Notice of Intent To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection, 2267-2268 [2012-629]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices We will consider comments that we receive by March 19, 2012. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this notice by any of the following methods: • Internet: Go to https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail, hand deliver, or courier to Dexter Thomas, GIPSA, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530–S, Washington, DC 20250–3604. • Fax to (202) 690–2173. Instructions: All comments should be identified as ‘‘High Quality Specialty Grain Exported in Containers Information Collection,’’ and should reference to the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. The information collection package, public comments, and other documents relating to this action will be available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Please call GIPSA’s Management and Budget Services at (202) 720–7486 to arrange a viewing of these documents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the collection of information activities and the use of the information, contact Candace Hildreth at (202) 720–0203. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress enacted The United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71– 87k) to facilitate the marketing of grain in interstate and foreign commerce. The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires that all grain shipped from the United States must be officially inspected and officially weighed. The USGSA authorizes the Department of Agriculture to waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA in circumstances when the objectives of the USGSA would not be impaired. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) amended section 7 CFR 800.18 of the regulations to waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements of the USGSA for high quality specialty grain exported in containers. GIPSA established this waiver to facilitate the marketing of high quality specialty grain exported in containers. GIPSA determined that this action was consistent with the objectives of the USGSA and would promote the continuing development of the high quality specialty grain export market. To ensure that exporters of high quality specialty grain complied with this waiver, GIPSA required exporters to maintain records generated during the normal course of business that pertain srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jan 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 to these shipments and make these documents available to GIPSA upon request for review or copying purposes (76 FR 45397). These records shall be maintained for a period of 3 years. This information collection requirement is essential to ensure that exporters who ship high quality specialty grain in containers comply with the waiver provisions. GIPSA does not require exporters of high quality specialty grain to complete and submit new Federal government record(s), form(s), or report(s). Title: Export Inspection and Weighing Waiver for High Quality Specialty Grain Transported in Containers. OMB Number: 0580–0022. Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2012. Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. Abstract: GIPSA amended the regulations under the USGSA to waive the mandatory inspection and weighing requirements for high quality specialty grain exported in containers. GIPSA established this waiver to facilitate the marketing of high quality specialty grain exported in containers. To ensure compliance with this wavier, GIPSA required these exporters to maintain records generated during their normal course of business that pertain to these shipments and make these documents available to GIPSA upon request, for review and copying purposes. Grain Contracts Estimate of Burden: Public reporting and recordkeeping burden for maintaining contract information averages 6.0 hours per exporter. Respondents: Exporters of high quality specialty grain in containers. Estimated Number of Respondents: 80. Estimated Number of Respondents per Request: 1. Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 480 Hours. Estimated Total Cost: $2,640. Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) 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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2267 automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. J. Dudley Butler, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–711 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Notice of Intent To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at (5 CFR part 1320), this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) intention to request approval for an extension of the currently approved information collection for the NIFA proposal review process. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by March 19, 2012, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning this notice and requests for copies of the information collection may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email: gmendez@nifa. usda.gov; Fax: 202–720–0857; Mail: Office of Information Technology (OIT), NIFA, USDA, STOP 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250–2216. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gidel Mendez, eGovernment Program Leader; Email: gmendez@nifa.usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: NIFA Proposal Review Process. OMB Number: 0524–0041. Expiration Date of Current Approval: 05/31/2012. Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection for three years. Abstract: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is responsible for performing a review of proposals submitted to NIFA SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 2268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices competitive award programs in accordance with section 103(a) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(a). Reviews are undertaken to ensure that projects supported by NIFA are of high quality, and are consistent with the goals and requirements of the funding program. Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer Review System. Need and Use of the Information: The information collected from the evaluations is used to support NIFA grant programs. NIFA uses the results of the proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal should be declined or recommended for award. When NIFA has rendered a decision, copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the submitting Project Director. Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of the proposal with the technical expertise of the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in our database, the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic biographical information including address, contact information, professional expertise, and their availability to review for NIFA in the future. If the reviewer is new they are prompted to complete the questionnaire. This information has been invaluable in the NIFA review process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality. The applications and associated materials made available to reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed to or discussed with anyone who has not been officially designated to participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the panel review proceedings is collected to emphasize VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jan 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 and reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form, the panelist affirms they understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the application(s) where a conflict exists. The panelist also affirms their intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not disclose to another individual any information related to the peer review or use any information for personal benefit. Estimate of Burden: NIFA estimates that anywhere from one hour to twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is estimated that approximately five hours are required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of four reviews, accounting for an annual burden of 20 hours. NIFA estimates it receives 4,600 competitive applications each year. The total annual burden on reviewers is 92,000 hours. NIFA estimates that the potential reviewer questionnaire takes an estimated 10 minutes to complete. The database consists of approximately 50,000 reviewers. The total annual burden of questionnaire is 8,330 hours. NIFA estimates that the potential Conflict-ofInterest and Confidentiality Certification Form takes an estimated 10 minutes to complete. The agency has approximately 1,000 panelists each year. The total annual burden of the certification form is 167 hours. The total annual burden of the component of the entire review process is 100,497 hours. Comments: 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the burden 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 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. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Done in Washington, DC this 9th day of January 2012. Catherine E. Woteki, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. 2012–629 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–22–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Dairyland Power Cooperative: CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse Transmission Line Project AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. Notice of intent to extend public comment period for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ACTION: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is extending the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 7 CFR 1794 related to providing financial assistance to Dairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland) for its share in the construction of a proposed 345kilovolt (kV) transmission line and associated infrastructure between Hampton, Minnesota and the La Crosse area in Wisconsin (the proposed project). Dairyland is participating in the proposed project with a number of other utilities (Applicants). The purpose of the proposed project is to: (1) Improve community reliability of the transmission system in Rochester, Winona, La Crosse, and the surrounding areas, which include areas served by Dairyland; (2) improve the regional reliability of the transmission system; and (3) increase generation outlet capacity. SUMMARY: Written comments on this Draft EIS will be accepted 30 days following the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Written comments should be sent to Stephanie A. Strength, see the Address portion of this notice. DATES: A copy of the Draft EIS may be viewed online at the following Web site: https://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP– CapX2020–Hampton-RochesterLaCrosse.html and at the following repositories: ADDRESSES: Alma Public Library, 312 North Main Street Alma, WI 54610, Phone: 608– 685–3823. Arcadia Public Library, 406 E Main Street Arcadia, WI 54612, Phone: 608–323–7505. E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM 17JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2267-2268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-629]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Institute of Food and Agriculture


Notice of Intent To Extend a Currently Approved Information 
Collection

AGENCY: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at (5 CFR part 1320), 
this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 
(NIFA) intention to request approval for an extension of the currently 
approved information collection for the NIFA proposal review process.

DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by March 19, 
2012, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date 
will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning this notice and requests for 
copies of the information collection may be submitted by any of the 
following methods: Email: gmendez@nifa.usda.gov; Fax: 202-720-0857; 
Mail: Office of Information Technology (OIT), NIFA, USDA, STOP 2216, 
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-2216.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gidel Mendez, eGovernment Program 
Leader; Email: gmendez@nifa.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: NIFA Proposal Review Process.
    OMB Number: 0524-0041.
    Expiration Date of Current Approval: 05/31/2012.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information 
collection for three years.
    Abstract: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is 
responsible for performing a review of proposals submitted to NIFA

[[Page 2268]]

competitive award programs in accordance with section 103(a) of the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 
U.S.C. 7613(a). Reviews are undertaken to ensure that projects 
supported by NIFA are of high quality, and are consistent with the 
goals and requirements of the funding program.
    Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to 
determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a 
peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal 
employees and electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer 
Review System.
    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected from the 
evaluations is used to support NIFA grant programs. NIFA uses the 
results of the proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal 
should be declined or recommended for award. When NIFA has rendered a 
decision, copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and 
summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the 
submitting Project Director.
    Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the 
quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching 
of the subject matter of the proposal with the technical expertise of 
the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an 
electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential 
panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in our database, 
the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic 
biographical information including address, contact information, 
professional expertise, and their availability to review for NIFA in 
the future. If the reviewer is new they are prompted to complete the 
questionnaire. This information has been invaluable in the NIFA review 
process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community 
for its quality.
    The applications and associated materials made available to 
reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel 
review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed 
to or discussed with anyone who has not been officially designated to 
participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the 
time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with 
a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the 
Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the 
panel review proceedings is collected to emphasize and reinforce 
confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel 
discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality 
Certification Form, the panelist affirms they understand the conflict-
of-interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the 
application(s) where a conflict exists. The panelist also affirms their 
intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not 
disclose to another individual any information related to the peer 
review or use any information for personal benefit.
    Estimate of Burden: NIFA estimates that anywhere from one hour to 
twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is estimated that 
approximately five hours are required to review an average proposal. 
Each proposal receives an average of four reviews, accounting for an 
annual burden of 20 hours. NIFA estimates it receives 4,600 competitive 
applications each year. The total annual burden on reviewers is 92,000 
hours. NIFA estimates that the potential reviewer questionnaire takes 
an estimated 10 minutes to complete. The database consists of 
approximately 50,000 reviewers. The total annual burden of 
questionnaire is 8,330 hours. NIFA estimates that the potential 
Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form takes an 
estimated 10 minutes to complete. The agency has approximately 1,000 
panelists each year. The total annual burden of the certification form 
is 167 hours. The total annual burden of the component of the entire 
review process is 100,497 hours.
    Comments: 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 will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of 
the burden 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 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.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the 
request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of 
public record.

    Done in Washington, DC this 9th day of January 2012.
Catherine E. Woteki,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 2012-629 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.