Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, 20570-20571 [2010-9059]
Download as PDF
20570
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the CFTC’s regulations
were published on December 30, 1981.
See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The
Federal Register notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on
this collection of information was
published on February 10, 2010 (75 FR
6637).
Burden statement: The respondent
burden for this collection is estimated to
average one hour per response. These
estimates include 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; train
personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; and transmit
or otherwise disclose the information.
Respondents/Affected Entities: 13.
Estimated number of responses: 13.
Estimated total annual burden on
respondents: 169 hours.
Frequency of collection: Annually.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimated or any other aspect of the
information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
the addresses listed below. Please refer
to OMB Control No. 3038–0023 in any
correspondence.
Andrea Musalem, Division of Clearing
and Intermediary Oversight, U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581; and
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington,
DC 20503.
Dated: April 14, 2010.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–9014 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Information Collection; Submission for
OMB Review, Comment Request
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National
and Community Service (hereinafter the
‘‘Corporation’’), has submitted a public
information collection request (ICR)
14:55 Apr 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
The OMB
is particularly interested in comments
which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Corporation, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
AGENCY: Corporation for National and
Community Service.
ACTION: Notice.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
entitled the Community Stakeholder
Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP
Grantees to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter
35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation, may be
obtained by calling the Corporation for
National and Community Service,
Katharine Delo Gregg at (202) 606–6965.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TTY–TDD) may call (202) 606–3472
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted, identified by the title of the
information collection activity, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB
Desk Officer for the Corporation for
National and Community Service, by
any of the following two methods
within 30 days from the date of
publication in this Federal Register:
(1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974,
Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk
Officer for the Corporation for National
and Community Service; and
(2) Electronically by e-mail to:
smar@omb.eop.gov.
A 60-day public comment Notice was
published in the Federal Register on
January 12, 2010. This comment period
ended March 15, 2010. A total of 12
commenters submitted 33 comments.
Comment 1. The Corporation is urged
to take a step back and consider other
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ways in which ‘‘true stakeholder
support’’ can be obtained.
Response—Corporation disagrees and
believes that the proposed collection is
at least one valid method assessing
stakeholder support.
Comment 2. The federal registry
explains the purpose of the survey is to
help provide TTA to existing projects.
The purpose statement on the survey
does not talk about TTA.
Response—Instrument instructions
will be edited per comment.
Comment 3. Two commenters
suggested that the language needs to be
simplified.
Response—Instrument instructions
and questions edited per comment.
Comment 4. The tool asks
assessments that I believe may be well
beyond the reach of our stakeholders to
properly assess.
Response—The instructions for the
instrument have been edited to clarify
why the intended recipients should be
able to adequately respond.
Comment 5. The burden of
administrative demand far exceeds any
perceived benefit from my perspective.
Response The instructions for the
instrument have been edited to clarify
that the benefit of the survey depends
on its use by the grantee.
Comment 6. Speaking more generally,
this assessment should reflect how
successfully respondents feel their
respective RSVP’s are doing to fulfill
their missions and provide volunteers
and services that have a meaningful and
significant impact on the needs of the
communities they operate in.
Response—Instrument instructions
and questions edited per comment.
Comment 7. Questions should better
address the processes and guidelines
applied to RSVP projects.
Response—Instrument instructions
and questions edited per comment.
Comment 8. Three commenters
suggested that there should be fewer
questions about how projects are
perceived by the community and a few
more about the operations of the project.
Response—The instructions for the
instrument have been edited to clarify
that the purpose of the instrument is to
measure community impact of RSVP
grantees.
Comment 9. Three commenters
suggested that there are some
similarities of the current questions.
Response—Instrument instructions
and questions edited per comment.
Comment 10. I would also like to have
the issue of a project that does not have
a formal advisory council addressed.
Response—Instrument instructions
have been edited per comment.
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices
Comment 11. Advisory Council
members should answer the questions
only with a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’
Response—Several of the instrument
questions were simplified as suggested.
Comment 12. Not all methodology
and assumptions are valid.
Response—We have reviewed the
methodology and assumptions as you
suggest to ensure accuracy.
Comment 13. In order to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected, certain terms
used in the questions should be better
defined.
Response—We clarified general terms
as defined by Senior Corps. We cannot
enhance the definition of most terms
used beyond what is stated in the tool
as they will be interpreted from each
respondent’s perspective and that is
okay for this assessment.
Comment 14. To minimize the burden
of the collection of information tool
should be shortened; be user friendly;
and be filled out by project director not
Advisory Council.
Response—We have adjusted the
length of the instrument and have
expanded deployment via electronic
survey and email attachment. The
purpose tool is to assess how the project
is interacting with its community
partners and impacting the community
from the community partners’
perspective so it is not appropriate for
the project director to fill out the survey.
Comment 15. Two commenters
suggested that an Assessment Tool is
not needed for the performance of the
projects that already have a high rating,
but only for those that are weak or
satisfactory.
Response—Corporation disagrees
because an assessment of all programs is
needed to properly evaluate RSVP.
Comment 16. We believe that one way
to enhance the quality of information to
be collected is to ask questions that
require community partners to provide
the Corporation with information it
currently lacks.
Response—The instructions for the
instrument have been edited to clarify
that the purpose of the instrument is to
measure community impact of RSVP
grantees and to clarify that the benefit
of the survey depends on its use by the
grantee not the Corporation for National
and Community Service.
Comment 17. The assessment misses
the substance of what RSVP is all about.
Response—A team of RSVP projects
have been consulted and the
instructions for the instrument have
been edited to clarify that the purpose
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:55 Apr 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
of the instrument is to measure
community impact of RSVP grantees.
Comment 18. One way to minimize
the burden of information collection on
all concerned is to collect it only once.
Response—We concur.
Comment 19. Assume that community
partners who are disappointed in their
experience with RSVP ‘‘will walk with
their feet’’ and that those community
partners who remain affiliated with
RSVP are, by definition, satisfied and
not have to fill out the assessment.
Response—The instructions for the
instrument have been edited to clarify
that the purpose of the instrument is to
measure community impact of RSVP
grantees.
Comment 20. To minimize the burden
of collecting this information would be
to design a survey instrument that
would sample the universe rather than
distribute it to the Community Advisory
Councils.
Response—The instrument is required
to be completed by all grantees.
Comment 21. Concerned with the
level of knowledge that advisory council
members would need to complete this
assessment.
Response—Program regulations
require that grantee advisory councils be
knowledgeable in the areas covered by
the instrument.
Comment 22. For continuity, it would
also be helpful if the format was a
response to a statement versus a
response to a question—there’s a mix in
this document.
Response—In order to procure the
most useful responses the tool best
lends itself to a variety of query and
response formats.
Comment 23. The [respondents] will
be partial to their RSVP program and
answer the question to support their
program and the RSVP Director needs to
help explain and give advice to the
[respondents] to be able to answer the
questions.
Response—The instructions for the
instrument have been edited to clarify
that the benefit of the survey depends
on its use by the grantee. Program
regulations require that grantee advisory
councils be knowledgeable in the areas
covered by the instrument.
Description
The Corporation is seeking approval
of Community Stakeholder Assessment
of Senior Corps RSVP Grantees. The
information collection is intended to be
completed by the Community
Participation Groups of current RSVP
grantees. The information collection
will be used to collect data to assist
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20571
grantees in self-improvement and to
enhance technical assistance for current
grantees. The Corporation will not use
the results of this information collection
for decision-making purposes regarding
grant awards.
Type of Review: New.
Agency: Corporation for National and
Community Service.
Title: Community Stakeholder
Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP
Grantees.
OMB Number: None.
Agency Number: None.
Affected Public: Community
Participation Groups of current
recipients of Senior Corps RSVP Grants.
Total Respondents: 700.
Frequency: Annual.
Average Time per Response: 2.5
hours.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1750
hours.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
None.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintenance): None.
Dated: April 14, 2010.
Angela Roberts,
Acting Director, Senior Corps.
[FR Doc. 2010–9059 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal Nos. 10–04 and 10–14]
36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification
AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is
publishing the unclassified text of two
section 36(b)(1) arms sales notifications
to fulfill the requirements of section 155
of Public Law 104–164 dated 21 July
1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–
3740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following are copies of letters to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Transmittals 10–04 and 10–14 with
associated attachments.
Dated: April 14, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20570-20571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9059]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment
Request
AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service
(hereinafter the ``Corporation''), has submitted a public information
collection request (ICR) entitled the Community Stakeholder Assessment
of Senior Corps RSVP Grantees to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be
obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service,
Katharine Delo Gregg at (202) 606-6965. Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call (202) 606-
3472 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the
information collection activity, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the
Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following
two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in this Federal
Register:
(1) By fax to: (202) 395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk
Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(2) Electronically by e-mail to: smar@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Corporation, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and
Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments
A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2010. This comment period ended March 15, 2010.
A total of 12 commenters submitted 33 comments.
Comment 1. The Corporation is urged to take a step back and
consider other ways in which ``true stakeholder support'' can be
obtained.
Response--Corporation disagrees and believes that the proposed
collection is at least one valid method assessing stakeholder support.
Comment 2. The federal registry explains the purpose of the survey
is to help provide TTA to existing projects. The purpose statement on
the survey does not talk about TTA.
Response--Instrument instructions will be edited per comment.
Comment 3. Two commenters suggested that the language needs to be
simplified.
Response--Instrument instructions and questions edited per comment.
Comment 4. The tool asks assessments that I believe may be well
beyond the reach of our stakeholders to properly assess.
Response--The instructions for the instrument have been edited to
clarify why the intended recipients should be able to adequately
respond.
Comment 5. The burden of administrative demand far exceeds any
perceived benefit from my perspective.
Response The instructions for the instrument have been edited to
clarify that the benefit of the survey depends on its use by the
grantee.
Comment 6. Speaking more generally, this assessment should reflect
how successfully respondents feel their respective RSVP's are doing to
fulfill their missions and provide volunteers and services that have a
meaningful and significant impact on the needs of the communities they
operate in.
Response--Instrument instructions and questions edited per comment.
Comment 7. Questions should better address the processes and
guidelines applied to RSVP projects.
Response--Instrument instructions and questions edited per comment.
Comment 8. Three commenters suggested that there should be fewer
questions about how projects are perceived by the community and a few
more about the operations of the project.
Response--The instructions for the instrument have been edited to
clarify that the purpose of the instrument is to measure community
impact of RSVP grantees.
Comment 9. Three commenters suggested that there are some
similarities of the current questions.
Response--Instrument instructions and questions edited per comment.
Comment 10. I would also like to have the issue of a project that
does not have a formal advisory council addressed.
Response--Instrument instructions have been edited per comment.
[[Page 20571]]
Comment 11. Advisory Council members should answer the questions
only with a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Response--Several of the instrument questions were simplified as
suggested.
Comment 12. Not all methodology and assumptions are valid.
Response--We have reviewed the methodology and assumptions as you
suggest to ensure accuracy.
Comment 13. In order to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected, certain terms used in the questions
should be better defined.
Response--We clarified general terms as defined by Senior Corps. We
cannot enhance the definition of most terms used beyond what is stated
in the tool as they will be interpreted from each respondent's
perspective and that is okay for this assessment.
Comment 14. To minimize the burden of the collection of information
tool should be shortened; be user friendly; and be filled out by
project director not Advisory Council.
Response--We have adjusted the length of the instrument and have
expanded deployment via electronic survey and email attachment. The
purpose tool is to assess how the project is interacting with its
community partners and impacting the community from the community
partners' perspective so it is not appropriate for the project director
to fill out the survey.
Comment 15. Two commenters suggested that an Assessment Tool is not
needed for the performance of the projects that already have a high
rating, but only for those that are weak or satisfactory.
Response--Corporation disagrees because an assessment of all
programs is needed to properly evaluate RSVP.
Comment 16. We believe that one way to enhance the quality of
information to be collected is to ask questions that require community
partners to provide the Corporation with information it currently
lacks.
Response--The instructions for the instrument have been edited to
clarify that the purpose of the instrument is to measure community
impact of RSVP grantees and to clarify that the benefit of the survey
depends on its use by the grantee not the Corporation for National and
Community Service.
Comment 17. The assessment misses the substance of what RSVP is all
about.
Response--A team of RSVP projects have been consulted and the
instructions for the instrument have been edited to clarify that the
purpose of the instrument is to measure community impact of RSVP
grantees.
Comment 18. One way to minimize the burden of information
collection on all concerned is to collect it only once.
Response--We concur.
Comment 19. Assume that community partners who are disappointed in
their experience with RSVP ``will walk with their feet'' and that those
community partners who remain affiliated with RSVP are, by definition,
satisfied and not have to fill out the assessment.
Response--The instructions for the instrument have been edited to
clarify that the purpose of the instrument is to measure community
impact of RSVP grantees.
Comment 20. To minimize the burden of collecting this information
would be to design a survey instrument that would sample the universe
rather than distribute it to the Community Advisory Councils.
Response--The instrument is required to be completed by all
grantees.
Comment 21. Concerned with the level of knowledge that advisory
council members would need to complete this assessment.
Response--Program regulations require that grantee advisory
councils be knowledgeable in the areas covered by the instrument.
Comment 22. For continuity, it would also be helpful if the format
was a response to a statement versus a response to a question--there's
a mix in this document.
Response--In order to procure the most useful responses the tool
best lends itself to a variety of query and response formats.
Comment 23. The [respondents] will be partial to their RSVP program
and answer the question to support their program and the RSVP Director
needs to help explain and give advice to the [respondents] to be able
to answer the questions.
Response--The instructions for the instrument have been edited to
clarify that the benefit of the survey depends on its use by the
grantee. Program regulations require that grantee advisory councils be
knowledgeable in the areas covered by the instrument.
Description
The Corporation is seeking approval of Community Stakeholder
Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP Grantees. The information collection is
intended to be completed by the Community Participation Groups of
current RSVP grantees. The information collection will be used to
collect data to assist grantees in self-improvement and to enhance
technical assistance for current grantees. The Corporation will not use
the results of this information collection for decision-making purposes
regarding grant awards.
Type of Review: New.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.
Title: Community Stakeholder Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP
Grantees.
OMB Number: None.
Agency Number: None.
Affected Public: Community Participation Groups of current
recipients of Senior Corps RSVP Grants.
Total Respondents: 700.
Frequency: Annual.
Average Time per Response: 2.5 hours.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1750 hours.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.
Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.
Dated: April 14, 2010.
Angela Roberts,
Acting Director, Senior Corps.
[FR Doc. 2010-9059 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P