Hydric Soils List Development—New NASIS Database Selection Criteria

The NTCHS has updated the criteria to select map units components for the hydric soils list. The former database selection criteria created to select soils that may meet the definition of hydric soils did not cover the full extent of what is included in the hydric soils definition. As required by 7 CFR section 12.31, NRCS is hereby providing notice of the changes to the selection criteria for hydric soils as set forth in the NTCHS publication “Hydric Soils of the United States,” Miscellaneous Publication 1491, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, June 1991 (see also 60 FR 10349). These changes do not cause any hydric soils to be added or deleted from the list.

Due to issues with database population, it was easier for a soil scientist to individually populate a field that identified those soil map unit components that meet the definition of hydric soils and which criterion or criteria the soil met rather than to auto-populate using the developed query. The list has evolved from a national list of hydric soil series that may be hydric to a comprehensive list of all map units that have at least one map unit component that is hydric. The list also provides information on what component is at least in part hydric and where it is located on the landscape. Since map unit components may consist of soil series that cross the hydric/non-hydric boundary, a map unit component listed as hydric may also include portions that are non-hydric. The updated criteria are as follows:

(1) All Histels except Folistels and Histosols except Folists; or

(2) Map unit components in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Historthels great group, Histoturbels great group, or Andic, Cumulic, Pachic, or Vitrandic subgroups that:

(a) Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series, will at least in part meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or

(b) Show evidence that the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil;

(3) Map unit components that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season that:

(a) Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series, will at least in part meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or

(b) Show evidence that the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil; or

(4) Map unit components that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season that:

(a) Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series, will at least in part meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or

(b) Show evidence that the soils meet the definition of a hydric soil.

“Hydric Soils of the United States” is a compilation of all map units with either a major or minor component that is at least in part hydric. This could include components that are soil series, components that are classified at categories higher than the series level in Soil Taxonomy, and miscellaneous land types. Because the list includes both major and minor (small) percentages for map units, in some cases most of the map unit may not be hydric. Also, some components may be phases of soil series that have a range of characteristics that both meet and do not meet hydric indicator requirements; therefore, only a portion of that component's concept (or range in characteristics) may in fact be hydric. The list is useful in identifying map units that may contain hydric soils. The national list is generated once per calendar year (usually in January or February) to satisfy legislated mandates.

The NRCS Hydric Soils Lists, available at ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric_Soils/Lists/hydric_soils.xlsx , are by soil map unit component. Detailed and up-to-date hydric soil lists (e.g., by soil survey area map unit component) are maintained by the NRCS State offices and local field offices and can be downloaded from the Soil Data Mart at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ .

The State lists are subsets of the national hydric soils list by State. For more detailed State lists by map unit, contact the appropriate NRCS State office.

NRCS has developed local lists of map units that contain hydric soils for each county, parish, or soil survey area in the United States. These local lists are available at the NRCS State offices, local NRCS field office, and on the Soil Data Mart at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ and are the preferred lists for use in making preliminary wetland determinations. Information from the Soil Data Mart is the most up-to-date information as well as the official soil survey information. Since the national list is only compiled once a year and Soil Data Mart may be updated on a more frequent basis, the Soil Data Mart should be deferred to when there is a discrepancy.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the implementation of the components of the University President's letter organized by the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, discuss further policy implications of this letter and its efforts, and to hear from entrepreneurs in New Orleans. Specific topics for discussion include student entrepreneurship, high-growth entrepreneurship, technology transfer, and the opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurs in New Orleans, and how the United States government can support them. The final agenda will be posted on the U.S. Department of Commerce Web site at www.commerce.gov. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Nish Acharya at the contact information indicated below. Copies of meeting minutes will be available within 90 days.

The Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC covering multiple entities. 1 The Department is now initiating an administrative review of the order covering those entities. All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 2 All submissions must be filed electronically at http://iaaccess.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 3 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act permits the Department to examine exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. Due to the large number of firms for which an administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture has been requested, and the Department's experience regarding the resulting administrative burden of reviewing each company for which a request has been made, the Department is considering exercising its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review in accordance with the Act.

In the event that the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture, the Department intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V questionnaires. Further, the Department intends to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued in the review based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. Since the units used to measure import quantities are not consistent across the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States headings identified in the scope of the order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, the Department will limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued based on the import values in CBP data which will serve as a proxy for import quantities. Parties subject to the review to which the Department does not send a Q&V questionnaire may file a response to the Q&V questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they desire to be included in the pool of companies from which the Department will select mandatory respondents. Parties will be given the opportunity to comment on the CBP data used by the Department to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued. We intend to release the CBP data under administrative protective order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The Department invites comments regarding CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record.

In this case, the Department has decided to send Q&V questionnaires to the 20 companies for which reviews were requested with the largest total values of subject merchandise imported into the United States during the POR according to CBP data. The Department will issue the Q&V questionnaires the day after this notice is signed. In addition, the Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/ia/ on the date this notice is signed. The responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be received by the Department by March 15, 2012. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Department does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V questionnaire.

In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” ( i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding ( i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Q&V questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report Q&V data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after August 2011, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under criteria arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate-rates test, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in this administrative review must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate certification or application, as described below. In order to demonstrate separate-rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for which a review was requested and that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 60 days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding  4 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name, 5 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. In responding to the Separate Rate Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Applications are due to the Department no later than 60 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate-rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

This notice constitutes public notification to all firms for which an administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture has been requested and that are seeking separate rate status in that review, that they must submit a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification (as appropriate) as described above, in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Firms to which the Department issues a Q&V questionnaire must submit a timely and complete response to the Q&V questionnaire, in addition to a timely and complete Separate Rate Application or Certification in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any timely Separate Rate Certification or Application made by parties to whom the Department issued a Q&V questionnaire but who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V questionnaire. Exporters subject to the review to which the Department does not send a Q&V questionnaire may receive consideration for separate-rate status if they file a timely Separate Rate Application or a timely Separate Rate Certification without filing a response to the Q&V questionnaire. All information submitted by respondents in this administrative review is subject to verification. As noted above, the Separate Rate Certification, the Separate Rate Application, and the Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC with respect to the following companies, for the January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, POR. We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than January 31, 2013.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC which is being initiated through this notice. Parties that wish to participate in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC should ensure that they meet the requirements in these procedures ( e.g. the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103 (d)).

Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. 6 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011. 7 The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments initiated on or after March 14, 2011 if the submitting party does not comply with the revised certification requirements.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires, as codified under 50 CFR part 665, any person, (1) fishing for, taking, retaining, or using a vessel to fish for Western Pacific coral reef ecosystem management unit species in the designated low-use Marine Protected Areas; (2) fishing for any of these species using gear not specifically allowed in the regulations; or (3) fishing for, taking, or retaining any Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa in the coral reef ecosystem regulatory area, to obtain and carry a permit. A receiving vessel must also have a transshipment permit for at-sea transshipment of coral reef ecosystem management unit species. The permit application form provides basic information about the permit applicant, vessel, fishing gear and method, target species, projected fishing effort, etc., for use by NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council in determining eligibility for permit issuance. The information is important for understanding the nature of the fishery and provides a link to participants. It also aids in the enforcement of Fishery Ecosystem Plan measures.

Information is submitted to NMFS, in the form of paper permit application forms.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0463.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations and individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 30.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $100 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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 hours 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.

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

Native Americans may conduct certain aboriginal subsistence whaling in accordance with the provisions of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In order to respond to obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and the IWC, captains participating in these operations must submit certain information to the relevant Native American whaling organization about strikes on and catch of whales. Anyone retrieving a dead whale is also required to report. Captains must place a distinctive permanent identification mark on any harpoon, lance, or explosive dart used, and must also provide information on the mark and self-identification information. The relevant Native American whaling organization receives the reports, compiles them, and submits the information to NOAA.

The information is used to monitor the hunt and to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. The information is also provided to the IWC, which uses it to monitor compliance with its requirements.

Reports may be made by phone or fax. Information on equipment marks must be made in writing. No form is used.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0311.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households; State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 51.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 minutes for reports on whales struck or on recovery of dead whales; 5 minutes for providing the relevant Native American whaling organization with information on the mark and self-identification information; 5 minutes for marking gear; and 5 hours for the relevant Native American whaling organization to consolidate and submit reports.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 45.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $100 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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 hours 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.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

The applicant requests a permit to conduct close vessel approaches; photo-identification and behavioral observations; photogrammetry; collection of exhaled air, feces and sloughed skin; and skin and blubber biopsy sampling import and export of parts; in order to continue a long-term study of North Atlantic humpback whales and to improve understanding of six other species in the North Atlantic (fin, blue, sei, minke, sperm and killer whales). Research would occur in the waters off Maine to Florida and Puerto Rico. The purposes of the research are to: (1) Monitor trends in abundance and vital rates, (2) study movement and habitat use patterns, including individual exchange with other populations, (3) study entanglement rates and human-related impacts, (4) perform genetic investigations into demography and reproductive success, (5) perform hormone-based studies into reproduction and neonatal mortality, and (6) perform stable isotope investigations into foraging ecology and nutritional stress in humpback whales. Research on the other species would focus primarily on population structure, human impacts, and health. Up to 2,100 humpback whales, 250 fin whales, 100 sei whales, and 50 whales from each of the remaining species could be harassed each year during photo-identification activities, and collection of sloughed skin, exhaled mucosa/gases, and/or feces. In addition, 340 humpback whales, 90 fin whales, 70 sei whales, and 30 whales from each of the remaining species could be harassed each year to acquire successful skin and blubber biopsy samples. North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ) and 14 other non-listed marine mammals could be incidentally harassed. See the application for specific take numbers by location and species/stock. The permit would be valid for a period of five years.

A draft environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), to examine whether significant environmental impacts could result from issuance of the proposed scientific research permit. The draft EA is available for review and comment simultaneous with the scientific research permit application.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce 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 and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

On October 26, 2011, NMFS received a complete application from VanBlaricom for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of marine mammals incidental to black abalone ( Haliotis cracherodii ) research surveys. The first of five IHAs for the specified activities was issued to VanBlaricom on September 23, 2003 (68 FR 57427; October 3, 2003); the most recent of these was issued on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 4841; January 28, 2008), expiring January 17, 2009. The proposed IHA would be valid for 1 year from the date of issuance.

The proposed IHA would authorize small numbers of Level B harassment takes of California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ), and northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ) incidental to research surveys performed for the purpose of assessing trends in black abalone populations over time in permanent study sites, and to conduct related research on the biology and ecology of black abalones relevant to current conservation concerns for the species, at San Nicolas Island (SNI), Ventura County, California. The specified activity consists of researchers, on foot, counting black abalones in plots along established transect lines at each of nine sites. Visits are generally made to each site on SNI up to four times per year in order to complete standardized annual black abalone surveys. In addition, VanBlaricom plans to conduct additional studies of growth and mortality rates, as well as genetic studies, necessitating as many as five visits per year.

Long-term study of abalone population trends began in 1979 due to interest in relocation of southern sea otters ( Enhydra lutris nereis ) to SNI. Following two seasons of reconnaissance surveys (1979-80), quantitative survey effort started in 1981, when nine permanent research sites in rocky intertidal habitats were chosen based on the presence of relatively dense abalone aggregations in order to monitor changes over time. From September 1979 through October 2011, VanBlaricom has made 137 separate field trips to SNI, with a total of 723 days of survey work.

Study of abalone population trends on SNI began in advance of the reintroduction of sea otters to SNI by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which operated the relocation program from 1987-91. Because abalones are often significant prey for sea otters, it was considered important to monitor abalone population trends in advance of and during the relocation program. In 1992, the appearance of a novel exotic disease at SNI (abalone withering syndrome) resulted in dramatically increased rates of abalone mortality and a continued emphasis on understanding population trends. In addition, the possibility for conflict over conservation priorities (i.e., otters and abalone) has grown as sea otter populations in southern California waters have expanded in recent years, increasing the probability of natural dispersal of sea otters from mainland California to SNI. The southern sea otter was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1977, although translocated populations, such as those animals moved to SNI under USFWS's now-discontinued program, are considered non-essential experimental populations. The black abalone was listed as an endangered species under the ESA on January 14, 2009. There is concern that the effects of abalone withering syndrome, following on several decades during which black abalones may have been over-harvested in commercial and recreational fisheries and subject to illegal removals, may continue to constrain black abalone populations to low densities and a high consequent risk of extinction. The long-term abalone population trend data from SNI will contribute significantly to determining whether population depletion persists, and if extinction risk remains high.

Marine mammal populations at SNI (especially California sea lions and elephant seals) have grown substantially, and with expanded distributions, at SNI since the beginning of abalone research in 1979. Thus, sites previously accessible to researchers with no risk of marine mammal interaction are now being utilized by marine mammals at levels such that approach without harassment is no longer possible. During the 2002 survey year, VanBlaricom determined that marine mammal numbers were such that survey work could not be conducted at five of the nine sites without the possibility of incidental harassment of hauled-out pinnipeds. Subsequently, significant numbers of California sea lions were seen for the first time at two additional study sites. Thus, of the nine study sites used for the abalone surveys, only two may currently be approached without the possibility of disturbing at least one species of pinniped.

Animals likely to be affected by abalone research activity are those that are hauled out on land near study sites. Past experience has shown that those animals disturbed by researchers may flush into the water, or move some distance away from the researchers without flushing into the water. Variable numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, and elephant seals typically haul out near six of the nine study sites, and rarely near a seventh. Breeding activity of the three relatively common pinniped species occurs at five of the nine sites. Periods of breeding and lactation for California sea lions and harbor seals occur from approximately February 15 through October 15, while elephant seal pups are born, nursed, and weaned from approximately January through March, with pups departing for foraging areas at sea at about 30 days post-weaning.

Abalone research at SNI is conducted primarily by VanBlaricom and associates from the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (a component of the Cooperative Research Units Program, U.S. Geological Survey) and the University of Washington. The U.S. Navy owns SNI and provides logistical support and cooperation for all research work done there, with additional logistical support provided by the University of California, Santa Cruz. Funding for black abalone research work at SNI is currently provided by the U.S. Geological Survey; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the California Sea Grant College Program; the University of Washington; and the U.S. Navy.

Research is conducted by counting black abalone in plots of 1 m 2 (3.3 ft 2 ) along permanent transect lines in rocky intertidal habitats at each of the nine study sites (see Figure 1 of VanBlaricom's application for a map of the study sites). Permanent transect lines are demarcated by stainless steel eye-bolts embedded in the rock substrate and secured with marine epoxy compound. Lines are placed temporarily between bolts during surveys and are removed once surveys are completed. Survey work is typically done by two field biologists working on foot (sites are accessed by hiking to the shoreline from a vehicle parked inland), and is conducted only at low tide. Variation in surf height and sea conditions can influence the safety of field biologists as well as the quality of data collected, so specific timing of site visits is difficult to predict, although work is typically conducted between October and February. All work is done during daylight hours. Additional methodological detail is available in VanBlaricom, 1993 and VanBlaricom et al., 1993.

In recent years, teams responsible for status review and recovery planning for black abalone determined that there is a need for additional research. Identified priorities include study of growth and mortality rates of young black abalones (accomplished through tagging studies) and development of new research on the genetic relatedness of adult abalones and recently observed juvenile abalones at three of the nine study sites at SNI. VanBlaricom is currently developing detailed study plans for subject genetic studies, and is collaborating with NMFS scientists on tagging studies to understand growth and mortality rates. These additional studies require field effort beyond that necessary for the established population surveys. Annual black abalone surveys typically require that each of the nine permanent sites be visited between one and three times per year. As a result of the additional studies planned for SNI, one site would be visited five times per year, and two additional sites would be visited four times. Each visit to a given study site generally takes no more than 4 hours, after which the site is vacated and can be re-occupied by any marine mammals that were disturbed by the presence of researchers. One annual visit to each site is typically for maintenance purposes, is conducted in a month when pinnipeds are absent or are present in reduced numbers, and takes approximately 30 minutes.

SNI, approximately nine miles (14.5 km) long and four miles (6.4 km) wide, lies in the Santa Barbara Channel, more than 60 mi (96.6 km) offshore. One of the smallest of the eight Channel Islands, SNI is the farthest island from the mainland, and is typically reached only after a 7-8 hour ride via chartered vessel. The island has a relatively flat plateau on the interior, with a very steep cliff face dropping to the ocean on the south side and a more gradual slope on the north. Elevations of the southern cliff faces average 500 ft (152 m) with a maximum island elevation of 907 ft (276 m). The beaches are mainly loose sand with large semi-transient sand dunes on the western tip of the island. A large low sand spit extends out from the eastern beach. The interior of the island is a highly eroded rolling mesa with many rills and gullies. Swells, surge, and limited visibility are expected as general conditions at SNI, which is property of the U.S. Navy and is off-limits to civilians without specific permission.

Many of the beaches in the Channel Islands provide resting, molting or breeding places for pinnipeds. On SNI, three pinniped species (northern elephant seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) can be expected to occur on land in the vicinity of abalone research sites either regularly or in large numbers during certain times of the year. In addition to the three species commonly encountered at SNI, Guadalupe fur seals ( Arctocephalus townsendi ), listed as threatened under the ESA, and sea otters are known to occur. A single adult male Guadalupe fur seal was seen at one abalone research site on two occasions during the summer months in the mid-1980s. However, none have been seen since that time. Due to the rarity of Guadalupe fur seal sightings during abalone research at SNI, and because of mitigation measures described later in this document (see Proposed Mitigation section of this document), no take of Guadalupe fur seals is anticipated or proposed for authorization. As such, the species is not discussed further. While sea otters are not typically sighted during the abalone survey work, a 2011 population survey indicated that sea otters at SNI number approximately 50 individuals. However, sea otters are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and are not discussed further here.

Further information on the biology and distribution of these species and others in the region can be found in NMFS' Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.California Sea Lion.

Species Description —California sea lions are members of the Otariid family (eared seals). The species, Zalophus californianus, includes three subspecies: Z. c. wollebaeki (in the Galapagos Islands), Z. c. japonicus (in Japan, but now thought to be extinct), and Z. c. californianus (found from southern Mexico to southwestern Canada; referred to here as the California sea lion) (Carretta et al., 2007). The California sea lion is sexually dimorphic. Males may reach 1,000 lb (454 kg) and 8 ft (2.4 m) in length; females grow to 300 lb (136 kg) and 6 ft (1.8 m) in length. Their color ranges from chocolate brown in males to a lighter, golden brown in females. At around 5 years of age, males develop a bony bump on top of the skull called a sagittal crest. The crest is visible in the dog-like profile of male sea lion heads, and hair around the crest gets lighter with age.

Status —The U.S. stock of California sea lions is estimated at 238,000, with a minimum population size of 141,842 individuals (Carretta et al., 2007). The minimum population size was determined from counts of all age and sex classes that were ashore at major rookeries and haul-out sites during the 2005 breeding season, including all individuals counted during the July 2005 census at the Channel Islands in southern California and at haul-out sites located between Point Conception and the Oregon-California border. An additional unknown number of California sea lions at any given time are at sea or hauled out at locations that are not censused; in order to estimate a total population size, pups are counted during the breeding season (because this is the only age class that is ashore in its entirety), and the number of births is estimated from the pup count. The size of the population is then estimated from the number of births and the proportion of pups in the population (Carretta et al., 2007). The stock has likely reached its carrying capacity and, even though current total human-caused mortality is unknown (due to a lack of observer coverage in the California set gillnet fishery that historically has been the largest source of human-caused mortalities), California sea lions are not considered a strategic stock under the MMPA because total human-caused mortality is still likely to be less than the potential biological removal (PBR).

Distribution —The geographic distribution of California sea lions includes a breeding range from Baja California, Mexico to southern California. During the summer, California sea lions breed on islands from the Gulf of California to the Channel Islands and seldom travel more than about 50 km from the islands (Bonnell et al., 1983). Primary rookeries are located on SNI and three other California Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente) (Le Boeuf and Bonnell, 1980; Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). Their distribution shifts to the northwest in fall and to the southeast during winter and spring, probably in response to changes in prey availability (Bonnell and Ford, 1987).

The non-breeding distribution extends from Baja California north to Alaska for males, and encompasses the waters of California and Baja California for females (Reeves et al., 2008; Maniscalco et al., 2004). In the non-breeding season, an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 adult and sub-adult males migrate northward along the coast to central and northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island from September to May (Jeffries et al., 2000) and return south the following spring (Mate, 1975; Bonnell et al., 1983). Along their migration, they are occasionally sighted hundreds of miles offshore (Jefferson et al., 1993). Females and juveniles tend to stay closer to the rookeries (Bonnell et al., 1983).

California sea lions haul out at many locations on SNI and are by far the most common pinniped on the island, and are present in large numbers at SNI at all times of the year. Over the course of a year, up to 100,000 California sea lions may make use of habitat at SNI in some way. Numbers of sea lions at SNI increased by about 21 percent per year between 1983 and 1995 (NMFS, 2003) and, as numbers increased, began occupying areas that were not formerly used. As for sea lions in other locations, most adult males may disperse in autumn and winter to distant locations, primarily to the north, in order to forage.

Behavior and Ecology —California sea lions feed on a wide variety of prey, including many species of fish and squid (Everitt et al., 1981; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Antonelis et al., 1990; Lowry et al., 1991). In some locations where salmon runs exist, California sea lions also feed on returning adult and out-migrating juvenile salmonids (London, 2006). Sexual maturity occurs at around 4-5 years of age for California sea lions (Heath, 2002). California sea lions are gregarious during the breeding season and social on land during other times.

Pupping occurs on the beaches of SNI in early summer, from mid-June to mid-July. Females nurse their pups for about 8 days and then begin an alternating pattern of foraging at sea and attending and nursing the pup on land, which lasts for about 8 months, and sometimes up to a year. Time to weaning is variable and may extend to the following breeding season. The weaning process may be gradual, with pups learning to hunt and consume live prey while still nursing. Pups more than a few months of age are similar to adults in mobility, agility, and alertness to disturbances when hauled out. California sea lions also haul out at SNI during the molting period in September, and smaller numbers of females and juveniles haul out during most of the year.

On land, California sea lions make incessant, raucous barking sounds (Schusterman et al., 1967). Males vary both the number and rhythm of their barks depending on the social context; the barks appear to control the movements and other behavior patterns of nearby conspecifics (Schusterman, 1977). Females produce barks, squeals, belches, and growls, while pups make bleating sounds. California sea lions produce two types of underwater sounds: clicks (or short-duration sound pulses) and barks (Schusterman et al., 1966, 1967; Schusterman and Baillet, 1969).

Species Description —Harbor seals, which are members of the Phocid family (true seals), inhabit coastal and estuarine waters and shoreline areas from Baja California, Mexico to western Alaska. For management purposes, differences in mean pupping date (i.e., birthing) (Temte, 1986), movement patterns (Jeffries, 1985; Brown, 1988), pollutant loads (Calambokidis et al., 1985) and fishery interactions have led to the recognition of three separate harbor seal stocks along the west coast of the continental U.S. (Boveng, 1988). The three distinct stocks are: (1) inland waters of Washington (including Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca out to Cape Flattery), (2) outer coast of Oregon and Washington, and (3) California (Carretta et al., 2007). The California stock is the only stock that is expected to occur within the project area.

The average weight for adult seals is about 180 lb (82 kg) and males are slightly larger than females. Male harbor seals weigh up to 245 lb (111 kg) and measure approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) in length. The basic color of harbor seals' coat is gray and mottled but highly variable, from dark with light color rings or spots to light with dark markings (NMFS, 2008c).

Status —Estimated population for the California stock of harbor seals is approximately 34,233 (Carretta et al., 2007), with a minimum population of 31,600. As for the California sea lion, a complete count of all harbor seals in California is impossible because some are always away from the haul-out sites. However, a complete pup count is also not possible because harbor seals are precocious, with pups entering the water almost immediately after birth. Population size is estimated by counting the number of seals ashore during the peak haul-out period (May to July) and by multiplying this count by the inverse of the estimated fraction of seals on land. The current population estimate is based on counts from 2004.

Counts of harbor seals in California showed a rapid increase from approximately 1972 to 1990, though net production rates appeared to decline from 1982 to 1994. The decrease in population growth rate has occurred at the same time as a decrease in human-caused mortality and may be an indication that the population is reaching its environmental carrying capacity. Harbor seals are not listed under the ESA or considered to be depleted under the MMPA. Human-caused mortality relative to PBR is unknown, but it is considered to be small relative to the stock size. Therefore, the California stock of harbor seals is not classified as a strategic stock.

Harbor seal abundance increased at SNI from the 1960s until 1981, but since then the average counts have not changed significantly. From 1982 to 1994, numbers of harbor seals have fluctuated between 139 and 700 harbor seals based on both peak ground counts and annual photographic survey photos. The most recent aerial count on SNI was of 457 harbor seals in 1994.

Distribution —Harbor seals are widely distributed in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. The California stock ranges from the U.S.-Mexico border northward to the Oregon-California border. In California, approximately 400-600 harbor seal haul-out sites are distributed along the mainland and on offshore islands, including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores and beaches (Hanan, 1996; Lowry et al., 2005). In general, harbor seals do not undertake long migrations, but do travel 300-500 km on occasion to find food or suitable breeding areas (Herder, 1986). Harbor seals are rarely found in pelagic waters (usually found within 20 km from shore) and typically stay within the tidal and intertidal zones. Harbor seals are present at SNI during all months of the year.

Behavior and Ecology —On land, harbor seals haul out on rocky outcrops, mudflats, sandbars and sandy beaches with unrestricted access to water and with minimal human presence. Haul-out sites are important as resting sites for harbor seals, who feed opportunistically in shallow waters on fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods (Bigg, 1981; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Orr et al., 2004). Harbor seals are typically solitary while foraging, although small groups have been observed. They normally choose isolated sites for pupping. While ashore, harbor seals are typically seen in small groups resting. Harbor seals are opportunistic feeders that adjust their patterns to take advantage of locally and seasonally abundant prey (Payne and Selzer 1989; Baird 2001; Bjørge 2002). Harbor seals mate at sea and females give birth during the spring and summer, although the pupping season varies by latitude. Suckling harbor seal pups spend as much as 40 percent of their time in the water (Bowen et al., 1999).

Harbor seals haul out at various sand, cobble, and gravel beaches around SNI, where pupping occurs from late February to early April, with nursing of pups extending into May. Pups are fully weaned and independent approximately 2 months after birth. Harbor seals may also haul out during molting period in late spring, and smaller numbers haul out at other times of year.

In air, harbor seal males produce a variety of vocalizations, including snorts, grunts, and growls, while pups make individually unique calls for mother recognition (Bigg, 1981; Thomson and Richardson, 1995). Harbor seals hear nearly as well in air as underwater (Kastak and Schusterman, 1998). Adult males also produce underwater sounds during the breeding season (duration range: 0.1 s to multiple seconds; Hanggi and Schusterman 1994). Hanggi and Schusterman (1994) found that there is individual variation in the dominant frequency range of sounds between different males, and Van Parijs et al. (2003) reported oceanic, regional, population, and site-specific variation that could be vocal dialects.

Species Description —Northern elephant seals, found in the eastern Pacific Ocean, are the largest phocid in the Northern Hemisphere. Feeding grounds extend from Baja California to Vancouver Island. Males migrate as far north as Alaska and British Columbia, while females (who typically find feeding grounds further south than males) migrate as far west as Hawaii. Fully grown males can reach lengths of over 13 ft (4 m) and can weigh nearly 4,400 lb (2,000 kg). Females are significantly smaller than males, but are also quite large, growing to about 10 ft (3 m) long and weighing up to 1,300 lbs (600 kg).

Status —Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico derive from tens to hundreds of individuals surviving in Mexico after being nearly hunted to extinction (Stewart et al., 1994). The California breeding population, which includes the animals that may be found at SNI, is now demographically isolated from the Baja California population, and is considered to be a separate stock, though displaying little genetic differentiation. Based on trends in pup counts, northern elephant seal colonies appeared to be increasing in California through 2005, but appear to be stable or slowly decreasing in Mexico (Stewart et al., 1994). As for other pinnipeds, a complete population count of elephant seals is not possible because all age classes are not ashore at the same time. Elephant seal population size is typically estimated on the basis of pup counts; the current population estimate is made on the basis of counts from 2005. The California breeding stock is estimated at approximately 124,000 animals, with a conservative minimum population estimate of 74,913 animals. From 1965-77, the maximum population growth rate was determined to be 8.3 percent (Cooper and Stewart, 1983), but more recently has been evaluated at a maximum of 11.7 percent (Carretta et al., 2007). The northern elephant seal is not listed under the ESA and the California stock is not considered depleted or strategic under the MMPA.

Distribution —The California stock of northern elephant seals ranges from the U.S.-Mexico border northward to pelagic habitats off Alaska, with two annual round-trip migrations per year between breeding locations and foraging locations. Foraging locations are in the pelagic North Pacific and Gulf of Alaska off Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska, although female foraging ranges are further south (Stewart and Huber, 1993; Le Boeuf et al., 1993). The migration schedule varies by age and sex category. Although the pelagic range is very large, there are only about seven principal breeding areas, four of which are found in the U.S. Primary breeding locations for the California stock are at San Miguel Island and SNI in the Channel Islands off southern California, Año Nuevo Island off central California, and Point Piedras Blancas on the central California mainland coast.

Increasing numbers of elephant seals haul out at various sites around SNI. Based on a pup count in 1995 that found 6,575 pups, scientists estimated that over 23,000 elephant seals may use SNI in a year (NMFS, 2003). From 1988 to 1995 the pup counts on SNI increased at an average rate of 15.4 percent per year, however, the growth rate of the population as a whole seems to have declined in recent years (NMFS, 2003).

Behavior and Ecology —Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California from December to March (Stewart et al., 1994; Stewart and Huber, 1993), before departing for foraging grounds. Gestation lasts around eleven months, with pups born in early winter from December to January and fully weaned by the end of February, departing from SNI for their first foraging trip during late winter and early spring. Adults return to land between March and August to molt, with males returning later than females. Adults return to their feeding areas again between their spring/summer molting and their winter breeding seasons. Northern elephant seals are polygamous; males establish dominance over large groups of females during the breeding season. While foraging, elephant seals feed at night in deep water, primarily on fish and cephalopods (CDFG, 2009). Elephant seals are rarely observed at sea, because they forage in pelagic habitat and are submerged 80-90 percent of the time.

Northern elephant seals are present at SNI during all months of the year. Adult males arrive at SNI in late fall to establish breeding territories. Adult females arrive on SNI in early winter. Sub-adult animals also return to SNI during the breeding season, although they do not actively participate in breeding. Breeding adults of both sexes depart breeding sites for foraging purposes in March. The timing of the second migration, related to molting, varies by age and sex. At SNI, adult males return for molting beginning in June and depart back to foraging areas in August. Adult females and juveniles return for the molt period beginning in mid-March and depart back to foraging areas in May. Finally, juveniles ranging in age from young-of-the-year to 4 years return for an extended haul-out period from September through November. This latter haul-out period is not associated either with breeding or molting.

Variable numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, and elephant seals, depending on the time of year and the specific site, typically haul out near six of the nine study sites used for abalone research, and rarely near a seventh, with breeding activity occurring at five of the nine sites. Pinnipeds likely to be affected by abalone research activity are those that are hauled out on land at or near study sites.

Incidental harassment may result if hauled out animals are disturbed by the presence of abalone researchers. Although marine mammals are never deliberately approached by abalone survey personnel, approach may be unavoidable if pinnipeds are hauled out in the immediate vicinity of the permanent abalone study plots. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of researchers (e.g., turning the head, assuming a more upright posture) to flushing from the haul-out site into the water. NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions to constitute behavioral harassment, or Level B harassment takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds that move greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) or change the speed or direction of their movement in response to the presence of researchers are behaviorally harassed, and thus subject to Level B taking. Animals that respond to the presence of researchers by becoming alert, but do not move or change the nature of locomotion as described, are not considered to have been subject to behavioral harassment.

Typically, even those reactions constituting Level B harassment would result at most in temporary, short-term disturbance. In any given study season (i.e., October to March), the researchers will make 4-6 visits to SNI, although each site is not visited during every visit to SNI. Visits to each site are thus separated by a matter of weeks, within the season, and are typically not visited at all during the summer months. Each site visit typically lasts no more than 4 hours. Therefore, disturbance of pinnipeds resulting from the presence of researchers lasts only for short periods of time and is separated by significant amounts of time in which no disturbance occurs. Because such disturbance is sporadic, rather than chronic, and of low intensity, individual marine mammals are unlikely to incur any detrimental impacts to vital rates or ability to forage and, thus, loss of fitness. Correspondingly, even local populations, much less the overall stocks of animals, are extremely unlikely to accrue any significantly detrimental impacts.

There are three ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. All three are most likely to be consequences of stampeding, a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus and an occurrence that is not expected at SNI. The three situations are (1) falling when entering the water at high-relief locations; (2) extended separation of mothers and pups; and (3) crushing of elephant seal pups by large males during a stampede.

Because hauled-out animals may move towards the water when disturbed, there is the risk of injury if animals stampede towards shorelines with precipitous relief (e.g., cliffs). However, while cliffs do exist at SNI, shoreline habitats near the abalone study sites are gently sloping sandy beaches or horizontal sandstone platforms with unimpeded and non-hazardous access to the water. If disturbed, hauled-out animals in these situations may move toward the water without risk of encountering significant hazards. In these circumstances, the risk of injury, serious injury, or death to hauled-out animals is very low. Thus, abalone research activity poses no risk that disturbed animals may fall and be injured or killed as a result of disturbance at high-relief locations.

The risk of marine mammal injury, serious injury, or mortality associated with abalone research increases somewhat if disturbances occur during breeding season. These situations present increased potential for mothers and dependent pups to become separated and, if separated pairs do not quickly reunite, the risk of mortality to pups (through starvation) may increase. Separately, adult male elephant seals may trample elephant seal pups if disturbed, which could potentially result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of the pups. The risk of either of these situations is greater in the event of a stampede.

However, because under the terms of this proposed IHA researchers would not visit SNI during the breeding, pupping, and lactation periods for California sea lions and harbor seals, the former scenario is extremely unlikely. The most sensitive months (with regard to breeding and pupping) for California sea lions and harbor seals are generally May through August; VanBlaricom does not propose to visit SNI outside of October-February. Relevant to the latter scenario, the most sensitive months for northern elephant seals are generally December through March. However, though elephant seal pups are occasionally present when researchers visit abalone survey sites, risk of pup mortalities is very low because elephant seals are far less reactive to researcher presence than the other two species. Less than 1 percent of adult elephant seals present during research visits between December 2005-January 2009 were recorded as having been harassed, while, no juvenile elephant seals were recorded as having been harassed (i.e., becoming alert and moving at least one meter, including flushing into the water). Further, pups are typically found on sand beaches, while study sites are located in the rocky intertidal zone, meaning that there is typically a buffer between researchers and pups. Finally, the caution used by researchers in approaching sites generally precludes the possibility of behavior, such as stampeding, that could result in extended separation of mothers and dependent pups or trampling of elephant seal pups.

In summary, NMFS believes it highly unlikely that the proposed activities would result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds (and none have been recorded in the more than 30 years that VanBlaricom has been conducting this research), because (1) study sites are located in areas with gently sloping terrain; (2) the timing of research visits would preclude separation of mothers and pups for sea lions and harbor seals; and (3) elephant seals are generally not susceptible to disturbance as a result of researchers' presence. In addition, researchers exercise appropriate caution approaching sites, especially when elephant seal pups are present.

NMFS does not anticipate any detrimental effects to marine mammal habitat as a result of the proposed activities, beyond rendering the areas immediately around each of the nine study sites less desirable as haul-out sites for a matter of hours per year.

VanBlaricom has complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under previous authorizations. During the course of these activities, VanBlaricom has not exceeded the take levels authorized. Beginning with the first IHA issued to VanBlaricom, reporting included the numbers of animals of a given species present and the total number of those animals disturbed. Beginning in December 2005, disturbance reactions were further categorized into the number of animals that flush into the water; the number that move more than 1 m (3.3 ft), but do not flush into the water; and the number that increase alertness but do not move greater than 1 m (see the application for these numbers in detail). As discussed previously in this document, the latter category—animals that become alert but do not move—are not considered by NMFS as having been incidentally taken (i.e., subject to Level B harassment), pursuant to the MMPA. For the purposes of estimating take, NMFS considers the total of the two former categories of disturbance reactions only. The results of VanBlaricom's monitoring under previous IHAs are summarized in Table 1, which shows the mean and maximum numbers of each species present during visits to VanBlaricom's survey sites. Information is only presented for those research visits that occurred during months of October through February, as no visits are currently proposed outside those months.

Beginning in January 2007, VanBlaricom began recording numbers of adults and pups/juveniles, rather than simply numbers of total animals. Table 2 displays the proportion of juveniles found at each permanent study site from October-February. No juvenile harbor seals have been observed by the researchers. During those months, no marine mammals of any species have been observed at sites 2 and 3, and only non-breeding animals (i.e., adult and subadult males; no dependent juveniles) have been observed at sites 4 and 9.

As shown in Table 3, the three species that may be encountered responded to researcher presence with different degrees of sensitivity. For California sea lions, 55 percent of animals encountered showed reactions indicating behavioral harassment, while 73 percent of harbor seals were behaviorally harassed. In contrast, less than 1 percent of elephant seals encountered responded in ways indicating behavioral harassment. Similarly, the three species differed in the degree of intensity of their reactions to researcher presence. Of animals that responded to disturbance in a manner that NMFS considers to be harassment (i.e., either flushed into the water or moved greater than 1 m), only 9 percent of disturbed elephant seals flushed into the water, while 38 percent of disturbed California sea lions responded in such a fashion. The most sensitive species is the harbor seal, with 94 percent of harassed animals flushing into the water. The remainder of animals harassed (i.e., 6 percent of harassed harbor seals) responded to a lesser degree by moving some distance (greater than 1 m) on land when the researchers approached. Importantly, juveniles display a significantly lesser incidence of overall harassment and of flushing.

Although the researchers have typically not remained on-site to monitor pinniped return after flushing, as rapid departure minimizes harassment of the animals, increasing numbers at certain sites as well as pinniped presence at sites where they were not present in past years suggest that the disturbance is not having any long-term detrimental effects on the population of any of these three species.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

Several mitigation measures are proposed to be implemented as part of the SNI abalone research activities in order to reduce the potential for harassment. The primary method of mitigating the risk of disturbance to pinnipeds, which will be in use at all times, is the selection of judicious routes of approach to abalone study sites, avoiding close contact with pinnipeds hauled out on shore, and the use of extreme caution upon approach. In no case will marine mammals be deliberately approached by abalone survey personnel, and in all cases every possible measure will be taken to select a pathway of approach to study sites that minimizes the number of marine mammals potentially harassed. Each visit to a given study site will last for approximately 4 hours, after which the site is vacated and can be re-occupied by any marine mammals that may have been disturbed by the presence of abalone researchers.

In addition, potential disturbances to females with dependent pups (in the cases of California sea lions and harbor seals) will be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable by avoiding visits to sites with pinnipeds present from March-September, during periods of breeding and lactation for those species. During this period, abalone research would either not occur or would be confined to those sites (2, 3, 4, and 9) where pinniped breeding and post-partum nursing does not occur. Limiting visits to the breeding and lactation sites to periods when these activities do not occur (October-February) will reduce the possibility of incidental harassment and disruption of reproductive behavior and the potential for injury, serious injury, or mortality of dependent California sea lion pups and harbor seal pups to near zero.

Northern elephant seal pups are present at four sites (5-8) during winter months. Risks of injury or mortality of elephant seal pups by mother/pup separation or trampling are limited to the period from January through March when pups are born, nursed, and weaned, ending about 30 days post-weaning when pups depart land for foraging areas at sea. However, elephant seals have a much higher tolerance of nearby human activity than sea lions or harbor seals. Also, elephant seal pupping typically occurs on the sandy beaches at SNI, approximately 50 m (164 ft) or more away from the abalone study sites. Possible take of northern elephant seal pups will be minimized, as for other species, by using a very careful approach to the study sites and avoiding the proximity of hauled-out seals and any seal pups during collection of abalone population data. As described previously, elephant seals show very low sensitivity to the presence of researchers, and no juvenile elephant seal was harassed during the December 2005-January 2009 period.

One individual Guadalupe fur seal was seen on two separate occasions during the summer months in the mid-1980s. Since the original sightings, no individuals of this species have been seen during abalone research. However, to ensure that Guadalupe fur seals are not affected by these activities, work will be immediately suspended if an individual is seen. Guadalupe fur seals are distinctive in appearance and behavior, and can be readily identified at a distance without any possibility of disturbance.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, and practicality of implementation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that would result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

Currently, all biological research activities at SNI are subject to approval and regulation by the Environmental Planning and Management Department (EPMD), U.S. Navy (Navy). The Navy owns SNI and closely regulates all civilian access to, and activity on, the island, including biological research. Therefore, monitoring activities will be closely coordinated with Navy marine mammal biologists located on SNI.

In addition, status and trends of pinniped aggregations at SNI are monitored by the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC). Also, long-term studies of pinniped population dynamics, migratory and foraging behavior, and foraging ecology at SNI are conducted by staff at Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute (HSWRI).

Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to VanBlaricom's abalone research surveys will include observations made by the applicant and his associates. Information recorded will include species counts (with numbers of pups/juveniles), numbers of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the abalone surveys. Observations of unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds on SNI will be reported to EPMD, NMFS, and HSWRI so that any potential follow-up observations can be conducted by the appropriate personnel. In addition, observations of tag-bearing pinniped carcasses as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammals will be reported to EPMD and NMFS.

If at any time serious injury or mortality of the species for which take is authorized should occur, or if harassment of any other marine mammal occurs, and such action may be a result of the proposed abalone research, VanBlaricom will suspend research activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.

A draft final report must be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after the conclusion of the year-long field season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season if a new IHA will be requested. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the IHA. A final report must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft final report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft final report will be considered to be the final report.

With respect to the activities described here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is considered remote. The distribution of pinnipeds hauled out on beaches is not uniform between sites or at different times of the year. The number of marine mammals disturbed may vary by month and location, and, compared to animals hauled out on the beach farther away from survey activity, only those animals hauled out closest to the actual survey transect plots contained within each research site are likely to be disturbed by the presence of researchers and alter their behavior or attempt to move out of the way. VanBlaricom proposes to visit site 8 five times, sites 5 and 7 four times each, and sites 1, 4, 6, and 9 two times each. No marine mammals have been observed at sites 2 and 3, and unlimited visits would be allowed to those sites.

As discussed earlier, NMFS considers an animal to have been harassed if it moved greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in response to the researcher's presence or if the animal was already moving and changed direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushed into the water. Animals that became alert without such movements were not considered harassed. Estimated potential incidental take, shown in Table 4, is based on the number of visits proposed for each site, the maximum number of animals observed at each site (October-February) as shown in Table 1, and the observed susceptibility to harassment for each species as shown in Table 3. NMFS conservatively estimates that the maximum total possible numbers of individuals that may be incidentally harassed as a result of the proposed activity would be 3,340 California sea lions, 212 harbor seals, and nine northern elephant seals.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a variety of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of anticipated mortalities; (2) the number and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and (4) the context in which the take occurs.

Based on VanBlaricom's application and monitoring reports for previous field seasons, as well as the analysis contained herein, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of the described abalone research at SNI will result, at most, in a temporary modification in behavior by small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, and northern elephant seals, in the form of movement away from the researchers and/or flushing from the beach. The proposed numbers of authorized take for each of the three species are considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (each less than 2 percent). In addition, no take by injury, serious injury or mortality is anticipated, and take by harassment will be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation and monitoring measures mentioned previously in this document. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the anticipated takes will have a negligible impact on the affected species.

No subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action.

For the reasons described previously in this document, NMFS has determined that the described abalone research and the accompanying IHA will have no effect on marine mammal species or critical habitat protected under the ESA (specifically, the Guadalupe fur seal). Therefore, marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction would not be affected by this action. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from issuance of an IHA to VanBlaricom. NMFS signed a Finding of No Significant Impact on November 21, 2005. NMFS has reviewed the proposed application and preliminarily determined that there are no substantial changes to the proposed action or new environmental impacts or concerns. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a new or supplemental EA or Environmental Impact Statement is likely unnecessary. Before making a final determination in this regard and decision on whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact for this proposed action, NMFS will review public comments and information submitted by the public and others in response to this notice. The 2005 EA referenced above is available for review at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to VanBlaricom's research activities, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Title: CFPB State Official Notification Rule.

OMB Control Number: 3170-0019. The collection was formerly approved under Treasury Control Number 1505-0237 and has since been transferred to the Bureau.

Abstract: Section 1042 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), Public Law 111-203, requires the Bureau to prescribe rules establishing procedures that govern the process, described in Section 1042(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, by which State Officials notify the Bureau of actions undertaken pursuant to the authority granted in section 1042(a) to enforce Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or regulations prescribed thereunder. In accordance with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau has published an Interim Final Rule establishing that notice should be provided at least ten calendar days before the filing of an action, with certain exceptions, and setting forth a limited set of information which is to be provided with the notice (which substantially tracks the statutory language). The data will be received each time a State Official files an action to enforce Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or a regulation promulgated thereunder, as described in the Interim Final Rule and the preamble to the Interim Final Rule. It will be collected by the Bureau (through electronic mail submissions), and specifically by the Office of Enforcement and the Executive Secretary, who will share it as necessary and appropriate within the Bureau and elsewhere in government, pursuant to the process set out in the Interim Final Rule. It will also be collected by the prudential regulators (through postal mail or electronic mail submissions) where relevant. Unless used as part of a legal proceeding in which the Bureau or other government agency is engaged, it is not expected that the information will be shared with the public, unless the information is already made public by the State Official providing the notice.

As discussed, the information provided in the notice will be used by the Bureau (and prudential regulators, where relevant) to stay informed about the enforcement activities of State Officials enforcing Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and to decide when and how, if at all, to react to such activities.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Affected Public: State or Local Governments.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The information sent under the notice provisions of the Rule is primarily information which the State Officials providing the notice would have already collected and have available at the time notice is given. It is unlikely that compiling and sending the requested information would require more than thirty minutes of additional work. As this is a new area of law, at this time, it would be impossible to estimate the number of actions which State Officials will file pursuant to Title X the Dodd-Frank Act and, accordingly, the number of notices which the Bureau will receive.

The Task Force shall meet at the call of the Task Force's Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Co-Chairs. The estimated number of Task Force meetings is five per year.

In addition, the Designated Federal Officer is required to be in attendance at all Task Force and subcommittee meetings for the entire duration of each meeting; however, in the absence of the Designated Federal Officer, an Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend the entire duration of the meeting.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Force's membership about the Task Force's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces.

All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp .

The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.

Invitation To Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments, by appointment, in person, at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the TIF program is to provide financial support to develop and implement sustainable PBCSs for teachers, principals, and other personnel in high-need schools in order to increase educator effectiveness and student achievement in those schools.

The Department's FY 2012 appropriation provides TIF funds for competitive grants to eligible entities to develop and implement PBCSs for teachers, principals, and other personnel in high-need schools. Eligible entities for these funds are:

(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools that are LEAs.

(b) States.

(c) Partnerships of—

(1) An LEA, a State, or both; and

(2) At least one non-profit organization.

Eligible entities must use TIF funds to develop and implement, in high-need schools, a PBCS that—

(a) Considers gains in student academic achievement, as well as classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year, among other factors; and

(b) Provides educators with incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.

A grantee (1) must demonstrate that its PBCS is developed with the input of teachers and school leaders in the schools and LEAs that the grant will serve, and (2) may use TIF funds to develop or improve systems and tools that would enhance the quality and success of the PBCS, such as high-quality teacher evaluations and tools that measure growth in student achievement. In addition, an applicant must include a plan to sustain financially the activities conducted and the systems developed under the grant once the grant period has expired.

The TIF program is based on the premise, supported by abundant research, that teachers are the single most critical in-school factor in improving student achievement. 1 Principals are often cited as the second most influential in-school factor. 2 The TIF program is intended to support the development and identification of effective educators in order to ensure that the most effective teachers and principals are serving where they are needed most, and, ultimately, to improve teaching and learning in the classroom.

With the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice, we seek to build on the efforts we began with the FY 2010 TIF competition to align this program, to the extent feasible, with the Department's other programs and initiatives that also recognize that effective teaching and leading are critical factors in improving student achievement. These programs and initiatives—including the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the Race to the Top Fund, the School Improvement Grants program, and the Department's recent Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) Flexibility initiative—all focus, to some extent, on the development of systems that measure and support educator effectiveness.

We believe that, to be successful and sustainable, any PBCS (as defined in this notice) must be an integral part of a human capital management system (HCMS) (as defined in this notice) that is well-designed and implemented LEA-wide.

In this notice, we define an HCMS as the system an LEA uses to make decisions affecting its workforce, such as decisions regarding educator (as defined in this notice) recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion. While all LEAs have such systems, not all LEAs refer to such systems as “human capital management systems” or view their human capital decisions as part of a comprehensive and cohesive system. Further, some HCMSs are not designed or implemented to contribute to improving instruction and are, therefore, limited in their ability to positively affect student achievement.

We believe that, in order to have a positive effect on student achievement, an LEA's HCMS must be aligned with the LEA's vision of instructional improvement. As defined in this notice, a vision of instructional improvement is a summary of the key competencies and behaviors of effective teaching that an LEA views as necessary to produce high levels of student achievement, as well as how educators acquire or improve these competencies and behaviors. In a well-designed HCMS, an LEA's vision of instructional improvement is reflected in the systems used to evaluate educators and in the criteria used to hire and promote them. The vision is also reflected in communications from LEA leadership to school-based personnel, and in the professional development provided to educators.

For example, an LEA with a vision of instructional improvement that includes using student achievement data to inform instruction might integrate into its HCMS evaluations that assess whether teachers (as defined in this notice) conduct formative assessments on a regular basis and differentiate instruction based on the assessment results. Principal (as defined in this notice) evaluations, in turn, might assess the extent to which principals demonstrate instructional leadership in modeling how teachers can use student achievement data to drive instruction. Similarly, professional development aligned with this vision might include helping teachers develop the analytical skills needed to use student achievement data to make instructional decisions.

We believe that integrating a PBCS within an LEA's larger HCMS will help ensure that the PBCS is a successful mechanism for improving classroom instruction and educator effectiveness. Under these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, therefore, an LEA would, as part of its HCMS, use valid and reliable educator evaluations, based significantly on student growth (as defined in this notice), to inform human capital decisions, such as decisions concerning recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion. In this way, educator evaluation systems would be an integral component of an LEA's HCMS. Through the use of the data generated by these educator evaluation systems, the LEA would be able to identify strengths and areas for improvement for individual educators and use this information to award performance-based compensation to effective educators.

We believe the coherent approach proposed in this notice, in which educator evaluation systems and a PBCS are integral components of a comprehensive HCMS, will sustain the TIF-supported reforms well beyond the short duration of a TIF grant period. This approach will avoid the sustainability challenges associated with some existing performance-based compensation programs that provide awards using a system that is disconnected from or ancillary to the official evaluation systems an LEA uses to assign educator evaluation ratings. In such instances, using an evaluation for the PBCS that is different from the evaluation used for the educator evaluation systems creates a burdensome duplication of effort that does not advance the coherence and sustainability of the TIF-funded reforms as fully as a comprehensive HCMS would.

Furthermore, we believe that integrating a PBCS within an LEA's HCMS will improve the LEA's ability to attract, retain, and promote effective educators in high-need schools (as defined in this notice) and hard-to-staff subjects in these schools. To achieve this goal, we propose that a TIF grantee develop and implement performance-based compensation within its comprehensive, district-wide HCMS to help ensure high-need schools are staffed with effective teachers. To meet the proposed definition of a PBCS in this notice, the PBCS must (in addition to meeting other definitional requirements described elsewhere in this notice) provide additional compensation based on one of two basic PBCS design options: (1) Additional compensation for teachers and principals who have been deemed effective or, as an alternate approach, (2) additional compensation for teachers who have been deemed effective and agree to take on career ladder positions (as defined in this notice) while also compensating effective principals. The first option would compensate educators based solely on a determination of their effectiveness, while the second option would reward effective teachers who agree to serve as school-based instructional leaders in, for example, master teacher or coach positions. Although both options require additional components to conform with the PBCS definition included in this notice, we propose to give each applicant a choice on the basic design of the PBCS it chooses to develop and implement. Whichever approach an applicant proposes to implement, the PBCS must use the information generated by the educator evaluation systems to recognize and reward the important contribution of effective educators in high-need schools. We believe this recognition and reward, especially when combined with other reforms, such as those that improve working conditions, will assist LEAs in attracting and retaining effective educators in high-need schools.

This notice contains five proposed priorities.

We may choose, in the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, to designate any of these priorities as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priorities, or to include the substance of these priorities in the requirements or the selection criteria. We may also decide to include the substance of the requirements or the selection criteria in the priorities.

Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a competitive preference priority, we would give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

With an invitational priority, we would signal our interest in receiving applications that meet the priority; however, consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an application that meets an invitational priority preference over other applications.

The purpose of this priority is to support State and LEA efforts to strengthen LEAs' HCMSs, of which the PBCS is a part, by using rigorous evaluation systems to inform various human capital decisions. For several reasons, we believe that a PBCS is more likely to be successful and improve teaching and learning when it is integrated within an LEA's HCMS. First, a comprehensive HCMS provides a mechanism through which an LEA can broadly communicate the competencies of effective teaching. By evaluating a teacher based on these competencies, the LEA is able to signal their importance. Second, a comprehensive HCMS provides a mechanism through which an LEA can marshal the resources and expertise needed to improve educator effectiveness, the primary objective of a PBCS. For example, evaluation results that are used to identify educators for a performance-based award could also reveal the need for a particular type of professional development to support struggling educators. As part of its HCMS, the LEA could ensure that its professional development office is informed about the identified need so that the appropriate professional development is delivered. Likewise, a comprehensive HCMS could provide an LEA with information about educator effectiveness that the LEA uses in recruiting new talent to its high-need schools. Thus, so long as the LEA staff who are responsible for implementing the HCMS have the authority and resources required to respond to needs identified by the HCMS, the HCMS will do more than simply provide the important evaluation information that is necessary to determine which educators are eligible for performance-based compensation.

Further, we believe that an LEA is more likely to sustain a PBCS that is embedded within a comprehensive HCMS. Development and implementation of high-quality evaluation systems within an LEA-wide HCMS, as proposed in this notice, would require the involvement of a variety of LEA stakeholders and the commitment of LEA leadership. We believe that these educator evaluation systems, and their expanded use for human capital decisions, will produce far-reaching change throughout the LEA. The high-level and system-wide investment required to develop an evaluation-driven HCMS, and the fundamental improvements it will generate, will help ensure that the HCMS, including its PBCS component, is likely to last far beyond the short duration of a TIF grant.

To advance its vision of instructional improvement, an LEA must adopt carefully designed human capital strategies. As one example of a human capital strategy, an LEA might develop a professional development program that addresses a particular high-priority competency, and the LEA might implement that program in schools in which the teacher evaluations reveal the highest need. As another example, an LEA might develop an aggressive program of financial incentives to encourage effective teachers of hard-to-staff subjects to accept teaching positions in high-need schools. As a third example, an LEA might elect to provide teachers in high-need schools with extra resources, such as specially trained para-educators who help provide routine intervention services for struggling students.

For these reasons, through proposed Priority 1, we would require each applicant for a TIF grant to include in its application a description of how the HCMS of each participating LEA—as it exists currently and with any modifications that may be needed—would (1) align with the LEA's vision of instructional improvement; (2) use evaluation information to inform human capital decisions, such as recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion; and (3) include human capital strategies, such as extra compensation, opportunities for instructional leadership, extra resources, improved working conditions, and quality professional development, to ensure that high-need schools are able to attract and retain effective educators. To the extent that an applicant needs to modify its current HCMS to incorporate these features, the applicant must describe its planned modifications and provide a timeline for implementing them.

To meet this priority, the applicant must include, in its application, a description of its LEA-wide HCMS, as it exists currently and with any modifications proposed for implementation during the project period of the grant. The application must describe—

(1) How the HCMS is or will be aligned with the LEA's vision of instructional improvement;

(2) How the LEA uses or will use the information generated by the evaluation systems it describes in its application to inform key human capital decisions, such as decisions on recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion;

(3) The human capital strategies the LEA uses or will use to ensure that high-need schools are able to attract and retain effective educators; and

(4) To the extent modifications are needed to an existing HCMS to ensure that it includes the features described in response to paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this priority, a timeline for making the modifications, provided that the use of evaluation information to inform the design and delivery of professional development and the award of performance-based compensation under the applicant's proposed PBCS in high-need schools begins no later than the third year of the grant's project period.

In proposed Priority 2, we seek to build on our prior efforts to support educator evaluation systems as critical components of an LEA's implementation of effective PBCSs. As we did in the FY 2010 TIF competition, we propose to require applicants to establish evaluation systems for both teachers and principals that are based on student growth, observations, and other factors selected by the applicant. Consistent with the authorizing statute, these evaluations would be used to assess the performance of educators throughout the LEA and, in high-need schools, would serve as the basis for their eligibility for performance-based compensation under a TIF-funded PBCS.

For the reasons outlined in the following paragraphs, we believe that PBCSs in high-need schools will be more successful if educator evaluation systems are implemented on an LEA-wide basis and generate an overall effectiveness rating for each educator employed by the LEA. The LEA can then use an educator's overall evaluation rating to make performance-based compensation determinations in high-need schools under its TIF-funded PBCS.

Implementing Educator Evaluation Systems LEA-wide. We believe that reforms of educator evaluation systems are more likely to receive the broad LEA commitment that is crucial to their success and sustainability if the same systems are used to evaluate every educator within an LEA. In proposing an LEA-wide approach, we seek to prevent situations in which a TIF project conducts evaluations of staff employed in a subset of an LEA's schools that are separate from the official educator evaluation systems the LEA uses to provide overall evaluation ratings. With such ancillary evaluations, a teacher in a high-need school might be evaluated once to determine eligibility for a TIF-funded performance-based award and then be evaluated again under separate criteria that the LEA uses for purposes of the teacher's overall performance rating. Consequently, when TIF funding ends, the ancillary evaluations that had been supported by a TIF-funded project are also likely to end.

Similarly, when a TIF project operates in isolation from an LEA's official evaluation system, the needs of teachers, principals, or schools identified through the TIF-funded evaluation process are less likely to be factored into the LEA-wide support systems operated by the LEA's central office, such as school improvement plans and related professional development programs. In such a situation, the TIF-funded PBCS would not benefit from the economies of scale and resources that LEA-wide evaluation systems can offer.

Additionally, the educator evaluation systems described in proposed Priority 2 are, in themselves, extremely valuable tools for professional development and improvement. 3 When the evaluation rubrics of these systems are aligned with the key competencies the LEA has identified in its vision of instructional improvement, the feedback and professional learning inherent in the evaluation process will give all educators a clearer understanding of what the LEA has identified as the key competencies needed to be effective educators.

For these reasons, we believe that LEA-wide educator evaluation systems will strengthen the sustainability of TIF-funded efforts to improve the practice of educators across the LEA, including those in high-need schools, and increase the pool of effective educators available to serve in high-need schools.

Overall Evaluation Rating. In this priority, we propose to require that an LEA's evaluation systems aggregate the ratings on measures included in its evaluation to generate, at least annually for each educator, an overall evaluation rating (or overall rating), such as highly effective, effective, or not effective. For both teachers and principals, this overall rating would be based, in significant part, on student growth. For the vast majority of teachers, it would be based, in significant part, on student growth at the classroom level. By classroom-level student growth, we mean the academic growth of the students in the teacher's own classroom. LEAs would also have discretion to use student growth at the grade or school-wide level for teachers who do not have regular instructional responsibilities. For such teachers, which may include, for example, reading specialists or teachers in career ladder positions with no regular instructional responsibilities, student growth data at the classroom level may not be appropriate or available. Such teachers may be evaluated based on student growth in either the classrooms of the teachers they assist, or at the school level. We anticipate that LEAs will develop specialized evaluation rubrics that reflect the unique responsibilities required of teachers in these positions, as well as their unique contribution to improving growth in student achievement.

We believe that an overall rating is necessary to facilitate a meaningful PBCS in the high-need schools identified for the TIF project. This proposed priority would be implemented in conjunction with Proposed Requirement 1—Performance-Based Compensation for Teachers, Principals, and Other Personnel, which is described later in this notice. Under Proposed Requirement 1, only educators who earn an overall rating of effective or higher would be eligible for a performance-based award under the LEA's PBCS. By proposing that the PBCS use this overall rating, we intend to ensure that educators eligible for performance-based compensation in high-need schools perform at minimum thresholds on all aspects of the evaluation rubric, including the student growth outcome measure. Thus, in evaluating and rewarding teachers receiving performance-based compensation under a TIF program, LEAs could not ignore extremely low student growth, and focus exclusively, for example, on a teacher's classroom practice measure. We believe that educator evaluations should consider both practice and student outcome data such that, as required by the TIF authorizing statute, student growth is a significant part of the overall rating.

In addition, an overall rating provides the LEA with a single index—one for teachers and one for principals—with which to identify effective educators. The LEA can use this information to identify effective educators and recruit them to high-need schools. With data on the distribution of overall ratings, LEA leaders would also be able to examine the distribution of effective educators across its schools and ensure that effective educators are equitably distributed in high-poverty and high-minority schools.

Although we are proposing an overall rating that aggregates the various measures included in an LEA's educator evaluations, we also recognize that the individual, disaggregated measures offer invaluable information for an educator's professional growth. Educators value insightful feedback based on observations of their practice and gain perspective on their efforts from a review of their students' academic growth data. We expect TIF grantees to use the data generated from their evaluation systems to identify the professional development needs of their educators, using this information to guide focused and differentiated professional development as a strategy to improve instruction, thereby contributing to improved educator effectiveness and student achievement.

Finally, we note that the requirement to provide an overall evaluation rating in this proposed priority is consistent with the requirements of the Race to the Top Fund program. Similar to Race to the Top applicants, TIF applicants must propose evaluation systems that differentiate effectiveness among educators. We anticipate that, in their proposed evaluation rubric, applicants would reserve overall ratings of effective or higher for educators whose students achieve an acceptable rate of student growth (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year). Similarly, we would expect that an overall rating of highly effective would be reserved for an educator whose students achieve high rates of growth (e.g., at least one and one-half grade level in an academic year).

To meet this proposed priority, an applicant must include, as part of its application, a plan describing how it will develop and implement its proposed LEA-wide educator evaluation systems. The plan must describe—

(1) The frequency of evaluations, which must be at least annually;

(2) The evaluation rubric for educators that includes at least three performance levels and the following—

(i) Two or more observations during each evaluation period;

(ii) Student growth, which for the evaluation of teachers with regular instructional responsibilities must include growth at the classroom level; and

(iii) Additional factors determined by the LEA;

(3) How the evaluation systems will generate an overall evaluation rating that is based, in significant part, on student growth; and

(4) The applicant's timeline for implementing its proposed LEA-wide educator evaluation systems. Under the timeline, the applicant must implement these systems as the LEA's official evaluation systems for assigning overall evaluation ratings for at least a subset of educators or schools no later than the beginning of the second year of the grant's project period. The applicant may phase in the evaluation systems by applying them, over time, to additional schools or educators so long as the new evaluation systems are the official evaluation systems the LEA uses to assign overall evaluation ratings for all educators within the LEA no later than the beginning of the third year of the grant's project period.

We believe that a PBCS can be an important part of a coherent strategy that advances the national goal of increasing student achievement in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in high-need schools. This priority, therefore, supports the creation of STEM-focused instructional leadership positions with the goal of helping LEAs build a “corps” of STEM master teachers in high-need schools.

The development and support of a cadre of master STEM teachers has been recommended by many in the field of STEM education, perhaps most prominently by the National Research Council (NRC) in its 2000 report, Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium. As NRC noted in its report, STEM master teachers can assume a variety of different roles to support improvements in instruction and promote higher levels of student achievement. They can serve as specialists in high-need schools; design and provide professional development to other teachers; coach struggling teachers or serve as mentors to novice teachers; develop curriculum and classroom materials to support instruction; and work with institution of higher education faculty to deliver pre-service or in-service professional learning.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose, at a minimum, to use its PBCS to compensate teachers who agree to take on career ladder positions to improve STEM instruction and achievement throughout the school. Although applicants will determine the process and factors they will use to select strong candidates for these career ladder positions, we propose that, to meet this priority, an applicant must restrict eligibility for STEM-focused career ladder positions to STEM teachers who receive an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system described in the application, and select candidates based on criteria that are predictive of ability to lead other teachers. Further, an applicant may—in addition to rewarding effective STEM teachers who agree to take on STEM-focused career ladder positions—include other features in its plan, such as offering financial incentives to recruit teachers who receive an overall rating of effective or higher and agree to teach a STEM subject in high-need schools. An applicant must also describe how the HCMS will support a broad commitment to STEM education, including how it plans to provide challenging STEM coursework to students, support teachers in the delivery of that STEM coursework, and develop partnerships with local STEM experts.

To meet this priority, an applicant must include a plan in its application that describes the applicant's strategies for improving instruction in STEM subjects through various components of the LEA's HCMS, including its professional development, evaluation systems, and PBCS. At a minimum, the plan must describe—

(1) How the LEA will develop a corps of STEM master teachers, who are skilled at modeling for peer teachers pedagogical methods for teaching STEM skills and content at the appropriate grade level, by providing additional compensation to teachers who—

(i) Receive an overall evaluation rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system described in the application;

(ii) Are selected based on criteria that are predictive of the ability to lead other teachers;

(iii) Demonstrate effectiveness in one or more STEM subjects; and

(iv) Accept STEM-focused career ladder positions;

(2) How the LEA will identify, evaluate, and develop the unique competencies that, based on evaluation information or other evidence, characterize effective STEM teachers;

(3) How the LEA will identify hard-to-staff STEM subjects, and use the HCMS to attract effective teachers to positions providing instruction in those subjects;

(4) How the LEA will leverage community support, resources, and expertise to inform the implementation of its plan; and

(5) How the LEA will ensure that financial and non-financial incentives, including performance-based compensation, offered to reward or promote effective STEM teachers are adequate to attract and retain persons with strong STEM skills.

(6) How the LEA will ensure that students have access to and participate in rigorous and engaging STEM coursework.

Under proposed Priority 4, we seek to broaden the impact of the TIF program by giving priority to LEAs not previously served by a TIF project. This priority will help provide such LEAs with a greater opportunity to receive TIF funding to support their efforts to implement new strategies—sustainable performance-based compensation, in particular—for attracting and retaining effective teachers in their high-need schools.

Elsewhere in this notice, we have proposed selection criteria to award points to applicants that have prior experience using evaluation information to inform human capital decisions. Together with this proposed priority, we hope to support and further the efforts of LEAs that, without the aid of prior TIF financial support, have already taken steps to develop and implement the evaluation systems necessary to support sustainable and successful PBCSs.

To meet this priority, an applicant must provide an assurance, which the Department accepts, that each LEA to be served by the proposed project has not previously participated in a TIF-supported project.

As previously discussed, some existing performance-based compensation programs face sustainability challenges due to their reliance on performance evaluations that are disconnected from the official evaluation systems an LEA uses to assign educator evaluation ratings. Another challenge to a PBCS's sustainability occurs where educator incentives are an ancillary component (e.g., a one-time bonus) of an educator's compensation. In such cases, performance-based compensation can more easily be eliminated, particularly in difficult budget times. One way to ensure that a PBCS continues after the end of the grant period, and is sustained through periods of an LEA's budget fluctuations, is to award the additional compensation described under Proposed Requirement 1 (Performance-Based Compensation for Teachers, Principals, and Other Personnel) not as incentive awards or bonuses, but as part of an educator's salary. To do so, an applicant would develop a plan to modify its existing single salary schedule to create a new salary structure based on educator effectiveness and other factors. While advancement on the revised salary structure may be based on a number of factors, educator effectiveness would be a required component. We believe that grantees that are able to move to a new salary structure of this kind based on educator effectiveness will be most likely to continue to financially reward teachers and principals for their performance after the grant period ends.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a comprehensive revision to each participating LEA's salary structure as part of its plan for implementing its proposed PBCS. At a minimum, the applicant must describe—

(a) How each LEA will use overall evaluation ratings based, in significant part, on student growth to determine educator salaries;

(b) The salary increase that educators with an overall evaluation rating of effective or higher would receive in each LEA, as well as how TIF funds used for salary increases would be used only to support the additional cost of the revised salaries for educators in high-need schools; and

(c) Each LEA's timeline for using the proposed salary structure to compensate educators in high-need schools, provided that the use of overall evaluation ratings for determining educator salaries begins no later than the third year of the project period.

In order to promote sustained and successful PBCSs in high-need schools, we propose to establish seven requirements. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which we run a competition under the TIF program. These requirements are in addition to the statutory requirements that apply to the program and any priorities, definitions, and selection criteria we announce in the notice inviting applications for a TIF competition.

Background: Under the TIF authorizing legislation and appropriations language, to receive a TIF grant, eligible entities must develop and implement in high-needs schools a PBCS that considers gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations and provides educators with incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles. Consistent with this statutory mandate, we propose to require each applicant to describe, in its application, how its PBCS meets the definition of a PBCS set forth in this notice. Each applicant would thereby need to describe how it will provide, through its PBCS, performance-based compensation in one of the following ways: (1) Additional compensation for teachers and principals in high-need schools who earn an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation systems described in its application and additional compensation for effective teachers who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles; or (2) additional compensation for teachers in high-need schools who both earn an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system described in its application and take on career ladder positions. This second option must also include additional compensation for principals under at least one of the following conditions: additional compensation for principals who earn an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system described in the application or additional compensation for effective principals who agree to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.

The following examples illustrate how different PBCSs can meet the definition of performance-based compensation proposed in this notice:

Additionally, under this proposed requirement, an applicant that chooses to address either of the following areas as part of its PBCS also must describe in its application how it will provide performance-based compensation to: (a) other personnel in high-need schools based, in significant part, on student growth, which may include whole-school level student growth; or (b) educators who have received an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation systems described in the application (or under a comparable evaluation system in another LEA) and who either: transfer from a school in the LEA that is not high-need to a high-need school, or, for educators who previously worked in another LEA, are hired to work in a high-need school.

Through this requirement and its reference to the proposed definition of a PBCS, we are proposing that an applicant's PBCS meet several requirements. First, we propose to require that, for all components of an applicant's proposed PBCS relating to educators, additional compensation could only be provided if it were based on the educator's overall rating, as opposed to student growth alone or classroom observations alone. As discussed in the Background section for proposed Priority 2, meeting this requirement would ensure that student growth is a significant factor in determining who is eligible for additional compensation.

Second, only teachers and principals who receive an overall rating of effective or higher under the evaluation systems described in the TIF application would be eligible to receive additional compensation, including compensation for taking on additional responsibilities and leadership roles. By building a measure of educator effectiveness into the “additional responsibilities and leadership roles” component of the PBCS, we believe that we can ensure that those taking on these responsibilities and roles through the TIF program have a record of effectiveness in the classroom.

Third, through this proposed requirement and its reference to the proposed definition of a PBCS, grantees could use TIF-funded PBCSs as a recruitment tool. This option would be available, at an applicant's discretion, to supplement the PBCS components that are required. If a grantee elects to offer compensation as a recruitment tool, educators who receive an overall rating of effective or higher would be eligible to receive additional compensation under the PBCS if they transfer within the LEA from a non-high-need school to a high-need school, or, for educators who previously worked in another LEA, if they are hired to work in a high-need school. Before compensating effective educators who are recruited from another LEA, an LEA would have to establish that the other LEA uses an evaluation system that is comparable to the system described in the application. To be comparable, the evaluation system must, at a minimum, generate an overall rating that is based on two or more observations each year; student growth, in significant part; and other factors determined by the evaluating LEA.

Finally, consistent with the TIF authorizing legislation and appropriations language, this requirement and its reference to the proposed definition of a PBCS would provide that an applicant may also include in its PBCS a component that recognizes and rewards school-based staff who are neither teachers nor principals. These staff, referred to as “other personnel” in TIF's authorizing statute, might include, for example, school counselors, media specialists, or para-educators. Under this proposed requirement and its reference to the proposed definition of a PBCS, an applicant would have broad discretion in designing the criteria for performance-based compensation for other personnel, but any such criteria would need to include, in significant part, student growth, which may be whole school-level growth. (Whole school-level growth may be one option for this purpose, as other personnel may not have instructional responsibilities for a specific group of students on an on-going basis. LEAs may also consider developing specialized rubrics to assist in evaluating other personnel.)

The following charts illustrate how applicants can meet proposed requirement 1 by describing a PBCS that meets each of the statutorily prescribed elements of such a system. As discussed earlier in this notice, under the TIF authorizing legislation, a PBCS must, at a minimum—

• Provide performance-based compensation to both teachers and principals;

• Base the performance-based compensation on student growth, multiple observations, and other factors; and

• Provide incentives to educators to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.

With these statutorily-required elements in mind, we defined the term PBCS so that it would give applicants flexibility in designing a PBCS that has features that meet the minimum statutory requirements (see Chart 1 ) and identifies additional features that could be (but are not required to be) implemented as part of a PBCS (see Chart 2 ).

Regardless of whether an applicant chooses to design its PBCS under Model 1 or Model 2, as described in Chart 1, it may also include, as part of its PBCS the following:

Requirement: Each applicant must describe, in its application, how its proposed PBCS will meet the definition of a PBCS set forth in this notice.

Background: The TIF authorizing statute requires the input of teachers and principals in the schools and LEAs to be served by the grant in the development of the PBCS. Consistent with this statutory requirement, we propose to require each applicant to include in its application evidence of the involvement of educators in the participating LEAs in the design of the PBCS, as well as in the design of the underlying evaluation systems that inform the PBCS. Further, under this requirement, an applicant would need to include in its application evidence demonstrating how educators in the participating LEAs will be involved on an ongoing basis with the implementation of the PBCS and the evaluation systems.

We propose this requirement because we believe that ongoing involvement by educators in the development and implementation of the PBCS and evaluation systems is critical to the success and sustainability of a PBCS and that educators are more likely to have confidence in these reforms, and embrace them, if they have had a role in developing and implementing them.

As proposed, an applicant would have discretion in the evidence it submits to demonstrate that it has met this requirement. To demonstrate involvement by educators in the design of its PBCS, for example, an applicant might describe the design committee and how educators were represented on the committee. To demonstrate on-going involvement of educators in the proposed project, an applicant might describe the organizational structures that it will put in place to ensure that educators are routinely involved in decisions regarding the implementation of the PBCS and evaluation systems. Because expressions of educator support are another demonstration of educator involvement, we would encourage applicants to submit letters of support for their proposed PBCS from educators and educator organizations. To help us evaluate the quality of the evidence submitted, we are proposing that an applicant indicate in its application whether a union is the exclusive representative of either teachers or principals in each participating LEA.

Requirement: In its application, the applicant must include—

(a) Evidence that educators in each participating LEA have been involved, and will continue to be involved, in the development and implementation of the PBCS and evaluation systems described in the application;

(b) A description of the extent to which the applicant has educator support for the proposed PBCS and educator evaluation systems; and

(c) A statement indicating whether a union is the exclusive representative of either teachers or principals in each participating LEA.

Background: Consistent with the statutory requirement that all staff participating in the PBCS work in schools that are high-need, we propose to require each applicant to demonstrate, in its application, that it will implement the proposed PBCS component of its HCMS in high-need schools. This requirement would specify that an applicant must identify the schools in which the PBCS would be implemented. For any high-poverty school identified, the applicant must provide school-level data demonstrating that each school to be served by the PBCS is a high-need school. We would require school-level data for high-poverty schools, as opposed to LEA-level data, because the TIF authorizing statute requires that the school—rather than the LEA—be high-need.

In this notice, we propose to expand the definition of high-need school that was used in the previous TIF competitions to include schools identified as in need of improvement under other Department programs. With this change, it is our intent to help LEAs integrate their TIF project with other activities supported by other Department programs such as the School Improvement Fund, Race to the Top, and ESEA flexibility.

Requirement: Each applicant must demonstrate, in its application, that the schools participating in the implementation of the TIF-funded PBCS are high-need schools (as defined in this notice), including high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice), priority schools (as defined in this notice), or persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice). Each applicant must provide, in its application—

(a) A list of high-need schools in which the proposed PBCS would be implemented; and

(b) For each high-poverty school listed, the most current data on the percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or are considered students from low-income families based on another poverty measure that the LEA uses (see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Data provided to demonstrate eligibility as a high-poverty school must be school-level data; the Department will not accept LEA- or State-level data for purposes of documenting whether a school is a high-poverty school.

(c) For any priority schools listed, documentation verifying that the State has received approval of a request for ESEA flexibility, and that the schools have been identified by the State as priority schools.

Background: We propose to require an SEA applicant to apply with one or more LEAs that would implement the PBCS, evaluation systems, and HCMS proposed in its application. This proposed requirement would ensure that any SEA applying for a TIF grant has obtained the full commitment of each LEA that will be responsible for developing and implementing the HCMS, including the educator evaluation systems and the PBCS, described in the application.

Similarly, we propose to require any SEA or other applicant that proposes to work with one or more additional entities to implement the HCMS (including the educator evaluation systems and the PBCS) described in the application to submit, with the application, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other binding agreement that describes the activities each entity proposes to undertake and that conforms to 34 CFR 75.128 and 75.129. In each of these “group-application” situations, each entity would be considered a grantee—with the application designating the lead applicant. This proposed requirement would clearly apply to a non-profit applicant that, by statute, must apply in partnership with one or more LEAs or SEAs, as well as to an SEA applicant that would need to apply with one or more LEAs, and in other circumstances where a project would involve multiple LEAs, SEAs, or non-profit organizations (e.g., an application from two or more LEAs). The MOU or other binding agreement would not only satisfy the group application requirements in 34 CFR 75.128 and 75.129, but it would also ensure that an applicant has consulted with the entities with which it proposes to collaborate, as appropriate, to clarify the entities' respective responsibilities.

We expect to include, in the application package for the FY 2012 TIF grant competition, a sample MOU. Although an applicant would not be required to use this sample MOU, and the sample may be modified as needed, the sample MOU would be one way to address this proposed requirement.

(a) Applications from the following are group applications:

(1) Any application from two or more LEAs.

(2) Any application that includes one or more SEAs.

(3) Any application that includes a nonprofit organization.

(b) An applicant that is a non-profit organization must apply in a partnership that includes one or more LEAs, and must identify in the application the LEA(s) and any SEA(s) with which the proposed project would be implemented.

(c) An applicant that is an SEA must apply for a grant under this program as part of a group application that includes one or more LEAs in the same State as the SEA, and must identify in the application the LEA(s) in which the project would be implemented.

(d) All group applications must include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other binding agreement signed by all of the members of the group. At a minimum, the MOU or other agreement must include—

(1) A commitment by each participating LEA to implement the HCMS, including the educator evaluation systems and the PBCS, described in the application;

(2) An identification of the lead applicant;

(3) A description of the responsibilities of the lead applicant in managing any grant funds and ensuring overall implementation of the proposed project as described in the application if approved by the Department;

(4) A description of the activities that each member of the group will perform; and

(5) A statement binding each member of the group to every statement and assurance made in the application.

(e) In any group application identified in paragraph (a) of this Requirement, each entity in the group is considered a grantee.

Background: If the Assistant Secretary designates proposed Priority 3 as an absolute priority in a competition in fiscal year (FY) 2012 or later years, the Assistant Secretary may conduct a separate competition for TIF funds with additional selection criteria related to the plan described under Priority 3 relating to STEM (TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM). Under this proposed requirement, applicants could apply for either the TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM or a general competition (General TIF Competition), but not both. We propose this requirement to ensure that applicants develop proposals that are of high quality under the competition to which the applicant chooses to apply.

Requirement: An applicant may submit an application for the General TIF Competition or the TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM, but may not submit an application for both.

Background: Through this requirement, we propose a very flexible approach to the use of TIF funds for building the basic infrastructure that is necessary to make a PBCS successful and sustainable. At the same time, we propose to restrict how TIF funds can be used to compensate educators. We believe this approach will effectively balance the need for flexibility, so that a grantee can make its PBCS successful, with the need to ensure that PBCSs achieve the program's purpose of attracting, retaining, and promoting effective educators in high-need schools.

The TIF program's authorizing statute provides that TIF funds may be used to develop or improve systems and tools that will benefit the entire LEA. Thus, TIF funds may be used to support the costs of these systems and tools that are incurred by a participating LEA (or by an SEA or non-profit organization that has applied with one or more LEAs) so long as the costs are for systems and tools that will benefit the participating LEA's PBCS. Examples of these costs include the costs of developing or improving high-quality teacher evaluations and tools to measure growth in student achievement. TIF funds could also be used to enhance or develop the data systems that will be critical both for measuring student growth and for collating the educator evaluation information needed to identify school and educator needs.

While TIF funds may support the costs of developing and improving systems and tools for the entire LEA in which the TIF-funded PBCS is implemented, they may not be used to implement the PBCS (e.g., to pay the costs of the performance-based compensation awards to teachers, principals, or other personnel) in schools that are not high-need schools. An LEA would have to use non-TIF funds to support any proposed performance-based compensation in its schools that are not high-need. Similarly, in high-need schools, TIF funds could support the costs of providing evaluation-driven professional development, but non-TIF funds would be needed to provide any such professional development in non-high-need schools.

Finally, under this proposed requirement, a grantee could use TIF funds to provide additional compensation for effective educators in high-need schools through its PBCS, but it could not use TIF funds to compensate educators for activities that have little or no connection to recognizing, rewarding, and supporting effective teaching and leading.

Based on our experience with current TIF projects, we believe that it is appropriate to define the circumstances under which LEAs can use TIF funds to compensate educators. TIF funds would only be used to compensate educators based on the educator's demonstration of effectiveness under the evaluation systems included in the application. For example, we do not believe it is appropriate to use TIF funds to compensate teachers for their attendance or for their willingness to sponsor a student club. By themselves, these activities do not systemically support teacher effectiveness and are not, therefore, additional responsibilities and leadership roles as defined in this notice.

For these reasons, we propose to clarify the circumstances under which TIF funds can be used to support compensation for educators in high-need schools. TIF funds can only be used to support compensation for educators in high-need schools as part of an LEA's PBCS, as described in the application.

We also request public comment on whether this requirement should limit the amount of TIF funds that can be used to compensate effective teachers or principals who agree to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles in high-need schools.

As discussed under Proposed Requirement 1, we are proposing that a grantee must provide performance-based compensation to effective teachers who agree to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles in high-need schools. These teachers could be school-based instructional leaders in career ladder positions (such as master teacher or academic instructional coach positions) or they could be teachers who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles, such as, for example, conducting peer evaluations. In addition, under proposed Requirement 1, a grantee may choose, at its discretion, to provide performance-based compensation to principals who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.

Given the limited amount of TIF funding that will be available for new awards, we specifically request comment on what limitations, if any, the Department should establish on the amount of TIF funds that a grantee could use to support the costs of teachers and principals taking on these additional responsibilities and leadership roles including, career ladder positions. For example:

• Should a grantee be able to use TIF funds for the entire amount of salary for career ladder positions, or should TIF funds only pay for a salary augmentation (i.e., an additional amount of compensation over and above what the LEA would otherwise pay the effective teacher)?

• Should there be a limit on the number of effective teachers or principals who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles under the PBCS for whom TIF would support the salary or salary augmentation costs?

When finalizing this requirement, we will take into consideration the public comments we receive regarding limitations on the use of TIF funds for the costs of salaries for those effective teachers and principals who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles in high-need schools.

Requirement: TIF funds may be used to develop and improve systems and tools that support the PBCS and benefit the entire LEA. TIF funds may also be used to provide performance-based compensation and professional development in high-need schools. TIF funds may not be used to provide performance-based compensation or professional development in schools that are not high-need schools.

TIF funds may be used to compensate educators only when the compensation is provided as part of the LEA's PBCS, as described in the application.

This requirement does not preclude the use of TIF funds to compensate educators who are hired by a grantee to administer or implement the TIF-supported PBCS, or to develop or improve systems and tools needed to support the PBCS.

Background: Through this proposed requirement, we would prohibit a grantee from using TIF funds for performance-based compensation and evaluation-linked professional development in high-need schools that, as of the beginning of the grant's project period, are already being served (or are to be served) by a TIF grant. We propose this requirement because we believe that the projects currently funded under the TIF program should successfully complete the activities described in their existing approved applications.

Requirement: Each applicant must provide an assurance, in its application, that, if successful under this competition, it will use the grant award to implement the proposed PBCS and professional development only in high-need schools that are not served, as of the beginning of the grant's project period or as planned in the future, by an existing TIF grant.

We propose the following definitions of the terms additional responsibilities and leadership roles, career ladder positions, educators, high-need school, human capital management system, other personnel, performance-based compensation system, principal, student growth, teacher, and vision of instructional improvement for use in the TIF program.

Two of the terms proposed to be defined here— high-need school and student growth —are virtually the same as the definitions we adopted for these terms in the FY 2010 TIF notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria. The student growth definition is also substantively identical to the definition of that term used in the ESEA Flexibility initiative (see http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility ). We are defining these terms as we did in other Department programs for consistency and to avoid confusion.

We also are proposing to define some terms that were used but not defined in our FY 2010 TIF notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria, and some new terms used for the first time in this notice, because a clear definition for each of these terms will avoid confusion among applicants regarding the types of projects that we intend to fund under these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

The proposed definition of a performance-based compensation system (PBCS) clarifies that any performance-based compensation must be based on the evaluation systems described in the application, rather than on evaluation criteria established for the PBCS alone. This definition also clarifies that a PBCS must compensate educators who are deemed effective (while also compensating effective teachers who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles) or it must compensate teachers who are deemed effective and take on career ladder positions (while also compensating principals who are deemed effective). Under the proposed definition, a grantee has discretion to award compensation in other specified circumstances.

We define the term additional responsibilities and leadership roles differently for teachers, on the one hand, and principals, on the other. For teachers, we define the term to ensure that TIF funds are used to support activities that are likely to improve instruction or instructional leadership in a systemic way. While the term is broadly-defined for principals, the related definition of PBCS clarifies that additional compensation for effective principals who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles is an optional component of any PBCS. Similarly, the PBCS definition clarifies that educators who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles (including career ladder positions) would first have to demonstrate their effectiveness under the evaluation systems described in the application.

The definition of human capital management system (HCMS) recognizes that an HCMS is a system in which an LEA makes decisions regarding its workforce. This proposed definition is based on the premise that all LEAs have some sort of system they use to make human capital management decisions. While the characteristics or structure of an HCMS can vary dramatically across LEAs, we view human capital management decision-making as part of a system.

Similarly, we define vision of instructional improvement to mean an LEA's summary of the competencies and behaviors required for effective teaching, as well as how educators acquire or improve these competencies and behaviors. The proposed definition is intended to help applicants and grantees base their TIF-funded projects on a deep understanding of effective teaching.

Finally, we propose to define the terms educators, other personnel, principal, and teacher in an effort to clarify the distinctions among these roles.

We propose the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

Additional responsibilities and leadership roles means:

(a) In the case of teachers, meaningful school-based responsibilities that teachers may voluntarily accept to strengthen instruction or instructional leadership in a systemic way, such as additional responsibilities related to lesson study, professional development, and peer evaluation, and may also include career ladder positions.

(b) In the case of principals, additional responsibilities and leadership roles that principals may voluntarily accept, such as a position in which an effective principal coaches a novice principal.

Career ladder positions means school-based instructional leadership positions designed to improve instructional practice, which teachers may voluntarily accept, such as positions described as master teacher, mentor teacher, demonstration or model teacher, or instructional coach, and for which teachers are selected based on criteria that are predictive of the ability to lead other teachers.

Educators means teachers and principals.

High-need school means:

(a) A high-poverty school, or

(b) A persistently lowest-achieving school, or

(c) In the case of States that have received the Department's approval of a request for ESEA flexibility, a priority school.

High-poverty school means a school with 50 percent or more of its enrollment from low-income families, based on eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use (see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)). For middle and high schools, eligibility may be calculated on the basis of comparable data from feeder schools. Eligibility as a high-poverty school under this definition is determined on the basis of the most currently available data.

A human capital management system (HCMS) is a system by which an LEA makes and implements human capital decisions, such as decisions on recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, compensation, professional development, tenure, and promotion.

Other personnel are school-based personnel who are not serving in a teacher or principal position. Other personnel may include, for example, school counselors, media specialists, or para-educators.

Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the State:

(i) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that—

(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or

(b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and

(ii) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that—

(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or

(b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.

To identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both:

(i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and

(ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.

Performance-based compensation system (PBCS) means a system that—

(a) Provides additional compensation for teachers and principals in one of the following circumstances—

(1)(i) Design Model 1. Additional compensation for teachers and principals who receive an overall evaluation rating of effective or higher under the evaluation systems described in the application; and

(ii) Of those teachers and principals eligible for compensation under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this definition, additional compensation for teachers and, at the applicant's discretion, for principals, who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles; or

(2)(i) Design Model 2. Additional compensation for teachers who receive an overall evaluation rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system described in the application and who take on career ladder positions; and

(ii) Additional compensation for (A) principals who receive an overall evaluation rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system described in the application, or (B) principals who receive an overall evaluation rating of effective or higher under the evaluation system described in the application and who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.

(b) May provide the following compensation:

(1) Compensation for educators (which at the applicant's option may be for teachers or principals or both) who receive an overall evaluation rating of effective or higher under the evaluation systems described in the application or under comparable evaluation systems in another LEA, and who either: (i) transfer to a high-need school from a school of the LEA that is not high-need, or, (ii) for educators who previously worked in another LEA, are hired to work in a high-need school.

(2) Compensation for other personnel, who are not teachers or principals, based on performance standards established by the LEA so long as those standards, in significant part, include student growth, which may be school-level student growth.

A principal is any person who meets the definition of that term under State or local law. At an LEA's discretion, it may also include an assistant or vice principal or a person in a position that contributes to the organizational management or instructional leadership of a school.

Priority school means a school that has been identified by the State as a priority school pursuant to the State's approved request for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility.

Student growth means the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time. For the purpose of this definition, student achievement means—

(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA: (1) a student's score on such assessments and may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided those measures are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.

(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA: Alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning objectives; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.

A teacher is any person who meets the definition of that term under State or local law.

A vision of instructional improvement is a summary of the key competencies and behaviors of effective teaching that an LEA views as necessary to produce high levels of student achievement, as well as how educators acquire or improve these competencies and behaviors.

This notice contains two sets of proposed selection criteria. The first set proposes selection criteria that would be used, in whole or in part, in any year in which we conduct a General TIF Competition. The second set would be used, in whole or in part, together with one or more of the General TIF Competition selection criteria, in any year in which we conduct a TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM. For FY 2012, the Department intends to conduct two competitions—a General TIF Competition and a TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM.

General TIF Competition Selection Criteria: We propose the General TIF Competition Selection Criteria (proposed selection criteria (a) through (f)) to be used to review an applicant's proposal for funding under any FY 2012 competition and any future competitions. We believe that these proposed selection criteria would be helpful in ensuring that an applicant selected for funding has or will have: (1) An HCMS that enhances the quality and sustainability of its PBCS and advances an LEA's vision of instructional improvement; (2) a well-designed PBCS that uses reliable teacher and principal evaluations to identify, compensate, and promote effective staff in high-need schools; (3) a professional development plan to help all educators in high-need schools that are part of the PBCS become effective; (4) extensive teacher and principal involvement in the development and implementation of the proposed educator evaluation systems and PBCS; (5) a management plan (including a plan for an effective project evaluation) that is adequate to support the development and implementation of the proposed project; and (6) a sustainability plan to ensure the longer-term viability of the proposed project.

We propose an additional selection criterion, selection criterion (g), that would be used, in whole or in part, in addition to one or more of the General TIF Competition selection criteria for any TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM the Department conducts. This selection criterion focuses on comprehensive approaches to improving STEM instruction.

We propose the following selection criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more of these criteria; the general selection criteria in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210; criteria based on statutory provisions in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209; or any combination thereof in any year in which there is a TIF competition. In the notice inviting applications, or the application package, or both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.

(a) A Coherent and Comprehensive Human Capital Management System (HCMS). We will consider the quality and comprehensiveness of each participating LEA's HCMS as described in the application. In determining the quality of the HCMS, as it currently exists and as the applicant proposes to modify it during the grant period, we will consider the extent to which the HCMS described in the application is—

(1) Aligned with each participating LEA's clearly described vision of instructional improvement; and

(2) Likely to increase the number of effective educators in the LEA's schools, especially in high-need schools, as demonstrated by—

(i) The weight given to educator effectiveness—based on the educator evaluation systems described in the application—when human capital decisions are made;

(ii) The range of human capital decisions for which the applicant proposes to factor in educator effectiveness—based on the educator evaluation systems described in the application.

(iii) The feasibility of the HCMS described in the application, including the extent to which the LEA has prior experience using information from the educator evaluation systems described in the application to inform human capital decisions;

(iv) The commitment of the LEA leadership to implementing the described HCMS, including all of its component parts; and

(v) The adequacy of the financial and nonfinancial strategies and incentives, including the proposed PBCS, for attracting effective educators to work in high-need schools and retaining them in those schools.

(b) Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems. We will consider, for each participating LEA, the quality of the educator evaluation systems described in the application. In determining the quality of each evaluation system, we will consider the extent to which—

(1) Each participating LEA has finalized a high-quality evaluation rubric, with at least three performance levels (e.g., highly effective, effective, developing, unsatisfactory), under which educators will be evaluated;

(2) Each participating LEA has presented:

(i) A clear rationale to support its approach to differentiating performance levels based on the level of student growth achieved; and

(ii) Evidence, such as current research and best practices, supporting the LEA's choice of student growth model or models;

(3) Each participating LEA has made substantial progress in developing a high-quality plan for multiple teacher and principal observations, including identification of the persons, by position and qualifications, who will be conducting the observations, the observation tool, the events to be observed, the accuracy of raters in using observation tools and the procedures for ensuring a high degree of inter-rater reliability;

(4) The participating LEA has experience measuring student growth at the classroom level, and has already implemented components of the proposed educator evaluation systems;

(5) In the case of teacher evaluations, the proposed evaluation system—

(i) Bases the overall evaluation rating for teachers, in significant part, on student growth;

(ii) Evaluates the practice of teachers, including general education teachers and teachers of special student populations, in meeting the needs of special student populations, including students with disabilities and English learners;

(6) In the case of principal evaluations, the proposed evaluation system—

(i) Bases the overall evaluation rating on, in significant part, student growth; and

(ii) Evaluates, among other factors, a principal's practice in—

(A) Focusing every teacher, and the school community generally, on student growth;

(B) Establishing a collaborative school culture focused on continuous improvement; and

(C) Supporting the academic needs of special student populations, including students with disabilities and English learners, for example, by creating systems to support successful co-teaching practices, providing resources for research-based intervention services, or similar activities.

(c) Professional Development Systems to Support the Needs of Teachers and Principals Identified Through the Evaluation Process. We will consider the extent to which each participating LEA has a high-quality plan for professional development to help all educators in high-need schools served by the PBCS improve their effectiveness. In determining the quality of this plan for professional development, we will consider the extent to which each participating LEA describes a high-quality plan to—

(1) Use the disaggregated information generated by the proposed educator evaluation systems to identify the professional development needs of individual educators and schools;

(2) Provide professional development in a timely way; and

(3) Provide professional development that is likely to improve instructional and leadership practices, and is guided by the professional development needs of individual educators as identified in (1).

(d) Involvement of Educators. We will consider the quality of educator involvement in the development and implementation of the proposed PBCS and educator evaluation systems described in the application. In determining the quality of such involvement, we will consider the extent to which—

(1) The application contains evidence that educator involvement in the design of the PBCS and the educator evaluation systems has been extensive and will continue to be extensive during the grant period; and

(2) The application contains evidence that educators support the elements of the proposed PBCS and the educator evaluation systems described in the application.

(e) Project Management. We will consider the quality of the management plan of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan, we will consider the extent to which the management plan—

(1) Clearly identifies and defines the roles and responsibilities of key personnel;

(2) Allocates sufficient human resources to complete project tasks;

(3) Includes measurable project objectives and performance measures; and

(4) Includes an effective project evaluation plan;

(5) Specifies realistic and achievable timelines for:

(i) Implementing the components of the HCMS, PBCS, and educator evaluation systems, including any proposal to phase in schools or educators.

(ii) Successfully completing project tasks and achieving objectives.

(f) Sustainability. We will consider the quality of the plan to sustain the proposed project. In determining the quality of the sustainability plan, we will consider the extent to which the sustainability plan—

(1) Identifies and commits sufficient non-TIF resources, financial and non-financial, to support the PBCS and educator evaluation systems during and after the grant period; and

(2) Is likely to be implemented and, if implemented, will result in a sustained PBCS and educator evaluation systems after the grant period ends.

(g) Comprehensive Approach to Improving STEM Instruction. To meet Priority 3, we will consider the quality of an applicant's plan for improving educator effectiveness in STEM instruction. In determining the quality of the plan, we will consider the extent to which—

(1) The financial and nonfinancial strategies and incentives, including the proposed PBCS, are adequate for attracting effective STEM educators to work in high-need schools and retaining them in these schools;

(2) The proposed professional development opportunities—

(a) Will provide college-level STEM skills and content knowledge to STEM teachers while modeling for teachers pedagogical methods for teaching those skills and that content at the appropriate grade level; and

(b) Will enable STEM teachers to provide students in high-need schools with increased access to rigorous and engaging STEM coursework appropriate for their grade level, including college-level material in high schools;

(3) The applicant will significantly leverage STEM-related funds across other Federal, State, and local programs to implement a high-quality and comprehensive STEM plan; and

(4) The applicant provides evidence (e.g., letters of support) that the LEA has or will develop extensive relationships with STEM experts and resources in industry, academic institutions, or associations to effectively implement its STEM plan and ensure that instruction prepares students to be college-and-career ready.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments, or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

This regulatory will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million because the amount of government transfers provided through the TIF program will exceed that amount. Therefore, this action is “economically significant” and subject to OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this regulatory action and have determined that the benefits justify the costs.

We have also reviewed these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are proposing the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the need for regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as regulatory alternatives we considered.

The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are needed to implement the TIF program. The Secretary does not believe that the authorizing legislation for this program, by itself, provides a sufficient level of detail to ensure that the program achieves the greatest national impact in promoting the development and implementation of PBCSs. The authorizing and appropriations language is very brief and provides only broad parameters to govern the program. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice would clarify the types of activities the Department seeks to fund, and permit the Department to evaluate proposed projects using selection criteria that are based on the purpose of the program and are closely aligned with the Secretary's priorities.

In the absence of specific selection criteria for the TIF program, the Department would use the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations in selecting grant recipients. However, the Secretary does not believe the use of those general criteria would be appropriate for a TIF program competition because they do not focus on the development of PBCSs or activities most likely to increase the quality of teaching and school administration and improve educational outcomes for students.

The Department considered a variety of possible priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria before deciding to propose those included in this notice. For example, the Department considered—

(1) Limiting eligible LEA applicants to those that already have in place the basic infrastructure necessary to generate student growth data at the classroom level. However, we took an alternative approach because we recognize that one purpose of the TIF program is to nurture innovation and reform in LEAs that may be beginning their reform efforts in this area.

(2) Requiring an applicant to commit a certain percentage of non-TIF funds to the project in order to help ensure the project's sustainability after the grant period. However, we took an alternative approach that requires the PBCS to be part of an LEA-wide HCMS because we believe that having the PBCS implemented as part of an LEA-wide HCMS will help generate project sustainability. Further, we believe that the proposed selection criteria that direct reviewers to assess the degree of LEA commitment, both financial and non-financial, and its effect on project sustainability, will be sufficient to ensure that funded projects are sustained after the end of the grant period.

The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria reflect and promote the purpose of the TIF program. They also align TIF, where possible and permissible, with other Presidential and Departmental priorities, such as the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the Race to the Top Fund, the School Improvement Grants program, and the ESEA Flexibility initiative. The proposals would also provide an eligible applicant with a great deal of flexibility in designing the systems and selecting the activities to carry out its proposed project. The Secretary believes that the proposals in this notice appropriately balance the need for specific programmatic guidance while providing each applicant with flexibility to design innovative and enduring PBCSs. We seek public comment on whether we have achieved an acceptable balance.

The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs on eligible States, LEAs, or nonprofit organizations that would receive assistance through the TIF program. The Secretary also believes that the benefits of implementing the proposals contained in this notice justify any associated costs.

The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would result in selection of high-quality applications to implement activities that will improve the quality of teaching and educational administration. Through the regulatory action proposed in this notice, the Secretary seeks to clarify the scope of activities he expects to support with program funds and the expected burden to prepare an application and implement a project under the program. A potential applicant must consider carefully the resources needed to prepare a strong application and the applicant's capacity to implement a successful project.

The Secretary believes that the costs of complying with the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be largely limited to the paperwork burden of preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. This is because, during the project period, the applicant would pay the costs of actually carrying out activities under a TIF grant with program funds and any matching funds. Further, many of the systems that TIF funds will support, including educator evaluation systems and systems of professional development, are ones that LEAs regularly support with their own funds. Thus, the costs of implementing a TIF project using these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be minimized for any eligible applicant, including a small entity.

Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information collection requirements.

As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.Whithouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf ), in the following table, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this proposed regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the Federal payments to be made to States, LEAs, and nonprofit organizations under this program as a result of this proposed regulatory action. This table is based on funds available for new awards under the FY 2012 appropriation. Expenditures are classified as transfers to States, LEAs, and nonprofit organizations.

Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures:

We have also determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 248 hours of staff time to address the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. Based on the number of applications the Department received in the FY 2010 competition, we expect to receive approximately 120 applications for these funds. The total number of hours for all expected applicants is an estimated 29,760 hours. We estimate the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who carry out this work to be $30 per hour. The total estimated cost for all applicants would be $892,800.

We have submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) for this collection to OMB. If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which we maintain in the Education Department Information Collection System (EDICS) at http://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on Browse Pending Collections. This proposed collection is identified as proposed collection 1810-0700. This ICR is also available on OMB's RegInfo Web site at www.reginfo.gov.

We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—

• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;

• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and

• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives your comments on the proposed collection within 30 days after publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria.

Please note that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. We will provide the OMB control number when we publish the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action may affect are (1) small LEAs, and (2) nonprofit organizations applying for and receiving funds under this program in partnership with an LEA or SEA. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on an applicant by the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.

Participation in the TIF program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under a TIF program using the priorities, requirements, definitions and selection criteria proposed in this notice. We expect that in determining whether to apply for TIF funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the costs of preparing an application and implementing a TIF project and weigh them against the benefits likely of implementing the TIF project. An eligible entity would probably apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application and implementing a project. The likely benefits of applying for a TIF program grant include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an application, such as the use of its TIF application to spur development and implementation of PBCSs without Federal funding through the TIF program.

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define “small entities” as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts), with a population of less than 50,000. The Urban Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics reported that of 173,172 nonprofit organizations that had an educational mission and reported revenue to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by December 2011, 168,669 (over 97 percent) had revenues of less than $5 million. In addition, there are 12,358 LEAs in the country that meet the SBA's definition of small entity. While these entities are eligible to apply for funding under the TIF program, the Secretary believes that only a small number of them will apply. In the FY 2010 TIF competition, approximately 23 nonprofit organizations applied for funding in partnership with an LEA or SEA, and few of these organizations appeared to be a small entity. The Secretary has no reason to believe that a future competition under this program would be different. To the contrary, we expect that the FY 2012 competition will be similar to the FY 2010 competition because only a limited number of nonprofit organizations are working actively on the development of PBCSs and many of these organizations are larger organizations. Thus, the likelihood that the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice would have a significant economic impact on small entities is minimal.

In addition, the Secretary believes that the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice do not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application would be comparable if the competition relied exclusively on the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 for this competition.

Further, this proposed regulatory action may help a small entity determine whether it has the interest, need, or capacity to implement activities under the program and, thus, prevent a small entity that does not have such an interest, need, or capacity from absorbing the burden of applying.

This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this program and with any matching funds provided by private-sector partners.

The Secretary invites comments from small nonprofit organizations and small LEAs as to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a significant economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that belief.

This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register is available via the Federal Digital System at www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

Under EPA Contract Number GS-07F-0442N, Task Order Number EP-G12H-00323, contractor PSI of 2300 9th Street South, Suite 400, Arlington, VA, will assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in providing support for work on alarms; card readers; doors; locks; and keys. The contractor will also escort workers or maintenance personnel during security hours.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA Contract Number GS-07F-0442N, Task Order Number EP-G12H-00323, PSI will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. PSI's personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide PSI access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until February 15, 2016. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

PSI's personnel have been required to sign nondisclosure agreements and have been briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0103, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742.

Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those interested in applying for a rebate under EPA's Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Rebate Program.

Title: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Rebate Program (New). ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 2461.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW.

ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: This is a new Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act program (DERA) authorized by Title VII, Subtitle G (Sections 791 to 797) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), as amended by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-364), codified at 42 U.S.C. 16131 et seq. DERA provides the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the authority to award grants, rebates or low-cost revolving loans on a competitive basis to eligible entities to fund the costs of a retrofit technology that significantly reduces diesel emissions from mobile sources through implementation of a certified engine configuration, verified technology, or emerging technology. Eligible mobile sources include buses (including school buses), medium heavy-duty or heavy heavy-duty diesel trucks, marine engines, locomotives, or nonroad engines or diesel vehicles or equipment used in construction, handling of cargo (including at port or airport), agriculture, mining, or energy production. In addition, eligible entities may also use funds awarded for programs or projects to reduce long-duration idling using verified technology involving a vehicle or equipment described above. The objective of the assistance under this program is to achieve significant reductions in diesel emissions in terms of tons of pollution produced and reductions in diesel emissions exposure, particularly from fleets operating in areas designated by the Administrator as poor air quality areas.

EPA uses approved procedures and forms to collect necessary information to operate a grant program, and has been providing grants under DERA since Fiscal Year 2008. EPA is requesting approval through this ICR for forms needed to collect necessary information to operate a rebate program as authorized by Congress under the DERA program.

EPA will collect information from applicants who wish to apply for a rebate under the DERA rebate program. Information collected from applicants will ensure that they are eligible to receive funds under DERA, that funds are provided for eligible activities, and to calculate estimated and actual emissions benefits that result from activities funded with rebates as required in DERA's authorizing legislation.

Burden Statement: The annual respondent reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7.925 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by respondents to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to, or for, a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 120 rebate applicants.

Frequency of response: Voluntarily as needed.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 2.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 894 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $44,547. This includes an estimated labor burden cost of $44,547 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend this ICR as appropriate. EPA will also revise the burden estimates based on the final PGP. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .