48936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Publication of Revision and 

Consolidation of Military Freight Traffic 

Rules Publications (MFTRP) 1C–R 

(Motor), 10 (Rail), 30 (Barge), 6A 

(Pipeline), 4A (Tank Truck), Military 

Standard Tender Instruction 

Publication (MSTIP) 364D, SpotBid 

Business Rules, and SDDC Military 

Class Rate Publication No. 100A to a 

Consolidation of Procurement 

Requirements for the Purchase of 

Commercial Transportation Services 

into the Military Freight Traffic Unified 

Rules Publication (MFTURP) NO. 1 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: In a notice published in the 

Federal Register on June 9, 2009, (74 FR 

27294), comments received from various 

entities were erroneously omitted. To 

correct, the remaining comments will be 

listed below with responses from SDDC. 

Additionally, a notice published in the 

Federal Register on July 10, 2009, (74, 

FR 33219) indicated the effective date 

was no longer July 9, 2009 and that a 

new effective date would be announced 

at a later date. The new effective date is 

listed below. 

DATES: This publication will be effective 

October 26, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dora J. Elias, (757) 878–5379. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Corrections were made to the ‘‘Table of 

Contents’’ tables for each section to 

update page numbers and, when 

warranted, new item or paragraph 

numbers. 

Corrections were made to all SDDC 

email addresses referenced throughout 

the publication to acknowledge SDDC’s 

compliance with the requirement that 

all agencies utilize a more uniform 

‘‘.mil’’ address. 

A summary of the comments and 

SDDC’s responses are as follows: 

Comment one (1): The ‘‘Scope’’ 

should read that not every 

transportation situation can be 

accounted for and a provision allowing 

for negotiation with SDDC for clarified 

requirements and rates. 

Response one (1): SDDC agrees with 

revised to read: This publication will 

not prevent different or additional 

requirements or terms or conditions to 

apply for a particular shipment if the 

TSP, SDDC, and the T.O. all agree to the 

specific change and the change is not 

prohibited by statute, regulation, 

executive order, case-law or other 

applicable legal authority. In those 

instances, SDDC shall negotiate with the 

TSP to clarify requirements, rates 

structure, answer questions and resolve 

discrepancies. The TSP will submit a 

negotiated 500,000 series tender. 

Comment two (2): The language in 

‘‘Publication Update’’ is very confusing 

on how a regulation becomes 

inapplicable, yet govern. Is there not 

only one applicable rule at any point in 

time? How can one retreat to a prior rule 

if a current rule is cancelled? 

Response two (2): SDDC understands 

the concern over how we are going to 

make a carrier comply with a regulatory 

requirement that is invalid. Added the 

following language for clarity to section 

A, page 6: 

‘‘Any change that results in a significant 

effect, significant cost or administrative 

impact will be published in the Federal 

Register in accordance with 41, U.S.C. § 418. 

The effective date of the change will be 

published on the SDDC’s Web site and if a 

significant change, it will be published in the 

Federal Register. On the effective date, all 

changes will become effective and bind the 

TSP. They are incorporated automatically 

into a carrier’s tender(s) and bills of lading 

issued from that date forward. TSP not 

canceling a tender prior to the effective date 

of the change is considered as concurring and 

accepting of the change in their tender.’’ 

Comment three (3): The sentence in 

Section A, Part II, Paragraph A.1.a 

requires legal operating authority for 

both services ‘‘as offered’’ and ‘‘as 

provided’’ to DoD. 

Response three (3): SDDC concurs 

with commenter and has revised 

sentence to read: 

‘‘TSP must have current valid legal 

operating authority to provide commercial 

transportation services as offered and as 

provided to DoD.’’ 

Comment four (4): The sentence in 

Section A, Part II, Paragraph A.3 should 

be supplemented to explain how 

removal from the ‘‘program’’ is 

accomplished. 

Response four (4): SDDC agrees and 

added the following verbiage for clarity 

to read: 

‘‘Terms of the [Freight Carrier Registration 

Program] will be in effect from the date of 

approval by SDDC and can only be 

terminated after removal from program. 

Removal from program can be accomplished 

by various means to include, but not limited 

to, DoD-wide disqualification, selftermination, suspension, and debarment.’’ 

Comment five (5): The information 

presented in Section A, Part II, 

Paragraph B.4 needs clarification in 

regards to issuance and acceptance of 

cargo. 

Response five (5): SDDC agrees and 

has added the following revised 

language: 

‘‘All TSP who receive shipment awards 

shall be required to move and accept cargo 

under a non-negotiable standardized DOD 

generated commercial BL that conforms to 

the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR) 

4500.9R Part II, Cargo Movement, Chapter 

206 and the U.S. Federal Bill of Lading Act. 

A TSP will utilize their own commercial BLs 

as a substitute document only during times 

when transportation systems are inoperable, 

during holiday or weekends when there is no 

access to transportation offices, or upon 

approval of SDDC, G9. DOD personnel other 

than authorized SDDC personnel lack actual 

or apparent authority to execute or otherwise 

agree to any TSP commercial BL differing 

from the DOD standard BOL terms.’’ 

Comment six (6): The third sentence 

of Section A, Part II, Paragraph B.7 and 

Paragraph C.7 should be revised to 

ensure TSP are demonstrating how they 

are not liable for loss or damage to 

cargo. 

Response six (6): SDDC agrees with 

commenter and has revised the third 

sentence to read as follows: 

‘‘To avoid liability for loss and damage to 

cargo, a TSP must show that it is free from 

negligence and that the loss or damage was 

caused solely by an act of God, the public 

enemy, the shipper, a public authority, or 

that the damage resulted from the nature of 

the goods or an inherent vice in the goods.’’ 

Comment seven (7): In section A, Part 

II, Paragraph F, should remedies for 

non-compliance include any applicable 

remedies for breach of contract and who 

is responsible for imposing remedies for 

non-compliance in each specific mode? 

Response seven (7): SDDC agrees this 

could be stated more clearly. Revised 

paragraph to read as follows: 

‘‘A TSP’s, their agent’s, subcontractor’s or 

employee’s failure to comply with any of the 

applicable terms and conditions could be a 

basis for taking administrative or judicial 

action against the TSP. The following is not 

an all inclusive list of possible actions: 

1. Cancellation of a TSP’s approval to move 

DOD cargo; 

2. Placement in nonuse status; 

3. Placement disqualified status; 

4. Government-wide debarment or 

suspension from future procurements; 

5. Administrative claims or offsets; 

6. Criminal or civil proceedings Before 

courts of competent jurisdiction. 

Comment eight (8): In Section A, Part 

III, Paragraph A, there should be a 

subparagraph that provides that a TSP 

cannot certify delivery in PowerTrack 

until after they receive proof of actual 

delivery. 

Response eight (8): Agree a TSP 

should not invoice POWERTRACK until 

they receive proof of delivery. SDDC has 

provided the following language for 

clarification in Section A, Part III, 

Paragraph A.3: 

‘‘Prior to submitting an invoice (e-bill) the 

TSP must have proof of delivery such as a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 48937 

copy of the bill of lading (a signed bill of 

lading by the destination government 

representative). If they only have a verbal 

confirmation from the driver, then the TSP 

can call the destination verify delivery 

occurred and the cargo was delivered in good 

or and condition as proof of delivery.’’ 

Comment nine (9): Language 

contained in the ‘‘Alternation of Rates’’ 

needs to clarify that Direct Procurement 

Method (DPM) shipments also do not 

alternate with Freight All Kinds (FAK) 

shipments. 

Response nine (9): SDDC Concurs 

with comment and added language in 

Section A, Part III, Paragraph D.2 that 

clarifies the intent of this alternation of 

rates rule. 

‘‘Rates that pertain to a specific 

commodity, to include DPM commodities 

100250 and 100251, will not alternate with 

FAK rates.’’ 

Comment ten (10): Need to add 

commodity codes for Direct 

Procurement Method (DPM) shipments 

to the ‘‘Commodity Code’’ appendix. 

Response ten (10): SDDC concurs with 

this request and has added commodity 

codes 100250 and 100251 to Appendix 

B, Commodity Codes. 

Comment eleven (11): Paragraph D.3 

of Section A, Part III needs to read the 

same as the MFTRP 1C–R page 3–2, 

Item 60. SDDC cannot force TSP to have 

rates same or cheaper than ‘‘any’’ 

contractor. 

Response eleven (11): SDDC agrees 

with comment and has reverted 

language for that particular 

subparagraph to that contained in the 

current Military Freight Traffic Rules 

Publication (MFTRP) 1C–R, 2nd 

Edition. New language reads: 

‘‘In no event shall charges submitted under 

any tender be in excess of charges based on 

the TSP’s lowest rate available to the general 

public in either common or contract rates, 

except 500,000 series tenders, or be in excess 

of charges based on rates otherwise tendered 

to the Government by the Contractor for the 

same type of service.’’ 

Comment twelve (12): Under Section 

A, Part IV, Second Part I, Item 1, there 

should be more than the ability to 

remove improper items in a tender. The 

publication should state that improper 

items in a tender is inapplicable and of 

no effect. 

Response twelve (12): SDDC has no 

issue with this comment and has 

revised sentence to read as follows: 

‘‘Any Tender that omits any required data 

containing special annotations or exceptions 

will be considered inapplicable and have no 

effect to any contract for carriage. Tenders 

inadvertently accepted and distributed by 

SDDC, which are subsequently determined to 

not meet or comply with the DOD tender 

filing instructions, or the applicable SDDC 

rules and/or rate publication, shall be subject 

to immediate removal. The issuing TSP will 

be advised when tenders are removed under 

these circumstances.’’ 

Comment thirteen (13): The proposed 

publication incorrectly indicates that 

TSP with questions about Air Mode K, 

L, and M shipments should contact 

United States Transportation Command 

(USTRANSCOM). 

Response thirteen (13): SDDC agrees 

and has removed references to 

submittals of air tenders to 

Headquarters, USTRANSCOM. 

Comment fourteen (14): Recommend 

referencing throughout the publication 

that brokers, freight-forwarders, 

shippers agents and associations are 

prohibited from participating in 

shipments requiring a Transportation 

Protective Service (TPS). 

Response fourteen (14): SDDC concurs 

and references, when applicable, that 

brokers, freight forwarders, and logistics 

companies are prohibited from having 

any dealings with shipments that 

require a TPS. 

Comment fifteen (15): Specifically 

mention that a separate Standard Carrier 

Alpha Code (SCAC) for the type of 

service offered must be used. 

Response fifteen (15): SDDC concurs 

with commenter and has added to 

Section A, Part IV, Specific Instructions 

for Completing Sections A, B, and C (of 

the 364 Tender), ‘‘Modes’’: 

‘‘Enter the single character code from the 

following list that describes the mode of 

service offered by the tender. For each type 

of service offered, the TSP must provide a 

unique SCAC applicable to their authority to 

operate and for the mode transportation 

offered. For example, if a TSP offers to 

provide indirect air carrier and indirect 

motor carrier service, then they will need at 

least two SCACs: one for the air and a 

different SCAC for the motor. If a TSB will 

only provide motor service under their 

carrier authority and property freight 

forwarder authority, then they will also need 

two SCACs: one for the direct carrier service 

offered and another SCAC for indirect carrier 

services offered’’ 

Comment sixteen (16): As it now 

reads, the TSP fills in the applicable 

rule or portion of the rule publication. 

This instruction is incomplete. There 

should be some explanation of how the 

TSP selects the applicable rule or 

portion of the rule publication. 

Response sixteen (16): SDDC agrees 

and revised wording contained in 

Section A, Part IV, Part B—General 

Terms and Conditions on Tender 

Instructions to read: 

‘‘TSP tenders list this publication as the 

only governing publication. If a TSP lists 

another governing publication, then any 

application of that publication if it conflicts 

with the tender or bill of lading is void. 

Additionally, the tender is subject to removal 

by SDDC as an improper tender.’’ 

Comment seventeen (17): In Section 

A, Part VI, Paragraph D.1, the Carmack 

defenses may require a TSP to show that 

it is free from negligence in addition to 

a specific situation. 

Response seventeen (17): SDDC agrees 

and has revised verbiage to read: 

‘‘The TSP shall not charge any detention, 

demurrage or storage charges against any 

DoD sponsored shipment when the delay is 

caused by acts or omissions beyond DoD’s, 

its contractor’s, or its agent’s control.’’ 

Comment eighteen (18): In Section A, 

Part VI, Paragraph F, the proposed rule 

has coverage for ‘‘multi-modal service’’ 

defined as transportation by a mode 

other than the mode used to pick up the 

shipment. This is different than mode 

neutral as defined in Public Law 110– 

417 [Oct 14 2008]. Section 355 (b) is 

titled ‘‘MODE–NEUTRAL APPROACH 

DEFINED.’’ For purposes of this Public 

Law, ‘‘the term ‘mode-neutral approach’ 

means a method of shipment that allows 

a shipper to choose a carrier with a 

time-definite performance standard for 

delivery without specifying a particular 

mode of conveyance and carrier to 

select the mode of conveyance using 

best commercial practices as long as the 

mode of conveyance can reasonably be 

expected to ensure the time-definite 

delivery requested by the shipper.’’ 

Response eighteen (18): SDDC 

concurs that this is not mode neutral. 

Multimodal is when more than one 

mode is used to transport the freight. 

However, this is really mode 

substitution because of events beyond 

the TSP’s and shipper’s control that the 

original mode is not able to transport 

the cargo. SDDC will change title to 

‘‘Emergency Mode Substitution’’ and 

insert ‘‘with TO concurrence’’ to ensure 

TSP will provide this service when 

required. The following language has 

been inserted for clarity: 

‘‘Multi-modal service is transportation of a 

shipment by a mode (motor, rail, air, water) 

other than that used to pick up the shipment. 

This service is to be provided at the option 

of the TSP, with TO concurrence, when 

multi-modal service is necessary due to 

circumstances set forth in paragraph 2 

below.’’ 

Comment nineteen (19): Returned/ 

Refused/Rejected Shipment changes the 

formula Transportation Service 

Providers (TSP) are compensated. 

Respectfully request that this 

subparagraph be stricken. 

Response nineteen (19): SDDC 

understands the confusion with this 

new verbiage. In agreement with 

requestor, SDDC incorporated it under 

‘‘Reconsignment/Diversion’’ paragraph. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
48938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 

Comment twenty (20): Clarification is 

needed regarding the phrase ‘‘security 

clearance equal to the commodity being 

handled.’’ Is a clearance other than 

‘‘Secret’’ needed? May non-driver 

employees (or contractors/ 

subcontractors) be in process (submitted 

E–QIP) and have access to information 

regarding SECRET, PSS or AA&E 

shipments or not? 

Response twenty (20): SDDC clarified 

language so intent of security 

requirements to remove any confusion. 

Verbiage now mirrors Defense 

Transportation Regulation (DTR), Part II, 

Chapter 205. Removed ‘‘security 

clearance equal to the commodity being 

handled’’ and replaced with ‘‘SECRET 

(interim or final).’’ 

Comment twenty-one (21): The 

language for trailer security is missing 

from the MFTURP. 

Response twenty-one (21): SDDC 

agrees and added language currently 

residing in the MFTRP 1C–R, 2nd 

edition, Item 329, Hinge and Hasp on 

Trailers or Containers, which can be 

found at: http://www.sddc.army.mil/

sddc/Content/Pub/45526/MFTRP1CR%202nd%20ed%201%

20March%2009.pdf. 

Comment twenty-two (22): Item 21, 

Detention: Vehicles with Power Units 

(DEP) and Item 23 Detention: Vehicles 

without Power Units (DET) is confusing 

because it could be interpreted to mean 

a TSP gets the same charge for an hour 

of detention as they would receive for 

a minute of detention. However, it 

seems the charge should be prorated. 

Response twenty-two (22): The intent 

of these Items is for detention time 

should be based on actual time 

equipment is detained and charges 

should be prorated to reflect the actual 

time of detention. The following 

revisions were made to these items 

Item 21, subparagraph 5, 6, and 7 is 

changed to the following: 

5. If loading or unloading extends beyond 

the allowable free time, then the carrier can 

assess a detention charge based on a charge 

of DEP(1)$_____ for each sixty minutes of 

delay that occurs during normal shipping 

and receiving hours, which is known as 

detention time. If the delay is less than sixty 

minutes or exceeds sixty minutes, then the 

charge is prorated based on the actual 

minutes of detention time incurred. 

6. Detention time starts when a vehicle is 

delayed by the shipper, consignor, 

destination or consignee beyond the 

allowable free time and ends when the 

vehicle is released by the shipper, consignor 

or consignee to either by notifying the driver 

or the TSP representative that the vehicle is 

ready for pickup. 

7. Detention time only includes the time 

the vehicle is delayed during normal 

shipping and receiving hours. If the vehicle 

is delayed beyond the shipper’s, consignee’s 

or consignor’s normal shipping or receiving 

hours, then the only delay time included in 

the detention time is the time occurring 

during normal shipping and receiving hours. 

Item 23, Detention: Without Power Unit, 

Paragraph 6: 

a. For each of the first and second 24-hour 

period when the vehicle is detained beyond 

the free time the detention charge will be 

DET(1)$_________. If the period is less than 

an hour but longer than 14 minutes, then that 

would equate to a fraction of an hour and the 

charge will be prorated at one fourth of the 

charge for each 15 minutes of detention 

incurred. There is no charge for time less 

than 15 minutes. 

b. For each of the third and fourth 24-hour 

period when the vehicle is detained beyond 

the free time the detention charge will be 

DET(1)$_________. If the period is less than 

an hour but longer than 14 minutes, then that 

would equate to a fraction of an hour and the 

charge will be prorated at one fourth of the 

charge for each 15 minutes of detention 

incurred. There is no charge for time less 

than 15 minutes. 

c. For each of the fifth and succeeding 24- 

hour period when the vehicle is detained 

beyond the free time the detention charge 

will be DET(1)$_________. If the period is less 

than an hour but longer than 14 minutes, 

then that would equate to a fraction of an 

hour and the charge will be prorated at one 

fourth of the charge for each 15 minutes of 

detention incurred. There is no charge for 

time less than 15 minutes. 

Comment twenty-three (23): 

Expedited Service (EXP) does not match 

current, agreed upon verbiage as listed 

in the Military Freight Traffic Rules 

Publication (MFTRP) 1C–R, 2nd 

Edition. 

Response twenty-three (23): SDDC 

agrees and added language currently 

residing in the MFTRP 1C–R, 2nd 

edition, Item 110, Expedited Service 

(EXP), which can be found at: http://

www.sddc.army.mil/sddc/Content/Pub/

45526/MFTRP1C-R%202nd%20ed%

201%20March%2009.pdf 

Comment twenty-four (24): The 

verbiage in Section B, Item 55, 

paragraph 2 is confusing. 

Response twenty-four (24): SDDC 

agrees and has revised to read: 

‘‘Hourly charges shall commence when the 

TSP’s driver reports to shipper/consignee/ 

destination and consignee representative 

with the proper equipment ordered for 

loading or unloading, and terminates when 

driver(s) is/are released by the representative. 

The pickup and/or delivery time shall be 

annotated on BL by the representative, the 

consignor or consignee.’’ 

Comment twenty-five (25): Request 

that clarification of Item 75, Towaway 

Service, Mode ‘‘T’’ does not alternate 

with any other carrier tender or rate. 

Response twenty-five (25): SDDC 

concurs and makes reference to portion 

of publication that indicates Mode ‘‘T’’ 

for Towaway does not alternate with 

any other carrier tender or rate. 

Comment twenty-six (26): There 

should be an allowance to break seals 

on dromedaries during emergencies in 

Section B, Item 97. 

Response twenty-six (26): SDDC 

agrees and added language so TSP can 

break seals during emergencies. 

Comment twenty-seven (27): It should 

be clarified what constitutes a 

‘‘situation’’ and whether drivers moving 

shipment with Satellite Monitoring 

should be required to make emergency 

contact with SDDC for every 

‘‘situation.’’ It is requested that the first 

sentence in the definition of 

‘‘EMERGENCY’’ be stricken. 

Response twenty-seven (27): SDDC 

concurs and removed verbiage. 

Comment twenty-eight (28): Request 

that the Extra Driver (EXD) accessorial 

be added to Appendix C, Accessorial 

Codes. 

Response twenty-eight (28): SDDC 

concurs and has added the EXD 

accessorial to Appendix C. 

Comment twenty-nine (29): Request 

that verbiage be added to Appendix D, 

Definitions, ‘‘Transloading’’ that 

indicates movements of dromedary 

equipment. 

Response twenty-nine (29): SDDC 

concurs, yet merely refers readers to 

Item 97, Transloading, for more 

information. 

Comment thirty (30): Request that 

definitions be added for air carrier/air 

TSP; air freight forwarder; direct air 

carrier/direct air TSP; Late; Normal 

Business Hours/Normal Business Day; 

and Required Delivery Date. 

Response thirty (30): SDDC nonconcurs with adding definitions for air 

carrier/TSP, air freight forwarder, direct 

air carrier/TSP because currently, the 

MFTURP does not govern air transport 

so there is no need for these definitions 

at this time. 

SDDC did add definitions for Late and 

Long-Term Lease. The MFTURP already 

contained definitions for Required 

Delivery Date and Normal Business 

Hours so it did not see a reason to add 

the same verbiage. New definitions are 

provided below: 

‘‘LATE—Unexcused failure to deliver 

the shipment by the Required Delivery 

Date (RDD).’’ 

‘‘LONG TERM LEASE—Leasing a 

company’s vehicle to another 

transportation service provider for a 

duration of more than 30 days. TSP 

must abide by lease provisions of 49 

CFR, Part 376.’’ 

Comment thirty-one (31): Need CIS, 

DDP, PSS, and TFG listed in Appendix 

E, Explanation of Abbreviations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 48939 

Response thirty-one (31): SDDC agrees 

and has added Constant Surveillance 

and Custody Service (CIS), Dual Driver 

Protective Service (DDP), Protective 

Security Service (PSS), and 

Transportation Facilities Guide (TFG) in 

Appendix E. 

Miscellaneous: 

• This publication, as well as the 

other SDDC publications, can be 

accessed via the SDDC Web site at: 

http://www.sddc.army.mil/Public/ 

Global%20Cargo%20Distribution/

Domestic/Publications/. 

C.E. Radford, III, 

Division Chief, G9, Strategic Business 

Directorate. 

[FR Doc. E9–23174 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, invites 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requests as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 24, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 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. 

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 the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

Dated: September 22, 2009. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Report of Children and Toddlers 

Receiving Early Intervention Services in 

accordance with Part C, Report of 

Program Settings Where Early 

Intervention Services are Provided to 

Children with Disabilities and Their 

Families in Accordance with Part C; 

Report on Infants and Toddlers Exiting 

Part C. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 56. 

Burden Hours: 6,569. 

Abstract: This package provides 

instructions and forms necessary for 

States to report the number of children 

receiving early intervention services 

under Part C of IDEA, the settings in 

which these children are provided 

services, and the reasons by which these 

children exit Part C of IDEA. The form 

satisfies reporting requirements and is 

used to monitor State agencies and for 

Congressional reporting. 

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 4144. 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 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. 

[FR Doc. E9–23207 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, invites 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requests as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 24, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 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. 

The Department of Education is 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES