Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 11181 

Address: Cargo Bldg. 80, JFK Int’l 

Airport, Room 242/244, Jamaica, NY 

11430. 

Date Revoked: February 16, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 

bond. 

License Number: 003486F. 

Name: Mozart Forwarding, Inc. 

Address: 535 Seaview Avenue, 

Bridgeport, CT 06607. 

Date Revoked: February 13, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 

bond. 

License Number: 012142NF. 

Name: Seaborne International, Inc. 

dba Seaborne Express Line. 

Address: 8901 South La Cienega 

Blvd., Suite 101, Inglewood, CA 90301. 

Date Revoked: February 6, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain valid 

bonds. 

License Number: 015847N. 

Name: Straightline Logistics, Inc. 

Address: One Cross Island Plaza, 

Suite 203–G, Rosedale, NY 11422. 

Date Revoked: February 13, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 

bond. 

License Number: 015917N. 

Name: Golden Jet-L.A., Inc. dba 

Golden Jet Freight Forwarders dba 

Golden Jet USA, Inc. 

Address: 12333 S. Van Ness Avenue, 

Suite 201, Hawthorne, CA 90250.≤ 

Date Revoked: February 18, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 

bond. 

License Number: 16886N. 

Name: Maritrans Shipping, Ltd. 

Address: 170 East Sunrise Highway, 

Valley Stream, NY 11581. 

Date Revoked: February 15, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 

bond. 

License Number: 017017NF. 

Name: American Global Logistics, Inc. 

dba American Global Shipping. 

Address: 388 2nd Avenue, Suite 160, 

New York, NY 10010. 

Date Revoked: January 28, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain valid 

bonds. 

License Number: 018033N. 

Name: Adrienne Shipping Line, Inc. 

Address: 525 South Douglas Street, 

Suite 100, El Segundo, CA 90245. 

Date Revoked: February 14, 2010. 

Reason: Surrendered license 

voluntarily. 

License Number: 018281N. 

Name: Sun Ocean Logistics Corp. 

Address: 5250 West Century Blvd., 

Suite 530, Los Angeles, CA 90045. 

Date Revoked: February 11, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 

bond. 

License Number: 020479F. 

Name: Karon Jones dba Keene 

Machinery and Export. 

Address: 2810 Goodnight Trail, 

Corinth, TX 76210. 

Date Revoked: February 11, 2010. 

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid 

bond. 

Sandra L. Kusumoto, 

Director, Bureau of Certification and 

Licensing. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5102 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Issuance of Final Policy Directive 

AGENCY: Administration for Children 

and Families. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Administration for 

Native Americans (ANA) is issuing final 

interpretive rules, general statements of 

policy and rules of agency organization, 

procedure, or practice relating to the 

following Funding Opportunity 

Announcements (FOAs): Social and 

Economic Development Strategies 

(hereinafter referred to as SEDS), Social 

and Economic Development Strategies— 

Special Initiative (hereinafter referred to 

as SEDS—SI), Native Language 

Preservation and Maintenance 

(hereinafter referred to as Language 

Preservation), Native Language 

Preservation and Maintenance—Esther 

Martinez Initiative (hereinafter referred 

to as Language—EMI), and 

Environmental Regulatory Enhancement 

(hereinafter referred to as ERE). This 

notice also provides information about 

how ANA will administer these 

programs. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caroline Gary, Deputy Commissioner, 

(877) 922–9262, 370 L’Enfant 

Promenade, SW., 2nd Floor West, 

Washington, DC 20447. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 814 of the Native American 

Programs Act of 1974, as amended, 

requires ANA to provide members of the 

public an opportunity to comment on 

proposed changes in interpretive rules, 

general statements of policy and rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice and to give notice of the final 

adoption of such changes at least 30 

days before the changes become 

effective. 

ANA published a Notice of Public 

Comment (NOPC) in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 68849) on December 29, 

2009, with proposed policy and 

program clarifications, modifications, 

and activities for the fiscal year (FY) 

2010 FOAs. The public comment period 

was open for 30 days. 

ANA received 12 comments from 

eight different entities: (1) Three from a 

Federally recognized Tribe; (2) one from 

an Alaska Native Village Corporation; 

(3) one from a Tribally controlled 

college; (4) one from a Hawaiian nonprofit organization; (5) two from a 

Hawaiian University; (6) one from an 

individual language educator; (7) one 

from an Alaskan non-profit 

organization; and (8) two from a 

national non-profit for Native languages. 

ANA considered all of the comments 

received and provided responses, 

clarifications, and modifications in this 

final directive. The following 

paragraphs summarize the comments 

and our responses. The comments are 

grouped by the portion of the NOPC to 

which they apply. 

II. Comments and Responses 

A. Comments on SEDS and SEDS—SI 

FOAs 

Comments: ANA received three 

comments in reference to the SEDS—SI 

FOA and the former SEDS—Alaska 

program announcement. One 

commenter said that the description of 

the SEDS—SI funding opportunity was 

insufficient to determine whether the 

commenter’s Tribe would be eligible to 

apply under this new FOA. A second 

commenter stated that the 

discontinuation of SEDS—Alaska will 

have a detrimental impact on Alaska 

Native communities, and a third stated 

the same concerns and encouraged ANA 

to consider keeping that program area 

with an increased ceiling amount. 

Responses: In response to the first 

comment about SEDS—SI, ANA 

provided this clarification: The 

forthcoming SEDS—SI FOA will 

address the same program areas of 

interest as SEDS and have the same 

eligibility criteria; the only difference 

between SEDS and SEDS—SI will be the 

funding floor and ceiling amounts. 

In response to the second and third 

comments, ANA offered no changes. 

ANA acknowledges that there are many 

Tribes and organizations with limited 

capacity throughout all of the United 

States and its Territories. The SEDS— 

Alaska initiative was established in 

1984 and for more than 20 years assisted 

Alaska Native Villages and Alaskan 

organizations with capacity-building 

projects and activities. ANA has limited 

funding available with which to impact 

its target communities, and ANA is 

continuously seeking ways to best 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
11182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 

address the needs of all communities. 

To ensure that competition for funds is 

equitable, ANA must ensure an even 

regional distribution of funds. 

B. Comments on Language Preservation 

and Language—EMI FOAs 

Comments: ANA received three 

comments on the Native Language 

programs. One commenter expressed 

concern about the lack of emphasis on 

teacher training for the language nests in 

the Language—EMI FOA. One 

commenter said that the separation of 

Esther Martinez Native American 

Languages Preservation Act of 2006 

(Esther Martinez Act) programs from 

other language programs will ensure 

that the Congressional appropriations 

allocated to programs identified in the 

Esther Martinez Act will be honored. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

$12 million was appropriated for the 

Esther Martinez Act programs with $4 

million of that set aside for immersion 

programs. One commenter suggested 

that an absolute priority should be 

identified for language immersion 

schools to align with the Congressional 

appropriation. 

Responses: In response to the first 

comment, ANA agrees in part. Teacher 

training is undoubtedly a critical 

component to language programs, and to 

address this both Native Language FOAs 

provide opportunities for teacher 

training for all types of schools and 

programs dedicated to preserving and 

maintaining Native languages. The 

purpose of Language—EMI is to award 

funds to language survival schools, 

language nests, and language restoration 

programs; however, the type of project, 

which could include teacher training, is 

open to what the applicant determines 

is most beneficial to the program, as 

long as it fulfills the three-year time 

requirement. For shorter term teacher 

training projects, applicants can apply 

for projects to include teacher training 

under the Language Preservation FOA. 

The second and third comments 

directly relate to the Esther Martinez 

Act and ANA’s FY 2010 appropriation. 

With respect to these comments, ANA 

agrees in part and offers clarification but 

no change. The appropriation language 

for the FY 2010 ANA budget does not 

specify that the entire $12 million for 

language programs should be allocated 

to Esther Martinez Act programs. 

Instead, the House and Senate 

Conference Report 111–366 to 

accompany P.L. 111–117 (page 1040) 

included the following statements: 

Within the amount provided for Native 

American programs, the conference 

agreement includes $12,000,000 for Native 

American language preservation activities 

including no less than $4,000,000 for 

language immersion programs as proposed in 

Senate Report 111–66. The House included 

similar language. 

The FY 2010 appropriation and the 

instructions for Native language 

programs do not specify what funds 

should be allocated to the specific 

programs under the Esther Martinez 

Act. Rather, the recommendation is that 

$12 million be spent on all language 

programs with $4 million of that used 

to fund immersion programs. Immersion 

activities can be funded under the 

Language Preservation FOA or the 

Language—EMI FOA. The FY 2010 

appropriation is not only for new 

awards, but also for projects that are 

continuing into a second or a third year. 

ANA has determined that suitable 

tracking will be completed to ensure 

funds are spent as appropriated by 

Congress. 

In FY 2010, ANA identified the 

Language—EMI FOA as separate from 

the Language Preservation FOA to 

address the specific differences in time 

frames and eligibility requirements, as 

outlined in the Esther Martinez Act. The 

Esther Martinez Act program areas fund 

three-year projects in one of the 

following three categories: 

Language Nest Projects: providing 

instruction and child care through the use of 

a Native American language and ensuring a 

Native American language is the dominant 

medium of instruction. 

Language Survival School Projects: 

working toward a goal of all students 

achieving fluency in a Native American 

language and academic proficiency. 

Language Restoration Programs: providing 

instruction in at least one Native American 

language and working towards the goal of 

increasing proficiency and fluency in that 

language. 

C. Comment on Award Information 

Comment: ANA received one 

comment suggesting that ANA elevate 

the funding range for language nest and 

survival schools from $100,000– 

$300,000 to $150,000–$500,000, which 

have limited funds for teacher training, 

curriculum development, repository 

building, and other activities. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, ANA offers no change to the 

funding floor and ceiling for language 

nests and survival schools. In FY 2010, 

ANA increased the funding ceilings 

from $200,000 per budget period for 

implementation grants and $250,000 per 

budget period for immersion grants in 

FY 2009 to $300,000 per budget period 

for all language projects in FY 2010. 

Further increases in the funding ceiling 

will restrict ANA’s ability to support 

many deserving programs. If ANA 

increases the funding floor and ceiling, 

fewer projects will be funded. For 

example, if ANA has $2 million for new 

projects in FY 2010, only four projects 

at $500,000 each could be funded versus 

more than six projects with a $300,000 

ceiling. 

D. Comment on Disqualification Factors 

Comment: ANA received one 

comment requesting that ANA identify 

Tribally controlled colleges as separate 

entities from the associated Tribes. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, ANA offers no change. In 

accordance with 45 CFR 1336.33, 

‘‘applications from tribal components 

which are tribally-authorized divisions 

of a larger tribe must be approved by the 

governing body of the Tribe,’’ thereby 

recognizing them as one entity. 

E. Comment on Definitions 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the Language—EMI FOA should include 

definitions for ‘‘language survival 

schools’’ and ‘‘language nests’’ in 

addition to ‘‘language restoration 

programs.’’ 

Response: ANA offers no change in 

response to this comment. The NOPC 

identified only changes from 2009 to 

2010. Definitions for both ‘‘language 

survival schools’’ and ‘‘language nests’’ 

were included in the FY 2009 program 

announcements; therefore, the 

definitions were not included as new 

definitions in the NOPC. All three 

definitions will be included in the FY 

2010 Language—EMI FOA. 

F. Comment on Application Evaluation 

Criteria 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

tracking an impact indicator for three 

years after the end of the project period 

is difficult because there would be no 

grant funding to support these data 

collection efforts. 

Response: ANA agrees in part and 

offers clarification but no change. The 

best use of ANA resources is to fund 

projects that are sustainable and have 

the potential to impact and provide 

benefits to the community beyond the 

project period. In addition, applicants 

should propose projects that have a 

clearly identified goal of what the 

project will achieve and how the 

proposed project will impact the 

community well into the future. 

Therefore, ANA is requesting that a 

target be set for three years after the 

project period; however, ANA is not 

requiring that data be collected or 

reported for the period after the project 

ends. It will be the grantee’s decision 

whether to track the third indicator after 

the end of the project period. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 11183 

G. Other Comments 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

that a Tribe should be able to have a 

Family Preservation grant concurrent 

with a SEDS grant and another 

commenter stated that the proposed 

changes will improve the ANA program 

and its effectiveness in the target 

communities. 

Responses: The first comment was not 

addressed by any changes identified in 

the NOPC; therefore, ANA declines to 

respond to the comment. ANA agrees 

with the second comment. ANA’s 

program mission is to promote selfsufficiency and cultural preservation for 

Native Americans by providing social 

and economic development 

opportunities through financial 

assistance, training, and technical 

assistance to eligible Tribes and Native 

American communities, including 

American Indian, Alaska Native, Native 

Hawaiian, and other Native Pacific 

Islander organizations. ANA recognizes 

that to better address its mission, a 

simplified funding structure that 

reaches more of ANA’s target 

communities is needed. The changes to 

the FY 2010 FOAs were developed to 

that end. 

The 2010 FOAs will be published on 

the ANA Web site at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana// 

programs/ 

program_announcements.html and at 

http://www.grants.gov. 

Dated: March 2, 2010. 

Caroline Gary, 

Deputy Commissioner, Administration for 

Native Americans. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4843 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

[60Day–10–10BU] 

Proposed Data Collections Submitted 

for Public Comment and 

Recommendations 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for 

opportunity for public comment on 

proposed data collection projects, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic 

summaries of proposed projects. To 

request more information on the 

proposed projects or to obtain a copy of 

the data collection plans and 

instruments, call 404–639–5960 or send 

comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, CDC 

Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 

Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 

30333 or send an e-mail to 

omb@cdc.gov. 

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 of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. Written comments should 

be received within 60 days of this 

notice. 

Proposed Project 

Case Studies of Communities and 

States Funded under Community 

Activities under the Communities 

Putting Prevention to Work Initiative— 

New—National Center for Chronic 

Disease Prevention and Health 

Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Background and Brief Description 

The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) is the primary Federal 

agency for protecting health and 

promoting quality of life through the 

prevention and control of disease, 

injury, and disability. CDC is committed 

to programs that reduce the health and 

economic consequences of the leading 

causes of death and disability, thereby 

ensuring a long, productive, healthy life 

for all people. 

Chronic diseases such as cancer, heart 

disease, and diabetes are among the 

leading causes of death and disability in 

the United States. Chronic diseases 

account for 70% of all deaths in the 

U.S., and cause major limitations in 

daily living for almost one out of 10 

Americans. Although chronic diseases 

are among the most common and costly 

health problems, they are also among 

the most preventable. Adopting healthy 

behaviors such as eating nutritious 

foods, being physically active and 

avoiding tobacco use can prevent or 

control the devastating effects of these 

diseases. 

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the 

‘‘Recovery Act’’) allotted $650 million to 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) to support evidencebased prevention and wellness 

strategies. The cornerstone of the 

initiative is the Communities Putting 

Prevention to Work (CPPW) Community 

Program, administered by the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC). Through this program, all states 

and territories, and approximately 35– 

45 communities, will receive 

cooperative agreement funding to 

implement evidence-based community 

approaches to chronic disease 

prevention over a 24-month period. 

Funded recipients will work with 

partners such as local and state health 

departments and other governmental 

agencies, health centers, schools, 

businesses, community and faith-based 

organizations, academic institutions, 

health care, mental health/substance 

abuse organizations, health plans, and 

others to create policies, systems, and 

environments that promote: (1) 

increased levels of physical activity, 

improved nutrition, and decreased 

prevalence of overweight/obesity; and 

(2) decreased tobacco use and decreased 

exposure to secondhand smoke. Each 

CPPW-funded state or community will 

choose to emphasize prevention 

objectives related to physical activity 

and nutrition, or tobacco. Toward that 

end, each funded recipient has selected 

strategies for implementing change from 

each of five categories involving media, 

access, price, point of purchase 

decision, and support services 

(MAPPS). Applicants for CPPW funding 

selected their approaches from a 

reference set of evidence-based 

strategies provided by CDC. 

CDC proposes to collect information 

from a subset of CPPW awardees to gain 

insight into the factors and variables 

that facilitate or hinder the successful 

implementation of these strategies and 

the effective creation of the desired 

policy, system, and environmental 

changes. CDC plans to conduct 

intensive case studies of six CPPWfunded states and 15 CPPW-funded 

communities. The case study sites will 

be selected to include a mix of state or 

community characteristics related to 

population density, geographic region, 

and targeted population. Case study 

information will be collected by 

conducting personal interviews with 

approximately 20 key informants at 

each of the 21 CPPW-funded sites. 

Respondents at each site will include 

project management (5), project staff (5), 

community partners (5), and policy 

makers/community decision makers (5). 

Information will be collected at the 

beginning of the CPPW funding period 

and again approximately 18 months 

post-award. OMB approval is requested 

for two years. 

The proposed information collection 

is one component of a larger evaluation 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES