Title: Forest Landscape Value and Special Place Mapping for National Forest Planning.

OMB Number: 0596-NEW.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: The Forest Service is proposing to augment the public participation process for revision of national forest land management plans by collecting data about the nature and location of landscape values and special places recognized by the public on national forest lands. Over the next 3 years, up to 15 national forest units will collect the aforementioned information as part of the national forest plan revision public participation process. The forest plan revision includes determining public desire for use (along with suitability of areas for different uses), identification of special areas, collaboration with the public, and monitoring for adaptive management.

Primarily using an Internet-based geographic information system (GIS), national forests will invite the public to share values regarding specific forest landscapes and special places. A comparable paper-based option, suitable for use in mail back surveys and focus group meetings, may be provided to individuals who do not have access to the Internet or as an alternative primary means of collecting data.

The information will be used in the revision of specific national forest plans. Forest planners and managers will use the collected information to develop land management plans that are consistent with public values, while working within the regulatory framework. The data collected would provide Forest Service managers with a new, systematic science-based tool for collecting and analyzing public opinion about desired forest conditions and use of specific geographic forest locations. Survey results will be useful in gauging public support for proposed forest management options and in collaborative and participatory approaches to planning. While the collection is designed to assist with development of forest land management plans under NFMA, the information collected could be used in a variety of forest planning processes (i.e., travel management and recreation facilities planning) and projects.

The legal authorities supporting the collection of this information include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, and the proposed 2008 NFMA Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219).

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals; State, county, and tribal governments; as well as for-profit and non-profit entities.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3,500 (average of 3 years).

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,167 hours (average of 3 years).

Comment is Invited: Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection 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 collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

This notice includes significant additions from the 2009 notice issued last fiscal year. The basic authority, procedures, and program requirements have not changed. Partners who responded to the 2009 notice reported difficulty in understanding where and how to apply, confusion about administration and purpose of the new AWEP authority and requirements of partners, misunderstanding that AWEP was not a grant program for partners, lack of knowledge about NRCS resource concerns and conservation practices that needed to be addressed through the partnership, frustration in NRCS terminology used in the notices, and other similar concerns. As the result of these concerns, the agency conducted an internal examination of AWEP to better clarify the program and requirements for proposal submission. In addition to the internal review, the agency also invited suggestions from legislators, producers, and other organizations with an interest in AWEP. As a result of the review, this notice includes more explanation of the program, added definitions, clarification of the requirements and criteria to be addressed in the proposal, links to resources to help partners apply, and other general improvements. The requirements for submission of the proposal are not significantly different from 2009, and pose no additional burden or workload.

Effective upon publication of this notice, NRCS announces the availability of approximately $20.7 million in AWEP financial assistance during FY 2010 to support new AWEP projects. NRCS will implement AWEP by entering into partnership agreements with eligible entities to conserve ground and surface water or improve water quality, or both, through a regional approach. Eligible partners must submit complete proposals, as described in this notice, to Gregory K. Johnson, Director, Financial Assistance Programs Division. Proposals are submitted by eligible partners, and project evaluation will be based upon a competitive process and the criteria established in this notice. Once the Chief approves a partner's proposal and announces selection, agricultural producers within the project area may submit an AWEP application directly to their local NRCS office. Only specific kinds of entities are eligible to submit a proposal and enter into partnership agreements with NRCS; these include federally recognized Indian tribes, State and local units of government, agricultural or silvicultural associations, and other groups of producers such as an irrigation association, agricultural land trust, or other nongovernmental organization that has experience working with agricultural producers. Nongovernmental organizations are entities as defined by the Internal Revenue Service and as cited in the definitions section of this notice. This is not a grant program, and all Federal funds made available through this request for proposals will be paid directly to producers through program contract agreements. Individual agricultural producers are not AWEP eligible entities and may not submit AWEP proposals, nor may they apply for program benefits through this proposal submission process; however, once an AWEP project area has been approved and announced, individual producers may apply for program benefits through their local NRCS office. No Federal AWEP funding may be used to cover administrative expenses of partners. Administrative activities include any indirect or direct costs relating to submitting or implementing the project proposal.

Activities means conservation systems, practices, or management measures needed to address a resource concern or improve environmental quality through the treatment of natural resources, and includes structural, vegetative, and management practices, as well as the activity for development of conservation plans, as determined by NRCS. Activities may also include actions associated with an agricultural operation or other activities conducted by an AWEP partner which may or may not be associated with an NRCS conservation practice or program support.

Agricultural land means cropland, grassland, rangeland, pasture, and other agricultural land on which agricultural and forest-related products or livestock are produced and resource concerns may be addressed. Other agricultural lands may include cropped woodland, marshes, incidental areas included in the agricultural operation, and other types of agricultural land used for production of livestock.

Agricultural water enhancement activity means the following, conducted in accordance with State water law:

(a) Water quality or water conservation plan development, including resource condition assessment and modeling;

(b) Water conservation restoration or enhancement projects, including the conversion to the production of less water-intensive agricultural commodities or dryland farming;

(c) Water quality or quantity restoration or enhancement projects;

(d) Irrigation system improvement and irrigation efficiency enhancements;

(e) Activities designed to mitigate the effects of drought, (e.g., construction, improvement, or maintenance of irrigation ponds, small on-farm reservoirs, or other agricultural water impoundment structures that are designed to capture surface water runoff); and

(f) Related activities that the Chief determines will help achieve water quality or water conservation benefits on agricultural land.

Applicant means a person, legal entity, joint operation, or tribe that has an interest in an agricultural or forestry operation, as defined in 7 CFR part 1400, who has requested to participate in AWEP.

Beginning Farmer or Rancher means a person or legal entity who:

(a) Has not operated a farm or ranch, or who has operated a farm or ranch for not more than 10 consecutive years. This requirement applies to all members of an entity who will materially and substantially participate in the operation of the farm or ranch.

(b) In the case of a contract with an individual, individually, or with the immediate family, material and substantial participation requires that the individual provide substantial day-to-day labor and management of the farm or ranch consistent with the practices in the county or State where the farm is located.

(c) In the case of a contract with an entity or joint operation, all members must materially and substantially participate in the operation of the farm or ranch. Material and substantial participation requires that each of the members provide some amount of the management or labor and management necessary for day-to-day activities, such that if each of the members did not provide these inputs, operation of the farm or ranch would be seriously impaired.

Chief means Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or designee.

Conservation Activity Plan means a resource-specific conservation plan prepared by a certified Technical Service Provider (TSP) as authorized by the 2008 Act for financial assistance payment through EQIP for eligible land of the producer.

Conservation planning means using the planning process outlined in the NRCS National Planning Procedures Handbook (NPPH). The NPPH is available at: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/.

Conservation practice means one or more conservation improvements and planning activities, including structural practices, land management practices, vegetative practices, forest management practices, and other improvements that are planned and applied according to standards and specifications contained in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). Conservation practices and activities funded through AWEP are subject to requirements of EQIP regulation (7 CFR 1466.10) (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip). Only EQIP may provide financial assistance for support of the activity of conservation planning.

Conservation system means a combination of conservation practices and management measures used to address natural resource and environmental concerns in a comprehensive, holistic, and integrated manner.

Contract as defined in the EQIP regulation means a legal document that specifies the rights and obligations of any participant accepted to participate in the AWEP program. An AWEP contract is a binding agreement for the transfer of assistance from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the participant to share in the costs of applying conservation practices. Contracts funded through AWEP are subject to requirements of EQIP regulation (7 CFR 1466.21) (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip).

Designated Conservationist means an NRCS employee whom the State Conservationist has designated as responsible for administration of NRCS programs at the local level.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program means a program administered by NRCS in accordance with 7 CFR part 1466 (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip), which provides technical and financial assistance to eligible producers for the installation and implementation of conservation practices and activities on private agricultural and nonindustrial forest land.

Exceptional Drought (D-4) means, as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, exceptional widespread crop/pasture losses; exceptional fire risk; and shortages of water in reservoirs, streams, and wells creating water emergencies.

Field Office Technical Guide means the official local NRCS source of resource information, conservation practice standards, specifications, and interpretation of guidelines, criteria, and requirements for planning and applying conservation practices, activities, and conservation management systems. It contains natural resource quality criteria to be achieved to provide for the conservation and sustainability of soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources applicable to the geographic area where resource concerns are addressed. The FOTG can be accessed online at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/.

Financial Assistance means a payment made to the program participant.

Forest management plan means a site-specific plan that is prepared by a professional resource manager, in consultation with the participant, and is approved by the State Conservationist. Forest management plans may include a forest stewardship plan, as specified in section 5 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103a); another practice plan approved by the State Forester; or another plan determined appropriate by the State Conservationist. The plan must comply with Federal, State, tribal, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements.

Indian land is an inclusive term describing all lands held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or tribes, or all lands, titles to which are held by individual Indians or tribes, subject to Federal restrictions against alienation or encumbrance, or all lands that are subject to the rights of use, occupancy, or benefit of certain tribes. For purposes of this notice, the term Indian land also includes land for which the title is held in fee status by Indian tribes and the United States Government owned land under the Bureau of Indian Affairs jurisdiction.

Indian tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that is federally recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.

Joint Agreement means a business arrangement where two or more participants cooperate to carry out conservation practices that can best be accomplished by combining resources. Such agreements must be formally documented and signed by all applicable parties.

Joint Operation means a general partnership, joint venture, or other similar business arrangement in which the members are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the organization.

Limited Resource Farmer or Rancher means:

(a) A person with direct or indirect gross farm sales not more than $155,200 in each of the previous 2 years (adjusted for inflation using Prices Paid by Farmer Index as compiled by the National Agricultural Statistical Service); and

(b) Has a total household income at or below the national poverty level for a family of four, or less than 50 percent of county median household income in each of the previous 2 years (to be determined annually using Department of Commerce data).

Local working group means the advisory body pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 3861 and described in 7 CFR part 610. Information regarding these groups can be found at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/StateTech/.

Nongovernmental organization is any legal entity that is organized for, and at all times since, the formation of the organization has been operated principally for one or more of the conservation purposes specified in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) or that is described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code; or is described in section 509(a)(3) of that Code and is controlled by an organization described in section 509(a)(2) of that Code.

Nonindustrial private forest land means rural land, as determined by the Secretary, that has existing tree cover or is suitable for growing trees and is owned by any nonindustrial private individual, group, association, corporation, Indian tribe, or other private legal entity that has definitive decisionmaking authority over the land.

Participant means a person, legal entity, joint operation, or tribe that is receiving payment or is responsible for implementing the terms and conditions of an EQIP contract.

Partner means an entity that enters into a partnership agreement with NRCS to carry out the approved AWEP project. Eligible partners include federally recognized Indian tribes, State and local units of government, agricultural or silvicultural associations, or other such groups of agricultural producers. Note: Individual agricultural producers are not partners under provisions of AWEP and are not eligible to submit proposals as outlined in this notice.

Partner applicant means an eligible entity that enters into a partnership agreement with NRCS to carry out the approved AWEP project.

Partnership agreement means a multi-year agreement between NRCS and the partner. The AWEP partnership agreement describes the activities and resources, such as technical or financial assistance, that may be provided by NRCS and the partner to help producers meet the objectives of AWEP in an approved project area. The AWEP partnership agreement does not transfer financial or technical assistance funding to a partner, nor provide for the administrative expenses of the partner. Individual producers may not enter into partnership agreements under AWEP authority.

Payment means financial assistance provided to a contract participant under the terms of the program contract. The payment is based upon the estimated costs incurred for performing or implementing conservation practices and activities, including costs for planning, materials, equipment, labor, design and installation, maintenance, management, or training, as well as the estimated income foregone by the producer for designated conservation practices. AWEP payments are only made to eligible agricultural producers through program contracts. Payments and payment rates are established by program rule. Payments are only provided to assist with implementation of approved conservation practices and activities listed in the FOTG and must meet other requirements of EQIP regulation (7 CFR 1466.23-24) (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip).

Priority resource concern means a resource concern that is identified by the State Conservationist, with advice from the State Technical Committee and local work groups, as a priority for a State or the specific geographic areas within a State.

Producer means a person, legal entity, or joint operation who has an interest in the agricultural operation, according to 7 CFR part 1400, or who is engaged in agricultural production or forestry management.

Projects of Special Environmental Significance means projects, as defined in 7 CFR 1466(d) and approved by the Chief, which meet the following criteria:

(a) Site-specific evaluations have been completed, documenting that the project will have substantial positive impacts on critical resources in or near the project area (e.g., impaired water bodies or at-risk species);

(b) The project clearly addresses a national priority and State, tribal, or local priorities, as applicable; and

(c) The project assists the participant in complying with Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements.

Rangeland means land on which the historic climax plant community is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs, and includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially when routine management of that vegetation is accomplished mainly through manipulation of grazing. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

Resource concern means a specific natural resource problem that represents a significant concern in a State or region, and is likely to be addressed successfully through the implementation of conservation activities by producers. The two natural resource concerns that may be addressed through AWEP are water conservation or water quality and include the following sub categories:

Water Quantity (Water Conservation):

• Aquifer Overdraft

• Excessive Runoff, Flooding, or Ponding

• Excessive Seepage

• Excessive Subsurface Water

• Inadequate Outlets

• Inefficient Water Use on Irrigated Land

• Inefficient Water Use on Nonirrigated Land

• Insufficient Flows in Water Courses

• Rangeland Hydrologic Cycle

• Reduced Capacity of Conveyances by Sediment Deposition

• Reduced Storage of Water Bodies by Sediment Accumulation

Water Quality:

• Excessive Nutrients and Organics in Groundwater

• Excessive Nutrients and Organics in Surface Water

• Excessive Salinity in Groundwater

• Excessive Salinity in Surface Water

• Excessive Suspended Sediment and Turbidity in Surface Water

• Harmful Levels of Pathogens in Groundwater

• Harmful Levels of Pathogens in Surface Water

• Harmful Levels of Pesticides in Groundwater

• Harmful Levels of Pesticides in Surface Water

• Harmful Temperatures of Surface Water

Resource concerns used by NRCS are found in section III of each State or local FOTG which can be found at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/.

Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher means a farmer or rancher who has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudices because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities. Those groups include African Americans, American Indians or Alaskan natives, Hispanics, Asians, and native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders.

State Conservationist means the NRCS employee who is authorized to implement conservation programs administered by NRCS, and who directs and supervises NRCS activities in a State, the Caribbean Area, or the Pacific Islands Area.

State Technical Committee means a committee established by the USDA Secretary in a State pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 3861 and described in 7 CFR part 610. Information regarding these committees can be found at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/StateTech/.

Technical assistance means technical expertise, information, and tools necessary for the conservation of natural resources on land active in agricultural, forestry, or related uses. The term includes the following: (1) Technical services provided directly to farmers, ranchers, and other eligible entities, such as conservation planning, technical consultation, and assistance with the design and implementation of conservation practices; and (2) technical infrastructure including activities, processes, tools, and agency functions needed to support delivery of technical services, such as technical standards, resource inventories, training, data, technology, monitoring, and effects analyses. Information regarding technical assistance can be found at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cta/.

Technical Service Provider means an individual, private-sector entity, or public agency certified by NRCS, in accordance with 7 CFR part 652, to provide technical services to program participants in lieu of or on behalf of NRCS. Information regarding TSP services available through AWEP is found in the EQIP regulation (7 CFR 1466.11) (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip).

The AWEP is a voluntary conservation program that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to implement agricultural water enhancement activities using conservation practices on eligible land for the purposes of conserving surface and ground water and improving water quality. As part of EQIP, AWEP operates through contracts with eligible producers to plan and implement approved conservation practices and activities to conserve ground and surface water and improve water quality in project areas established through partnership agreements. Producers located in approved AWEP project areas, announced by partners and NRCS, may submit an application for program assistance at their local NRCS service center or field office. As part of the partnership agreement, approved partners may also help facilitate the submission of producers' applications, or they may provide additional technical or financial assistance to participating agricultural producers, or provide other resources as defined in the agreement. A primary intent of AWEP is to leverage other non-Federal resources along with NRCS program resources to achieve program objectives. Partners are encouraged to include in their proposals resources to help producers implement approved conservation practices and activities and provisions to address those AWEP priority activities that NRCS does not have the authority to implement (e.g. resource condition assessment and modeling). The partner is not required to provide financial or technical resources towards the project (match); however, proposals that include or offer partner provided resources will be given higher priority consideration in the evaluation process. AWEP financial assistance is delivered directly to producers in approved project areas through contract agreements. No technical or financial assistance funding may be provided to a partner through the AWEP partner agreement. However, if requested by a partner, the State Conservationist or Chief may consider development of a separate funding agreement with a qualified partner for delivery of technical services to producers participating in an approved AWEP project.

Potential partners must submit a complete proposal to Gregory K. Johnson, Director, Financial Assistance Programs Division, addressing all questions and items listed in the “Proposal Requirements” section of this notice. The proposal must include sufficient detail to allow NRCS to understand the partner's priority resource concerns, objectives, and expected outcomes. Incomplete proposals and those that do not meet the requirements set forth in this notice will not be considered, and notification of elimination will be mailed to the applicant. The proposal must also be accompanied by letters of review from the appropriate State Conservationists to the Director, Financial Assistance Programs Division as specified in this notice. The Chief or designee will review, prioritize, and evaluate the proposals based on the criteria provided in this notice. State Conservationists will provide guidance to potential partners regarding resource concerns that may be addressed in the proposed project area, local working group and State Technical Committee natural resource priorities, approved conservation practices and activities, and other program requirements the partner should consider when developing a proposal.

Potential partner entities that are eligible to participate as partners include federally recognized Indian tribes, States and local units of government, agricultural or silvicultural associations, or other groups of producers, such as an irrigation association, agricultural land trust, or other nongovernmental organization that has experience working with agricultural producers. Individual producers are not eligible to submit proposals under this notice.

Individual producers are eligible to apply for program benefits as part of an approved AWEP project as determined by the requirements of this notice and EQIP regulation found in 7 CFR 1466.8 (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip). Producers seeking to participate in an approved AWEP project must meet all EQIP program eligibility requirements.

Agricultural producers in approved project areas may apply for available AWEP funds at their local USDA service center or NRCS field office (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs). Once an application is selected, an eligible agricultural producer will enter into a contract with NRCS to implement approved conservation practices that address the water conservation and water quality resource concerns identified in the partnership proposal and agreement. Through these contracts, NRCS provides payments to agricultural producers for implementing conservation practices that meet the agricultural water enhancement activities and goals of the project. The term of the contract agreement with a producer will be for a minimum duration of one year after completion of the last practice, but not more than 10 years.

In States with water quantity concerns, where the partner proposal includes conservation management practices that assist producers with the conversion of agricultural land from irrigated farming to dryland farming, NRCS may enter into contracts that provide a producer payments for applicable practices for up to 5 years as needed to complete the conversion when the conversion activity is consistent with State law. Conversion activities are supported through AWEP by implementation of approved conservation practices.

An agricultural producer may elect to use a TSP for technical assistance associated with conservation planning or practice design and implementation. A participant may not receive payments that exceed an aggregate of $300,000, directly or indirectly, for all EQIP and AWEP contracts, including prior year contracts entered into during any 6-year period. The Chief may waive this limitation allowing up to $450,000 for projects of special environmental significance as defined in this notice and EQIP regulation in section § 1466.21(d). All agricultural producers receiving assistance through AWEP must meet EQIP program eligibility requirements and will be subject to EQIP payment limitations and other requirements. Producers applying for AWEP are not required to have an existing EQIP contract. However, they must be determined eligible for EQIP assistance prior to entering into an AWEP contract. Information about limitations and benefits that apply to land and agricultural producers enrolled in the AWEP program are found in the EQIP authorizing legislation (16 U.S.C. 3839aa) and regulation (7 CFR part 1466) (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip).

The following land is eligible for enrollment in the AWEP through program contracts with producers:

For producer contracts that address water conservation and irrigation related conservation practices, EQIP regulation requires that land must be irrigated 2 of the previous 5 years prior to application for assistance (7 CFR 1466.10(d)). AWEP projects that include agricultural lands not irrigated for 2 of the previous 5 years, the construction, improvement, or maintenance of irrigation ponds, small on-farm reservoirs, or other agricultural water impoundment structures that are designed to capture surface water runoff, are eligible only in an area that is experiencing or has experienced exceptional drought conditions between June 18, 2006, and June 18, 2008. A list of States and counties that are designated exceptional drought areas is found on the AWEP Web site at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/.

Additional information regarding land eligibility to meet EQIP requirements are found in 7 CFR 1466.8 and available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip.

For consideration of a proposal, a potential partner must submit five copies of the written proposal and one electronic copy for single-State or multi-State projects that do not exceed 5 years in length. The proposal must be in the following format and contain the information set forth below:

Proposal Format: Five copies of the proposal should be typewritten or printed on 81/2″ × 11″ white paper. The text of the application should be in a font no smaller than 12-point, with one-inch margins. One additional copy of the proposal must be in a format such as Microsoft Word or PDF on one CD ROM. If submitting more than one proposal, submit a separate proposal for each project. Consult the NRCS national AWEP Web site for an example of an acceptable AWEP proposal document at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/. The entire proposal may not exceed 12 pages in length including summary, maps, reference materials, and related reports.

The basic format for the AWEP proposal is a narrative written response to the questions and information requested in this notice. There are no forms required or associated with the proposal submission process; however, the proposal must include the following:

(1) Proposal Cover Sheet and Summary: The first two pages of the proposal summary must include:

(a) Project Title.

(b) Project director/manager name, telephone number, and e-mail address.

(c) Name of lead partner entity submitting proposal and other collaborating partners.

(d) Mailing address and phone numbers for lead partner submitting proposal.

(e) Short general description/summary of project; describe whether proposal will address water conservation resource issues, water quality resource issues, or both. Identify the specific natural resource concerns to be addressed, and describe the approved FOTG conservation practices and activities that will be used to address those resource concerns, including practices that will be used to help producers in the conversion of irrigated farming to dryland farming.

(f) Specify the geographic location: State(s), County(s), congressional district(s), and whether proposal is a multi-State proposal or within-State proposal. Include a general location map that shows if the location of the project area is within an AWEP national priority area, which are:

• Eastern Snake Plains Aquifer.

• Everglades.

• Ogallala Aquifer.

• Puget Sound.

• Sacramento River Basin.

• Red River.

• Upper Mississippi River Basin.

Additional information, maps, and a list of States and counties located in AWEP priority areas can be found at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/.

(g) Proposed project start and end dates (not to exceed a period of 5 years).

(h) Total amount of AWEP financial assistance being requested for entire project.

(2) Project Natural Resource Objectives and Actions:

The proposal must include project objectives that address water quality or water quantity resource concerns.

(a) Identify and provide detail about the natural resource concern(s) to be addressed and how the proposals objectives will address those concerns. Objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and include a timeline for completion.

(b) For each objective, identify the actions to be completed to achieve the objective and to address the identified natural resource concern using AWEP assistance or the actions being addressed using alternate non-Federal resources or fund sources.

(c) Identify the total number of acres that need conservation treatment along with the kinds of conservation practices and activities needed to treat priority resource concerns in the project area. Identify specific priorities within the project area that need to be addressed first.

(d) The proposed agricultural water enhancement activities that may be implemented through partner efforts alone and those to be implemented using AWEP financial support.

(3) Partnership Capacity:

Potential partners must fully describe their project and demonstrate their history of working with agricultural producers to address water quality and quantity issues. Information provided in the proposal must:

(a) Demonstrate the commitment and experience of the partner to accomplish the long-term conservation of surface and ground water or water quality improvement and related historical activities that show this experience.

(b) Demonstrate the ability and history of the partner to coordinate water quality and quantity efforts among agricultural producers.

(c) Demonstrate the availability of non-Federal matching funds or other resources being contributed. A primary intent of AWEP is to leverage other non-Federal resources along with NRCS program resources to achieve program objectives. The partner is not required to provide financial or technical resources towards the project (match); however, proposals that include or offer partner provided resources will be given higher priority through the evaluation process. The partner needs to clearly state, by project objective, how they intend to leverage Federal funds along with partner resources to address water quantity or water quality resource issues. Note: The funding and time contribution by agricultural producers to implement agreed-to conservation practices in program contracts may not be considered any part of a match from the potential partner for purposes of AWEP. One purpose of AWEP is to leverage new resources from partners above and beyond those contributions made by individual producers.

(d) Demonstrate the ability to monitor and evaluate project effects on natural resources. Priority will be given to projects where the partner can provide resources, services, or conduct activities to monitor and evaluate effects of conservation practices and activities implemented through the project.

(e) Provide evidence the partner has the capacity to deliver a final project performance report. If a proposal is approved, the partnership agreement will provide additional details and requirements for reporting performance of the project effort.

(f) Identify potential criteria to be used by NRCS to prioritize and rank agricultural producers' AWEP applications in the project area. Potential partners should collaborate with NRCS in the State where the project is proposed to develop meaningful criteria that NRCS can use to evaluate and rank producer program applications. For approved projects, this joint effort will help NRCS select producer applications which will best accomplish the projects intended conservation goals and address priority resource issues identified by the partner in the proposal. Additional information regarding the process NRCS uses to evaluate and rank individual producer applications is found in EQIP regulation 7 CFR 1466.20. Proposals which include specific ranking criteria developed in collaboration with NRCS may receive higher consideration in the evaluation process. Additional guidance and assistance to develop appropriate criteria may be obtained from the State office where the project will be located.

(g) A description of how the partners and entities will collaborate to achieve the project objectives and the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of each partner. Proposals that include resources from other than the submitter must include a letter or other documentation from the other partner confirming this commitment of resources. Proposals that demonstrate efforts to collaborate with other partners and producers are likely to provide increased environmental benefits, meet the objectives of AWEP, and may receive higher ranking consideration in the evaluation process.

(h) A description of the proposed agricultural water enhancement activities and approved NRCS conservation practices and activities to be applied within the designated 5-year timeframe allowed for AWEP projects and the general sequence of implementation of the project. Enhancement activities include efforts undertaken by the partner and those that the partner requests NRCS to address through financial support to implement eligible approved conservation practices and activities. In this section, list all the NRCS conservation practices the partner wishes NRCS to offer to producers through the AWEP project. Information about NRCS practices can be found in the FOTG at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/ and descriptions of practices at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/standards/. For each conservation practice, estimate the extent (feet, acres, number, etc.) the partner expects producers to implement each fiscal year during the life of the project and the amount of financial assistance requested to support implementation of each practice through producer contracts. Provide detail if the project will address regulatory compliance and any other outcomes the partner expects to complete during the project period.

(i) A description of the resources (financial or technical assistance) requested annually from AWEP for producer contracts and the non-Federal resources provided by the partner that will be leveraged by the Federal contribution. From the estimated amount of financial assistance needed to implement the conservation practices identified in the previous section, include the total amount of financial assistance funds requested for each fiscal year of the project to be made available for producer contracts. If resources other than funding are being offered by the partner, describe the kind of resources and services that will be made available to producers to help implement conservation practices and activities. Note: The funding and time contribution by agricultural producers to implement agreed-to conservation practices in the program contracts may not be considered as part of a match from the potential partner. All funding requests and information regarding partner resources may be included in the form of a budget narrative. If financial assistance is approved and available, these funds must be obligated in individual producer contracts that may be from 2 to 10 years in length.

(4) Lands to be Treated:

The proposal should describe the geographic area to be covered by the partnership agreement. Specifically, the proposal should include:

(a) A map showing the proposed project area. Describe the location and size of the proposed project area. Are the size and scope of the project area and proposed practices to address resource concerns reasonable and achievable? What kinds of agricultural operations are in the project area? Is the project located in a water conservation priority area or include any Indian land?

(b) A description of the agricultural water quality or water conservation issues to be addressed by the partnership agreement. Provide information about the extent and kinds of water quality issues to be addressed such as pollutants, designated priority areas, groundwater overdraft, surface water deficiencies, etc.

(c) A description of the agricultural water enhancement objectives to be achieved through the partnership and the NRCS practices expected to be implemented. What are the primary objectives to be accomplished in the project by the partner and expected environmental improvements from producer implementation of AWEP funded conservation practices and activities? How will progress toward achieving environmental benefits be measured? What kinds of water conservation plans, assessments, or modeling will be done to help achieve project objectives or encourage practice implementation? Will the project include specific efforts to encourage producers to convert irrigated land to less water-intensive operations or dryland farming? What percentage of the project area is expected to be converted to dryland farming? Will the proposal restore or enhance water quantity or quality in the project area or reduce the impacts of drought? What kinds of irrigation system improvements will be implemented? Will the planned activities significantly solve or improve the resource issues being addressed? Describe any activities that are innovative or include outcome-based performance measures implemented by the partner.

(d) Include the total acres that need conservation treatment and the priority conservation practices and activities that are needed to treat significant resource concerns in the project area. Identify specific priorities within the project area that need to be addressed first.

(5) Producer Information:

The partner must identify in the proposal:

An estimate of the number of eligible agricultural producers the partner expects to participate in the project compared with the estimated total number of producers in the project area (estimate the percentage of participation). Producer participation is a requirement for delivery of AWEP program benefits. How will the partner encourage participation to guarantee success of the project? Does the project include socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, beginning farmers or ranchers, limited resource farmers or ranchers, or Indian tribes? Are there groups of producers who may submit joint program applications to address resource issues of common interest and need?

(6) Proposal Implementation Plan and Schedule:

Potential partners must submit project action plans and schedules, not to exceed 5 years, detailing activities, including timeframes related to project milestones and monitoring and evaluation activities that will likely be documented in the partnership agreement. A project action plan should describe how often the potential partner plans to monitor and evaluate the project and how it plans to quantify the results or performance of the project for the final project performance report. Indicate the practices the partner expects to implement during the project timeframe and general sequence of implementation.

(7) Letter of Review:

Potential partners must include a copy of the letter showing that the written proposal was sent to the appropriate State Conservationist(s). If a project is multi-State in scope, all State Conservationists in the proposed project area must be sent the proposal for review. The State Conservationist(s) will review the proposal to address:

(a) Potential duplication of efforts with other projects or existing programs.

(b) Adherence to, and consistency with, overall EQIP regulation including requirements related to land and producer eligibility and use of approved NRCS resource concerns and conservation practices and other program requirements.

(c) Expected benefits for project implementation in their State(s).

(d) Other issues or concerns the State Conservationist is aware of that should be considered by the Chief.

(e) A general recommendation for support or denial of project approval.

State Conservationist(s) must submit letters of review to Gregory K. Johnson, Director, Financial Assistance Programs Division no later than 10 calendar days after the deadline for proposal submission. A list of NRCS State Conservationists, addresses, and phone numbers is included as an attachment at the end of this notice. Prior to submission of the proposal, potential partners are strongly encouraged to consult with the appropriate State Conservationist(s) during proposal development to obtain guidance as to appropriate resource concerns to address needed water quality or water conservation enhancements, needed conservation practices and activities, and other details of the project proposal. All AWEP proposals become the property of NRCS for use in the administration of the program, may be filed or disposed of by the agency, and will not be returned to the potential partner. Once proposals have been submitted to the agency for review and ranking, there will be no further opportunity to change or re-submit the proposal document.

Partners whose proposals have been selected will receive a letter of official notification. Upon notification of selection, the partner should contact the State Conservationist listed in the letter to develop the required partnership agreement and other project implementation requirements. Potential partners should note that depending upon available funding, NRCS may offer a reduced amount of program financial assistance from what was requested in the proposal. Partner submissions of proposals that were not selected will be notified by official letter.

Partner proposals may be withdrawn by written notice to the Director, Financial Assistance Programs Division at any time prior to selection.

The Chief or designee will evaluate the proposals using a competitive process. Higher priority may be given to proposals that:

(a) Include high percentages of agricultural land and producers in a region or other appropriate area;

(b) Result in high levels of applied agricultural water quality and water conservation activities;

(c) Significantly enhance agricultural activity;

(d) Allow for monitoring and evaluation by the partner;

(e) Assist agricultural producers in meeting a regulatory requirement that reduces the economic scope of the producer's operation; and

(f) Achieve the project's land and water treatment objectives within 5 years or less.

For proposals from States with water quantity concerns, the Chief will give higher priority to projects from States where the proposal will:

(a) Include conservation practices that support the conversion of agricultural land from irrigated farming to dryland farming;

(b) Leverage Federal funds provided under the program with funds provided by partners; and

(c) Assist producers in States with high priority water quantity concerns, as determined by the Chief. The high priority areas are located in the following regions: Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, Everglades, Ogallala Aquifer, Puget Sound, Sacramento River Basin, Red River, and Upper Mississippi River Basin.

The Chief may include other factors and criteria which help identify those proposals which best achieve the purposes of AWEP.

Upon selection and approval by the Chief, the agency will enter into a partnership agreement with the partner.

The partnership agreement will not obligate funds, but will address:

(a) Agricultural water enhancement activities anticipated to be addressed and conservation practices to be implemented;

(b) The role of NRCS;

(c) The responsibilities of the partner related to the monitoring and evaluation of project performance;

(d) The frequency and duration of the monitoring and evaluation of project performance;

(e) The content and format of the final project performance report that is required as a condition of the agreement;

(f) The specified project schedule and timeframe; and

(g) Other requirements deemed necessary by NRCS to achieve the purposes of AWEP.

Once the Chief or designee has entered into a partnership agreement, NRCS may enter into contracts directly with eligible agricultural producers participating in the project and located in the approved geographic area. Participating producers must meet all EQIP eligibility requirements (7 CFR 1466.8).

To assist in the implementation of agricultural water enhancement activities under the program, the Chief may waive the applicability of the Adjusted Gross Income Limitation, on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with policy and processes promulgated in 7 CFR part 1400. Such waiver requests must be submitted in writing from the program applicant, addressed to the Chief, and submitted through the local NRCS designated conservationist.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose for the Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project is to manage forest vegetation in a manner that increases resiliency of this ecosystem to future wildland fires. Vegetation treatments proposed as part of this project are needed to trend the project area towards a more desired fire adapted state and to perpetuate short- and long-term forest health and habitat management goals.

Currently, there are high accumulations of forest fuels in the project area. Continuous fuel beds, increased ladder fuels, high surface fuel loading and landscapes dominated by closed canopy stands have played a major role in increasing wildfire size and severity for recent fires on the Ashland District, as evidenced by the effects of the Tobin, Stag, Watt Draw, and Lost wildfires. In some cases, these wildfires have resulted in burn severities that preclude timely natural forest revegetation, have reduced or eliminated habitats for intrinsically and economically important wildlife species, and have reduced or eliminated an economically important sawtimber and sustainable wood product base. Current fuel conditions threaten the future availability of cover habitat attributes important to wildlife species due to a higher probability of stand replacement fires and consequently, significantly reduced forest cover across the project area.

Currently the project area is dominated by late development closed canopy stands. There is a need to manage vegetation for more early-, mid- and late-development open forest structural classes to promote disturbance regimes and processes more consistent with a fire adapted ecosystem. Without a diversity of these conditions the risk of large stand replacement events is higher. More specifically, the proposal is needed to change vegetation characteristics across the landscape and create a spatial distribution of forest development classes and structure that is more resistant to large scale, high severity, stand replacement fires in order to provide sustainable environmental, social, and economic benefits. This is consistent with Custer Forest Management Plan (Forest Plan) direction (p. 18), where “Management activities, including prescribed fire, will be conducted to maintain or enhance the unique value associated within woody draws and riparian zones, as well as a variety of successional stages.” Also, where timber harvest on suitable forest lands is proposed, the Forest Plan (p. 24) directs that timber management is to be designed and applied to maintain a variety of age classes. The Forest Plan (p. 25) notes that Timber harvest on unsuitable forest lands may occur to further management area goals.

The need for fuels reduction in the project area was also identified in the 2004 Powder River Community Fire Plan (Powder River County 2004). In this jointly produced document between local landowners, Powder River County Staff, and Forest Service personnel, the Beaver Creek project area was identified as part of the highest priority for fuel reduction within the 2,102,400 acres of Powder River County. The project is located adjacent to or within close proximity of private landholdings and Forest Service infrastructure, including the historic Whitetail Cabin and Holiday Campground.

1. Increase fire resiliency throughout the project area by reducing high fuel loads.

2. Respond to Forest Plan direction to encourage management activities that maintain or enhance a variety of successional vegetative stages. This project is intended to improve forest stand health and create a diversity of stand conditions throughout the project area by managing for early development (post disturbance), mid development closed, mid development open, late development closed, and late development open conditions.

1. Perpetuate diverse and sustainable wildlife habitats that are more resilient to wildfire consistent with Forest Plan direction.

2. Provide a source of wood products for dependent local markets and perpetuate a sustainable wood product source for the future consistent with Forest Plan direction.

3. Reduce risk to private property in proximity to Federal lands in which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildfire.

There is also a need to obliterate roads in the project area that were recommended for decommissioning in the Ashland Ranger District Travel Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA 2009).

The Forest Service, Custer National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, proposes to move portions of the ponderosa pine, grassland, and woody draw ecosystems toward their desired conditions. The desired condition is contrasted with the existing condition in the following sections. Fuel load reduction/alteration would be accomplished through the tools of timber harvest, non timber harvest (non commercial) thinning, and prescribed burning to restore or maintain the structure, function, and composition of the ecosystems across the Project Area. The proposal may reduce the quality of wildlife habitat for the short-term but would ensure the long-term diversity and quality of habitats for selected species and provide wood products from the area, consistent with Forest Plan direction.

The proposed action treats approximately 2,694 acres by mechanical means (timber harvest) of forested area suited for commercial harvest. Non commercial type thinning activities (hand and mechanical) are proposed on 4,220 acres. Prescribed burning is proposed on 4,463 acres of the harvest and non commercial proposed activities post treatment. In addition to these treatments, prescribed fire is planned on 3,594 acres. Prescribed fire will be used for activity fuel reductions, site preparation on regeneration harvests and returning fire to the ponderosa pine, grassland and woody draw ecosystems across the landscape. These proposed treatments will reduce ladder fuels, tree densities, crown cover and maintain surface fuels at levels that will create a diversity of stand conditions in the project area. Where burning is proposed, approximately 10 to 70 percent of each treatment unit will remain unburned, depending upon specific unit prescriptions. No treatment is proposed on 3,545 acres, within the project area. Silvicultural prescriptions will be designed to minimize impacts, improve and retain wildlife habitats, alter current forest structures to enhance the Forest Service's ability to manage fires, and provide for sustainable wood products removal.

Actions connected to the proposed action may involve construction of temporary roads and reconstruction of existing roads (necessary for haul), timber harvest, noxious weed treatment, restoration of the green ash woody draws, slashing, thinning, and prescribed fire within the forested ecosystems and prescribed burning (natural and activity fuels) within the non-forested ecosystem. In addition, the proposed action would reduce the risk of a large fire event, reintroduce fire into these ecosystems and reduce the incidence of epidemic levels of insect infestations and disease infections within the project area.

The harvesting of timber, thinning, prescribed burning, and construction and reconstruction of roads will be analyzed in accordance to the standards and guidelines identified in the Forest Plan, Best Management Practices, as well as, other requirements of pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations. These may include, but are not limited to, the National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and State Water Quality Standards.

The No Action alternative would not move any of the lands within the project area toward desired conditions because no treatments would be conducted.

The Responsible Official is Mary C. Erickson, Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest, 1310 Main Street, Billings, MT 59105.

Based on the purpose and need for the proposed action, the Responsible Official will determine whether to proceed with the action as proposed, as modified by another alternative or not at all. If an action alternative is selected, the Responsible Official will determine what design features, mitigation measures and monitoring to require.

Public scoping was initiated January 28, 2010 and closed March 1, 2010. Three public meetings were conducted in local communities that could be affected by the decision. The public meeting in Ashland, MT was attended by eight people. No one attended either of the Billings, MT meetings. The Forest Service received seven letters or other forms of comment (i.e. electronically submitted comments) as a result of scoping.

The Forest Service will consider all public scoping comments and concerns that have been submitted, as well as resource related input from the interdisciplinary team and other agency resource specialists. This input will be used to identify issues to consider in the environmental analysis. A comprehensive list of issues will be determined before the full range of alternatives is developed and the environmental analysis is begun.

Persons and organizations commenting or requesting project information during the initial scoping will be maintained on the mailing list for future information about Beaver Creek Landscape Management Project.

The Responsible Official has determined, at this time that it is in the best interest of the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Given that scoping and public meetings have been conducted, comments are not being requested at this time.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for public comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

Written comments are preferred and should include the name and address of the commenter. Comments submitted for this proposed action, including names and addresses of commentors, will be considered part of the public record and available for public review.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. Reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages Inc. v. Harris, 409 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D.Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at the time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternative formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The Young Dodge project area is approximately seven miles northwest of Eureka, Montana, within all or portions of T37N R28W and part of T37N R29W, PMM, Lincoln County, Montana. The purpose and need for the project is to: (1) Reduce fuel accumulations, both inside and outside the Wildland-Urban Interface, to decrease the likelihood that fires would become stand-replacing wildfires; (2) Restore historical vegetation species and stand structure; and (3) Restore historical patch sizes. Other considerations are: (4) Identify the minimum transportation system necessary to provide safe, reasonable, and efficient access for Forest Service administrative activities and fire suppression, recreation use and public access, and private land owners and utility companies; (5) Manage the transportation system to reduce effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, and management indicator species habitat and security; streams, riparian areas, and wetlands; big game winter range; and old growth habitat, and to minimize road maintenance costs; (6) Evaluate recreation facilities and opportunities to meet growing and anticipated demand; and (7) Evaluate existing and proposed Special Use Permits.

The Young Dodge Record of Decision (ROD) was released at the same time as the Final EIS and the legal notice of decision was published in the newspaper of record on May 1, 2008. The ROD selected Alternative 1 and authorized the following: (1) Removal of commercial timber products from 29 units totaling approximately 3,069 acres in order to reduce fuel accumulations, both within and outside of the wildland-urban interface, to decrease the likelihood that wildfires would become large stand-replacing wildfires, and to restore historical vegetation patterns, stand structure, and patch sizes on the landscape. Another 1,053 acres may have commercial products removed in units identified in the “Prescribed Burn with Mechanical Pre-Treatment” category; (2) Salvage of up to 200 acres of incidental mortality resulting from prescribed fire, if necessary. This salvage would be expected to take place in or adjacent to treatment units authorized under this decision; (3) Use of site-specific silvicultural prescriptions, logging systems, fuel treatments, riparian habitat conservation areas, and reforestation practices; (4) Underburning without harvest in 19 units totaling approximately 4,000 acres in order to achieve fuel reduction objectives; (5) Road maintenance activities on portions of 100 miles of roads in order to reduce impacts to soil and water resources; decommissioning of approximately 12 miles of roads to provide beneficial effects to the watersheds; placing approximately 27 miles of roads in intermittent stored service status to restore natural drainage patterns and reduce maintenance costs; reconstruct approximately 0.4 miles of existing roads; and adding about 9 miles of “unauthorized” roads to the National Forest Road System; (6) Construction of a boat ramp, parking area, and restroom to provide access on the west shore of Koocanusa Reservoir; (7) Rerouting and reconstructing approximately one and a half miles of non-motorized hiking trail and construct a small parking area; (8) Renovation of the Robinson Mountain Lookout to include it in the cabin rental program; (9) A project-specific Forest Plan amendment to Management Area (MA) 12 Wildlife and Fish standard #7 to allow regeneration harvest in big game movement corridors adjacent to previous harvest openings and openings greater than 40 acres; (10) A project-specific Forest Plan amendment to MA 12 Timber Standard #2 to allow harvest adjacent to units that do not provide suitable hiding cover; and (11) A project-specific Forest Plan amendment to MA 12 Facilities Standard #3 to allow open road density to exceed 0.75 mi/mi2 during project implementation and post-project.

The SEIS is intended to provide additional documentation of the effects of the Young Dodge project on goshawk to the public.

A Draft SEIS is expected to be available for public review and comment in April 2010; and a Final SEIS in June 2010. The comment period for the Draft SEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review.

Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai National Forest, 31374 U.S. Highway 2, Libby, MT 59923, is the Responsible Official for this project. The Record of Decision will identify the land management activities to be implemented in the project area including urban interface fuels treatments, vegetation management, watershed rehabilitation activities, wildlife habitat improvement, access management changes, including road decommissioning, monitoring, and whether or not a Forest Plan amendment is necessary. The Forest Supervisor will make a decision on this project after considering comments and responses, environmental consequences discussed in the Final SEIS, and applicable laws, regulations and policies. The decision and supporting reasons will be documented in a Record of Decision.

I. Abstract

The Census Bureau plans to request an extension of the current OMB approval to conduct a variety of small-scale questionnaire pretesting activities under this generic clearance. A block of hours will be dedicated to these activities for each of the next three years. OMB will be informed in writing of the purpose and scope of each of these activities, as well as the timeframe and number of burden hours used. The number of hours used will not exceed the number set aside for this purpose.

This research program will be used by the Census Bureau and survey sponsors to improve questionnaires and procedures, reduce respondent burden, and ultimately increase the quality of data collected in the Census Bureau censuses and surveys. The clearance will be used to conduct pretesting of decennial, demographic, and economic census and survey questionnaires prior to fielding them. Pretesting activities will involve one of the following methods of identifying measurement problems with the questionnaire or survey procedure: Cognitive interviews, focus groups, respondent debriefing, behavior coding of respondent/interviewer interaction, and split panel tests.

Any of the following methods may be used: Mail, telephone, face-to-face, paper-and-pencil, CATI, CAPI, Internet, or IVR.

OMB Number: 0607-0725.

Form Number: Various.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Farms, Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 16,500.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,500.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to respondent, except for their time to complete the questionnaire.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: 13 U.S.C. 131, 141, 142, 161, 181, 182, 193, and 301.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including house and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

This notice is relevant to the Snake River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Distinct Population Segment (DPS), the Snake River Spring/summer-run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), and the Snake River Fall-run Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ESU.

WDFW has submitted to NMFS an FMEP entitled “WDFW Recreational fisheries for summer steelhead, warmwater fish, sturgeon, carp, and other species.” The FMEP describes the management of recreational fisheries in the State of Washington, Snake River basin, for adipose-clipped, hatchery-origin summer steelhead, warmwater fish, sturgeon, carp, and other game fish species in a manner that is intended to comply with requirements of the ESA under limit 4 of the 4(d) Rule. The FMEP includes adaptive management measures to limit ESA impacts and proposes conservative incidental harvest regimes on natural-origin members of the affected listed species. As described in the FMEP, the proposed fisheries are expected to result in the mortality of no more than 5%, 1.5%, and 0.2% of any population of listed, natural-origin Snake River steelhead, fall Chinook salmon, and spring/summer Chinook salmon, respectively. The FMEP presents evidence that the abundance of natural-origin fish has trended upwards over the past five years. In addition, the FMEP includes monitoring programs that are intended to ensure that the proposed fisheries and associated incidental take would not reduce the chances of survival and recovery of the affected listed species.

The FMEP includes a provision that directs WDFW to conduct an annual review to determine if completed fisheries were conducted in manner that complied with the guidance provided in the FMEP. Further, WDFW will provide a pre-season planning letter each year to NMFS for concurrence that demonstrates the fisheries intended for the upcoming season shall be consistent with the fisheries management protocols described in the FMEP.

As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) and updated June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), NMFS may approve an FMEP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)(i)(A) through (I). Prior to final approval of an FMEP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.

Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 4 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to activities associated with fishery harvest provided that an FMEP has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).

Initiative Information: The purpose of the pilot project is to identify and support an Energy Regional Innovation Cluster (defined below) that will develop, expand, and commercialize innovative energy efficient building systems technologies, designs, and best practices for national and international distribution. Specifically, the Participating Agencies (defined below) seek to identify and fund a Consortium that will link the Hub and the other Co-applicants with complementary Federal and non-Federal investments in business development and support, public infrastructure, workforce development, and education, for the purpose of growing and expanding a robust E-RIC that will achieve the goals stated in the FOA. The FOA was published at http://www.energy.gov/hubs/eric.htm on February 8, 2010.

EDA will award up to $2 million of its Economic Adjustment Assistance Program funds and $3 million of its Public Works and Economic Development Program funds to the EDA Co-applicant as part of the Initiative. EDA seeks an EDA Co-applicant to help facilitate a high degree of collaboration among the Consortium members and offer expertise in using planned regional economic development as a framework for achieving the maximum sustainable economic impact. The EDA Co-applicant should enable the Consortium members and their E-RIC Partners to operate in an integrated, coordinated fashion, and may use EDA funds for constructing or renovating necessary infrastructure, for strategic planning purposes, or for revolving loan fund grants. Examples of possible uses of funds include: Upgrading business incubators or publicly-owned industrial or commercial buildings and infrastructure so they can serve the purposes of the E-RIC; to conduct E-RIC coordination, planning or technical assistance activities; or to capitalize revolving loan funds focused on supporting firms in the E-RIC. EDA encourages the Consortia to consider new, energy efficient and environmentally beneficial ways of constructing or renovating infrastructure, including use of natural vegetation for storm water retention and sewage filtration, green roofs, and on-site water recycling.

The two EDA programs from which funds may be awarded are the (i) Public Works and Economic Development Program and (ii) Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. The Public Works Program may fund investments that expand, upgrade, and “green” infrastructure to attract new industry, support technology-led development, accelerate new business development while promoting energy-efficiency, and enhance the ability of regions to capitalize on opportunities to export goods and services. EDA's Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) Program is designed to respond flexibly to pressing economic recovery issues and is well suited to help address challenges and obstacles to the formation and sustenance of a successful E-RIC. EAA funds may be used for strategic planning and technical assistance, physical infrastructure, or revolving loan funds. Please see the FOA for more details on the objectives and goals of the Initiative and EDA's Public Works and EAA Programs.

1. Application: Any Co-applicant's application for funding from one of the Granting Agencies announced through the FOA.

2. Consortium: The collective group of Co-applicants presenting a unified Proposal in response to the FOA.

3. Consortium MOU: The memorandum of understanding, or similar agreement, among the Consortium, the Participating Agencies, and NSF that will reflect long-term commitments of the Consortium to the emergence and successful growth of the E-RIC based on plans and other materials presented in the Consortium Proposal.

4. Co-applicants (and each, a Co-applicant): Collectively, each member of the Consortium that is applying for Federal funding assistance, anticipated to include the DOE Co-applicant, the EDA Co-applicant, the SBA Co-applicant, and the NIST Co-applicant.

5. Co-applicant Scope of Work: The specific portion of the Proposal to be performed pursuant to a specific funding agreement by a specific Co-applicant.

6. DOE Co-applicant (or Hub Co-applicant): The entity or entities applying for direct funding from the Department of Energy under the FOA.

7. EDA Co-applicant: The entity or entities applying for direct funding from the Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce, under the FOA.

8. Energy Regional Innovation Cluster (E-RIC): The geographically-bounded, active network of similar, synergistic or complementary organizations, which includes the selected Consortium (and, therefore, the Hub), engaged in or with the energy efficient buildings systems and design industry, with active channels for business transactions, communications, and dialogue, that share specialized infrastructure, labor markets, and services. The E-RIC may be located in a defined geographic region that crosses municipal, county, and other jurisdictional boundaries. The E-RIC should encompass local universities, government research centers, and other research and development (R&D) resources, which shall serve as catalysts of innovation and drivers of regional economic growth. The E-RIC should leverage the region's unique competitive strengths and seek to nurture networks for business financing, business-to-business sales, education, and workforce development. These networks will include the E-RIC Partners and strategic partnerships with similar institutions (some of whom may be located outside of the E-RIC's geographic region) to ensure that the full potential of the E-RIC is realized.

9. E-RIC Partners: The public and private entities (i.e., local and regional governments and quasi-public entities, venture capitalists, private banks, workforce investment boards, institutions of higher education including community colleges, and other public and private agencies and institutions) that have submitted formal Letters of Commitment to collaborate with the Consortium to develop and expand the E-RIC. E-RIC Partners are entities other than the Co-applicants that will work with the Consortium to foster a vibrant E-RIC. E-RIC Partners are not required to be located within the E-RIC's geographic region.

10. Energy Technologies: Refers to the means of locating, assessing, harvesting, transporting, processing, and transforming the primary energy forms found in nature (e.g., sunlight, biomass, crude petroleum, coal, uranium-bearing rocks) to yield either direct energy services (e.g., heat from fuel wood or coal) or secondary forms more convenient for human use (e.g., charcoal, gasoline, electricity). Also included under the heading of energy technology is the means of distributing secondary forms to their end users and the means of converting these forms to energy services (e.g., electricity to light and refrigeration, electricity and gasoline to motive power). A distinction is often made between energy-supply technologies, meaning those used to bring energy forms to a point of final use, and energy end-use technologies, meaning those applied at this point of use to convert an energy form to a service such as light or motive power.

11. Good Jobs: Jobs that increase workers' incomes; narrow wage and income inequality; provide safe and healthy workplaces, particularly in high-risk industries; comply with applicable laws governing wages and overtime pay; are open to all eligible job-seekers; and provide necessary skills and training to prepare workers for success in the high-growth and emerging careers that will result from the Energy Regional Innovation Cluster.

12. Granting Agencies: DOE, the Department of Commerce's EDA and NIST, and SBA.

13. Hub (or Energy-Efficient Building Systems Design Hub): The DOE Co-applicant's fully-integrated, multidisciplinary RD&D program that will create practical, replicable strategies for reducing overall energy consumption in buildings.

14. NIST Co-applicant: The NIST/MEP Center applying for direct funding from NIST under the FOA.

15. NIST/MEP: The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program of the National Institute for Standards and Technology.

16. Participating Agencies: Those members of the Interagency Regional Innovation Clusters Taskforce that are participating in the review and selection process described in Section V of the FOA (i.e., DOE, DOC/EDA, DOC/NIST, SBA, DOL, ED).

17. Proposal: The collective, unified proposal submitted by a particular Consortium in response to the FOA. A Proposal contains four applications reflecting a DOE Co-applicant's Application for DOE funding, an EDA Co-applicant's Application for EDA funding; an SBA Co-applicant's Application for SBA funding and a NIST Co-applicant's Application for NIST/MEP funding.

18. Region: An economic unit of human, natural, technological, capital or other resources, defined geographically. Geographic areas comprising a region need not be defined by political boundaries, but should constitute a cohesive area capable of undertaking self-sustained economic development.

19. SBA Co-applicant: The Small Business Development Center(s) applying for direct funding from the Small Business Administration under the FOA.

20. Taskforce: The Interagency Regional Innovation Clusters Taskforce that is made up of DOE, DOC/EDA, DOC/NIST, DOL, ED, SBA, and NSF.

21. Underrepresented groups: Ethnic and racial minorities—including Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, Black- or African-Americans, Latinos or Hispanics, Asian-Americans or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders; women; veterans; and persons with disabilities.

EDA's regulations are codified at 13 CFR chapter III. The regulations and PWEDA are accessible on EDA's Web site at http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/Lawsreg.xml.

Funding Availability: Funding appropriated under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, at 3114 (2009)), together with other appropriated funds, is available for the economic development assistance programs authorized by PWEDA. Under this notice and request for applications, $2,000,000 of Economic Adjustment Assistance and $3,000,000 of Public Works and Economic Development Program assistance is available for this award and shall remain available until expended.

Eligibility Requirements: Pursuant to PWEDA, eligible applicants for EDA's Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance Programs include a(n): (i) District Organization; (ii) Indian Tribe or a consortium of Indian Tribes; (iii) State, a city or other political subdivision of a State, including a special purpose unit of a State or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions; (iv) institution of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; or (v) public or private non-profit organization or association acting in cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a State. See section 3 of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3122) and 13 CFR 300.3. For-profit, private-sector entities and individuals are not eligible for investment assistance.

The EDA-funded project must be located in an area that, on the date EDA receives the Proposal, meets one (or more) of the following economic distress criteria: (i) An unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least one percentage point greater than the national average unemployment rate; (ii) per capita income that is, for the most recent period for which data are available, 80 percent or less of the national average per capita income; or (iii) has a “Special Need,” as determined by EDA.

EDA-Specific Cost Sharing Requirement: Generally, the amount of the EDA grant may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the project. Projects may receive an additional amount that shall not exceed 30 percent, based on the relative needs of the region in which the project will be located (when compared with other distressed regions around the country), as determined by EDA. See section 204(a) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) and 13 CFR 301.4(b)(1). In the case of EDA investment assistance to a(n): (i) Indian Tribe, (ii) State (or political subdivision of a State) that the Assistant Secretary determines has exhausted its effective taxing and borrowing capacity, or (iii) non-profit organization that the Assistant Secretary determines has exhausted its effective borrowing capacity, the Assistant Secretary has the discretion to establish a maximum EDA investment rate of up to 100 percent of the total project cost. See sections 204(c)(1) and (2) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3144) and 13 CFR 301.4(b)(5).

Funds from other Federal financial assistance awards are considered matching share funds for the EDA Co-applicant Scope of Work only if authorized by statute, which may be determined by EDA's reasonable interpretation of the statute. See 13 CFR 300.3. The EDA Co-applicant must show that the matching share is committed to the EDA Co-applicant Scope of Work for the award period, will be available as needed, and is not conditioned or encumbered in any way that precludes its use consistent with the requirements of EDA investment assistance. See 13 CFR 301.5. While cash contributions are preferred, in-kind contributions, consisting of contributions of space, equipment, or services, may provide the required non-Federal share of the total project cost. See 15 CFR 24.24.

Evaluation and Selection Procedures (Section V of the FOA): The evaluation criteria and selection procedures that EDA will use when evaluating EDA Applications and selecting the EDA Co-applicant under the FOA differ markedly from EDA's standard operating procedures and, in some cases, EDA's regulations.

The selection procedures set forth below, and in more detail in Section V of the FOA, will supersede EDA's standard procedures for this competitive solicitation. These procedures will be implemented on behalf of EDA by EDA Headquarters, and are as follows:

Phase 1: Initial eligibility and responsiveness review. The Granting Agencies will conduct an initial eligibility and responsiveness review to determine if the submitted Proposals (a) contain all required items for submission, as specified in Section IV of the FOA, and (b) include agency-specific Applications that meet the relevant agency-specific eligibility criteria, as specified in Section III of the FOA.

Phase 2: DOE review of the Hub-specific portion of the Proposal. In this phase, DOE will review only those Proposals that were determined to be eligible and responsive during the prior phase of review. DOE will review the Hub-specific portion of the Proposal provided by the DOE Co-Applicant (see Section V.B of the FOA for the Hub-specific criteria against which Proposals in this phase will be reviewed). DOE will conduct this merit review in accordance with the nonbinding guidance provided in the “Department of Energy Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance and Unsolicited Proposals.” This guide is available under Financial Assistance, Regulations and Guidance at http://www.management.energy.gov/documents/meritrev.pdf. Following this merit review, DOE will apply the DOE-specific program policy factors and identify the top tier of DOE Co-applicants based on the Hub evaluation criteria and the program policy factors. The Proposals associated with this top tier (“Top Tier Proposals”) will continue to Phase #3.

Phase 3: EDA, NIST/MEP, and SBA review of Proposals. Representatives from the Granting Agencies other than DOE will perform an agency-specific review of their respective Applications for funding contained within the Top Tier Proposals. This review will assess the quality of the Applications based on the agency-specific criteria set forth in the FOA.

Phase 4: Technical merit review of Consortium Proposals by interagency panel. In this phase, an interagency review panel composed of representatives from the Participating Agencies will review all Top Tier Proposals. In this phase, the interagency review panel will evaluate each Top Tier Proposal based on the E-RIC evaluation criteria listed in Section V.E of the FOA.

Phase 5: Interactions with Consortia Submitting Top Tier Proposals. The interagency panel may interact with Consortia that submitted Top Tier Proposals as identified in Phase #2. In these interactions, Consortia may be notified of any shortcomings identified in Phases #2, #3, or #4 and be given the opportunity to submit supplemental materials to address these shortcomings. The interagency panel may elect to skip this phase; however, if the interagency panel elects to interact with any Consortium, it will interact with all Consortia submitting Top Tier Proposals.

Phase 6: Interviews and Site Visits. The interagency panel may elect to conduct interviews and/or site visits with the Consortia that submitted Top Tier Proposals. If the interagency panel elects to conduct interviews with any Consortium, it will conduct interviews with all Consortia submitting Top Tier Proposals. Site visits will be conducted at the interagency panel's discretion.

Phase 7: Interagency Panel Scores and Ranks Consortia. The interagency panel will then review the Top Tier Proposals, along with the results of any interviews or site visits and any supplementary materials submitted by the Consortia pursuant to Phase #5, and rate the Top Tier Proposals based on the E-RIC evaluation criteria in Section V.E of the FOA. Proposals that either a) are deemed unsatisfactory on the E-RIC evaluation criteria or b) are deemed unsatisfactory for funding by any Granting Agency on the basis of its agency-specific evaluation will be eliminated from further consideration. The interagency panel will then assign scores to the remaining Proposals based on the E-RIC evaluation criteria, which may be informed by the agency-specific technical merit reviews from EDA, NIST/MEP, and SBA. If all Top Tier Proposals are eliminated in Phase #7, the interagency panel will not proceed to Phase #8. In this case, each Granting Agency may rely upon its own analysis and use the funds available under the FOA to fund any eligible Co-applicant it so chooses, or make no selection at all.

Phase 8: Interagency Panel Identification of Recommended Proposal. The interagency panel will then apply specific policy factors to the remaining Top Tier Proposals as described in the FOA. The interagency panel will determine, based on its ranking and the policy factors, which Proposal it will recommend (the “Recommended Proposal”) for funding to the Granting Agencies. The interagency panel will recommend funding the top-ranked Proposal from Phase #7 unless the panel recommends another Top Tier Proposal on the basis of the application of the policy factors. Each Granting Agency's representative on the interagency panel will recommend to their agency's Selecting Official that their agency fund their respective Co-applicant from the Recommended Proposal.

Phase 9: Recommendation to Agency Selecting Officials and Agency Award Selections. The interagency panel members representing Granting Agencies will then forward to their respective Selecting Officials (i) a memorandum recommending the selection of the Co-Applicant on the Recommended Proposal for award, together with (ii) the Recommended Proposal itself and the ranking of the Top Tier Proposals by the interagency panel. Although it is anticipated that the Selecting Officials will be guided by their respective staff's recommendation, each Selecting Official does retain the right to not make an award.

Phase 10: Negotiation of Consortium MOU and Final Awards. After the selected Proposal has been identified but prior to awards, the interagency panel will engage in negotiations with the Consortium in order to establish a collective agreement among all Consortium Co-applicants and all agencies involved in the interagency panel regarding certain matters proposed in the Consortium's Proposal. The Consortium MOU will establish the long-term commitments of the Consortium as a whole to the management and facilitation of the E-RIC. Each Selecting Official may also enter into individual discussions with its selected recipient in order to negotiate and finalize a satisfactory award instrument consistent with the terms in the Consortium MOU. Such discussions may entail (1) conforming modifications to the project budget or Co-Applicant Scope of Work to meet Participating Agency requirements; or (2) special terms and conditions that may be required.

Any Granting Agency may enter into negotiations with its selected recipient for any reason it deems necessary, including but not limited to: (1) The budget is not appropriate or reasonable for the requirement; (2) only a portion of the Application is selected for award; (3) a Granting Agency needs additional information to determine that the Co-applicant is capable of complying with the requirements in the FOA or the Granting Agency's applicable regulations; or (4) special terms and conditions are required. Failure to resolve satisfactorily the issues identified by the applicable Granting Agency will preclude award to its selected recipient. In the event that negotiations with the selected recipient cannot be resolved to the Granting Agency's satisfaction, the Granting Agencies reserve the right to select an alternate Consortium using the results from Phases #7 and #8 above.

Subject to the availability of funding, successful Co-applicants should expect to receive notification of selection for negotiation within sixty (60) to ninety (90) days from the closing date of the FOA. Each Co-applicant award will have an estimated start date between August 1, 2010, and September 30, 2010.

The evaluation criteria set forth in this notice and request for applications, and more fully described in Section V of the FOA, will supersede any other evaluation criteria used by EDA for this competitive solicitation, including without limitation those set forth in 13 CFR 301.8. Where consistent with the terms set forth in the FOA, applicant eligibility, program objectives and priorities, and other application and award requirements are set forth in EDA's regulations and EDA Co-applicants must address these requirements; however, EDA's investment policies and priorities, evaluation criteria, and selection procedures shall be exclusively as set forth in this notice and the FOA, and EDA's codified regulations regarding those matters shall not apply.

EDA's mission is to catalyze and foster regional economic development. EDA concentrates its resources on building a new foundation for sustainable economic growth. This foundation builds upon two key economic drivers—innovation and regional collaboration. Innovation puts ideas into action by developing and commercializing new products, services, and technologies for sale in the regional, national, and global marketplace. Regional collaboration requires cooperation across city, county, and even State lines; cross-functional collaboration among government agencies; and collaboration among the private, non-profit, and public sector. EDA funds approaches to economic development that break down barriers to collaboration and that support local and regional efforts to spur economic growth, create jobs, and enhance quality of life. In general, EDA strives to support a portfolio of investments that:

• Promote regional development;

• Accelerate innovation, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship to create or expand high-impact, fast-growth businesses;

• Attract private and non-profit capital;

• Create and retain good jobs and increase regional per capita income;

• Foster a globally competitive workforce;

• Increase exports of U.S. products and services; and

• Leverage complementary investments by other Federal, State and local entities.

EDA will use the following evaluation criteria for specific evaluation of the EDA Co-applicant:

i. Qualifications of EDA Co-applicant's key personnel to perform the proposed project.

ii. Quality of EDA Co-applicant's proposed management, and the extent to which the proposed project effectuates EDA's investment priorities, which are:

• Collaborative Regional Innovation. Initiatives that support the development and growth of innovation clusters based on existing regional competitive strengths. Initiatives must engage stakeholders; facilitate collaboration among urban, suburban and rural (including Tribal) areas; provide stability for economic development through long-term intergovernmental and public/private collaboration; and support the growth of existing and emerging industries.

• Public/Private Partnerships. Investments that use both public and private sector resources and leverage complementary investments by other government/public entities and/or non-profits.

• National Strategic Priorities. Initiatives that encourage job growth and business expansion in clean energy; green technologies; sustainable manufacturing; information technology (e.g., broadband, smart grid) infrastructure; communities severely impacted by automotive industry restructuring; natural disaster mitigation and resiliency; access to capital for small and medium sized and ethnically diverse enterprises; and innovations in science, health care and alternative fuel technologies.

• Global Competitiveness. Investments that support high growth businesses and innovation-based entrepreneurs to expand and compete in global markets.

• Environmentally-Sustainable Development. Investments that encompass best practices in `environmentally sustainable development,' broadly defined, to include projects that enhance environmental quality and develop and implement green products, processes, and buildings as part of the green economy.

• Economically Distressed and Underserved Communities. Investments that strengthen diverse communities that have suffered disproportionate economic and job losses and/or are rebuilding to become more competitive in the global economy.

iii. The extent to which the EDA Co-applicant's Application for EDA funding reflects an outstanding, high quality, and meaningful contribution to the Consortium's overall Proposal and evaluation under Section V.E. of the FOA.

iv. Feasibility of proposed project and project readiness. EDA may consider past performance of the EDA Co-applicant with respect to the receipt of and the performance of prior awards of Federal assistance under this factor.

v. Quality and amount of local match and/or related private investment offered as part of the project.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications for assistance under EDA's programs are subject to the State review requirements imposed by Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: Administrative and national policy requirements for all Department of Commerce awards are applicable to this competitive solicitation. These requirements may be found in the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, which was published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696). This notice may be accessed by entering the Federal Register volume and page number provided in the previous sentence at the following Web site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Form ED-900 (Application for Investment Assistance) has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Control Number 0610-0094. The use of Forms SF-424 (Application for Financial Assistance), SF-424A (Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs), SF-424B (Assurances—Non-Construction Programs), SF-424C (Budget Information—Construction Programs), SF-424D (Assurances—Construction Programs), and Form SF-LLL (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities) has been approved under OMB Control Numbers 4040-0004, 0348-0044, 4040-0007, 4040-0008, 4040-0009, and 0348-0046 respectively. The Form CD-346 (Applicant for Funding Assistance) is approved under OMB Control Number 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

Coho salmon in Santa Cruz and coastal San Mateo counties south of San Francisco Bay are part of the larger CCC coho salmon ESU. The CCC coho salmon ESU was listed as a threatened species on October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56138), and subsequently reclassified as an endangered species on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). For more information on the status, biology, and habitat of this coho salmon ESU, please refer to “Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Listing Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids; Proposed Rule” (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004) or “Final Rule Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)” (61 FR 56138; October 31, 1996).

On November 25, 2003, we received a petition from Mr. Homer T. McCrary, a Santa Cruz County forestland owner, to redefine the southern extent of the CCC coho salmon ESU by excluding coastal populations of coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay, California, from the ESU. An addendum to the petition (dated February 6, 2004) was received on February 9, 2004, that provided additional information to clarify the original petition and respond to new information regarding museum specimens of coho salmon from the area south of San Francisco Bay. The ESA authorizes an interested person to petition for the listing or delisting of a species, subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment (DPS)(16 U.S.C.1533(b)(3)(A). The ESA implementing regulations contain the factors to consider for delisting a species (50 CFR 424.11(d)). A species may be delisted for one or more of the following reasons: the species is extinct or has been extirpated from its previous range; the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; or investigations show the best scientific or commercial data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error.

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving a petition, the Secretary shall make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (90-day finding). The ESA implementing regulations for NMFS define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). If a positive 90-day finding is made, then NMFS must promptly conduct a status review of the species concerned and publish a finding indicating whether the petitioned action is or is not warranted within one year (1-year finding).

On March 23, 2006, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (71 FR 14683) stating that the petition did not present substantial information indicating that delisting coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay may be warranted. On March 31, 2006, the petitioner challenged that finding, alleging violations of the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act. Homer T. McCrary v. Carlos Gutierrez, et al., No. 06-cv-86-MCE (E.D. Cal.)). The venue for the case was subsequently transferred to the Northern District Court in San Jose, California, No. C-08-01592-RMW (N.D. Cal.).

On February 8, 2010, the court issued an order stating that our decision to deny the petition was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that we failed to follow the proper statutory procedures for reviewing petitions under the ESA, by using information beyond the four corners of the petition, and in applying the 1-year standard of whether the petitioned action “is or is not warranted,” rather than the 90-day standard of whether the petitioned action “may be warranted.” The court vacated our March 23, 2006, finding and remanded the petition to NMFS for review in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A).

Mr. McCrary's petition requests that we redefine the southern boundary of the CCC coho salmon ESU. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the identification information for the petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition claims coho salmon were introduced into Santa Cruz County, California, in 1906 and until that time, aside from possible occasional strays, no self-sustaining native coho salmon populations existed in the streams south of San Francisco Bay, California. The petition asserts the legal and factual criteria supporting the listing of coho salmon under the ESA, as amended, were in error based on historical and scientific data presented in the petition. The petition argues coho salmon populations currently present in the coastal watersheds south of San Francisco Bay, California, are most likely non-native and persist there only due to artificial propagation, and for this reason do not constitute an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. Additionally, through the initial petition and subsequent written correspondence between NMFS' Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in Santa Cruz, California, and Southwest Regional Office in Long Beach, California, the petitioner asserted coho salmon in the area should be delisted because they are not evolutionarily significant populations and their inclusion in the CCC coho salmon ESU is inconsistent with NMFS' ESU policy for Pacific salmon (Waples, 1991). Based on this and other information detailed in the petition and addendums, the petitioner has requested that NMFS delist populations of CCC ESU coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay and redefine the southern boundary of CCC ESU coho salmon to north of San Francisco Bay.

Information used to support the petitioner's assertion that coho salmon are not native south of San Francisco Bay, and therefore, erroneously listed, is predicated on: (1) early scientific and historical accounts indicating that the entrance to San Francisco Bay is the southern boundary for coho salmon; (2) the absence of coho salmon in the archeological record; (3) differences in geology, climate, and hydrology between regions north and south of San Francisco Bay; and (4) human intervention through out-of-area (i.e., non-native) coho salmon plantings to streams in coastal San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties which resulted in the establishment of coho salmon in the area.

We considered all additional information provided by the petitioner and individuals providing supplemental information on his behalf to NMFS and our SWFSC from 2004 2005 to be addendums to the original November 23, 2003, petition.

In order to address errors in the previous handling of the petition, we are accepting the petition and initiating a review of the status of CCC coho populations south of San Francisco Bay.

To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning coho salmon in coastal streams south of San Francisco Bay in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties. We request information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, agricultural and forestry groups, conservation groups, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of coho salmon in coastal streams south of San Francisco Bay. Specifically, we request information on: (1) published accounts from historical or scientific sources regarding the presence, absence, and distribution of coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco Bay prior to 1906; (2) archeological evidence regarding presence or absence of coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco Bay; (3) genetic information comparing coho salmon in the streams south of San Francisco Bay with coho salmon in streams north of San Francisco Bay within the range of the CCC coho salmon ESU, and in other coho salmon ESUs; (4) differences or similarities in climate, geology, and hydrology of watersheds in Santa Cruz and coastal San Mateo counties compared with watersheds in the northern portion of the CCC coho salmon ESU range (coastal Marin County to Punta Gorda in southern coastal Humboldt County), and the effects of these habitat differences on coho salmon; and (5) the reproductive isolation of coho salmon in coastal San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties and the importance of these populations to the evolutionary legacy of the CCC coho salmon ESU in light of NMFS' ESU policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991).

Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs that a determination must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” On or before February 8, 2011, we will issue a 1-year finding based on a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, including all relevant information received from the public in response to this 90-day finding.

You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES section in our final determination. If you submit your information via http//www.regulations.gov, your entire submission including personal identifying information will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy submissions on http//www.regulations.gov. Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at NMFS' Southwest Region Office.

NMFS has developed proposed revisions, additions, and restructuring of NMFS marine mammal permit application procedures and permit requirements to form the basis of one or more alternatives to be evaluated in an EA for a Proposed Rule. The internal scoping summary document for public review is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/mmpa_regulations.htm.

NMFS will consider all comments received during the comment period. All hardcopy submissions must be unbound, on paper no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches (216 by 279 mm), and suitable for copying and electronic scanning. NMFS requests that you include in your comments: (1) Your name and address; and (2) Any background documents to support your comments, as you feel necessary. A draft EA will be made available for public review concurrent with publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

DOC PS 20-10 “American Softwood Lumber Standard” was developed by the American Lumber Standard Committee, the Standing Committee responsible for maintaining the standard. The revision was processed in accordance with provisions of Department of Commerce “Procedures for the Development of Voluntary Product Standards” (15 CFR part 10). A notice, which appeared in the Federal Register on April 3, 2009 (74 FR 15255) announced NIST's circulation of the revision for public review, requested public comments, and provided the history of the revision.

NIST received one comment from an association representing lumber retailers.

Comment: The commenter requested that the standard be expanded to include a “single regime” for verifying the eco-attribute of lumber products with an on-product eco-label.

Response: NIST did not make the requested change because the scope of DOC PS 20 deals with the grade marking of various softwood lumber and the addition of eco-labeling is therefore considered outside the scope of this standard.

DOC PS 20-10 supersedes DOC PS 20-05, effective June 1, 2010. The new edition reflects efforts toward updating and improving DOC PS 20 with clarification and amplification of text and terms while maintaining the technical requirements and administrative structure for implementing and enforcing the Standard.

Abstract

In January 2008, NGS adopted a 10-year plan identifying the need to change the geometric and vertical geodetic datums of the United States to improve the efficient use of the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS). Continuing technological developments and enhancements in space-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems by the United States, as well as in other international programs, including the Chinese global satellite navigation system COMPASS, the European Union's satellite navigation system GALILEO, and the Russian GLONASS (Global'naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema), will have a profound impact on the integration of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technologies with Federal surveying, mapping, charting, and GIS programs. In an effort to support these rapid changes in positioning technologies, NGS has adopted a plan to replace NAD 83 and NAVD 88, as well as other state and territorial island datums, with more contemporary geodetic reference systems, thereby reducing several significant impediments to the efficient use of these positioning and navigation systems. This meeting will serve as a forum to allow Federal geospatial program managers, technical specialists, and contractors to address the impacts of the planned changes, offer an opportunity to discuss these changes, and explain how NGS may provide training and technical assistance to ensure minimal technical and budgetary impacts resulting from these new systems.

The Committee, composed of external, knowledgeable representatives of stakeholder groups, was established by the Department of Commerce (DOC) to provide advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior on implementation of Section 4 of Executive Order 13158 on MPAs. The meeting will be open to public participation from 4 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, April 20, 2010, and from 8:35 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 22, 2010. In general, each individual or group will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. If members of the public wish to submit written statements, they should be submitted to the Designated Federal Official by April 15, 2010.

Matters to be Considered: The focus of the Committee's meeting will be the establishment of appropriate Subcommittees and Workgroups and their development of work plans to address the Committee's new charge. The Committee will receive an update on the Administration's Ocean Policy Task Force and Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiatives, and their linkages to the national system of MPAs. The Committee will hear from two panels of MPA stakeholders: one on regional MPA issues in the South Atlantic, and one on cultural MPA resources. The agenda is subject to change. The latest version will be posted at http://www.mpa.gov.

Applicants have a one-year period from the filing date of a provisional application to file a corresponding nonprovisional application in order to claim the benefit of the provisional application. Roughly fifty percent of provisional applications are abandoned without the subsequent filing of nonprovisional applications claiming their benefit. Many applicants have expressed that a longer period of time to draft a complete set of claims and pay fees would facilitate their efforts to determine whether their inventions have commercial viability, and would enable more informed and economically efficient decision making for applicants considering filing nonprovisional applications claiming benefit of prior provisional applications. Moreover, these same applicants have expressed that they would be willing to commit to 18-month publication of the invention disclosed in their provisional applications benefiting from any extension period, as well as any nonprovisional applications later claiming benefit of such provisional applications.

In order to claim the benefit of a prior provisional application, the statute requires a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to be filed within 12 months after the date on which the corresponding provisional application was filed. See 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The proposed change would not alter this statutory requirement but would allow applicants to more easily avail themselves of the benefits of missing parts practice in nonprovisional applications.

Under the current missing parts practice, if a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) has been accorded a filing date but does not include the basic filing fee, the search fee, the examination fee, or an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, the USPTO will send a missing parts notice and set a time period for the applicant to submit the missing items and pay any required surcharge to avoid abandonment. See 37 CFR 1.53(f). If excess claims fees, a multiple dependent claim fee, and/or an application size fee are required and such fees have not been paid, then these fees are also required to be paid in response to a missing parts notice. Currently, the time period set forth in a missing parts notice is two months with extensions of time of up to five months under 37 CFR 1.136(a) being available.

The USPTO is requesting public comment on whether the missing parts practice should be changed to provide applicants with an extended time period to reply to a missing parts notice requiring fees in a nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that claims the benefit of a provisional application under the conditions that the basic filing fee for the nonprovisional application has been paid, an executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 has been filed, a nonpublication request has not been filed, and the application is in condition for publication. A benefit of such extension would be increased use of the 18-month publication system resulting from: (1) Additional nonprovisional applications being filed that would not have been filed without the ability to have 12 months to reply to a missing parts notice with no extension of time fees being required; and (2) nonprovisional applications being filed without a nonpublication request so that applicant will be given the 12-month time period to reply to a missing parts notice. A second benefit is added flexibility for applicants who may otherwise be forced to expend resources completing nonprovisional applications that may prove unnecessary given an additional year of commercialization efforts. Providing a longer time period to reply to a missing parts notice would give applicants more time to ascertain the value of their inventions, thereby helping applicants to decide whether to incur the additional costs associated with pursuing patent rights. Applications not completed as nonprovisional applications additionally benefit the USPTO and all other users of the patent system, by removing unnecessary workload from the agency. A third benefit is better targeting of applicant resources to commercialization efforts at critical time periods, which efforts can ultimately result in creation of jobs as well as new products and services. This sequencing of effort in turn will lead to more efficient and purposeful engagement with the USPTO for those applications that are filed and completed as nonprovisional applications.

The percentage of provisional applications that are subsequently relied upon in a nonprovisional application has been declining over time, leaving a higher percentage of provisional applications as abandoned, unrelied upon applications. In 2008, 143,120 provisional applications were filed. Thereafter, 72,792 nonprovisional or international applications were filed that claimed the benefit of one or more of the provisional applications filed in 2008 (or 50.8 percent of the provisional applications). In 2007, 132,581 provisional applications were filed. Thereafter, 75,330 nonprovisional or international applications were filed that claimed the benefit of one or more of the provisional applications filed in 2007 (or 56.8 percent of the provisional applications). In 2006, 121,471 provisional applications were filed. Thereafter, 73,136 nonprovisional or international applications were filed that claimed the benefit of one or more of the provisional applications filed in 2006 (or 60.2 percent of the provisional applications). In 2005, 111,753 provisional applications were filed. Thereafter, 68,511 nonprovisional or international applications were filed that claimed the benefit of one or more of the provisional applications filed in 2005 (or 61.3 percent of the provisional applications). In 2004, 102,268 provisional applications were filed. Thereafter, 63,146 nonprovisional or international applications were filed that claimed the benefit of one or more of the provisional applications filed in 2004 (or 61.7 percent of the provisional applications). For provisional applications filed from 1998 to 2003, the percentage of provisional applications relied upon in a subsequent application ranged from 61.2 to 63.2 percent.

Currently, some applicants take advantage of the missing parts practice to file nonprovisional applications without complete claim sets by omitting an executed oath or declaration or failing to pay the search and examination fees up front. Such filings result in a notice to file missing parts which must be replied to in order to complete the application prior to docketing for examination. A subset of these applicants then file a continuing application claiming the benefit of the first-filed nonprovisional application that claimed the benefit of the prior provisional application, rather than a reply to the notice to file missing parts, in order to effectively extend the time period to complete the nonprovisional application. The current proposal to provide a time period of twelve months for an applicant to reply to a missing parts notice under certain conditions seeks to provide applicants with a streamlined alternative to this practice by eliminating the need to refile the application and to pay significant extension of time fees.

Similarly, applicants who file several nonprovisional patent applications based on a number of provisional applications may fail to have sufficient focus on what they deem to be their most important applications. In addition, by failing to prioritize USPTO efforts on the nonprovisional applications deemed most important by applicants, greater delay in the processing and examination of all nonprovisional applications by the USPTO occurs. The current proposal would help applicants focus on their most important applications and conserve USPTO resources.

In order for an applicant to be provided a 12-month (non-extendable) time period to reply to a missing parts notice, the applicant would need to satisfy the following conditions: (1) The nonprovisional application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) must claim the benefit of a prior-filed provisional application; (2) the basic filing fee must have been paid (in the nonprovisional application); (3) an executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 must have been filed; (4) applicant must not have filed a nonpublication request, or the applicant must have filed a request to rescind a previously filed nonpublication request; and (5) the application must be in condition for publication as provided in 37 CFR 1.211(c). After an applicant timely replies to the missing parts notice within the 12-month time period and the nonprovisional application is completed, the nonprovisional application would be placed in the examination queue based on the actual filing date of the nonprovisional application. Therefore, there would be no change made in the order in which applications are examined as a result of the current proposal.

An applicant who has filed a provisional application with a complete disclosure and high quality application papers (e.g., papers that satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.52) would, in most cases, be able to file a nonprovisional application with little additional effort and expense. In addition to the requirements of a provisional application, a nonprovisional application requires at least one claim and an executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. Thus, for example, where a provisional application was filed without any claims, the applicant would need to: (1) Draft at least one claim and file the nonprovisional application using essentially a copy of the provisional application papers (e.g., specification and drawings), with minor revisions to add the claim(s) at the end of the specification and the reference to the prior-filed provisional application in the first sentence of the specification; (2) submit an executed oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63; and (3) submit the basic filing fee. A preliminary amendment adding additional claims could be submitted along with the reply to the missing parts notice. Currently, the small entity basic filing fee for a utility application is $165.00, or $82.00 if filed electronically using the USPTO's electronic filing system (EFS-Web). The non-small entity basic filing fee for a utility application is $330.00. To complete the application for examination, the remainder of the filing fees and the required surcharge ($65.00 for small entities and $130.00 for other applicants) would be due within the 12-month time period set in the missing parts notice. Thus, an additional $445.00 for small entities and $890.00 for other applicants would be due for payment of the surcharge and the search and examination fees (plus any required excess claims fees and application size fee). Furthermore, the publication fee would not be required until mailing of a notice of allowance (unless early publication is requested).

Applicants are reminded that the disclosure of an invention in a provisional application should be as complete as possible because the claimed subject matter in the later-filed nonprovisional application must have support in the provisional application in order for the applicant to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application. Applicants are also advised that the extended missing parts period would not affect the 12-month priority period provided by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) and, thus, any foreign filings would still need to be made within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional application if applicant wishes to rely on the provisional application in the foreign-filed application.

As discussed, the USPTO would require the nonprovisional application to be in condition for publication. In addition, the USPTO would publish the application promptly after the expiration of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought. Thus, if there are informalities in the application papers that need correction for the application to be in condition for publication (such as the specification pages contain improper margins or line spacing or the drawings are not acceptable because they are not electronically reproducible), the USPTO would still send a missing parts notice that sets a two-month (extendable) time period (not the 12-month extended missing parts period) for the applicant to correct the informalities as well as submit any missing items or required fees.

The USPTO is also considering offering applicants an optional service of having an international style search report prepared during the 12-month extended missing parts period. The optional service would provide the applicant with information concerning the state of the prior art and may be useful in determining whether to complete the application and the claims to pursue if the application is completed. The search report that would be prepared would be similar to the search report that is prepared for international applications. See PCT Rule 43 and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1844. The fee for this service would be set, through rule making, to recover the estimated average cost of providing the service and is anticipated to be consistent with the current cost of conducting an international search. See 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(2) and 37 CFR 1.445(a)(2). It should be noted that if applicant decides to file a reply to the missing parts notice and complete the nonprovisional application after having received such a search report, the applicant would still be required to pay the search fee (set forth in 35 U.S.C. 41(d)(1) and 37 CFR 1.16) with the reply to the missing parts notice, and the examiner would still conduct the search that is currently done as part of the examination of nonprovisional applications. See MPEP §§ 704.01 and 904-904.03. This is analogous to international applications where applicant is required to pay the search fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.445(a)(2) and the USPTO will conduct a search and prepare an international search report when the USPTO is the International Searching Authority; and then, after the international application enters the national stage in the United States, applicant is required to pay the national stage search fee set forth 37 CFR 1.492(b) and the examiner will conduct a search as part of the examination of the application.

Any patent term adjustment (PTA) accrued by an applicant based on certain administrative delays by the USPTO is offset by a reduction for failing to reply to a notice by the USPTO within three months. See 37 CFR 1.704(b). Thus, if an applicant replies to a notice to file missing parts more than three months after mailing of the notice, the additional time would be treated as an offset to any positive PTA that will be accrued by applicant. The USPTO envisions that no change would be made to the current regulations (including the patent term adjustment regulations) except to provide for the fee for the optional service of an international style search report, if the USPTO decides to implement the proposed change to the missing parts practice.

The USPTO is publishing this request for comments to gather public feedback on, and to determine the level of interest in, the proposed change to missing parts practice as well as the optional service to provide a search report during the extended missing parts period discussed in this notice. Comments or suggestions are solicited on whether or how the USPTO should revise the missing parts practice.

On December 1, 2009, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey 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 62743 (December 1, 2009). On December 31, 2009, American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively “Petitioners”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the exports to the United States of 51 companies for the period December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009. Those companies are: Ahcof Industrial Development Corp., Ltd.; Alfred L. Wolff (Beijing) Co. Ltd.; Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd.; Anhui Honghui Import&Export Trade Co., Ltd.; Anhui Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs I/E (Group) Corporation; Anhui Native Produce Imp& Exp Corp.; APM Global Logistics (Shanghai) Co.; Baiste Trading Co., Ltd.; Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd.; Chengdu Stone Dynasty Art Stone; Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd.; Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd.; Fresh Honey Co., Ltd. (formerly Mgl. Yun Shen); Golden Tadco Int'l; Hangzhou Golden Harvest Health Industry Co., Ltd.; Haoliluck Co., Ltd.; Hengjide Healthy Products Co. Ltd.; Hubei Yusun Co., Ltd.; Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping; Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Cereals, Oils Foodstuffs Import Export (Group) Corp.; Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Light Industry Products Imp & Exp (Group) Corp.; Jilin Province Juhui Import; Maersk Logistics (China) Company Ltd.; Nefelon Limited Company; Ningbo Shengye Electric Appliance; Ningbo Shunkang Health Food Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Yuehai Trading Co., Ltd.; Product Source Marketing Ltd.; Qingdao Aolan Trade Co., Ltd.; QHD Sanhai Honey Co., Ltd.; Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd.; Renaissance India Mannite; Shaanxi Youthsun Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Bloom International Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Hui Ai Mal Tose Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Shine Bal Co., Ltd.; Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd.; Silverstream International Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Shanding Honey Product Co. Ltd.; Tianjin Eulia Honey Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Fenglian Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Qinshi Tangye; Wuhu Qinshgi Tangye; Xinjiang Jinhui Food Co., Ltd.; and, Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co. Pursuant to this request, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 4770 (January 29, 2010).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. On March 22, 2010, Petitioners timely withdrew their request that the Department conduct an administrative review of the entries of subject merchandise of the 51 companies listed above, and no other interested party requested a review of these or any other companies for this POR. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained in the APO itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On October 1, 2009, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice announcing the opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain helical spring lock washers from the People's Republic of China for the period October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 50772 (October 1, 2009). On November 2, 2009, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works Inc., the petitioner, to conduct an administrative review of Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd., also known as Zheijang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd (“Hangzhou”). No other party requested an administrative review.

On November 25, 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review of Hangzhou. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 61658 (November 25, 2009).

If a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested administrative review, the Secretary will rescind the administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On March 16, 2010, the petitioner withdrew its request with respect to Hangzhou. Although the 90-day deadline to withdraw an administrative review request in the instant administrative review was March 2, 2010, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary may extend the 90-day time limit if it is reasonable to do so.1 The Department determines it is reasonable to do so in this case because it has not expended significant resources conducting this administrative review with respect to Hangzhou. Specifically, the Department has not completed its full analysis of Hangzhou's sales or factors of production data for the period of review nor has it calculated a preliminary margin for Hangzhou. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with our practice, the Department is rescinding this administrative review.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry, for entries during the period October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs NMFS to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, if certain findings are made by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “taking” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA):

Authorization, in the form of annual LOAs, may be granted for periods of up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to PSW testing and training within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) in the GOM were published on November 24, 2006 (71 FR 67810), and remain in effect from December 26, 2006, through December 27, 2011. The species that Eglin AFB may take during PSW testing and training are Atlantic bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) and dwarf (Kogia simus) and pygmy (Kogia breviceps) sperm whales.

Issuance of the annual LOA to Eglin AFB is based on findings made in the preamble to the final rule that the total takings by this project would result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks or habitats and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals. NMFS also finds that the applicant will meet the requirements contained in the implementing regulations and LOA, including monitoring and reporting requirements. Without any mitigation measures, a small possibility exists for one bottlenose dolphin and one spotted dolphin to be exposed to blast levels from the PSW testing sufficient to cause mortality. Additionally, less than two cetaceans might be exposed to noise levels sufficient to induce Level A harassment (injury) annually, and as few as 31 or as many as 53 cetaceans (depending on the season and water depth) could potentially be exposed (annually) to noise levels sufficient to induce Level B harassment in the form of a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity (also referred to as a temporary threshold shift).

While none of these impact estimates consider the proposed mitigation measures that will be employed by Eglin AFB to minimize potential impacts to protected species, NMFS has authorized Eglin AFB a total of one mortality, two takes by Level A harassment, and 53 takes by Level B harassment (TTS) annually. However, the proposed mitigation measures described in the final rule (71 FR 67810, November 24, 2006) and the LOA are anticipated to both reduce the number of marine mammal takes and lessen the severity of the effects of the takes. These measures include a conservative safety range for marine mammal exclusion; incorporation of aerial and shipboard survey monitoring efforts in the program both prior to and after detonation of explosives; and a prohibition on detonations whenever marine mammals are detected within the safety zone, may enter the safety zone at the time of detonation, or if weather and sea conditions preclude adequate aerial surveillance. This LOA may be renewed annually based on a review of the activity, completion of monitoring requirements, and receipt of reports required by the LOA.

On March 4, 2010, NMFS received a request for an LOA renewal pursuant to the aforementioned regulations that would authorize, for a period not to exceed 1 year, take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to PSW testing and training in the GOM.

No PSW tests were conducted during calendar year 2009 or between January and March of 2010. However, the PSW LOA was modified on April 16, 2009, to include Stand-Off Precision Guided Munition (SOPGM) testing. NMFS issued this modification because it was determined that the impacts of SOPGM testing would be significantly smaller than the impacts outlined in the PSW LOA. SOPGM testing utilized two out of the six live shots allowed for the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) exercise under the PSW LOA. Three GriffinTM SOPGM system missiles with a net explosive weight of 7.5 pounds (TNT equivalent) were fired against two target boats in the GOM on April 29, 2009, and May 5, 2009. No marine mammals were seen during the boat sweep or at release. No evidence of injury or death to marine mammals was noted after either mission.

The U.S. Air Force complied with the requirements of the 2009 LOA, and NMFS has determined that there was no take of marine mammals by the U.S. Air Force in 2009. Accordingly, NMFS has issued a LOA to Eglin AFB authorizing the take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to PSW testing and training in the EGTTR in the GOM. Issuance of this LOA is based on findings described in the preamble to the final rule (71 FR 67810, November 24, 2006) and supported by information contained in Eglin's March 2010 request for a new LOA that the activities described under this LOA will not result in more than the incidental harassment of certain marine mammal species and will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The provision requiring that the activities not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses does not apply for this action.

On 1/15/2010 (75 FR 2510) and 2/5/2010 (75 FR 5970-5971), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) operates pursuant to statutory and regulatory requirements. Committee decisions regarding which items are suitable for addition to the Procurement List are specifically guided by 41 CFR Chapter 51. This regulation states that for a commodity or service to be suitable for addition to the Procurement List, each of the following criteria must be satisfied: Employment potential, nonprofit agency qualifications, capability, and level of impact on the current contractor for the commodity or service. In response to its Notice of Proposed Procurement List Addition, the Committee received comments from five parties relating to the fourth criterion, level of impact.

Comments were received from the incumbent contractor for the facilities management requirement at Fort Lewis, WA. The firm stated that addition of this service to the Procurement List is inconsistent with the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act policy regarding contracts currently held within the SBA 8(a) Program. The firm stated that placing this service on the Procurement List would result in “severe adverse impact” and is thus not suitable for addition. The incumbent contractor also asserted that such an action would seem to be contrary to the Regulatory Flexibility Act as it relates to “small entities.”

The Committee has considered these comments. The Committee has documentation from the contracting activity showing that the Fort Lewis requirement awarded to the incumbent contractor was explicitly restricted to a one (1) year acquisition and was not permanently placed into the 8(a) Program. Under Committee procedures, this service is eligible for consideration to be added to the Procurement List. The financial information presented by the contractor and calculated according to Committee practice during its impact analysis did not indicate that it would result in “severe adverse impact” under Committee regulations at 41 CFR 51-2.4(a)(4). The contractor was notified of the preliminary determination that impact was not severe in April 2009. In light of this notification, coupled with the contracting activity's communication that the requirement would be limited to one year, the incumbent contractor could not have had a reasonable expectation of further awards or contract option years. The Committee continues to find the proposed action to be consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because the particular service being considered for addition to the Procurement List will be provided by qualified nonprofit agencies (or “small entities” under the RFA) employing people who are blind or with other significant disabilities.

Comments were also received from the South Carolina District Office of the Small Business Administration, the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses, and two contractors who perform similar work at another Army installation. Their comments also raise the SBA 8(a) program issue and the negative impact of removing this project from the 8(a) Program.

The Committee has considered these comments. Information provided by the contracting activity states that the ongoing requirement at Fort Lewis was not permanently placed under the SBA 8(a) program and is eligible for consideration to be added to the Procurement List. The requirement for comparable services at McChord AFB is currently performed by a contractor that has graduated from the SBA 8(a) program. In accordance with Committee practice, the requirement is eligible for consideration to be added to the Procurement List at this juncture. The Committee's action will not affect the McChord AFB contractor's ability to continue to perform the services until expiration of its contract.

When passing the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, Congress understood the importance of using the federal procurement process as a means of providing employment opportunities for people who are blind or with other severe disabilities. The proposed addition of this project to the Procurement List will guarantee the creation of jobs for people with severe disabilities, a group whose unemployment rate has been estimated to be approaching 70%. Having reviewed all material information regarding the suitability of this project for the AbilityOne Program, the Committee has determined that the Joint Base Lewis-McChord facilities management service is suitable for addition to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide a product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:

On 2/5/2010 (75 FR 5970-5971), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

The purpose of 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 April 21 thru 23, 2010 will be open 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, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for its 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 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least five calendar days prior to the meeting that 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 Threat Reduction Agency 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 Freedom of Information and Privacy Office, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.

The specific changes to the record systems 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.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense 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 Privacy Act Officer, Office of Freedom of Information, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is 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.

The U.S. Marine Corps system 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: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FOIA/PA Section (ARSF), 2 Navy Annex, Room 3134, Washington, DC 20380-1775.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 23, 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).

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program Military Service Deferment/Post-Active Duty Student Deferment Request.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 16,000.

 Burden Hours: 8,000.

Abstract: The Military Service/Post-Active Duty Student Deferment request form serves as the means by which a FFEL, Perkins, or Direct Loan borrower requests a military service deferment and/or post-active duty student deferment and provides his or her loan holder with the information needed to determine whether the borrower meets the applicable deferment eligibility requirements. The form also serves as the means by which the U.S. Department of Education identifies Direct Loan borrowers who qualify for the Direct Loan Program's no accrual of interest benefit for active duty service members.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4203. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Conversion Magnet Schools Evaluation Revision.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Burden Hours: 187.

Abstract: The Conversion Magnet Schools Evaluation is being conducted to determine if efforts to turn around low-performing schools through converting to a Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) supported magnet school are associated with improved student achievement and the reduction in minority group isolation. The Institute of Education Sciences, in collaboration with the Office of Innovation and Improvement, initiated the study due to the popularity and persistence of magnet programs and the inconclusive research on the relationship of these programs to important student outcomes. The study will use quasi-experimental designs to explore the relationship between magnet programs and student achievement both for “resident” students who attend magnet schools as their neighborhood schools and, if possible, for non-resident students. Data collection includes student records data, principal surveys, and project director interviews. The U.S. Department of Education has commissioned American Institutes for Research to conduct this study. An OMB clearance request that (1) described the study design and full data collection activities and (2) requested approval for the burden associated with the first three years of data collection was approved in 2007 (OMB Number 1850-0832 approval 7/13/07; expiration 7/31/10). This revision requests approval for the last two years of data collection.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4205. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

This notice corrects the meeting date for prospective applicants on two pages of the notice as follows:

(1) On page 13515, in the first column, after the words Date of Meeting for Prospective Applicants:, replace the date “April 8, 2010” with the date “April 15, 2010.”

(2) On page 13518, in the second column, after the words Date of Meeting for Prospective Applicants:, replace the date “April 8, 2010” with the date “April 15, 2010.”

On March 24, 2004, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission published in the Federal Register the original HAVA State plans filed by the fifty States, the District of Columbia and the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 69 FR 14002. HAVA anticipated that States, Territories and the District of Columbia would change or update their plans from time to time pursuant to HAVA section 254(a)(11) through (13). HAVA sections 254(a)(11)(A) and 255 require EAC to publish such updates. This is the sixth revision to the State plan for Nevada.

The amendment to Nevada's State plan changes dollar amount spending to percentage amount spending on various activities; elaborates on the Command Center and the Senate Bill 401 report of the election process in Nevada; provides updated charts and tables to reflect November 2009 funding levels and spending plans; incorporates updates to reflect minority language requirements; and removes the Temporary Statewide Voter Registration List. In accordance with HAVA section 254(a)(12), all the State plans submitted for publication provide information on how the respective State succeeded in carrying out its previous State plan. Nevada confirms that its amendments to the State plan were developed and submitted to public comment in accordance with HAVA sections 254(a)(11), 255, and 256.

Upon the expiration of thirty days from April 2, 2010, the State is eligible to implement the changes addressed in the plan that is published herein, in accordance with HAVA section 254(a)(11)(C). EAC wishes to acknowledge the effort that went into revising this State plan and encourages further public comment, in writing, to the State election official listed below.

The Honorable Ross Miller, Secretary of State, 101 North Carson Street, Suite 3, Carson City, Nevada 89701-3714, Phone: (775) 684-5708, Fax: (775) 684-5725.

Thank you for your interest in improving the voting process in America.

This emergency information collection request contains: (1) OMB No: New; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Wind; (3) Type of Review: Emergency; (4) Purpose: To collect data on the status of activities, project progress, jobs created and retained, spend rates and performance metrics under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This will ensure adequate information is available to support sound project management and to meet the transparency and accountability associated with the Recovery Act by requesting approval for monthly reporting. (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 2 (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 12 (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 320. (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $1,300-$2,300. (9) Type of Respondents: Recipients of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.

An agency head or the Senior Official, or their designee, may request OMB to authorize emergency processing of submissions of collections of information.

(a) Any such request shall be accompanied by a written determination that:

(1) The collection of information:

(i) Is needed prior to the expiration of time periods established under this Part; and

(ii) Is essential to the mission of the agency; and

(2) The agency cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures under this Part because:

(i) Public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed;

(ii) An unanticipated event has occurred; or

(iii) The use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to prevent or disrupt the collection of information or is reasonably likely to cause a statutory or court ordered deadline to be missed.

(b) The agency shall state the time period within which OMB should approve or disapprove the collection of information.