Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: The thirteen-member Committee appointed by the Secretaries of the two Departments is chaired by Linda V. Van Horn, Ph.D., R.D., L.D., Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. The Vice Chair of the Committee is Naomi K. Fukagawa, M.D., Ph.D., University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. Other members are: Cheryl Achterberg, Ph.D., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; Lawrence J. Appel, M.D., M.P.H., Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland; Roger A. Clemens, Dr.P.H, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Miriam E. Nelson, Ph.D., Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts; Sharon M. Nickols-Richardson, Ph.D., R.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania; Thomas A. Pearson, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; Rafael Pérez-Escamilla, Ph.D., Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut; Xavier Pi-Sunyer, M.D., M.P.H., Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York; Eric B. Rimm, Sc.D., Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts; Joanne L. Slavin, Ph.D., R.D., University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Christine L. Williams, M.D., M.P.H., Columbia University (Retired), Healthy Directions, Inc., New York, New York.

Purpose of the Meeting: Section 301 of Public Law 101-445 (7 U.S.C. 5341, the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, Title III) directs the Secretaries of USDA and HHS to publish the Dietary Guidelines for Americans at least every five years. After a thorough review of the most current scientific and applied literature and open Committee deliberations, the Committee will provide its recommendations in the form of an advisory report to the Secretaries of both Departments.

Meeting Agenda: The meeting will (a) allow individual subcommittees to provide updates on progress made within each subcommittee; and (b) allow for the continued formulation of plans for finalizing the Committee's work. The topics to be discussed will include Nutrient Adequacy; Energy Balance and Weight Management; Carbohydrates and Protein; Sodium, Potassium and Water; Fatty Acids and Cholesterol; Ethanol; and Food Safety. A draft agenda of the meeting will be posted to the http://www.DietaryGuidelines.gov Web site as soon as it becomes available. Specific times for topic area discussions are subject to change upon the call of the Committee Chair.

Public Participation: Members of the public are invited to attend the online Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee meeting. There will be no opportunity for oral public comments during this online meeting. Written comments, however, are welcome throughout the development process of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These can be submitted at http://www.DietaryGuidelines.gov. See below for more detailed instructions for submitting written comments.

To take part in the on-line Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Dietary Guidelines Web site located at http://www.DietaryGuidelines.gov. A link for Meeting Registration will be available to click on. Registration for the meeting is limited. Registrations will be accepted until maximum Webinar capacity is reached. A waiting list will be maintained should registrations exceed Webinar capacity. Individuals on the waiting list will be contacted as additional Webinar space for the meeting becomes available. Registration questions may be directed to the meeting planner, Crystal Tyler, at 202-314-4701. Registration must include name, affiliation, phone number or e-mail, and days attending. Following pre-registration, individuals will receive a confirmation of registration via e-mail with instructions on how to access the Webinar and check for computer compatibility. Please call Crystal Tyler at 202-314-4701 by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on February 3, 2010 should you require assistance or any special accommodations. Members of the public who are unable to access the Internet in order to attend the Webinar may contact Crystal Tyler at 202-314-4710 by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on February 3, 2010 for assistance to the extent reasonably practicable.

Written Comments: By this notice, the Committee is soliciting submission of written comments, views, information and data pertinent to the review of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Written comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically at http://www.DietaryGuidelines.gov. A “submit comments” button is available for access to the public comments database. Lengthy comments (that exceed 2000 characters) or support materials can be uploaded as an attachment. Multiple attachments must be “zip-filed”. Comments not submitted electronically can be mailed, faxed, or delivered to: Carole Davis, Co-Executive Secretary of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302, 703-305-7600 (telephone), 703-305-3300 (fax). All comments for this meeting must be received by 5 p.m. E.S.T. on February 3, 2010 and will become part of the public comments database. Comments are welcome throughout the Committee's deliberations.

Public Documents: Documents pertaining to Committee deliberations will be available for public viewing from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E.S.T., Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays), at the Reference Desk of the National Agricultural Library, USDA/ARS, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705. The Reference Desk telephone phone number is 301-504-5755; however, no advance appointment is necessary. Meeting materials ( i.e., agenda, meeting minutes, and transcript), once available, can be found at http://www.DietaryGuidelines.gov.

In recent years, a number of studies have been conducted to investigate national veterinary workforce needs in different veterinary sectors including private practice, public practice (local, State, and Federal service), military service, research, public health, food safety and other specialty disciplines. Major studies include two National Academies of Science (NAS) reports, Animal Health at the Crossroads: Preventing, Detecting, and Diagnosing Animal Diseases and Critical Needs for Research in Veterinary Science, a third pending NAS committee report, Assessing the Current and Future Workforce Needs in Veterinary Medicine, which is currently under final review, and a 2009 GAO Federal Veterinary Work Force report, VETERINARIAN WORKFORCE: Actions Are Needed to Ensure Sufficient Capacity for Protecting Public and Animal Health. These studies, taken together with a number of smaller assessments of veterinary workforce needs conducted by various professional associations, indicate shortages of veterinarians exist in nearly all sectors and many of these shortages will worsen without enhancement of resources, facilities, incentives, and novel recruiting and educational strategies.

A landmark series of three peer-reviewed studies published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), and sponsored by the Food Supply Veterinary Medicine Coalition ( http://www.avma.org/fsvm/recognition.asp ), gave considerable attention to the growing shortage of food supply veterinarians, the causes of shortages in this sector, and the consequences to the US food safety infrastructure and to the general public if this trend continues to worsen. Food supply veterinary medicine embraces a broad array of veterinary professional activities, specialties and responsibilities, and is defined as the full range of veterinary medical practices contributing to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply and to animal, human, and environmental health. However, the privately practicing food animal veterinary practitioner population within the US is, numerically, the largest, and arguably the most important single component of the food supply veterinary medical sector. Food animal veterinarians, working closely with livestock producers and State and Federal officials, constitute the first line of defense against spread of endemic and zoonotic diseases, introduction of high consequence foreign animal diseases, and other threats to the health and wellbeing of both animals and humans that consume animal products.

Among the most alarming findings of the Coalition-sponsored studies was objective confirmation that insufficient numbers of veterinary students are selecting food supply veterinary medical careers. This development has led both to current shortages and to projections for worsening shortages over the next 10 years. While there were many reasons students listed for opting not to choose a career in food animal practice or other food supply veterinary sectors, chief among the reasons was concern over burdensome educational debt. According to a survey of veterinary medical graduates conducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in the spring of 2009, the average educational debt for students graduating from veterinary school is approximately $130,000. Such debt loads incentivize students to select other veterinary careers, such as companion animal medicine, which tend to be more financially lucrative and, therefore, enable students to more quickly repay their outstanding educational loans. Furthermore, when this issue was studied in the Coalition report from the perspective of identifying solutions to this workforce imbalance, panelists were asked to rate 18 different strategies for addressing shortages. Responses from the panelists overwhelmingly showed that student debt repayment and scholarship programs were the most important strategies in addressing future shortages (JAVMA 229:57-69).

On July 9, 2009, NIFA published a Federal Register Notice [74 FR 32788-32798] with request for comment on the VMLRP Interim Rule, which included, in part, general procedures for designation of veterinary shortage situations.

NIFA invited public comment on the VMLRP Interim Rule, which included a description of the process for solicitation of nomination of veterinary shortage situations. NIFA received seven sets of comments relating to the nomination solicitation process.

Comment: Three commentors suggested that the State Animal Health Official be required to consult with the State Veterinary Association and other interested parties within the State when identifying underserved areas within a State.

NIFA Response: We strongly recommend that State Animal Health Officials involve other leading animal health experts in the nomination process as they identify underserved areas within their respective States.

Comment: One commentor expressed concern that low density agricultural areas will be regarded as less important than areas of heavily concentrated agriculture.

Comment: One commentor recommended that representatives of Federal agencies be included on an official review panel.

NIFA Response: NIFA will take these comments into consideration as it develops the solicitation for nominations for veterinarian shortage situations and implements the review panel.

Comment: One commentor urged USDA to examine the feasibility of establishing an indexing system whereby each shortage situation that is designated is awarded a weighted score for severity of shortage.

NIFA Response: As with other review processes conducted by NIFA, the review panel will evaluate the composite qualitative and quantitative arguments presented in the submitted nomination packages against criteria described elsewhere in this notice. The panel will classify each shortage situation as either “Recommended for designation” or “Not recommended for designation”.

Comment: One commentor suggested that solicitation notices be published on an annual basis instead of a biennial basis. Another commentor requested clarification on the frequency of the need to apply for the designation of shortage areas and the need to reassess a designation once it is filled by a veterinarian enrolled in the VMLRP.

NIFA Response: NIFA presumes that, over time, the shortage situation priorities of a State will change due to veterinarians relocating to fill critical areas designated by the VMLRP. NIFA will also be mindful of spontaneous shifts in perceived threats to animal health in time and space. To address changing conditions, NIFA program staff will assess the relative demand for reprioritization of shortage situation distribution within the States on an annual basis. However, NIFA reserves the right to conduct this solicitation on a biennial basis to save administrative costs and to adhere to the aggressive annual program schedule and/or to respond to funding fluctuations.

In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the implementation of these guidelines have been approved by OMB Control Number 0524-0046.

In January 2003, the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA) was passed into law adding section 1415A to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (NARETPA). This law established a new Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (7 U.S.C. 3151a) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program of entering into agreements with veterinarians under which they agree to provide veterinary services in veterinarian shortage situations. In November 2005, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-97) appropriated $495,000 for CSREES to implement the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program and represented the first time funds had been appropriated for this program. In February 2007, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-5) appropriated an additional $495,000 to CSREES for support of the program, and in December 2007, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 appropriated an additional $868,875 to CSREES for support of this program. On March 11, 2009, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8) was enacted, providing an additional $2,950,000, for the VMLRP. In October 2009, the President signed into law, Public Law 111-80, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, which appropriated $4,800,000 for the VMLRP. Consequently, as of the publication of this Notice, there is a cumulative total of approximately $9.6 million available for NIFA to administer this program. Funding for future years will be based on annual appropriations and balances carried forward from prior years, and may vary from year to year.

Section 7105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, (FCEA) amended section 1415A to revise the determination of veterinarian shortage situations to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, epidemiology, and food safety. This section also added that priority should be given to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations.

NARETPA section 1415A requires the Secretary, when determining the amount of repayment for a year of service by a veterinarian to consider the ability of USDA to maximize the number of agreements from the amounts appropriated and to provide an incentive to serve in veterinary service shortage areas with the greatest need. This section also provides that loan repayments may consist of payments of the principal and interest on government and commercial loans received by the individual for attendance of the individual at an accredited college of veterinary medicine resulting in a degree of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine or the equivalent. This program is not authorized to provide repayments for any government or commercial loans incurred during the pursuit of another degree, such as an associate or bachelor degree.

The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out this program to NIFA.

Pursuant to the requirements enacted in the NVMSA of 2004 (as revised), and the implementing regulation for this Act, Part 3431 Subpart A of the VMLRP Interim Rule [74 FR 32788-32798], the National Institute of Food and Agriculture hereby implements Guidelines for the solicitation of nomination of veterinary shortage situations from authorized State Animal Health Officials:

Section 1415A of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (NARETPA), as amended and revised by Section 7105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, (FCEA) directs determination of veterinarian shortage situations to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, epidemiology, and food safety. This section also added that priority should be given to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations.

While the NVMSA (as amended) specifies priority be given to food animal medicine shortage situations, and that consideration also be given to specialty areas such as public health, epidemiology and food safety, the Act does not identify any areas of veterinary practice as ineligible. Accordingly, all nominated veterinary shortage situations will be considered eligible for submission. However, the competitiveness of submitted nominations, upon evaluation by the review panel, will reflect the intent of Congress that priority be given to certain types of veterinary service shortage situations. NIFA therefore anticipates that in the first year, and perhaps subsequent early years of program implementation, the most competitive nominations will be those directly addressing food supply veterinary medicine shortage situations.

NIFA has adopted definitions of the practice of veterinary medicine and the practice of food supply medicine that are broadly inclusive of the critical roles veterinarians serve in both public practice and private practice situations. Nominations describing either public or private practice veterinary shortage situations will therefore be eligible for submission. However, NIFA interprets that Congressional intent is to give priority to the private practice of food animal medicine. NIFA is grateful to the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and other stakeholders for their recommendations regarding the appropriate balance of program emphasis on public and private practice shortage situations. NIFA will seek to achieve a final distribution of approximately 90 percent of nominations (and eventual agreements) that are geographic, private practice, food animal veterinary medicine shortage situations, and approximately 10 percent of nominations that reflect public practice shortage situations.

Respondents on behalf of each State include the chief State Animal Health Official (SAHO), as duly authorized by the Governor or his designee in each State. The SAHO Nominators are requested to submit to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov a Form—NIFA 2009-0001, VMLRP Veterinarian Shortage Situation Nomination, which is available in the Shortage Situations section for the VMLRP on the NIFA Web site at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp. One form must be submitted for each nominated shortage situation. NIFA strongly encourages the SAHO to involve leading health animal experts in the State in the identification and prioritization of shortage situation nominations.

In its consideration of fair, transparent and objective approaches to solicitation of shortage area nominations, NIFA evaluated three alternative strategies before deciding on the appropriate strategy. The first option considered was to impose no limits on the number of nominations submitted. The second was to allow each State the same number of nominations. The third (eventually selected) was to differentially cap the number of nominations per State based on defensible and intuitive criteria.

The first option, providing no limits to the number of nominations per State, is fair to the extent that each State and insular area has equal opportunity to nominate as many situations as desired. However, funding for the VMLRP is limited (relative to anticipated demand) and so allowing potentially high and disproportionate submission rates of nominations could both unnecessarily burden the nominators and the reviewers with a potential avalanche of nominations and dilute highest need situations with lower-level need situations. Moreover, NIFA believes that the distribution of opportunity under this program ( i.e., distribution of mapped shortage situations resulting from the nomination solicitation and review process) should roughly reflect the national distribution of veterinary service demand. By not capping nominations based on some objective criteria, it is likely there would be no correlation between the mapped pattern and density of certified shortage situations and the actual pattern and density of need. This in turn could undermine confidence in the program with Congress, the public, and other stakeholders.

The second option, limiting all States and insular areas to the same number of nominations suffers from some of the same disadvantages as option one. It has the benefit in that it controls the administrative burden on both the SAHO and the nomination review process. However, like option one, there would be no correlation between the mapped pattern of certified shortage situations and the actual pattern of need. For example, Guam and Rhode Island would be allowed to submit the same number of nominations as Texas and Nebraska, despite the large difference in the sizes of their respective animal agriculture industries and rural land areas requiring veterinary services.

The third option, to cap the number of nominations in relation to major parameters correlating with veterinary service demand, achieves the goals both of practical control over the administrative burden to the States and NIFA, and of achieving a mapped pattern of certified nominations that approximates the theoretical actual shortage distribution. In addition, this method limits dilution of highest need areas with lower-level need areas. The disadvantage of this strategy is that there is no validated, unbiased, direct measure of veterinary shortage and so it is necessary to employ robust surrogate parameters that correlate with the hypothetical cumulative relative need for each State in comparison to other States. Such parameters exist and the degree to which they are not perfect measures of veterinary need is compensated for by generously assigning nomination allowances based on State rank for each parameter.

In the absence of a validated unbiased direct measure of relative veterinary service need or risk for each State and insular area, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provided NIFA with reliable, publically accessible, high quality, unbiased data that correlate with demand for food supply veterinary service. NIFA has consulted with NASS and determined that NASS State-level variables most strongly correlated with food supply veterinary service need are “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” and “Land Area” (acres). The “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” variable broadly predicts veterinary service need in a State because this is a normalized (to cash value) estimate of the extent of (live) animal agriculture in the State. The State “land area” variable predicts veterinary service need because there is positive correlation between State land area, percent of State area classified as rural and the percent of land devoted to actual or potential livestock production. Importantly, land area is also directly correlated with the number of veterinarians needed to provide veterinary services in a State because of the practical limitations relating to the maximum radius of a standard veterinary service area; due to fuel and other cost factors, the maximum radius a veterinarian operating a mobile veterinary service can cover is approximately 60 miles, which roughly corresponds to two or three contiguous counties of average size.

NIFA recognizes that that these two NASS variables are not perfect predictors of veterinary service demand. However, for the purpose of fairly and transparently estimating veterinary service demand, NIFA believes these two unbiased composite variables account for a significant proportion of several of the most relevant factors influencing veterinary service need and risk. To further ensure fairness and equitability, NIFA is employing these variables in a straightforward, transparent and liberal manner that ensures every State and insular area is eligible for at least one nomination and that all States receive a generous apportionment of nominations, relative to their geographic size and size of agricultural animal industries.

Following this rationale, the Secretary is specifying the maximum number of nominations per State in order to (1) assure distribution of designated shortage areas in a manner generally reflective of the differential overall demand for food supply veterinary services in different States, (2) ensure a practical balance between the number of potential awardees and the available shortage situations, (3) assure the number of shortage situation nominations submitted fosters emphasis on selection by nominators and applicants of the highest priority need areas, and (4) provide practical and proportional limitations of the administrative burden borne by SAHOs preparing nominations, and by panelists serving on the NIFA nominations review panel.

Furthermore, instituting a limit on the number of nominations is consistent with language in the Interim Rule stating, “The solicitation may specify the maximum number of nominations that may be submitted by each State animal health official.”

For any given program year, the number of designated shortage situations per State will be limited by NIFA, and this will in turn impact the number of new nominations a State may submit each time NIFA solicits shortage nominations. In the first year of the program NIFA will accept a number of nominations equivalent to the allowable number of designated shortage areas. In subsequent years, when NIFA may solicit additional nominations, the number of nominations requested from each State will be the maximum number of designated shortage situations for the State minus the number of shortage situations filled since the last solicitation for nominations. Thus, with each new solicitation, States have the opportunity to re-establish the maximum number of designated shortage situations. NIFA reserves the right in the future to proportionally adjust the maximum number of designated shortage situations per State to ensure a balance between available funds and the requirement to ensure priority is given to mitigating veterinary shortages corresponding to situations of greatest need. These Nomination Allocation tables are available under the Shortage Situations section at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.

Table I represents “Special Consideration Areas” which include any State or Insular Area not reporting data, and/or reporting less than $1,000,000 in annual Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($), and/or possessing less than 500,000 Acres. One nomination is allocated to any State or Insular Area classified as a Special Consideration Area.

Table II shows how NIFA determined nomination allocation based on quartile ranks of States for two variables correlated with demand for food supply veterinary services; “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” (LPTS) and “Land Area (acres)” (LA). The total number of NIFA-approved/designated shortage situations per State is based on the quartile ranking of each State in terms of LPTS and LA. States for which NASS has both LPTS and LA values, and which have at least $1,000,000 LPTS and at least 500,000 acres LA (typically all States plus Puerto Rico), were independently ranked from least to greatest value for each of these two composite variables. The two ranked lists were then divided into quartiles with quartile 1 containing the lowest variable values and quartile 4 containing the highest variable values. Each State then received the number of designated shortage situations corresponding to the number of the quartile in which the State falls. Thus a State that falls in the second quartile for LA and the third quartile for LPTS will be invited to submit up to five designated shortage situations (2 + 3). This transparent computation was made for each State thereby giving a range of 2 to 8 designated shortage situations, contingent upon each State's quartile ranking for the two variables. Should changes in future funding for the program indicate the need for an increase or decrease in the maximum number of designated shortage situations, a multiplier either greater or less than one will be applied to make a proportional adjustment to every State.

The total number of nominations a State Animal Health Official may submit on behalf of his/her State for the current solicitation is shown in Table III.

While Federal Lands are widely dispersed within States and Insular Areas across the country, they constitute a composite total land area over twice the size of Alaska. If the 200-mile limit U.S. coastal waters and associated fishery areas are added, Federal Land total acreage would exceed 1 billion. Both State and Federal Animal Health officials have responsibilities for matters relating directly or indirectly to terrestrial and aquatic food animal health on Federal Lands. An example of a food animal health problem requiring coordination between State and Federal animal health officials is the reemergence of bovine TB infection, thought to be caused in part by circulation of this pathogen in a variety of undomesticated animal reservoirs that come in contact with domestic cattle. Interaction between wildlife and domestic livestock, such as sheep and cattle, is particularly common in the plains States where significant portions of Federal lands are leased for grazing. Therefore, both SAHOs and the Chief Federal Animal Health Officer (Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or designee) may submit nominations to address shortage situations on or related to Federal Lands. These nominations count toward the maximum number of nominations allocated to each entity.

NIFA emphasizes that shortage nomination allocation is merely intended to broadly balance number of certified shortage situations across States prior to the applications and awards phase of the VMLRP. In the awards phase, no State will be given a preference for placement of awardees. Awards will be made based strictly on the peer review panel's assessment of the quality of the match between the knowledge, skills and abilities of the applicant and the attributes of the specific shortage situation applied for.

Each designated shortage situation shall be certified until filled, or withdrawn by the SAHO. A SAHO may request that NIFA remove a previously certified and designated shortage situation by sending an e-mail to the program manager, Dr. Gary Sherman ( gsherman@nifa.usda.gov ). The request should specifically identify the shortage situation proposed for decertification, and reason(s) for decertification should be included. The program manager will review the request, make a determination, and inform the requesting SAHO of the final action taken. Where a request for decertification leads to removal from the list of NIFA-designated shortage situations, the decertified situation may not be replaced by nomination of an alternate shortage situation until the next time NIFA releases an RFA soliciting shortage nominations for this program.

Shortage situation nominations must be submitted by March 8, 2010, to the Office of Extramural Programs; National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); U.S. Department of Agriculture. The nominations must be submitted by E-mail to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov.

For the purpose of implementing the solicitation for veterinary shortage situations, the following definitions are applicable:

Act means the National Veterinary Medical Service Act, as amended.

Agency or NIFA means the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Department means the United States Department of Agriculture.

Food animal means the following species: bovine, porcine, ovine/camelid, cervid, poultry, caprine, and any other species as determined by the Secretary.

Food supply veterinary medicine means all aspects of veterinary medicine's involvement in food supply systems, from traditional agricultural production to consumption.

Insular area means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

NVMSA means the National Veterinary Medicine Service Act.

Practice of food supply veterinary medicine includes corporate/private practices devoted to food animal medicine, mixed animal medicine located in a rural area (at least 30 percent of practice devoted to food animal medicine), food safety, epidemiology, public health, animal health, and other practices that contribute to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply.

Practice of veterinary medicine means: To diagnose, treat, correct, change, alleviate, or prevent animal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect, injury, or other physical, dental, or mental conditions by any method or mode; including: the prescription, dispensing, administration, or application of any drug, medicine, biologic, apparatus, anesthetic, or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or medical or surgical technique, or the use of complementary, alternative, and integrative therapies, or the use of any manual or mechanical procedure for reproductive management, or the rendering of advice or recommendation by any means including telephonic and other electronic communications with regard to any of the above.

Rural area means any area other than a city or town that has a population of 50,000 inhabitants and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town.

Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved has been delegated.

Service area means geographic area in which the veterinarian will be providing veterinary medical services.

State means any one of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and the insular areas of the United States. Also included are total “Federal Lands”, defined for convenience as a single entity.

State animal health official or SAHO means the State veterinarian, or equivalent, who will be responsible for nominating and certifying veterinarian shortage situations within State, insular Area, DC or Federal Lands entities.

Veterinarian means a person who has received a professional veterinary medicine degree from a college of veterinary medicine accredited by the AVMA Council on Education.

Veterinary medicine means all branches and specialties included within the practice of veterinary medicine.

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program or VMLRP means the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program authorized by the National Veterinary Medical Service Act.

Veterinarian shortage situation means any of the following situations in which the Secretary, in accordance with the process in Subpart A of 7 CFR part 3431, determines has a shortage of veterinarians:

(1) Geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of food supply veterinarians; and

(2) Areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of food supply veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, animal health, epidemiology, and food safety.

The veterinary shortage situation nomination form is available in the Shortage Situations section at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp and should be e-mailed to vmlrp@nifa.usda.gov.

Following conclusion of the nomination submission and designation process, NIFA must prepare lists and/or map(s) that include all certified shortage situations. This will require specification of a physical location representing the center of the service area (for a geographic shortage), or the location of the main office or work address for a public practice and/or specialty practice shortage. For example, if the State seeks to certify a tri-county area as a food animal veterinary service ( e.g., Type I) shortage situation, a road intersection approximating the center of the tri-county area would constitute a satisfactory physical location for NIFA's listing and mapping purposes. By contrast, if the State is identifying “veterinary diagnostician”, a Type III nomination, as a shortage situation, then the nominator would complete this field by filling in the address of the location where the diagnostician would work ( e.g., State animal disease diagnostic laboratory).

Check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the veterinary shortage situation. The Type I shortage situation must entail at least an 80 percent time commitment to private practice food supply veterinary medicine. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 80 and 100 percent) a veterinarian must commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. The shortage situation may be located anywhere (rural or non-rural) so long as the veterinary service shortages to be mitigated are consistent with the definition of “practice of food supply veterinary medicine.” The minimum 80 percent time commitment is, in part, recognition of the fact that occasionally food animal veterinary practitioners are expected to meet the needs of other veterinary service sectors such as clientele owning companion and exotic animals. Type I nominations are intended to address those shortage situations where the nominator believes a veterinarian can operate profitably committing between 80 and 100 percent time to food animal medicine activities in the designated shortage area, given the client base and other socio-economic factors impacting viability of veterinary practices in the area. This generally corresponds to a shortage area where clients can reasonably be expected to pay for professional veterinary services and where food animal populations are sufficiently dense to support a (or another) veterinarian. The personal residence of the veterinarian (VMLRP awardee) and the address of veterinary practice employing the veterinarian may or may not fall within the geographic bounds of the designated shortage area.

Check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the veterinary shortage situation. The shortage situation must be in an area satisfying the definition of “rural.” The minimum 30 percent-time (12 hr/wk) commitment of an awardee to serve in a rural shortage situation is in recognition of the fact that there may be some remote or economically depressed rural areas in need of food animal veterinary services that are unable to support a practitioner predominately serving the food animal sector, yet the need for food animal veterinary services for an existing, relatively small, proportion of available food animal business is nevertheless great. The Type II nomination is therefore intended to address those rural shortage situations where the nominator believes there is a critical shortage of food supply veterinary services, and that a veterinarian can operate profitably committing 30 to 100 percent to food animal medicine in the designated rural shortage area. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 30 and 100 percent) a veterinarian must commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. Under the Type II nomination category, the expectation is that the veterinarian may provide veterinary services to other veterinary sectors ( e.g., companion animal clientele) as a means of achieving financial viability. As with Type I nominations, the residence of the veterinarian (VMLRP awardee) and/or the address of veterinary practice employing the veterinarian may or may not fall within the geographic bounds of the designated shortage area. However, the awardee is required to verify the specified minimum percent time commitment (30 percent to 100 percent) to service within the specified geographic shortage area.

In the spaces provided, identify the “Employer” and the “Position Title”, and check one or more of the appropriate boxes identifying the specialty/disciplinary area(s) being nominated as a shortage situation. This is a broad nomination category comprising many types of specialized veterinary training and employment areas relating to food supply veterinary workforce capacity and capability. These positions are typically located in city, county, State and Federal Government, and institutions of higher education. Examples of positions within the public practice sector include university faculty and staff, veterinary laboratory diagnostician, County Public Health Officer, State Veterinarian, State Public Health Veterinarian, State Epidemiologist, FSIS meat inspector, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Area Veterinarian in Charge (AVIC), and Federal Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO).

Veterinary shortage situations such as those listed above are eligible for consideration under Type III nomination. However, nominators should be aware that Congress has stipulated that the VMLRP must emphasize private food animal practice shortage situations. Accordingly, NIFA anticipates that loan repayments for the Public Practice sector will be limited to approximately 10 percent of total nominations and available funds.

The minimum time commitment serving under a Type III shortage nomination is 49 percent. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 49 percent and 100 percent) a veterinarian must commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. NIFA understands that some public practice employment opportunities that are shortage situations may be part-time positions. For example, a veterinarian pursuing an advanced degree (in a shortage discipline area) on a part-time basis may also be employed by the university for the balance of the veterinarian's time to provide part-time professional veterinary service(s) such as teaching, clinical service, or laboratory animal care; areas that may or may not also qualify as veterinary shortage situations. The 49 percent minimum therefore provides flexibility to nominators wishing to certify public practice shortage situations that would be ineligible under more stringent minimum percent time requirements.

a. Objectives of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation.

Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly State overarching objectives the State hopes to achieve by placing a veterinarian in the nominated situation. Include the minimum percent time commitment (within the range of the shortage Type selected) the awardee is expected to devote to filling the specific food supply veterinary shortage situation.

b. Activities of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation.

Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly State the principal day-to-day professional activities that would have to be conducted in order to achieve the objectives described in (a) above.

c. Past efforts to recruit and retain a veterinarian in the shortage situation.

Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain any prior efforts to mitigate this veterinary service shortage, and prospects for recruiting veterinarian(s) in the future.

d. Risk of this veterinarian position not being secured or retained.

Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain the consequences of not addressing this veterinary shortage situation.

e. Candidacy for a “service in emergency” agreement. NIFA is not requesting information in support of this type of agreements at this time.

NIFA will convene a panel of food supply veterinary medicine experts from Federal and State agencies, as well as institutions receiving Animal Health and Disease Research Program funds under section 1433 of NARETPA, who will review the nominations and make recommendations to the NIFA Program Manager. NIFA explored the possibly of including experts from professional organizations for this process, but under the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act (NARETPA) section 1409A(e), panelists for the purposes of this process are limited to Federal and State agencies and cooperating State institutions ( i.e., NARETPA section 1433 recipients).

The VMLRP Program Manager will then review the recommendations and designate the VMLRP shortage situations. The list of shortage situations will be published in the Federal Register and will be made available on the NIFA Web site at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp.

Criteria used by the shortage situation nomination review panel and NIFA for certifying a veterinary shortage situation will be consistent with the information requested in the shortage situations nomination form. NIFA understands that defining the risk landscape associated with shortages of veterinary services throughout a State is a process that may require consideration of many qualitative and quantitative factors. In addition, each shortage situation will be characterized by a different array of subjective and objective supportive information that must be developed into a cogent case identifying, characterizing, and justifying a given geographic or disciplinary area as one deficient in certain types of veterinary capacity or service. To accommodate the uniqueness of each shortage situation, the nomination form provides opportunities to present a case using both supportive metrics and narrative explanations to define and explain the proposed need. At the same time, the elements of the nomination form provide a common structure for the information collection process which will in turn facilitate fair comparison of the relative merits of each nomination by the evaluation panel.

While NIFA anticipates some arguments made in support of a given shortage situation will be qualitative, respondents are encouraged to present verifiable quantitative and qualitative evidentiary information where ever possible.

Maximum point values review panelists may award for response to each of the nomination for form elements are as follows:

20 points: Describe the objectives of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation as well as being located in the community, area, State/insular area, or position requested above.

20 points: Describe the activities of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation and being located in the community, area, State/insular area, or position requested above.

15 points: Describe any past efforts to recruit and retain a veterinarian in the shortage situation identified above.

25 points: Describe the risk of this veterinarian position not being secured or retained. Include the risk(s) to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply and/or to animal, human, and environmental health not only in the community but in the region, State/insular area, nation, and/or international community.

An additional 20 points will be used by review panelists to evaluate overall merit/quality of the case made for inclusion of each nomination in the list of certified veterinary shortage situations.

Prior to the panel being convened, shortage situation nominations will be evaluated and scored according to the established scoring system by a primary reviewer. When the panel convenes, the primary reviewer will present each nomination orally in summary form. After each presentation, panelists will have an opportunity, if necessary, to discuss the nomination, with the primary reviewer leading the discussion and recording comments. After the panel discussion is complete, any scoring revisions will be made by and at the discretion of the primary reviewer. The panel is then polled to recommend, or not recommend, the shortage situation designation. Nominations scoring 70 or higher by the primary reviewer (on a scale of 0 to 100), and receiving a simple majority vote in support of designation as a shortage situation will be “recommended for designation as a shortage situation.” Nominations scoring below 70 by the primary reviewer, and failure to achieve a simple majority vote in support of designation will be “not recommended for designation as a shortage situation.” In the event of a discrepancy between the primary reviewer's scoring and the panel poll results, the VMLRP program manager will be authorized to make the final determination on the nomination's designation.

In the interest of national security, patent laws and rules place certain limitations on the disclosure of information contained in patents and patent applications and on the filing of applications for patents in foreign countries. Whenever publication or disclosure by the publication of an application, in the opinion of the head of the interested Government agency, is determined to be detrimental to national security, the Commissioner for Patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must issue a secrecy order and withhold the grant of a patent for such period as the national interest requires. If a secrecy order is applied to an international application, the application will not be forwarded to the International Bureau as long as the secrecy order is in effect. The USPTO collects information to determine whether the patent laws and rules have been complied with and to grant or revoke licenses to file abroad when appropriate. This collection of information is required by 35 U.S.C.181-188 and administered through 37 CFR 5.1-5.33.

There are no forms associated with this collection of information.

By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO when the applicant or agent files a patent application with the USPTO, submits subsequent papers during the prosecution of the application to the USPTO, or submits a request for a foreign filing license for a patent application to be filed abroad before the filing of a U.S. patent application.

OMB Number: 0651-0034.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,794 responses per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take between 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to 4 hours to gather, prepare and submit this information, depending upon the complexity of the situation.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 1,538 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $499,850. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys. Using the professional hourly rate of $325 for attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that this collection will have a total respondent cost burden of $499,850 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Respondent Cost Burden: $356,879. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or record keeping costs associated with this information collection. There are, however, filing fees and postage costs.

This collection has a total of $356,800 in associated filing fees, as shown in the accompanying table.

The USPTO estimates that 90 percent (90%) of the petitions in this collection are submitted to the USPTO by facsimile or hand carried because of the quick turnaround required. For the 10 percent (10%) of the public that chooses to submit the petitions in this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service, the USPTO estimates that the average first class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 44 cents. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that up to 179 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO at an average first class postage cost of 44 cents, for a total postage cost of $79.

The USPTO estimates that the total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees ($356,800) and postage costs ($79) amounts to $356,879.

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, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

In 1992, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council was formed by six trustees, three State of Alaska trustees and three federal trustees, to oversee restoration of the natural resources and ecosystem damaged by the 1989 oil spill. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council was funded by settlement of civil claims brought against Exxon Companies by the State of Alaska and the United States. The Council initiated an extensive public process to begin the work of restoration using these joint trust funds and, in 1994, adopted a Restoration Plan to guide restoration through research and monitoring, habitat protection and general restoration. The Restoration Plan also established a Restoration Reserve recognizing that recovery from the spill would not occur for decades.

As part of this effort, the Council also adopted an official list of resources and services injured by the spill. When the 1994 Plan was drafted, the distinction between the effects of the spill and those of other natural or human-caused stressors on injured resources or services was not clearly understood. Through the hundreds of studies conducted over the last twenty years, the Council has come to recognize that ecosystem restoration is not easily addressed. The interactions between a changing environment and the injured resources and services are only beginning to be understood, and, as time passes, the ability to distinguish the effects of the oil from other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations becomes more difficult. These complexities and the difficulties in measuring the continuing impacts from the spill result in some inherent uncertainty in defining the status of a resource or service through a specific list.

The 1994 Plan also outlined an ecosystem approach to restoration, a more integrated view that has become increasingly recognized as essential. Even before the Plan was final, the Council began efforts to better understand the marine ecosystem. This approach has provided and continues to provide an abundance of information on fish, marine birds, and mammals.

Preliminary public scoping meetings are scheduled as follows; updates or changes to the meeting times or dates, due to weather or other factors, can be found at http://www.evostc.state.ak.us :

Of the approximately $780 million of joint trust funds initially funding the Council, over $180 million has been used for research, monitoring and general restoration and over $375 million has funded habitat protection. Council annual program development, implementation and administration have cost over $45 million dollars. Approximately $76 million remains available for research, monitoring and general restoration and $24 million remains available for habitat acquisition and protection. Recognizing that funding for future restoration is limited and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between spill impacts and other effects in measuring recovery, the Council is considering an organized and strategic transition to a modest program which would focus the remaining funds on a few specific programs and habitat protection.

Long-term management of species and resources initially injured by the spill lies with the agencies and entities that have the mandate and resources to pursue these long-term goals. To support natural restoration and to enable management consistent with this long-term restoration, the Council has increasingly directed funds toward research that provides information that is critical to monitor and support the healthy functioning of the spill ecosystem.

Building on its past efforts, the Council has identified five areas of focus for its remaining work: (1) herring; (2) lingering oil; (3) long-term monitoring of marine conditions; (4) harbor protection and marine restoration; and (5) habitat acquisition and protection. The following paragraphs elaborate on the details of each of these proposed areas of focus.

The Council has classified the Prince William Sound (PWS) population of Pacific herring ( Clupea pallasi ) as a resource that has not recovered from the effects of the 1989 oil spill. The PWS herring population was increasing prior to 1989 with record harvests reported just before the spill. The 1989 year class was one of the smallest cohorts of spawning adults recorded and by 1993 the fishery had collapsed with only 25% of the expected adults returning to spawn. The PWS fishery was closed from 1993 to 1996, but reopened in 1997 and 1998, based on an increasing population. Numbers again declined in 1999, and the fishery remains closed today. The 1993 collapse can be explained by several competing hypothesis; however, data uncertainty makes it unlikely that the reasons will be known.

The Council recognizes the uncertainty with regard to the role of the 1989 spill and the current depressed state of the PWS herring population. However, herring are considered a keystone species in the marine ecosystem and play a vital role in the food chain of many injured species. Thus, rebuilding the herring population has the potential to support the restoration of these injured species. In addition, supporting a healthy herring population may compensate for some of the losses in fishing opportunities that resulted from the spill and its damage to salmon and species other than herring. In April 2006, prompted by public comments about the continuing impacts to communities and commercial fishermen from herring losses, the Council convened scientists and researchers, commercial and subsistence fishermen, and natural resource managers for a herring workshop. One of the most important outcomes of the workshop was the consensus that a long-term strategic herring restoration program was needed if viable herring recovery activities were to be implemented. From 2006 to 2008, Council representatives met with natural resource managers, commercial fishers, scientists, the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) and Alaska Native residents of spill-area communities to gain sufficient input to draft a cost-efficient, scientifically credible, and coordinated program. This effort produced the first draft of the Integrated Herring Restoration Program (IHRP) in December 2008.

The goal of the IHRP is to determine what, if anything, can be done to successfully restore PWS herring; to determine what steps can be taken to examine the reasons for the continued decline of herring in the Sound; to identify and evaluate potential recovery options; and to recommend a course of action for restoration. The document is currently being reviewed and updated with new information and will serve as a general road map for the Council's herring-related funding decisions. The Council has proposed to fund $20 million for research in this area over a twenty-year period.

One of the most surprising revelations from two decades of research and restoration efforts since the 1989 spill is the persistence of subsurface oil in a relatively un-weathered state. This oil, estimated to be around 97.2 metric tons (or 23,000 gallons), is contained in discontinuous patches across beaches that were initially impacted by the spill. The patches cannot be visually identified on the beach surface, but their presence may be a source for continued exposure to oil of sea otters and birds that seek food in sediments where the oil persists and remains a concern and a perception of contamination by subsistence users. The survey work completed to date indicates that the oil is decreasing at a rate of zero to four percent per year, with only a five percent chance that the rate is as high as four percent. As a result, it may persist for decades.

Passive and subsistence uses were significantly impacted by the spill and this has affected the overall health of the communities in Prince William Sound. The lingering oil has also impacted the public's perception of the spill area as the pristine environment that was present before the spill occurred. This perception has continued to preclude full recovery for some passive and subsistence uses. It may require additional resources to evaluate, monitor, and redress the impact of lingering oil on these uses in the spill-area. An important function of this information gathering would be to pass this information back to the communities and the general public.

In an effort to address the issue of lingering oil, the governments developed a restoration plan under the terms of the Reopener provision in the Consent Decree with Exxon ( http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/reopener.cfm ). Efforts to date include the development of a spatial probability model to identify beach segments with a high likelihood of persistent oil, and investigations of the reasons for the persistence of oil as a means to consider options that may accelerate the oil degradation. Under the lingering oil initiative, the Council envisions completion of the studies underway to reach a decision point on further efforts for active remediation. Upon receiving additional lingering oil information from these current lingering oil studies and the resolution of the Reopener, the Council will evaluate the need for restoration of related services and thus no prospective funding amount has been proposed.

In the twenty years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, it has become apparent that the ocean ecosystem can undergo profound changes and such changes likely preclude a return to pre-spill conditions. The 1994 Restoration Plan (Plan) recognized that recovery from the spill would likely take decades. A Restoration Reserve was created from the Plan in part to provide for long-term observation of injured resources and services and provide for appropriate restoration actions into the future. To further this effort, in 1999 the Council also supported the development of a long-term research and monitoring program.

Long-term monitoring has two components: monitoring the recovery of resources from the initial injury and monitoring how factors other than oil may inhibit full recovery or adversely impact recovered resources. This second type of monitoring collects data on environmental factors that drive ecosystem-level changes. The information that is produced from such monitoring may be used to manage individual injured species and resources. However, such data is increasingly valuable in illuminating the larger ecosystem shifts that impact and influence a broad variety of species and resources injured by the spill.

By monitoring these changes, agencies and interested parties may be able to adjust their own activities and management strategies to adapt to what may lie ahead and to further support injured resources in these quickly-shifting marine ecosystems. The Council has a history of supporting oceanographic monitoring by helping to establish and fund long-term data collections. In this initiative, the Council envisions seeking partnerships with scientific entities or consortiums able to maintain those collections and that can demonstrate an ability to leverage this support and develop science-based products to inform the public of changes in the environment and the impacts of these changes on injured resources and services. The Council proposes to fund this effort with approximately $25 million, to be spent over a twenty-year period.

Many coastal communities in the spill area have a limited ability to collect and properly dispose of waste, such as oily bilge water, used engine oil, paints, solvents, and lead-acid batteries. Improper disposal of these wastes in landfills adversely affects the quality of nearby marine waters through runoff and leaching. In some cases, these wastes are discharged directly into marine waters. Chronic marine pollution stresses fish and wildlife resources, possibly delaying recovery of resources injured by the oil spill. For example, with regard to the worldwide mortality of seabirds, the effects of chronic marine pollution are believed to be at least as important as those of large-scale spills.

The Council has approved the funding of several projects to prepare waste management plans and has contributed to their implementation. These projects resulted in the acquisition of waste oil management equipment and the construction of environmental operating stations for the drop-off of used oil, household hazardous waste and recyclable solid waste in Cordova, Valdez, Chenega Bay, Tatitlek and Whittier, Kodiak and lower Cook Inlet. The Council seeks to further reduce pollution in the marine environment to contribute to the recovery of injured natural resources or services and is considering funding this effort with $10 million.

Marine debris is an issue in the marine and near-shore environment in Alaska, where it is likely that thousands of tons of marine debris exist within three nautical miles of the Alaska coastline. Marine fish and wildlife become entangled in and ingest debris from foreign and domestic sources that may be a day or decades old and that range from small plastic items to very large fishing nets. Approximately 175 metric tons of debris was collected from Alaska coasts by citizen cleanup projects in 2007. Marine debris removal projects can result in an immediate improvement to the coastal habitat.

Coastal communities are effective in marine debris cleanups due to their intimate knowledge of the locations of debris accumulation. In addition, when communities participate in marine debris cleanups, they often alter the common practices that led to marine debris as their awareness of the effects of the debris on their coastline and the fisheries upon which they depend increases. Marine debris removal reduces marine pollution affecting injured resources and services and thus further supports natural restoration. The Council proposes to fund marine debris removal with approximately $3 million.

Damage to natural resources occurs not only with an initial oil spill, but additional damage can also be caused by spill response efforts. Damage assessment from the 1989 spill has yielded information that can assist in mitigating damage from spill response activities in future spills. Skilled damage assessment also quantifies the extent of injury and allows for the accurate monitoring and measurement of restoration after a spill. Organizing, preserving, and passing on such information will help responders and those conducting future damage assessments. These efforts ensure that restoration efforts are truly effective. Outreach efforts could include a conference or series of papers sharing information to be used by future responders, including natural resource assessment, the long-term costs of high-pressure washing, use of dispersants in the near-shore, sub-arctic environment, and the effects of potential burning scenarios. The Council proposes to fund this effort with $1 million.

The protection of habitat is an important component of the Exxon Valdez oil spill restoration program. The acquisition of private lands or partial interests in private lands promotes the natural recovery of spill-injured resources and associated services by removing the threat posed by additional development impacts. The program is implemented by state and federal resource agencies, often in partnership with non-governmental organizations. The habitat program has protected approximately 650,000 acres of valuable habitat through a variety of purchases of various property rights, ranging from fee simple acquisition to conservation and timber easements. The goals of the habitat protection program remain viable. Resource and land management agencies, such as the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service, continue to receive parcel nominations for Council consideration. Approximately $24 million remains within the habitat subaccount for future habitat protection efforts. The Council is considering alternatives for allocation of these funds. For example, half of the funds remaining may be allocated to the purchase of large parcels within a period of two to three years, and the remaining half to a program spanning a 12-year period focused on the protection of small parcels less than 1,000 acres or $1 million in price. The Council proposes to utilize the approximately $24 million remaining to continue the habitat program. A variety of administrative options, funding allocations, time frames, and management strategies will be considered.

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in a SEIS and for identifying if there are significant environmental effects or issues related to the proposed action. A principal objective of the scoping and public involvement process is to identify a range of reasonable alternatives that will delineate critical issues and provide a clear basis for distinguishing among those alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative. Through this Notice, the Council notifies the public that a NEPA analysis and decision-making process has been initiated so that interested or affected people may participate and contribute to the final decision.

Through this scoping process, the Council is seeking input and feedback on the areas, issues and projects proposed above, as well as possible alternatives to these proposals. The Council seeks public involvement in the development of the SEIS and encourages members of the public to submit comments in writing at the address shown above (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should be as specific as possible to be the most helpful. Written comments received during the scoping process, including the names and addresses of those submitting them, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

The Council also invites the public to participate in the scoping meetings shown above (see DATES ). When the lead federal agency considers a change to a proposed action analyzed in an environmental impact statement (EIS), or new information relevant to the action becomes available, the federal agency must determine whether a supplement to the EIS (also referred to as a “supplemental EIS”) or a new EIS is appropriate. In this instance, NOAA, as the lead agency, has determined that a SEIS is appropriate and will be prepared under the authority and in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other applicable federal laws and regulations, and NOAA's established policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations. A SEIS must consider all reasonable alternatives, including the preferred action and the no action alternative. Even the most straightforward actions may have alternatives, often considered and rejected in early stages of project development that should be discussed. Opportunities for public comment are provided through public review and comment on documents contained in the Administrative Record as well as on the Public Review Document, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement when prepared.

In compliance with 15 CFR 990.45, the Council will prepare an Administrative Record (Record). The Record will include documents that the Council relied upon during the development of the SEIS. After preparation, the Record will be on file at the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council office in Anchorage, AK and duplicate copies will be maintained at the following website: http://www.evostc.state.ak.us.

Determination of Jurisdiction

The Trustees have made the following findings pursuant to 15 CFR 990.41:

1. The impact of the MIV CASCO BUSAN with the Bay Bridge on November 7, 2007, resulted in a discharge of oil into and upon navigable waters of the United States, including the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean, as well as adjoining shorelines. Such occurrence constitutes an “Incident” within the meaning of 15 CFR 930.30.

2. The Incident was not permitted pursuant to Federal, State, or local law; was not from a public vessel; and was not from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act, 43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.

3. Natural resources under the trusteeship of the Trustees have been injured as a result of the Incident. The bunker oil discharged from the MIV CASCO BUSAN is harmful to certain aquatic organisms, birds, wildlife, and vegetation that were exposed to the oil. Accordingly, the discharged oil and the response activities to address the discharge have had an adverse effect on the natural resources of San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Ocean, and their adjoining shorelines, and impaired the services which those resources provide. Documents in the Administrative Record contain more information regarding the specific studies, observations, etc., by which the Trustees reached this determination. As a result of the foregoing determinations, the Trustees have jurisdiction to pursue restoration under the OPA.

The Trustees have determined, pursuant to 15 CFR 990.42(a), that:

1. Observations and data collected pursuant to 15 CFR 990.43 (including dead and live oiled birds, information regarding marshes, beaches, eelgrass beds, and other oiled habitats) demonstrate that injuries to natural resources have resulted from the Incident; however, the extent of such injuries has not been fully determined at this time. Immediately following the Incident, the Trustees, in cooperation with the RPs, identified several categories of impacted and potentially impacted resources, including birds, shoreline habitats, marine mammals, fish, and eelgrass, as well as effects to human use resulting from the impacts on the resources. They then began conducting activities, in cooperation with the RPs, to evaluate injuries and potential injuries within these categories. More information on these resource categories is available in the Administrative Record, including information gathered during the pre-assessment. The full nature and extent of injuries will be determined during the injury assessment phase of restoration 4 planning.

2. The response actions did not address all injuries resulting from the Incident to the extent that restoration would not be necessary. Although response actions were initiated soon after the spill, the nature and location of the discharge prevented recovery of all of the oil and precluded prevention of injuries to some natural resources. In addition, certain response efforts, such as scrubbing of oiled rocks and rip rap and the removal of wrack from beaches, caused additional injuries to natural resources. It is anticipated that injured natural resources will eventually return to baseline levels (the condition they would have been in had it not been for the Incident), but interim losses have occurred or have likely occurred and will continue until a return to baseline is achieved. In addition, there were lost and diminished human uses of the resources resulting from the impacts to the natural resources and from the response actions themselves.

3. Feasible primary and compensatory restoration actions exist to address injuries and lost human uses resulting from the Incident. In preparation for restoration planning, the Trustees have begun to compile a list of restoration projects that could potentially be implemented to compensate for interim losses resulting from the incident. The Trustees have also sought suggestions from the public on potential restoration projects to compensate for the services and functions provided by natural resources. In addition, assessment procedures such as Habitat Equivalency Analysis and Resource Equivalency Analysis are available to scale the appropriate amount of compensatory restoration required to offset ecological service losses resulting from this Incident. To quantify lost human uses resulting from the Incident, the Trustees, partially in cooperation with the RPs, have gathered data regarding visitor use of impacted sites and associated activities. To value those lost uses the Trustees are using a Travel Cost Model and are employing the Benefits Transfer Method. To compensate for the lost and diminished human uses arising from the Incident, the Trustees intend to solicit project ideas from local, regional, State, and Federal managers of parks and other recreational areas, as well as from the general public. The Trustees will then select restoration actions using a value to cost approach, by which the cost of the restoration actions are scaled to the monetary value of lost and diminished human uses.

During the restoration planning phase, the Trustees will evaluate potential projects, determine the scale of restoration actions needed to make the environment and the public whole, and release a draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan for public review and comment. Based upon information in the Administrative Record and the foregoing determinations, the Trustees intend to proceed with restoration planning for this Incident.

The Trustees have opened an Administrative Record (“Record”) in compliance with 15 CFR 990.45. The Record will include documents considered by the Trustees during the preassessment, assessment, and restoration planning phases of the NRDA performed in connection with the Incident. The Record will be augmented with additional information over the course of the NRDA process. The Record is available at the following locations:

The Library is open seven days a week. Please check its Web site for hours and directions: http://sfpl.org/librarylocations/mainimain.htm.

The Center is generally open Monday through Friday. However, please check its Web site for hours that may be different during academic vacations and for directions: http://www.lib.berkeley.edulWRCNinfo.htm1#hours .

The Index of the Administrative Record and selected documents may also be viewed at the following Web site(s): http://www.dfg.ca.gov/osprispilllnrda/nrda_cosco-busan.html; http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/southwest/coscolindex.html; and http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/OiISpill.cfm .

On January 6, 2009, NOAA received a petition from Palm Beach County Reef Rescue (the Petitioner) to revise the designated critical habitat of elkhorn ( Acropora palmata ) and staghorn ( A. cervicornis ) corals (PBCRR, 2009). On July 27, 2009, we issued a positive 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating the revision may be warranted and initiated a 30-day information solicitation period (74 FR 36995). Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. §§ 1533 et seq. ) requires generally that critical habitat shall be initially designated at the time of listing a species as threatened or endangered. The ESA also provides that NMFS may revise critical habitat from time-to-time as appropriate (section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii)). For any petition to revise a designated critical habitat that presents substantial scientific and commercial information, section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the ESA provides only that, “the Secretary shall determine how he intends to proceed with the requested revision, and shall promptly publish notice of such intention in the Federal Register .” The statute says nothing more about options or considerations regarding the Secretary's 12-month determination. We have fully considered all information received in response to our 90-day finding and determined that the most appropriate action to take in response is to deny the petition.

On November 26, 2008, we published a final rule designating critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals (73 FR 72210). On January 6, 2009, we received a petition from Palm Beach County Reef Rescue (the Petitioner) to revise elkhorn and staghorn corals' critical habitat designation (PBCRR, 2009). Currently, designated critical habitat consists of substrate of suitable quality and availability to support larval settlement and recruitment, and the reattachment and recruitment of asexual fragments in water depths shallower than 30 meters in four areas covering 2,959 square miles (7663 sq km) of the species' ranges in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (73 FR 72210; November 26, 2008). The Petitioner requests that we extend the northern boundary of the Florida area to the Lake Worth Inlet, approximately 15.5 miles (25 km) north of the current boundary at Boynton Beach Inlet. This extension would result in an expansion of the 1,329 square mile (3442 sq km) Florida area by approximately 45 square miles (116.5 sq km).

Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA requires us to make a 90-day finding as to whether a petition to revise critical habitat presents substantial scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR § 424.14) define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. Our regulations further provide that in making a 90-day finding on a petition to revise critical habitat, the “substantial information” determination is made based upon considering whether a petition contains: (i) information indicating that areas petitioned to be added to critical habitat contain physical and biological features essential to, and that may require special management to provide for, the conservation of the species; or (ii) information indicating that areas designated as critical habitat do not contain resources essential to, or do not require special management to provide for, the conservation of the species (50 CFR § 424.14(c)).

The petition contains information on the location of a few staghorn coral colonies north of Boynton Beach Inlet. During the process of designating the current critical habitat areas, available information conflicted as to whether staghorn coral was established this far north. The petition also includes information about the geology of the Florida Reef Tract, suggesting that the feature essential to elkhorn and staghorn corals on which the existing designation is based is present in the petitioned area north of Boynton Beach Inlet. That essential feature is substrate of suitable quality and availability to support larval settlement and recruitment, and reattachment and recruitment of asexual fragments. “Substrate of suitable quality and availability” is defined in the designation as natural consolidated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover. The petition also contains information on the genetic diversity of staghorn coral. Finally, the Petitioner suggests that the waters of Palm Beach County represent a potential thermal refuge for staghorn coral. The petition does not discuss whether the hard substrate features in the petitioned area may require special management considerations or protections, but we judged it reasonable to assume the same management considerations and needs for protection applicable to the feature south of Boynton Beach Inlet would also apply to the feature within the petitioned area.

Based on the information in the petition and information readily available in our files at the time, and pursuant to criteria specified in 50 CFR section 424.14(c), we made a 90-day finding that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the requested revision to designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals may be warranted (74 FR 36995; July 27, 2009).

In response to our 90-day finding we received additional information on the presence of staghorn coral colonies within the general location identified in the petition. We also received a report verifying the presence of staghorn corals within the general vicinity reported by the petitioner, at about 8 miles (13 km) north of the current boundary of the Florida critical habitat area (Coastal Eco-Group, 2009). The report documented 51 colonies of staghorn coral, of which 21 were unattached fragments, comprising 2 percent cover of the surveyed reef. The report stated only seven percent of the colonies were larger than 9.8 in (25 cm), indicating relatively recent colonization of the reef by staghorn coral. There were no colonies less than 1.9 in (5 cm) in diameter, indicating no recent sexual reproduction. Reconnaissance of adjacent reefs reported only one additional staghorn colony approximately 1,000 ft (304 m) away from the main site. The report also provided a description of the geology of the area indicating that natural unconsolidated hard substrate may be present; however, it suggested this feature represented relatively low cover and availability for staghorn coral settlement on the reef due to the high abundance of octocorals. Additionally, very little staghorn rubble was observed, indicating the reef has not recently been dominated by staghorn corals. No information was presented suggesting the elkhorn coral's range is further north than described in the existing critical habitat designation.

As indicated above, the ESA provides us with broad discretion respecting revision of designated critical habitat, allowing us to determine when revision is appropriate, and affording us wide latitude to determine how to respond to a petition to revise critical habitat designations. The few past petitions requesting revisions to critical habitat designations have been received for designations that were completed many years prior to the petition, and in most of those cases extensive new information highlighted the inadequacy of the existing designation to meet the species' conservation needs. In those instances we have accepted the petition and initiated revisions of critical habitat. Unlike those circumstances, we completed the existing critical habitat designation for the corals less than 2 months prior to receiving the current petition, the designation encompasses virtually all of the species' current and historical occupied ranges in the United States, and the designation protects all of the substrate essential feature in these ranges, which we determined was sufficiently abundant to provide for these species' conservation. As discussed below, the requested revision would provide at most a very small conservation benefit to one of these coral species.

On November 26, 2008, we designated critical habitat for staghorn and elkhorn corals throughout their occupied U.S. ranges (73 FR 72210). Because these species' historic ranges have not contracted, we determined that there were no unoccupied areas of critical habitat that might be essential to their conservation. Critical habitat is defined in relevant part as specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the ESA, and on which are found those physical or biological features: (i) essential to the conservation of the species; and (ii) which may require special management considerations or protection. We identified the key conservation objective for the critical habitat designation as facilitating increased incidence of successful sexual and asexual reproduction of the corals, and the essential feature to facilitate this objective as substrate of suitable quality and availability to support successful larval settlement and recruitment, and successful reattachment and recruitment of asexual fragments. The designation includes all the hard substrate that meets the definition of the essential feature within the species' U.S. ranges, with the exception of some areas of hard substrate where these species have not been observed and where it was determined larvae and fragments were unlikely to settle or attach. Given these species' reduced abundances, and because the total surface area of the essential feature is far larger than the surface area currently occupied by the corals, we determined the current designation would maximize the potential for successful recruitment and population growth and is sufficient to provide for the conservation of these coral species. Section 7 consultations on the actions of Federal agencies that may affect the designated critical habitat will assist in ensuring the availability of the essential feature for the corals' colonization and population growth.

In addition to the existing critical habitat designation, the species are protected by the recent ESA section 4(d) regulations that, with few exceptions for research and restoration activities, extend all the ESA section 9 prohibitions to them (73 FR 64264; October 29, 2008). We determined that the section 4(d) regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. The section 4(d) regulations apply regardless of whether the species are within designated critical habitat. Thus, the newly discovered staghorn corals are protected even though they occur north of the existing critical habitat designation.

The requested revision would encompass all the suitable substrate feature in an approximately 45 square mile (116.5 sq km) area based on extending the northern boundary of the Florida area approximately 15.5 miles (25 km). However, the new information on the potential northern expansion of staghorn coral's range has been confirmed at approximately 8 miles (13 km) north of Boynton Beach Inlet, or about half of the petitioned expansion. In addition, because the identified natural unconsolidated hard substrate feature is typically patchily distributed and does not uniformly cover the entire area, the actual area that would be available for settlement and recruitment in the petitioned area is likely much smaller, assuming that conditions within the entire area are conducive to coral settlement, recruitment, and survival everywhere the feature is present. The available information indicates the staghorn colonies are present on only one reef, approximately one mile (1.7 km) offshore in 57 ft (17.3 m) of water, and the substrate feature potentially available for future colonization by staghorn coral is present only in low abundance. Further, given the available data about staghorn corals' historic range, we believe it is still a question of scientific debate whether the petitioned area represents a true northward expansion of the species' range, as opposed to a temporary opportunistic occupation of the area by broken, storm-transported fragments outside of their natural range. Similar to a few colonies of elkhorn coral recently discovered at Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, the staghorn corals in the petitioned area require monitoring and evaluation to determine whether this is an actual range expansion at this point in geologic history. The existing designation includes all of the suitable substrate throughout both corals' ranges, with the exception of the substrate in the petitioned area. As we described in the existing designation, both species have precipitously declined in abundance and are sparsely distributed throughout their ranges. The essential substrate feature included in the existing designation is much more abundant than the corals, and we have determined there is sufficient substrate protected by the designation that is available for coral settlement, reattachment, recruitment, and population growth.

As noted above, we received the current petition to revise critical habitat less than 2 months after we finalized the existing designation. Designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the ESA is a significant undertaking. The process of designating the current critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals consumed significant personnel resources (i.e., 1.5 full-time employees) for the better part of a 2-year period. Were we to undertake a revision of the recently designated critical habitat, our limited resources would again be diverted from other work, which in turn would delay the completion of other priorities, yet would only realize a very small change (offering limited benefits) in the critical habitat area for one of the coral species. At this time, we believe that a greater conservation benefit for both species of coral, and the appropriate course of action, lie in the completion and implementation of a recovery plan that is currently under development, and that will address all threats inhibiting the conservation and recovery of these species throughout their ranges. We also note that we are currently working to implement our mandatory obligations under the statute regarding a recently received petition to list 83 species of corals as endangered or threatened, 8 of which co-occur in the Atlantic and Caribbean Oceans with staghorn and elkhorn corals, and to designate critical habitat for these species.

Based on the information above, pursuant to the provisions of the ESA respecting revision of critical habitat and petitions for revision, we have determined it is not timely and appropriate to revise the recently designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals, and we therefore deny the petitioned action.

On December 23, 2009, BIS published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that updates and provides clarification with regard to the information U.S. firms are required to submit each year to BIS to support BIS's preparation of its annual report to Congress on offsets in defense trade. As set forth in the December 23, 2009 rule, the revised amendments will provide more consistency and less ambiguity in defining the scope of the offset-related activities that respondents report to BIS. Further, the rule responded to a recommendation made by the Government Accountability Office to BIS regarding the collection of more precise information on the industry sectors in which offset activity occurs. The full text of the rule is available at 74 FR 68136. In order to provide more information on the changes to the offset-related reporting requirement, BIS will hold a meeting on February 3, 2010. This meeting is open to the public. In order to prepare for those who plan to attend the meeting, please submit your name and company or organizational affiliation to BIS via fax or phone number provided in the ADDRESSES section.

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

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product and service will be required to provide the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

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

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide a product and a service to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to provide a product and a service to the Government.

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

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following product and service are proposed for addition to Procurement List provided by the nonprofit agencies listed:

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

The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: IEPS Language Resource Center (LRC) Customer Surveys.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 416.

Burden Hours: 194.

Abstract: The purpose of this assessment is to assess the impact of the LRC program in enhancing the foreign language capacity of the United States. Three surveys will be conducted: A survey of LRC Project Directors; a survey of all members of the National Association of District Supervisors of Foreign Languages; and a survey of LRC Summer workshop participants. Results from the three surveys will inform the writing of a final report determining the impact of the LRC program.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4172. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

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

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Emergency.

Title: Open Innovation Web Portal.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) has developed a web-based platform, the Open Innovation Web Portal (Portal), to support communication and collaboration among a wide range of key education stakeholders, including practitioners, funders, and the general public. Once this platform goes on-line, it will allow geographically dispersed but like-minded entities to discover each other and work together to address some of the most intractable challenges in education.

OII plans to promote this platform as a tool for use with the Investing in Innovation grant program (i3), which was established as the “Innovation Fund” in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (ARRA), signed into law by the President on February 17, 2009. Since passage of ARRA, the Department has worked with all possible speed to develop the i3 program, which will conduct three separate competitions. This new program will provide $650,000,000 in competitive grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), non-profit organizations working in collaboration with LEAs, or non-profit organizations working in collaboration with a consortium of schools. The Department must obligate funds to i3 grantees before the end of fiscal year 2010, September 30, 2010. The Department requests emergency approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) of the information collection request (ICR) for the Portal so that prospective applicants to the i3 competitions may use the Portal to identify partners, find matching funding, and improve the quality of their applications.

Additional Information: Part of our intent in implementing the i3 program is to identify innovative new approaches proposed by individuals and organizations that have previously had limited experience in obtaining grants in the education sector yet have promising evidence-based ideas for improving American education. These applicants in particular face challenges in identifying schools or LEAs with which to partner given their limited experience in the field. Further, organizations without existing relationships in education may find it difficult to secure the private sector matching funds required of all grantees under ARRA. Receiving OMB's approval on an emergency basis is thus essential to launching the Portal and supporting improved student achievement through school improvement and reform, one of the primary objectives of ARRA. Failure to approve this emergency request would cause substantial harm to precisely the applicants that the i3 program hopes to entice and as a direct result would negatively impact the schools and students who would benefit most from new and improved approaches to education.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government; Individuals or households; Not-for-profit-institutions; Private Sector; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 4,850.

Burden Hours: 63,050.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4204. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at1-800-877-8339.

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

EPA has established a public docket for each of the ICRs identified in this document ( see the Docket ID numbers for each ICR that are provided in the text) which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 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 Docket is 202-566-1742.

Use http://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.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. 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.

Affected entities: Importers (including Independent Commercial Importers) of light duty vehicles or engines, light duty trucks or engines, and highway motorcycles or engines.

Title: Information Collection Request Renewal for Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0010.12, OMB Control No. 2060-0095.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. 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 CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and 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: Importers into the U.S. of light duty vehicles, light duty trucks, and on road motorcycles, or the corresponding engines, are required to report and keep records regarding the imports. The collection of this information is mandatory to insure compliance with Federal emissions requirements. Joint EPA and U.S. Customs Service regulations at 40 CFR 85.1501 et seq., 19 CFR 1273, and 19 CFR 1774, promulgated under the authority of Clean Air Act sections 203 and 208, give authority for the collection of this information. The information is used by program personnel to ensure that all Federal emissions requirements are met, and by State regulatory agencies, businesses, and individuals to verify whether vehicles are in compliance. Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR part 2), and the public is not permitted access to information containing personal or organizational identifiers.

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

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 12,005.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 9,526 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $541,662. This includes an estimated burden cost of $376,711 and an estimated cost of $164,951 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Affected entities: Manufacturers or builders of automotive aftermarket parts who seek voluntary EPA certification of an aftermarket part or parts.

Title: Information Collection Request Renewal for Emission Control System Performance Warranty Regulations and Voluntary Aftermarket Part Certification Program.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0116.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0060.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31, 2010. 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 CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and 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: Under Section 206(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521), on-highway engine and vehicle manufacturers may not legally introduce their products into US commerce unless EPA has certified that their production complies with applicable emission standards. Per section 207(a), original vehicle manufacturers must warrant that vehicles are free from defects in materials and workmanship that would cause the vehicle not to comply with emission regulations during its useful life. Section 207(a) directs EPA to provide certification to those manufacturers or builders of automotive aftermarket parts that demonstrate that the installation and use of their products will not cause failure of the engine or vehicle to comply with emission standards. An aftermarket part is any part offered for sale for installation in or on a motor vehicle after such vehicle has left the vehicle manufacturer's production line (40 CFR 85.2113(b)). Participation in the aftermarket certification program is voluntary. Aftermarket part manufacturers or builders (manufacturers) electing to participate conduct emission and durability testing as described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart V, and submit data about their products and testing procedures.

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

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 547.

Estimated total annual costs: $19,063. This includes an estimated burden cost of $17,108 and an estimated cost of $1,955 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Affected entities: Manufacturers or importers of passenger cars, motorcycles, light trucks, heavy duty truck engines, non-road vehicles or engines, and evaporative emissions components required to receive a certificate of conformity from EPA prior to selling or introducing these products into commerce in the U.S.

Title: Information Collection Request Renewal for Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2080.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0545.

Affected entities: Manufacturers or importers of passenger cars, motorcycles, light trucks, heavy duty truck engines, non-road vehicles or engines, and evaporative components required to receive a certificate of conformity from EPA prior to selling or introducing these products into commerce in the U.S.

Title: Information Collection Request Renewal for Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2080.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0545.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. 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 CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and 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: As required by the Clean Air Act, EPA has regulations establishing emission standards and other requirements for various classes of vehicles, engines, and evaporative emissions components. These regulations require that compliance be demonstrated prior to EPA granting a “Certificate of Conformity”. EPA charges fees for administering this certification program. In 2004 the fees program was expanded to include non-road categories of vehicles and engines, such as several categories of marine engines, locomotives, non-road recreational vehicles, and many non-road compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines. In 2008 the fees program was further expanded to include fees for certification of evaporative system components (primarily fuel lines and fuel tanks). Manufacturers and importers of covered vehicles, engines and components are required to pay the applicable certification fees prior to their certification applications being reviewed. This ICR estimates the paperwork burden of complying with this fees requirement.

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

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 495.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 7.87.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,207 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $100,577. This includes an estimated burden cost of $80,837 and an estimated cost of $19,739 for maintenance and operational costs.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 22, 2009 (74 FR 48263), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0318, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 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 RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov .

Title: Land Disposal Restrictions `No-Migration' Variances (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1353.09, OMB Control No. 2050-0062.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2010. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 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: To receive a variance from the hazardous waste land disposal prohibitions, owner/operators of hazardous waste storage or disposal facilities may petition the Environmental Protection Agency to allow land disposal of a specific restricted waste at a specific site. The EPA Regional Offices will review the petitions and determine if they successfully demonstrate “no migration.” The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous wastes can be managed safely in a particular land disposal unit, so that “no migration” of any hazardous constituents occurs from the unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous. If EPA grants the variance, the waste is no longer prohibited from land disposal in that particular unit. If the owner/operator fails to make this demonstration, or chooses not to petition for the variance, best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 must be met before the hazardous wastes are placed in a land disposal unit. This ICR will be merged with ICR No. 1442.19, the Land Disposal Restrictions ICR, when it is renewed next year.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3,168 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 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; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,168 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $214,314, includes $214,193 annualized labor costs and $121 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0427, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants.

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2046.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0542.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2010. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and 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: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 808.5 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 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; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 9.

Frequency of Response: Occasionally and semiannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 14,553.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,491,712, including $1,417,912 in labor costs, $0 in capital/startup costs, and $73,800 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 5 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to the adjustment of number of responses associated with the recordkeeping for mass of virgin mercury added to cells. The decrease in Agency burden resulted from an adjustment to the number of initial compliance status and performance test reports requiring review. Since these reports are only one-time burdens, and there are no new sources anticipated in the next three years, the only Agency activity associated with this ICR is to review the semi-annual compliance reports. The burden hours and dollars associated with reviewing the one-time activities were removed from the Agency burden.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0428, which is available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov , in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (Renewal).

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2050.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0538.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2010. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. 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 CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and 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: The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) were proposed on December 18, 2002 and promulgated on October 30, 2006. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), and any changes, or additions, to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 22.6 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 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; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Taconite iron ore processing plants.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.

Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 651.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,012,546, which includes $754,946 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $257,600 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 243 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The change in the burden and cost estimates occurred due to an incorrect calculation of the number of responses in the previous ICR. The existing eight respondents are subject to performance testing twice every five years, or 3.2 respondents per year and was changed from 1.6 respondents per year. The increase in labor costs was also due to an increase in labor rates.

If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the Board, please contact Dolores Wesson at least five days prior to the meeting.

General Information: Additional information concerning the GNEB can be found on its Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb.

Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dolores Wesson at (202) 564-1351 or e-mail at wesson.dolores@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dolores Wesson at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866: The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to Section 6 of that order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , a Federal agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis “for any proposed rule” for which the agency “is required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking.” The RFA exempts from this requirement any rule that the issuing agency certifies “will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” EPA has concluded that NPDES general permits are permits, not rulemakings, under the APA and thus not subject to APA rulemaking requirements or the RFA. Notwithstanding that general permits are not subject to the RFA, EPA has determined that this general permit, as issued, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission is seeking emergency processing of this information collection by February 12, 2010.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Revisions to Rules Authorizing the Operation of Low Power Auxiliary Stations (Wireless Microphones).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 7,200 respondents; 129,600 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours (15 minutes)—.50 hours (30 minutes).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, 316, 332, 336, and 337.

Total Annual Burden: 32,925 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,625,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this new information collection (IC) to the OMB under their emergency processing provisions in 5 CFR 1320.13. The Commission is requesting OMB approval by February 12, 2010 so that the information can go into effect as soon as possible.

The Commission is requesting OMB approval for notice, disclosure and labeling requirements to allow the Commission to implement important disclosure requirements in order to clear the 700 MHz band of wireless microphones and provide them a home in the core TV spectrum, where many wireless microphones are already operating.

First, it is essential for the early clearing mechanism to be available as soon as possible so that public safety and commercial licensees in the 700 MHz band can avoid harmful interference from wireless microphone users still operating in that band. The potential for public harm is particularly apparent in the case of public safety licensees such as police and fire departments. Some public safety licensees are already operating in the 700 MHz band, and more are expected to commence operation soon. Interference from wireless microphones could affect the ability of these officials to communicate during an emergency and therefore could create a serious threat to public health and safety.

Second, the point-of-sale disclosure requirement is also essential for a successful transition of wireless microphones out of the 700 MHz band. The Commission anticipates that many wireless microphone users currently operating in the 700 MHz band will have to purchase or lease new equipment capable of operating in the core TV spectrum. The point-of-sale disclosure requirement will help these consumers make an educated decision as they obtain new microphones, and it will help them operate in the core TV spectrum without causing interference to other services in that spectrum.

Third, a label on 700 MHz band wireless microphones bound for export will help to ensure that these wireless microphones do not continue to be made available for use in the United States, in contravention of our efforts to remove them from the band.

The effective date proposed by the Commission provides for these early clearing and consumer disclosure measures to commence as early as possible. Due to the limited period of time for which two of the requirements (the early clearing mechanism and the point-of-sale disclosure requirements) will be in effect, and the urgent need to ensure that wireless microphone users transition out of the 700 MHz band, we find there is good cause to obtain emergency OMB approval for these requirements, so that the requirements may take effect as soon as practicable thereafter.

The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 10-35, which was mailed to Mr. LaDuron and released on January 12, 2010. The complete text of the notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov. The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating inspection and copying during regular business hours at the contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B420, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail http://www.bcpiweb.com.

The suspension letter follows:

Dear Mr. LaDuron: The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your guilty plea for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud and making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 371, 1341, 1343 and 1001 in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”). 1 Consequently, pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8, this letter constitutes official notice of your suspension from the E-Rate program. In addition, the Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) hereby notifies you that we are commencing debarment proceedings against you. 2

The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program. 3 On June 29, 2009, you, Leonard Douglas LaDuron, 4 pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and making false statements in connection with your participation in the E-Rate program. 5 Specifically, between 1999 and 2003, you held yourself out as an E-Rate consultant and salesperson for the purpose of defrauding the E-Rate Program. 6 You admitted that you and others devised a scheme to defraud school districts and the E-Rate program by steering contracts to various companies that directly benefited you, your conspirators, and your companies, primarily Elephantine Corporation, Serious ISP, Inc., and Myco Technologies, Inc. 7 In furtherance of the scheme, you submitted fraudulent and false documents to the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) claiming schools were paid or would pay their co-pay, submitted other materially false and fraudulent documents, and concealed your true identities, ownerships, and relationships from the school districts to induce schools to select your companies as service providers in violation of E-Rate Program rules. 8 Ultimately, your scheme induced at least ten schools, in seven different states, to award contracts to your companies. 9

On December 23, 2009, you were sentenced to serve fifty-seven months in federal prison, to be followed by thirty-six months of supervised release for your role in the scheme to defraud the E-Rate program. You were also ordered to pay $238,609 in restitution for your role in the scheme. 10

Pursuant to section 54.8 of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to suspend you from participating in any activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism. 11 Such activities include the receipt of funds or discounted services through the schools and libraries support mechanism, or consulting with, assisting, or advising applicants or service providers regarding the schools and libraries support mechanism. 12

Your suspension becomes effective upon the earlier of your receipt of this letter or publication of notice in the Federal Register , pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. 13 In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. 14 Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the Federal Register , whichever comes first. 15 Such requests, however, will not ordinarily be granted. 16 The Bureau may reverse or limit the scope of suspension only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. 17 The Bureau will decide any request for reversal or modification of suspension within 90 days of its receipt of such request. 18

Your guilty plea and conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules. 19 Therefore, pursuant to section 54.8 of the Commission's rules, your conviction requires the Bureau to commence debarment proceedings against you. 20

As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the Federal Register . 21 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Bureau will debar you. 22 The Bureau will decide any request for reversal or limitation of debarment within 90 days of receipt of such request. 23 If the Bureau decides to debar you, its decision will become effective upon the earlier of your receipt of a debarment notice or publication of the decision in the Federal Register . 24

If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment. 25 The Bureau may, if necessary to protect the public interest, extend the debarment period. 26

Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554, to the attention of Rebekah Bina, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Michele Levy Berlove, Acting Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Rebekah Bina, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Michele Levy Berlove, Acting Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC, 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via e-mail to Rebekah.Bina@fcc.gov and to Michele.Berlove@fcc.gov.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Bina via mail, by telephone at (202) 418-7931 or by e-mail at Rebekah.Bina@fcc.gov. If Ms. Bina is unavailable, you may contact Ms. Michele Levy Berlove, Acting Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-1477 and by e-mail at Michele.Berlove@fcc.gov.

Under authority of section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-118), the HHS poverty guidelines that were published in the Federal Register (74 FR 4199) on January 23, 2009, shall remain in effect until the Secretary of Health and Human Services publishes updated poverty guidelines for 2010, which shall not take place before March 1, 2010. The 2009 poverty guideline figures which shall remain in effect are given below.

For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,680 for each additional person.

For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,300 for each additional person.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

The Animal Drug Availability Act (ADAA) of October 9, 1996, amended section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b) to replace the system for the approval of specific medicated feed with a general licensing system for feed mills. Before passage of the ADAA, medicated feed manufacturers were required to obtain approval of Medicated Feed Applications (MFAs), in order to manufacture certain types of medicated feeds. An individual approved MFA was required for each and every applicable medicated feed. The ADAA streamlined the paperwork process for gaining approval to manufacture medicated feeds by replacing the MFA system with a facility license for each medicated feed manufacturing facility.

In the Federal Register of October 28, 2009 (74 FR 55556), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The estimated annual reporting burden on industry is 37.35 hours as shown in table 1 of this document. Industry estimates it takes about 1/4 hour to submit the application. We estimate 135 original and supplemental applications, and voluntary revocations for a total of 33.75 hours (135 submissions x 1/4 hour). An additional 3.6 hours is added for the rare notice of opportunity for a hearing to not approve or revoke an application. Finally, we estimate 30 hours for maintaining and retrieving labels as required by 21 CFR 510.305 and shown in table 2 of this document. We estimated .03 hours for each of approximately 1,000 licensees. Thus, the total annual burden for reporting and recordkeeping requirements is estimated be 67.35 hours.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

As a direct result of discussions that have been adjunct to the U.S./Chile Free Trade Agreement, Chile has recognized FDA as the competent U.S. food safety authority and has accepted the U.S. regulatory system for dairy inspections. Chile has concluded that it will not require individual inspections of U.S. firms by Chile as a prerequisite for trade, but will accept firms identified by FDA as eligible to export to Chile. Therefore, in the Federal Register of June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36190), FDA announced the availability of a revised guidance document entitled “Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Dairy Product Manufacturers/Processors With Interest in Exporting to Chile.” The guidance can be found at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html . The guidance document explains that FDA has established a list that is provided to the government of Chile and posted on http:// www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/expcllst.html , which identifies U.S. dairy product manufacturers/processors that have expressed interest to FDA in exporting dairy products to Chile, are subject to FDA jurisdiction, and are not the subject of a pending judicial enforcement action (i.e., an injunction or seizure) or a pending warning letter. The term “dairy products,” for purposes of this list, is not intended to cover the raw agricultural commodity raw milk. Application for inclusion on the list is voluntary. However, Chile has advised that dairy products from firms not on this list could be delayed or prevented by Chilean authorities from entering commerce in Chile. The guidance explains what information firms should submit to FDA in order to be considered for inclusion on the list and what criteria FDA intends to use to determine eligibility for placement on the list. The document also explains how FDA intends to update the list and how FDA intends to communicate any new information to Chile. Finally, the guidance notes that FDA considers the information on this list, which is provided voluntarily with the understanding that it will be posted on FDA's Web site and communicated to, and possibly further disseminated by, Chile, to be information that is not protected from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Under the guidance, FDA recommends that U.S. firms that want to be placed on the list send the following information to FDA: (1) Name and address of the firm and the manufacturing plant; (2) name, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available) of the contact person; (3) a list of products presently shipped and expected to be shipped in the next 3 years; (4) identities of agencies that inspect the plant and the date of last inspection; (5) plant number and copy of last inspection notice; and (6) if other than an FDA inspection, copy of last inspection report. FDA requests that this information be updated every 2 years.

In the Federal Register of June 4, 2009 (74 FR 26867), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received two letters in response, each containing one or more comments. The comments were outside the scope of the comment request in the notice.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The estimate of the number of firms that will submit new written requests to be placed on the list, biannual updates and occasional updates is based on the FDA's experience maintaining the list over the past 4 years. The estimate of the number of hours that it will take a firm to gather the information needed to be placed on the list or update its information is based on FDA's experience with firms submitting similar requests. FDA believes that the information to be submitted will be readily available to the firms.

To date, over 175 producers have sought to be included on the list. FDA estimates that, each year, approximately 15 new firms will apply to be added to the list. We estimate that a firm will require 1.5 hours to read the guidance, gather the information needed, and to prepare a communication to FDA that contains the information and requests that the firm be placed on the list for a total of 22.5 hours, rounded to 23. Under the guidance, every 2 years each producer on the list must provide updated information in order to remain on the list. FDA estimates that each year approximately half of the firms on the list, 88 firms (175 x 0.5 = 87.5, rounded to 88), will resubmit the information to remain on the list. We estimate that a firm already on the list will require 1.0 hours to biannually update and resubmit the information to FDA, including time reviewing the information and corresponding with FDA, for a total of 88 hours. In addition, FDA expects that, each year, approximately 25 firms will need to submit an occasional update and each firm will require 0.5 hours to prepare a communication to FDA reporting the change, for a total of 12.5 hours, rounded to 13.