Programs have been well established over the years in that similar projects have been completed successfully. This proposed priority will generate new knowledge through research and development activities.

Another benefit of this proposed priority is that the establishment of a new RRTC will support the research and will improve the lives of individuals with disabilities. The new RRTC will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that will improve the options for individuals with disabilities to obtain, retain, and advance in employment.

This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, (EPCA or the Act) requires the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) to prescribe standardized test procedures to measure the energy consumption of certain consumer products. See 42 U.S.C. 6293, 6295(r). The Department's current test procedure for residential refrigerator-freezers is set forth at 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A1, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric Refrigerator-Freezers (Appendix A1). DOE issues this guidance to ensure the consistent application of the current test procedure to refrigerator-freezers with French doors, bottom-mounted freezers, and through-the-door (TTD) ice service (French door TTD models).

Appendix A1 requires products to be tested in accordance with the relevant sections of Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) standard HRF-1-1979 (HRF-1). See Appendix A1, section 2.2; 47 FR 34517 (Aug. 10, 1982). HRF-1 specifies that “automatic ice makers are to be inoperative during the test” (“ice maker exclusion”). See HRF-1, section 7.4.2. HRF-1 defines “automatic ice maker” as “[a] device, connected to a water supply, which automatically produces, harvests, and stores ice in a storage bin, with means to automatically interrupt the harvesting operation when the bin is filled to a predetermined amount.” Id. at sec. 3.5.

At the time when AHAM developed and DOE adopted HRF-1, refrigerator-freezer models equipped with automatic ice makers located the ice maker in the freezer compartments, rather than separate ice compartments outside the freezer. Further, ice maker controls were generally electro-mechanical (i.e. the electrical switches in the controls that turn functions on and off are operated by mechanical action). Thus, since the test procedure was adopted, DOE has typically applied HRF-1's ice maker exclusion by raising the baler arm bar of an automatic ice maker into its upright locked position, which stops ice production during normal operation. More specifically, this action stops the harvesting functions—the process of freeing or removing ice pieces from the ice mold of an automatic ice maker. Preventing the removal of ice from the ice mold, in turn, stops the subsequent activation of solenoid valves that allow the flow of more water into the ice maker. This longstanding test procedure renders the ice maker inoperative without affecting any energy-using functions of the product beyond active ice making operations. It most accurately reflects the real-world energy use of these devices because it includes in the efficiency calculation the energy used whenever the ice maker is powered on (as it will be most, if not all, of the time in normal household use), while excluding from the efficiency calculation the additional energy used when the ice maker is operative—i.e., when it is actively making and harvesting ice. The additional energy that is used during these periods of active operation is excluded in recognition that these active ice making functions occur only intermittently—when the ice maker senses that the ice bin is not full.

Over the last few years, several manufacturers have introduced French door refrigerator-freezer models with bottom-mounted freezers and TTD ice service, which are designed to permit ice to be produced, stored, and dispensed at a consumer-friendly height through the door. The ice compartment is typically a special insulated compartment located within the fresh food compartment or mounted on one of the fresh food compartment doors. As these French door TTD models grew in number, DOE became aware that design variations led to the use of ice making components, such as the fill tube heater and ice ejection heater, that may consume energy beyond that used when the ice maker is actively making and harvesting ice. As a result, in some designs, turning the ice maker and its components off results in the machine using significantly less energy than when the ice maker is on, but not making ice.

In January 2009, DOE posted on its Web site a short statement on the application of this test procedure to refrigerator-freezers with automatic ice makers. See http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=refrig.pr_refrigerators. That January statement made clear that an ice storage bin must be maintained at a temperature to prevent the ice from melting during testing. We also stated that under DOE's test procedure, energy consumed by components that interact with the ice maker, but are not involved in making ice, must be included in calculating a product's reported total energy use.

We understand that, despite our consistent past practice and prior efforts to be clear, some manufacturers may have misapplied our test procedure with respect to ice making components in French door TTD models. DOE issues this guidance to eliminate any lingering inconsistency in the application of our procedure to these refrigerator-freezers. Specifically, we make clear our consistent view that, under the current test procedure, ice makers and all ice making components—including the fill tube heater and ice ejection heater—must be on and functioning as they would be when the icemaker is not actively making ice. The ice maker and all ice making components—including the fill tube heater and ice ejection heater—may be rendered “inoperative” by preventing the machine from making ice during the test, such as by creating a condition in which the machine senses a full bin of ice. Turning the ice maker and/or its components off during the test is not permitted because it may improperly exclude energy beyond that used during the intermittent periods when the ice maker is operative—i.e., when it is actively making ice.

This application of the ice maker exclusion to French door TTD models follows from the plain language and intent of our test procedure, comports with the purpose of the Act, and is consistent with nearly 30 years of DOE understanding and practice. As stated above, HRF-1 specifies that “automatic ice makers are to be inoperative during the test.” See HRF-1, section 7.4.2. DOE interprets “inoperative” by reference to the definition of an automatic ice maker. HRF-1 defines “automatic ice maker” as “[a] device, connected to a water supply, which automatically produces, harvests, and stores ice in a storage bin, with means to automatically interrupt the harvesting operation when the bin is filled to a predetermined amount.” Id. at sec. 3.5 (emphasis added). Thus, an ice maker is “inoperative” when the ice maker has “interrupt[ed] the harvesting operation,” such as when the unit senses that “the bin is filled to a predetermined amount.” As described above, such an action prevents the machine from making ice, by stopping the harvesting of ice, which in turn stops the production of additional ice, without affecting the energy consumed by other refrigerator-freezer functions.

Our application is also informed by EPCA's underlying purpose of advancing energy efficiency. 42 U.S.C. 6201(5). In authorizing DOE to promulgate test procedures, the Act provides that “[a]ny test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency * * * of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use.” 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Guided by this provision, we apply our test procedures, to the extent possible, to reflect the energy consumed during representative consumer use. In our view, keeping the ice maker and its associated components on, but preventing them from making ice, better represents the average use of a refrigerator-freezer, such as when the machine has a full bin of ice in a consumer's home. Turning off either the ice maker or components associated with the ice maker, by contrast, does not represent the average use of a refrigerator-freezer, and may cause the machine to consume less energy than when the ice maker is on, but not making ice.

Finally, we emphasize that—far from a change to our existing view—this clarification of DOE's interpretation of HRF-1 is consistent with DOE's longstanding practice with respect to the ice maker exclusion. DOE has never interpreted the ice maker exclusion in our current test procedure to allow manufacturers to turn the ice maker or its components off. Rather, as described above, since this test procedure was adopted over twenty-seven years ago, DOE has applied the ice maker exclusion with the view that the ice maker should be on but prevented from making ice. Indeed, the advent of French door TTD models reinforces the importance of DOE's pre-existing approach, which ensures that the exclusion is narrowly targeted to exempt only active ice making energy from a product's total energy consumption.

This guidance, which reflects nearly 30 years of Department practice, represents the Department's interpretation of the existing test procedure. It is not intended to create or remove any rights or duties, nor is it intended to affect any other aspect of EPCA or DOE regulations. This guidance was originally issued on December 18, 2009, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/rf_test_procedure_addl_guidance.pdf.

For the purpose of publishing this notice and seeking public comment, FERC requests comments on the following information collections:

• FERC-538, Gas Pipeline Certificate: Section 7(a) Mandatory Initial Service, contained in 18 CFR Part 156; OMB Control No. 1902-0061;

• FERC-539, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import/Export Related, contained in 18 CFR Parts 153 and 157; OMB Control No. 1902-0062;

• FERC-577, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statement, identifies FERC's information collections relating to 18 CFR Part 380 implementing NEPA and includes the environmental compliance conditions of 18 CFR 157.206(b); OMB Control No. 1902-0128;

• FERC-606, Notification of Request for Federal Authorization and Requests for Further Information, contained in 18 CFR Part 385; OMB Control No. 1902-0241; and

• FERC-607, Report on Decision or Action on Request for Federal Authorization, contained in 18 CFR Part 385; OMB Control No. 1902-0240.

The associated regulations, information collections, burdens, and OMB clearance numbers will continue to remain separate and distinct.

FERC-538. Under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (Public Law 75-688) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w), upon application by a local distribution company or municipality, a natural gas pipeline company may be ordered by the Commission to extend or improve transportation facilities, to establish physical connections to serve, and to sell natural gas to the applicant. Filings pursuant to the provisions of Section 7(a) of the NGA are to contain all information necessary to advise the Commission fully concerning the service which the applicant has requested the Commission to direct the natural gas pipeline company to render (such as a request to direct a natural gas company to extend or improve its transportation facilities, and to sell natural gas to the municipality or person and, for such purpose, to extend its transportation facilities to communities immediately adjacent to such facilities or to territories served by the natural gas pipeline company).

FERC-539. Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (Public Law 75-688) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w) provides, in part, that “* * * no person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order from the Commission authorizing it to do so.” The 1992 amendments to Section 3 of the NGA concern importation or exportation from/to a nation which has a free trade agreement with the United States, and requires that such importation or exportation: (1) Shall be deemed to be a “first sale”, i.e., not a sale for a resale, and (2) Shall be deemed to be consistent with the public interest, and applications for such importation or exportation shall be granted without modification or delay.

With the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the Federal regulatory focus on construction, operation, and siting of import and export facilities increased significantly.

FERC-577. Section 102(2)(c) of the of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Pub. L. 91-190) requires that all Federal agencies must include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement on: the environmental impact on the proposed actions; any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; alternatives to the proposed action; the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

FERC-606 and FERC-607. Section 313 of EPAct 2005 directs the Commission: (1) To establish a schedule for state and federal agencies and officers to act on requests for federal authorizations required for NGA section 3 and 7 gas projects, and (2) to maintain a complete consolidated record of all decisions or actions by the Commission and other agencies and officers with respect to federal authorizations.

FERC-606 requires agencies and officials responsible for issuing, conditioning, or denying requests for federal authorizations necessary for a proposed natural gas project to report to FERC regarding the status of an authorization request. This reporting requirement is intended to allow agencies to assist the FERC to make better informed determinations in establishing due dates for agencies' decisions.

FERC-607 requires agencies or officials to submit to FERC a copy of a decision or action on a request for federal authorization and an accompanying index to the documents and materials relied on in reaching a conclusion.

If the collections of data for FERC-538, FERC-539, FERC-577, FERC-606, and FERC-607 in general were not conducted, the Commission would not be able to meet its statutory responsibilities, would not be able to authorize and monitor certain energy projects to ensure that the construction of natural gas pipeline projects and LNG terminals are economically viable, and at the same time, protect the environment.

Action: The Commission is requesting three-year extensions of the current expiration dates for the FERC-538, FERC-539, FERC-577, FERC-606, and FERC-607, with no change to the reporting requirements.

Burden Statement: The estimated annual public reporting burdens and the associated public costs follow.

The total annual cost to respondents1 2 is estimated as follows.

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.

Western, an agency within DOE, markets Federal hydroelectric power to preference customers, as specified by law. These customers include municipalities, cooperatives, irrigation districts, Federal and State agencies, and Native American tribes. Western's service territory covers 15 western states, of which Arizona is included. Western owns and operates more than 17,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines.

QSE is a Santa Monica, California-based energy company formed by U.S. Renewables Group, a private equity firm focused exclusively on renewable energy.

QSE proposes to construct a 100-MW (net), solar-powered electrical generation facility in La Paz County, Arizona. The solar power facility would occupy approximately 1,450 acres of BLM administered lands within a larger BLM administered area. The proposed Project would be located approximately six miles north of Quartzsite, and adjacent to Arizona State Route 95. The proposed Project, powerline and ancillary facilities would be on BLM administered land.

The proposed Project would use concentrating solar “power tower” technology to capture the sun's heat to make steam, which would power traditional steam turbine generators. The solar power facility would contain the power block, a central receiver or tower, solar fields which consist of mirrors or heliostats to reflect the sun's energy to the central tower, a thermal energy storage system, technical and non-technical buildings, a stormwater system, water supply and treatment systems, a wastewater system, and other supporting facilities.

Other Project components would include access roads, an electrical substation, and a transmission line. The access road would originate from Highway 95 and extend approximately 0.5 miles to the perimeter of the solar power facility.

QSE has applied to Western to interconnect the proposed Project to Western's transmission system. The transmission line from the solar facility would extend approximately 0.5 miles from the solar facility boundary to a new substation to be constructed adjacent to Western's existing line. The substation would be owned, operated, and maintained by Western, and would be located adjacent to Western's existing Bouse-Kofa 161-kV line that parallels State Route 95 in the vicinity of Quartzsite, Arizona. The substation would be approximately 300 x 400 feet, or about 2 to 3 acres.

An on-site temporary laydown area would be used during the construction phase of the Project. The laydown areas, outside of the solar facility boundary, total approximately 30 acres and would be used for storage and assembly of proposed Project components and for temporary construction trailers.

Western's proposed actions are to build a new substation and to interconnect the proposed Project to Western's transmission system at the substation described above.

Western will also consider the no-action alternative in the EIS. Under the no-action alternative, Western would deny the interconnection request and would not build a new substation. For the purpose of impact analysis and comparison in the EIS, it will be assumed that the Applicant's proposed Project would not be built and the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation would not occur.

Because interconnection of the proposed Project would incorporate a major new generation resource into Western's power transmission system, Western has determined that an EIS is required under DOE NEPA implementing procedures, 10 CFR part 1021, Subpart D, Appendix D, class of action D6.1 Western would be the lead Federal agency for preparing the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5. The proposed Project would include construction of a new electrical generating facility, substation and transmission line across lands managed by the BLM; therefore, the BLM has agreed to be a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS. Western will invite other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to be cooperating agencies on the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6. Such agencies may also make a request to Western to be a cooperating agency by contacting Ms. Barger at the address listed above in the ADDRESSES section. Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this NOI also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain or wetland action, in accordance with DOE regulations for Compliance with Floodplain and Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements at 10 CFR 1022.12(a). The EIS will include a floodplain/wetland assessment and, if required, a floodplain/wetland statement of findings will be issued with the Final EIS or Western and BLM's Records of Decision (ROD).

This notice is to inform agencies and the public of Western's intent to prepare an EIS and solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in the EIS. To help the public frame its comments, the following list contains potential environmental issues preliminarily identified for analysis in the EIS:

1. Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants.

2. Impacts on migratory birds.

3. Introduction of noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species.

4. Impacts on recreation and transportation.

5. Impacts on land use, wilderness, farmlands, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.

6. Impacts on cultural or historic resources and tribal values.

7. Impacts on human health and safety.

8. Impacts on air, soil, and water resources (including air quality and surface water impacts).

9. Visual impacts.

10. Socioeconomic impacts and disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations.

This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts. Western invites interested parties to suggest specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not included above, to be considered in the EIS.

The EIS process includes a public scoping period; public scoping meetings; public review and hearings on the draft EIS; publication of a final EIS; and publication of a ROD. The public scoping period begins with publication of this notice and closes February 16, 2010. At the conclusion of the NEPA process, Western will prepare a ROD. Persons interested in receiving future notices, Project information, copies of the EIS, and other information on the NEPA review process should contact Ms. Barger at the address listed above in the ADDRESSES section.

The purpose of the scoping meetings is to provide information about the proposed Project, review Project maps, answer questions, and take written comments from interested parties. All meeting locations will be handicapped-accessible. Anyone needing special accommodations should contact Ms. Barger to make arrangements.

The public will have the opportunity to provide written comments at the public scoping meetings. Written comments may also be sent to Ms. Barger by fax, e-mail, or U.S. Postal Service mail. To help define the scope of the EIS, comments should be received by Western no later than February 16, 2010.

Western is a Federal power marketing agency within the DOE that markets and delivers Federal wholesale electric power (principally hydroelectric power) to municipalities, rural electric cooperatives, public utilities, irrigation districts, Federal and State agencies, and Native American tribes in 15 western and central States. The proposed Project would be located within Western's Rocky Mountain Region, which operates in Colorado, most of Wyoming, and portions of Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, and New Mexico. SWE applied to interconnect their proposed 300-MW Project with Western's existing Craig—Ault 345-kV transmission line in Albany County, Wyoming. The proposed Project would be located on private and State lands; no federally-managed land would be affected. There are no designated cooperating agencies at this time, but cooperating agencies could be identified at a later date.

Western will prepare an EIS on the interconnection of the proposed Project in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021), and the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).1

Western's need for agency action is precipitated by SWE's application to interconnect with Western's power transmission system. Western needs to consider SWE's interconnection request under Western's Tariff, which provides for open access to its transmission system through an interconnection if there is available capacity in the transmission system. This EIS will address Western's Federal action of constructing an interconnection facility on the existing Craig—Ault transmission line, and making necessary system modifications to accommodate the interconnection of SWE's proposed Project. Preliminary studies indicate that the power system can accommodate the proposed interconnection without negatively affecting system reliability or power deliveries to existing customers. The transmission system may require network and/or transmission system upgrades as determined in the final studies.

Subject to compliance with the provisions of the Tariff, Western proposes to approve SWE's interconnection request and construct an interconnection facility on the Craig—Ault transmission line. By taking this action, power generated by the proposed Project would use Western's transmission system to reach the market.

Western will evaluate location options for the interconnection facility in the vicinity of the proposed Project along the existing Craig—Ault transmission line. Under the no action alternative, Western would not approve the interconnection request, nor construct the interconnection facility.

SWE's proposed Project would consist of up to 200 wind turbine generators with a combined total generating capacity of up to 300 MW, located within an 11,125-acre site in southeast Albany County, near the towns of Hermosa and Tie Siding. The turbines would be located in 11 north-south oriented strings of varying lengths, with the strings being approximately one-half mile apart. In addition to the turbines, other proposed Project facilities would include all-weather access roads to each turbine location; underground power collection lines linking turbines to the Project Substation; the Project Substation; a short high-voltage transmission line linking the Project Substation to Western's transmission system; operation and maintenance facilities and yard; Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition equipment and metering equipment; and a permanent meteorological tower. The proposed Project Substation would likely be co-located with Western's interconnection facility.

While Western's Federal action is to consider the interconnection request and the physical interconnection to Western's existing transmission system, the EIS will also identify and review the environmental impacts of SWE's proposed Project. SWE will complete necessary coordination with State and local agencies to permit their proposed Project.

Since the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this NOI also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain or wetland action. The EIS will include a floodplain/wetland assessment and floodplain/wetland statement of findings following DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review (10 CFR part 1022).

The location of the proposed Project is in a sparsely populated portion of southeastern Wyoming. Available overview information indicates this area has a relatively low probability of substantial natural resources conflicts. SWE's siting process for the wind turbine strings and associated facilities considered sensitive resources, and the proposed Project was designed to avoid these areas. The EIS will evaluate the level of impact Western's proposed action and SWE's proposed Project would have on environmental resources within the 11,125-acre site, which may lead to minor modifications in the proposed Project to further avoid or minimize resource impacts. While no substantive resource conflicts have been identified thus far, the EIS will analyze the potential impacts on potentially affected environmental resources. Wind farm projects are generally known to have visual and noise effects, and may affect birds and bats.

Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping process to help define the important resources and issues to be analyzed in depth, and to eliminate from detailed study issues that are not pertinent. The scoping process will involve all interested agencies (Federal, State, county, and local), Native American tribes, public interest groups, businesses, affected landowners, and individual members of the public.

Western will consult with affected tribes to jointly evaluate and address the potential effects on cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, or other resources important to the tribes. These consultations will be conducted in accordance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249), the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), DOE-specific guidance on tribal interactions, and applicable natural and cultural resources laws and regulations.

Public scoping meetings will be held as described under DATES and ADDRESSES above. The meetings will be informal, and attendees will be able to speak directly with Western and SWE representatives about the proposed Project. The public is encouraged to provide information and comments on issues it believes Western should address in the EIS. Comments may be broad in nature or restricted to specific areas of concern. After gathering comments on the scope of the EIS, Western will address issues raised in the EIS. Comments on Western's proposed action and SWE's proposed Project will be accepted at any time during the EIS process, and may be directed to Western as described under ADDRESSES above.

Western's EIS process will include the public scoping meetings; consultation and coordination with appropriate Federal, State, county, and local agencies and tribal governments; involvement with affected landowners; distribution of and public review and comment on the Draft EIS; a formal public hearing or hearings on the Draft EIS; distribution of a published Final EIS; and publication of Western's Record of Decision in the Federal Register.

The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and, as appropriate, object to operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities under title V of the Act. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to title V operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

On November 24, 2008, EPA received a petition from the Petitioners requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to AEP for the operation of the Turk plant. Specifically, the Petitioners claimed that: (1) The best available control technology (BACT) analysis for the Turk plant's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit was flawed; (2) the maximum available control technology (MACT) analysis was flawed; (3) the permit failed to assure compliance with, and practical enforceability of, the emission limits and standards required for PSD permits and title V of the Act; and (4) EPA should object to the permit because it failed to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Turk plant.

On December 15, 2009, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion to partially grant and partially deny the petition for objection.

The Federal Communications Commission established the WRC-12 Advisory Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the preparation of United States proposals and positions for the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-12).

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the fourth meeting of the WRC-12 Advisory Committee. The WRC-12 Advisory Committee has an open membership. All interested parties are invited to participate in the WRC-12 Advisory Committee and to attend its meetings. The proposed agenda for the fourth meeting is as follows:

Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554, February 10, 2010, 11 a.m. to 12 noon.

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to “Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule: FTC File No. R511929,” to facilitate the organization of comments. Please note that your comment - including your name and your state - will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including on the publicly accessible FTC website, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm).

Because comments will be made public, they should not include any sensitive personal information, such as any individual’s Social Security Number; date of birth; driver’s license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, comments should not include “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing matter for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c).1

Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted using the following weblink: (https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/MTORpra2) (and following the instructions on the web-based form). To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the weblink (https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/MTORpra2). If this Notice appears at (www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp), you may also file an electronic comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. You may also visit the FTC Website at (http://www.ftc.gov) to read the Notice and the news release describing it.

A comment filed in paper form should include the reference “Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule: FTC File No. R511929,” both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm).

On October 19, 2009, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the MTOR, 16 CFR Part 435 (Control Number: 3084-0106). 74 FR 53500. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before February 16, 2010.

The MTOR was promulgated in 1975 in response to consumer complaints that many merchants were failing to ship merchandise ordered by mail on time, failing to ship at all, or failing to provide prompt refunds for unshipped merchandise. A second rulemaking proceeding in 1993 demonstrated that the delayed shipment and refund problems of the mail order industry were also being experienced by consumers who ordered merchandise over the telephone. Accordingly, the Commission amended the Rule, effective on March 1, 1994, to include merchandise ordered by telephone, including by telefax or by computer through the use of a modem (e.g., Internet sales), and the Rule was then renamed the “Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule.”

Generally, the MTOR requires a merchant to: (1) have a reasonable basis for any express or implied shipment representation made in soliciting the sale (if no express time period is promised, the implied shipment representation is 30 days); (2) notify the consumer and obtain the consumer’s consent to any delay in shipment; and (3) make prompt and full refunds when the consumer exercises a cancellation option or the merchant is unable to meet the Rule’s other requirements.2

The notice provisions in the Rule require a merchant who is unable to ship within the promised shipment time or 30 days to notify the consumer of a revised date and his or her right to cancel the order and obtain a prompt refund. Delays beyond the revised shipment date also trigger a notification requirement to consumers. When the MTOR requires the merchant to make a refund and the consumer has paid by credit card, the Rule also requires the merchant to notify the consumer either that any charge to the consumer’s charge account will be reversed or that the merchant will take no action that will result in a charge.

Estimated total annual hours burden: 2,401,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand)

In its 2006 PRA-related Federal Register Notices3 and corresponding submission to OMB, FTC staff estimated that established companies each spend an average of 50 hours per year on compliance with the Rule, and that new industry entrants spend an average of 230 hours (an industry estimate) for compliance measures associated with start-up.4 Thus, the total estimated hours burden was calculated by multiplying the estimated number of established companies x 50 hours, multiplying the estimated number of new entrants x 230 hours, and adding the two products.

No provisions in the Rule have been amended or changed since staff’s prior submission to OMB. Thus, the Rule’s disclosure requirements remain the same. Moreover, no public comments were received regarding the above-noted estimates; thus, staff will apply them to the current PRA burden analysis.

Since the prior submission to OMB, however, the number of businesses engaged in the sale of merchandise by mail or by telephone has changed. Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce 2009 Statistical Abstract5 indicates that between 2000 and 2005 the number of businesses subject to the MTOR grew from 26,800 to 33,600, or an average increase of 1,360 new businesses a year [(33,600 businesses in 2005 - 26,800 businesses in 2000) ÷ 5 years].6 Assuming this growth rate continues, the average number of established businesses during the three-year period for which OMB clearance is sought for the Rule would be 41,7607:

In an average year during the three-year OMB clearance period, staff estimates that established businesses and new entrants will devote 2,401,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand, to comply with the MTOR [(41,760 established businesses x 50 hours) + (1,360 new entrants x 230 hours) = 2,400,800].

The estimated PRA burden per merchant to comply with the MTOR is likely overstated. The mail-order industry has been subject to the basic provisions of the Rule since 1976 and the telephone-order industry since 1994. Thus, businesses have had several years (and some have had decades) to integrate compliance systems into their business procedures. Moreover, arguably much of the estimated time burden for disclosure-related compliance would be incurred even absent the Rule. Industry trade associations and individual witnesses have consistently taken the position that compliance with the MTOR is widely regarded by direct marketers as being good business practice. Providing consumers with notice about the status of their orders fosters consumer loyalty and encourages repeat purchases, which are important to direct marketers’ success. Accordingly, the Rule’s notification requirements would be followed in any event by most merchants to meet consumer expectations regarding timely shipment, notification of delay, and prompt and full refunds. Thus, it appears that much of the time and expense associated with Rule compliance may not constitute “burden” under the PRA.8

Estimated labor costs: $47,108,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand)

FTC staff derived labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. According to the most recent mean hourly income data available from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, average payroll in 2008 for miscellaneous sales and related workers was $19.62/hr. Because the bulk of the burden of complying with the MTOR is borne by clerical personnel, staff believes that the average hourly payroll figure for miscellaneous sales and related workers is an appropriate measure of a direct marketer’s average labor cost to comply with the Rule. Thus, the total annual labor cost to new and established businesses for MTOR compliance during the three-year period for which OMB approval is sought would be approximately $47,108,000 (2,401,000 hours x $19.62/hr.), rounded to the nearest thousand. Relative to direct industry sales, this total is negligible.9

Estimated annual non-labor cost burden: $0 or minimal

The applicable requirements impose minimal start-up costs, as businesses subject to the Rule generally have or obtain necessary equipment for other business purposes, i.e., inventory and order management, and customer relations. For the same reason, staff anticipates printing and copying costs to be minimal, especially given that telephone order merchants have increasingly turned to electronic communications to notify consumers of delay and to provide cancellation options. Staff believes that the above requirements necessitate ongoing, regular training so that covered entities stay current and have a clear understanding of federal mandates, but that this would be a small portion of and subsumed within the ordinary training that employees receive apart from that associated with the information collected under the Rule.

A. Purpose

The Art-in-Architecture Program actively seeks to commission works from the full spectrum of American artists and strives to promote new media and inventive solutions for public art. The GSA Form 7437, Art-in-Architecture Program National Artist Registry, will be used to collect information from artists across the country to participate and to be considered for commissions.

Respondents: 360.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: .25.

Hours Per Response: .25.

Total Burden Hours: 90.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0274, Art-in-Architecture Program National Artist Registry, in all correspondence.

The public comment period provides stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the content and findings of the EIS for the Proposed Action. Copies are being distributed to selected stakeholders and are available for public review at the International Falls Public Library, the International Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Koochiching County Administration Office.

In FR Doc. E9-30657, appearing on page 68629, in the Federal Register of Monday, December 28, 2009, the following correction is made:

1. On page 68629, in the second column, in the Supplementary Information, I. Background section, in the second full paragraph, in the last sentence, the date “April 30, 2009” is corrected to read “April 30, 2010”.

Excess Federal real property is defined as property that is no longer mission critical to the needs of the Federal Government. The conveyance and disposal of excess real property is governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (Property Act) as amended, 40 U.S.C. 541, et seq., 40 U.S.C. 553, and applicable regulations (41 CFR 102-75.750 through 102.75.815).

Under the sponsorship of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) the Property Act gives the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) authority to convey Federal real and related surplus property (without monetary consideration) to units of State and local government for emergency management response purposes, including fire rescue services. The scope and philosophy of GSA's real property policies are contained in 41 CFR Part 102-71.

Title: Application for Surplus Federal Real Property Public Benefit Conveyance and BRAC Program for Emergency Management Use.

Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

OMB Number: 1660-0080.

Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 119-0-1 (replaces 60-25), Surplus Federal Real Property Application for Public Benefit Conveyance.

Abstract: Use of the Application for Surplus Federal Real Property Public Benefit Conveyance and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program for Emergency Management Use is necessary to implement the processes and procedures for the successful, lawful, and expeditious conveyance of real property from the Federal Government to public entities such as State, local, county, city, town, or other like government bodies, as it relates to emergency management response purposes, including fire and rescue services. Utilization of this application will ensure that properties will be fully positioned for use at their highest and best potentials as required by GSA and Department of Defense regulations, public law, Executive Orders, and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 250 Hours.

Estimated Cost: There is no annual operation or maintenance cost associated with this collection.

Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The anchor handling tug supply vessel HOLIDAY will be used for offshore supply operations. The horizontal distance between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 25′- 115/8″. Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light location directly over the cargo deck, where it would interfere with loading and unloading operations.

The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 CFR 81.18.

The offshore supply vessel C-CHARIOT will be used for offshore supply operations. The horizontal distance between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 21′-83/4″. Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light location directly over the cargo deck where it would interfere with loading and unloading operations.

The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 CFR 81.18.

The tractor tug FORTE will be used for offshore supply operations. The horizontal distance between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 20′- 99/16″. Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light location directly over the cargo deck, where it would interfere with loading and unloading operations.

The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 CFR 81.18.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The National Fire Academy Board of Visitors will be holding a teleconference for purposes of reviewing National Fire Academy Program activities, including the status of facility capital improvements, the budget update, the Academy update, Board discussions and new items. This meeting is open to the public.

The Chairperson of the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors shall conduct the teleconference in a way that will, in his judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. During its teleconference, the committee welcomes public comment; however, comments will be permitted only during the public comment period. The Chairperson will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties. Please note that the teleconference may end early if all business is completed.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Teressa Kaas as soon as possible.

In accordance with the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-351), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) have jointly established an advisory committee for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) is to advise the Secretaries with respect to implementation of the National Monument Management Plan.

The MAC holds public meetings at least once per year. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO), or his/her designee, may convene additional meetings as necessary. All MAC members are volunteers serving without pay. Members of the MAC may be reappointed upon expiration of the member's current term.

All applicants must be citizens of the United States. Members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence by the Secretary of Agriculture. Applicants must be qualified through education, training, knowledge, or experience to give informed advice regarding an industry, discipline, or interest to be represented.

There is no limit to the number of nomination applications which may be submitted for the City of Palm Desert positions. Any individual may nominate himself or herself for appointment. Completed nomination applications should include letters of reference and/or recommendations from the City of Palm Desert, and any other information explaining the nominee's qualifications (e.g., resume, curriculum vitae).

Nomination application packages are available at the address listed in the “ADDRESSES” section, through the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Web site at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/santarosa/mac_nominations.html, via telephone request at (760) 833-7100, or through an e-mail request to jfoote@ca.blm.gov.

Each application package includes forms from the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. All submitted nomination applications become the property of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and will not be returned. Nomination applications can only be applied to the current open public call for nominations.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Please reference permit number TE236127-0 for the applicant for all requests or comments. If you do not receive a confirmation from us that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly at the telephone number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The RCW is a territorial, nonmigratory species. It is the only North American woodpecker to excavate roost and nest cavities in living pine trees. This species' use of live pines may have evolved in response to living in a fire-maintained ecosystem where frequent fires, primarily in the growing season, eliminated most standing dead pines (snags).

The RCW has declined primarily due to conversion of mature pine forests to young pine plantations, agricultural fields, and residential and commercial development, and also because of hardwood encroachment in existing pine forests due to fire suppression. Presently, the largest known populations occur on federally owned lands such as military installations and national forests.

The applicant is requesting take of two groups of RCWs incidental to the project. The 286-acre (ac) project is located on SC County Road 158, 9.8 miles northwest of the Town of Kingstree, Williamsburg County, South Carolina. The proposed project includes the harvest of 73.8 ac of long leaf pine flatwoods mixed with isolated pond pine wetlands, pine flatwoods, and agricultural fields, which are currently the only remaining foraging habitat for the two groups of RCWs. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the two groups by establishing two new groups at Brookgreen Gardens (Brookgreen), Georgetown County, South Carolina. The applicant will translocate the two existing RCW groups from the project site to Brookgreen after cavity inserts have been installed at the new site. The translocation process will continue until the two groups have been established at Brookgreen. As minimization for impacts to the species, timber harvesting activities will not be conducted until all RCWs have been relocated to Brookgreen.

We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we are making a preliminary determination that the ITP is a “low-effect” project and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). We may revise this preliminary determination based on our review of public comments we receive in response to this notice. A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we determine that the application meets those requirements, we will issue the ITP for incidental take of the RCW. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.

We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

The Refuge is located in the Northern Line Islands, approximately 1,000 miles south of Honolulu, HI, in the Central Pacific Ocean. The Refuge was established in 2001 to protect, restore, and enhance migratory birds, coral reefs, and threatened and endangered species in their natural setting. Palmyra Atoll consists of approximately 54 small, heavily vegetated islets surrounding 3 central lagoons. Habitats consist of 680 acres of land and 15,512 acres of lagoons and shallow reefs. The Refuge's boundary extends seaward 12 nautical miles, encompassing 515,232 acres. Palmyra's terrestrial habitats support one of the largest remaining tropical coastal strand forests in the U.S. Pacific Islands. A diverse land crab fauna including the coconut crab, ecologically intact predator-dominated fish assemblages, and large seabird populations are important resources of this Refuge. The Refuge is closed to commercial fishing.

The original configuration of the atoll was significantly modified by the U.S. Navy during World War II. A network of roadways connecting the major islets and the construction of a north-south causeway altered natural water circulation. Introduced rats are severely degrading the terrestrial ecosystem of this important atoll by limiting the reproduction, recruitment, and establishment of several native tree species. Furthermore, the coconut palm, an invasive tree, already dominates 45 percent of Palmyra's forests. The spread of coconut palm is likely aided by rat-related recruitment and limitation of other tree species. Left unchecked, the combined effects of rats and coconut palms could drastically alter forest structure. Introduced rats on islands are also known to prey heavily on seabirds, which is likely preventing six seabird species from successfully nesting on the atoll. The rats also prey on native land crabs and directly compete with them for limited food resources. All of these impacts in turn affect the relationship between land and marine resources, and compromise the Service's ability to achieve Refuge purposes.

We furnish this notice in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as amended, and its implementing regulations; the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act); and Service policies. The Refuge Administration Act requires all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System to be managed in accordance with achieving the purposes for which a refuge was established. For the Palmyra Atoll Refuge, the eradication of introduced rats would aid in achieving the following Refuge purposes.

• Perpetuate a functioning atoll ecosystem with natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora.

• Preserve, restore, and enhance all terrestrial species of animals and plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

• Provide for conservation of migratory bird resources at the Refuge.

We will prepare an EIS in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations. Public input during the EIS planning process is hereby solicited.

We have identified the following preliminary issues, concerns, and opportunities we may consider during development of the EIS. We may identify additional issues during the public comment period. We will consider public comments during development of the EIS.

• What alternatives should be considered with regard to eradication of rats from Palmyra Refuge?

• How can we balance cost, efficacy, risks to nontarget species, and other variables?

• What current or planned island uses including natural resource management activities, public visitation, and scientific research at the atoll should we consider in the Draft EIS?

• What other island resources, including historic and cultural artifacts, specific biological resources, and physical attributes such as water quality and soils, should we consider in the Draft EIS?

• To document the effects and effectiveness of our Refuge management actions, what monitoring should the proposal include?

We will evaluate a range of alternatives in the EIS, and their potential effects on the environment and local communities. We estimate that the draft EIS will be available for public review in October 2010. We will announce opportunities for public input throughout the EIS planning process.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This meeting is open to the public. Up to a half hour will be set aside for public comment. Persons wishing to make a brief presentation (up to 5 minutes) are asked to provide a written request with a description of the general subject to Ms. Norton at the above address no later than February 3, 2010. It is requested that 65 copies of a written statement be submitted at the time of the meeting for distribution to members of the ACWI and placement in the official file. Any member of the public may submit written information and (or) comments to Ms. Norton for distribution at the ACWI meeting.

This investigation was instituted on March 31, 2008, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of General Electric Company of Fairfield, Connecticut (“GE”) on February 7, 2008. 73 FR 16910. The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain variable speed wind turbines and components thereof that infringe claims 121-125 of U.S. Patent No. 5,083,039 (“the `039 patent”) and claims 1-12, 15-18, and 21-28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,921,985 (“the `985 patent”). The complaint named as respondents Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan (“MHI”); Mitsubishi Power Systems, Inc. of Lake Mary, Florida (“MPSA”); and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. of New York, New York (“MHIA”). On October 8, 2008, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 10) granting GE's motion to amend its complaint and the notice of investigation to add claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,221 (“the `221 patent”) to this investigation.

On August 7, 2009, the ALJ issued a final ID finding a violation of section 337 in this investigation. The ALJ found that there was a violation in the sale for importation, importation, or sale after importation by respondents MHI and MPSA with respect to claim 121 of the `039 patent and claim 15 of the `985 patent. The ALJ found that there was no violation with respect to these claims by MHIA. The ALJ also found that there was no violation of section 337 by any party with respect to claims 5, 7, and 8 of the `221 patent.

On August 24, 2009, the Commission received petitions and/or contingent petitions for review from: (1) MHI, MPSA, and MHIA; (2) GE; and (3) the Commission investigative attorney. On September 1, 2009, each of the parties filed responses thereto.

On October 8, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its determination to review the final ID, except with respect to the issue of importation and the intent finding underlying the ALJ's inequitable conduct determination. 72 FR 52975 (Oct. 15, 2009). The Commission requested briefing on the issues on review, including certain specific questions, in addition to remedy, the public interest, and bonding.

On October 23, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its determination to extend the deadline for public submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding to November 2, 2009, and for all responses to all remedy, the public interest, and bonding submissions to November 9, 2009.

On October 22, 2009, Mitsubishi, GE, the IA, and Iberdrola filed submissions in response to the notice of review. On October 30, 2009, Turner Bros., LLC filed a submission on remedy. On November 2, 2009, Mitsubishi, GE, and the IA filed reply submissions on violation. On November 9, 2009, Mitsubishi, GE, the IA, and Iberdrola filed reply submissions on remedy.

Having reviewed the final ID, the submissions on review, and the record, the Commission has determined to terminate the investigation with a final determination of no violation. A Commission opinion will issue shortly.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under sections 210.42-.51 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-.51).

I. Background

Section 503 of ERISA requires each employee benefit plan to provide, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied. The notice must set forth the specific reasons for the denial and must be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant. Plans must also give a participant or beneficiary whose claim has been denied a reasonable opportunity to obtain a full and fair review of any benefit claim denial by the appropriate named fiduciary.

The Department issued a regulation pertaining to benefit claims procedures in 1977 and amended that regulation in a Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFRM) published on November 21, 2000 (65 FR 70246). The regulation pertaining to benefit claims procedures is codified at 29 CFR 2560.503-1. The regulation requires plans to establish reasonable claims procedures that meet specified standards governing the timing and content of notices and disclosures. EBSA submitted an ICR for the information collections in 29 CFR 2560.503-1 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in connection with publication of the NFRM, and OMB approved the information collections under OMB control number 1210-0053. That approval is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2010. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit an ICR to OMB to request continuing approval. The public is not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid control number. No change to the existing ICR is being proposed or made at this time.

The Department of Labor (Department) is particularly interested in comments that

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

This notice requests comments on an extension of OMB's approval of the information collections included in 29 CFR 2560.503-1. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the existing ICR at this time. A summary of the ICR and the current burden estimates follows:

Agency: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.

Title: Employee Benefit Plan Claims Procedures under ERISA.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection of information.

OMB Number: 1210-0053.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions.

Respondents: 5,900,000.

Responses: 321,000,000.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 529,000.

Estimated Total Burden Cost (Operating and Maintenance): $423,052,000.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.

This survey project is a central part of the Task Order DOLU8942143, entitled 2009 National Survey of Public Attitudes toward People with Disabilities. This Task Order is being administered by the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), a federal agency in the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the lead agency in DOL's implementation of the employment-related goals of the President. ODEP's vision is to provide national leadership to increase employment opportunities for adults and youth with disabilities while striving to eliminate barriers to their employment. Social Dynamics LLC is contracted to design and implement the 2009 National Survey of Public Attitudes toward People with Disabilities.

This data collection is authorized pursuant to Public Law 106-554 which direct the Office of Disability Policy to provide initiatives to “further the objective of eliminating employment barriers to the training and employment of people with disabilities.”

The Department is particularly interested in comments which:

Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

This proposed collection ICR covers: The Survey of Public Attitudes Toward People With Disabilities (PWD). The survey will build on the findings of previous surveys, with an emphasis on current attitudes and behaviors of people toward PWD. The survey will be conducted by telephone utilizing computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). The survey will also solicit free-text comments from respondents regarding their attitudes toward PWD in the workplace.

Agency: Office of Disability Employment Policy.

Titles: Survey of Public Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities.

OMB Number: Pending.

Frequency: One time.

Type of Response: Reporting.

Affected Public: People between 18 and 64 years of age.

Number of Respondents: 1,600.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $0.

Description: Changes instituted with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 have made workplace discrimination against people with disabilities illegal, while guaranteeing their right to special accommodations in the workplace. Still, data continue to show low levels of employment and pay of people with disabilities when compared to people without disabilities. This is true even as previous survey research studies on public attitudes report high rates of acceptance and positive ratings of satisfaction regarding workers with disabilities, though quasi-experimental and qualitative research contradict these findings. The connection between the general public's attitudes toward people with disabilities and their employment prospects as well as the impact of direct work contact with people with disabilities has not been explored with a large sample representative of the general population. More importantly, previous research on public attitudes toward people with disabilities (Harris Polls, 2003, 1998; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004; Siperstein et al., 2005) has used one or two-dimensional models of attitudinal measurement. This is a significant disadvantage to the development of knowledge in this area, especially with regard to the behavioral component of attitudes, which is not included in previous studies. Without a better understanding of the causal factors that compel an individual to act out her/his thoughts and emotions, the value of research on public attitudes toward people with disabilities is significantly diminished.

ODEP strongly believes that the research on public attitudes toward people with disabilities needs a strategic and scientifically based approach that rigorously collects and aggregates data from a larger sample of the American public, a more comprehensive approach to attitude measurement, and a multivariate predictive analytical approach to the analysis of findings. Therefore, the proposed 2009 survey is designed to meet those needs, as follows: The survey will draw a sample n = 1,600, which is roughly double the size of the sample of the 2005 National Survey of Consumer Attitudes; It will use a multidimensional validated scale of attitudes toward disabled people that has been tested in a multitude of published works since the mid-1990s; It will apply analytical methods that develop causal and associative explanations for both attitude change and development and the behavior of individuals.

I. Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is considering an application dated June 15, 2009, from Constellation Energy (Constellation) to amend its Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-2505, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 72, for the receipt, possession, storage, and transfer of spent fuel, reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage at the Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant site in Calvert County, Maryland. If granted, the revised license will authorize the applicant to allow fuel with a higher burnup to be stored at the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI. This application was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72; the ISFSI Docket No. is 72-8 and will remain the same for this action.

An NRC review, documented in a letter to Constellation dated July 21, 2009, found that the application contains sufficient information for the NRC staff to begin its technical review. The Commission will approve the license amendment if it determines that the application meets the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations, including the findings required by 10 CFR 72.40. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report. The NRC has completed an environmental evaluation, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, and determined that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted because there are no radiological environmental impacts due to granting the approval of the amendment.

The Commission may issue either a notice of hearing or a notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing in accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(1) or, if a determination is made that the amendment does not present a genuine issue as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected, take immediate action on the amendment in accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), and provide notice of the action taken and an opportunity for interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.

Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: License Amendment Request dated June 15, 2009 (ML091680541) and the acceptance review letter dated July 21, 2009 (ML092020003). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12002 5 and for economic injury is 12003 0.

The Commonwealth which received an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

The Interest Rates are:

The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12004 6 and for economic injury is 12005 0.

The Commonwealth which received an EIDL Declaration # is Puerto Rico.