48796 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 

5See Meghan Dunn & Rebecca Norwick, Federal 

Judicial Center Report of a Survey of 

Videoconferencing in the Court of Appeals (2006), 

pp. 1–2, available at http://www.fjc.gov/public/ 

pdf.nsf/lookup/vidconca.pdf/$file/vidconca.pdf. 

6See American Bar Association’s Commission on 

Immigration Report entitled ‘‘Reforming the 

Immigration System’’ (2010), pp. 2–26–2–27. 

7See Roger C. Cramton, A Comment on TrialType Hearings in Nuclear Power Plant Siting, 58 

Va. L. Rev. 585, 591–93 (1972) (Professor Cramton 

is a former Chairman of the Conference); see also 

Paul R. Verkuil, A Study of Informal Adjudication 

Procedures, 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. 739 (1976) 

(describing the values of efficiency, fairness and 

satisfaction) (Mr. Verkuil is the current Chairman of 

the Conference). The balancing of these procedural 

values was undertaken in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 

U.S. 319 (1976). 

reducing the need for travel and the costs 

associated with it, reducing caseload backlog, 

and increasing scheduling flexibility for 

agencies and attorneys as well as increasing 

access for parties.5 Critics, however, have 

suggested that hearings and other 

adjudicatory proceedings conducted by video 

may hamper communication between a party 

and the decision-maker; may hamper 

communication between parties and their 

attorneys or representatives; and/or may 

hamper a decision-maker’s ability to make 

credibility determinations.6

Recognizing both the praise for and 

critique of the use of VTC in administrative 

hearings and other adjudicatory proceedings, 

the Administrative Conference issues this 

Recommendation regarding the use of VTC in 

Federal agencies with high volume caseloads. 

The Conference has a long standing 

commitment to the values inherent in the 

agency adjudicatory process: Efficiency, 

fairness and acceptability/satisfaction.7

These values should drive decisions to use 

VTC. Therefore, this Recommendation 

suggests that agencies should use VTC only 

after conducting an analysis of the costs and 

benefits of VTC use and determining that 

such use would improve efficiency (i.e., 

timeliness and costs of adjudications) and 

would not impair the fairness of the 

proceedings or the participants’ satisfaction 

with them. In addition, this Recommendation 

supports the Conference’s statutory mandate 

of making improvements to the regulatory 

and adjudicatory process by improving the 

effectiveness and fairness of applicable laws. 

See generally Administrative Conference Act, 

5 U.S.C §§ 591–596. 

Accordingly, this Recommendation is 

directed at those agencies with high volume 

caseloads that do not currently use VTC as 

a regular practice in administrative hearings 

and/or other adjudicatory proceedings and 

that may benefit from the use of it to improve 

efficiency and/or reduce costs. Agencies with 

high volume caseloads are likely to receive 

the most benefit and/or cost savings from the 

use of VTC. However, the Conference 

encourages all agencies (including those with 

lower volume caseloads) to consider whether 

the use of VTC would be beneficial as a way 

to improve efficiency and/or reduce costs 

while also preserving the fairness and 

participant satisfaction of proceedings. This 

Recommendation sets forth some nonexclusive criteria that agencies should 

consider. For those agencies that determine 

that the use of VTC would be beneficial, this 

Recommendation also sets forth best 

practices provided in part by agencies 

currently using VTC. 

Recommendation 

1. Federal agencies with high volume 

caseloads should consider using video 

teleconferencing technology (‘‘VTC’’) to 

conduct administrative hearings and other 

aspects of adjudicatory proceedings. 

Agencies with lower volume caseloads may 

also benefit from this recommendation. 

2. Federal agencies with high volume 

caseloads should consider the following nonexclusive criteria when determining whether 

to use video teleconferencing technology in 

administrative hearings and other 

adjudicatory proceedings: 

(a) Whether an agency’s use of VTC is 

legally permissible under its organic 

legislation and other laws; 

(b) Whether the nature and type of 

administrative hearings and other 

adjudicatory proceedings conducted by the 

agency are conducive to the use of VTC; 

(c) Whether VTC can be used without 

affecting the outcome of cases heard by the 

agency; 

(d) Whether the agency’s budget would 

allow for investment in appropriate and 

secure technology given the costs of VTC; 

(e) Whether the use of VTC would create 

cost savings, such as savings associated with 

reductions in personnel travel and with 

increased productivity resulting from 

reductions in personnel time spent on travel; 

(f) Whether the use of VTC would result in 

a reduction of the amount of wait time for an 

administrative hearing; 

(g) Whether users of VTC, such as 

administrative law judges, hearing officers 

and other court staff, parties, witnesses and 

attorneys (or other party representatives), 

would find the use of such technology 

beneficial; 

(h) Whether the agency’s facilities and 

administration, both national and regional (if 

applicable), can be equipped to handle the 

technology and administration required for 

use of VTC; 

(i) Whether the use of VTC would 

adversely affect the representation of a party 

at an administrative hearing or other 

adjudicatory proceeding; and 

(j) Whether the communication between 

the various individuals present at a hearing 

or proceeding (including parties, witnesses, 

judges, hearing officers and other agency 

staff, translators and attorneys (or other party 

representatives)) would be adversely affected. 

3. Federal agencies with high volume 

caseloads that decide to use video 

teleconferencing technology to conduct 

administrative hearings and other 

adjudicatory proceedings should consider the 

following best practices: 

(a) Use VTC on a voluntary basis and allow 

a party to have an in-person hearing or 

proceeding if the party chooses to do so. 

(b) Periodically evaluate the use of VTC to 

make sure that the use is outcome-neutral 

(i.e., does not affect the decision rendered) 

and that the use is meeting the needs of its 

users. 

(c) Solicit feedback and comments 

(possibly through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking) about VTC from those who 

would use it regularly (e.g., administrative 

law judges, hearing officers and other 

administrative staff, parties, witnesses and 

attorneys (or other party representatives)). 

(d) Begin the use of VTC with a pilot 

program and then evaluate the pilot program 

before moving to wider use. 

(e) Structure training at the outset of 

implementation of VTC use and have 

technical support available for 

troubleshooting and implementation 

questions. 

(f) Consult the staff of the Administrative 

Conference of the United States and/or 

officials at other agencies that have used VTC 

for best practices, guidance, advice, and the 

possibilities for shared resources and 

collaboration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20138 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6110–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[Doc. No. AMS–LS–11–0065] 

Plan for Estimating Daily Livestock 

Slaughter Under Federal Inspection; 

Request for Extension of a Currently 

Approved Information Collection 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35), this document 

announces the Agricultural Marketing 

Service’s (AMS) intention to request 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget, for an extension of the 

currently approved information 

collection used to compile and generate 

the Federally Inspected Estimated Daily 

Slaughter Report. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

submitted electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments may 

also be submitted to Jennifer Porter, 

Deputy Director, Livestock and Grain 

Market News Division, Livestock and 

Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

Stop 0252; 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW.; Room 2619–S; Washington, DC 

20250–0252. All comments should 

reference document number AMS–LS– 

11–0065 and note the date and page 

number of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Submitted comments will be available 

for public inspection at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or at the above 

address during regular business hours. 

Comments submitted in response to this 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48797 

document will be included in the 

records and will be made available to 

the public. Please be advised that the 

identity of the individuals or entities 

submitting the comments will be made 

public on the Internet at the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Porter, Deputy Director, 

Livestock and Grain Market News 

Division, AMS, USDA, by telephone at 

(202) 720–6231, or via e-mail at 

Jennifer.Porter@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Plan for Estimating Daily 

Livestock Slaughter Under Federal 

Inspection. 

OMB Number: 0581–0050. 

Expiration Date of Approval: 01–31– 

2012. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing 

Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–1627), 

section 203(g) directs and authorizes the 

collection and dissemination of 

marketing information including 

adequate outlook information, on a 

market area basis, for the purpose of 

anticipating and meeting consumer 

requirements, aiding in the maintenance 

of farm income, and to bring about a 

balance between production and 

utilization. 

Under this market news program, 

USDA issues a market news report 

estimating daily livestock slaughter 

under Federal inspection. This report is 

compiled by AMS on a voluntary basis 

in cooperation with the livestock and 

meat industry. Market news reporting 

must be timely, accurate, and 

continuous if it is to be useful to 

producers, processors, and the trade in 

general. The daily livestock slaughter 

estimates are provided at the request of 

industry and are used to make 

production and marketing decisions. 

The Daily Estimated Livestock 

Slaughter Under Federal Inspection 

Report is used by a wide range of 

industry contacts, including packers, 

processors, producers, brokers and 

retailers of meat and meat products. The 

livestock and meat industry requested 

that USDA issue slaughter estimates 

(daily and weekly), by species, for 

cattle, calves, hogs and sheep in order 

to assist them in making immediate 

production and marketing decisions and 

as a guide to the volume of meat in the 

marketing channel. The information 

requested from respondents includes 

their estimation of the current day’s 

slaughter at their plant(s) and the actual 

slaughter for the previous day. Also, the 

Government is a large purchaser of meat 

and related products and this report 

assists other Government agencies in 

providing timely information on the 

quantity of meat entering the processing 

channels. 

The information must be collected, 

compiled, and disseminated by an 

impartial third-party, in a manner 

which protects the confidentiality of the 

reporting entity. AMS is in the best 

position to provide this service. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average .0333 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, individuals or 

households, farms, and the Federal 

Government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

72. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

18,720. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 260. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 624 hours. 

Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All responses to this document will 

be summarized and included in the 

request for OMB approval. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Dated: August 3, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20113 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Research Service 

Notice of the Advisory Committee on 

Biotechnology and 21st Century 

Agriculture Meeting 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary, 

Research, Education, and Economics, 

Agricultural Research Service. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App., the United States 

Department of Agriculture announces a 

meeting of the Advisory Committee on 

Biotechnology and 21st Century 

Agriculture (AC21). 

DATES: August 30–31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Rooms 104A and 107A, 

USDA Jamie L. Whitten Federal 

Building, 12th Street and Jefferson 

Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20250. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Schechtman, Designated 

Federal Official, Office of the Deputy 

Secretary, USDA, 202B Jamie L. Whitten 

Federal Building, 12th and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250; Telephone (202) 

720–3817; Fax (202) 690–4265; E-mail 

AC21@ars.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The first 

meeting of the reconstituted AC21 has 

been scheduled for August 30–31, 2011. 

The AC21 consists of members 

representing the biotechnology industry, 

the organic food industry, farming 

communities, the seed industry, food 

manufacturers, state government, 

consumer and community development 

groups, as well as academic researchers 

and a medical doctor. In addition, 

representatives from the Departments of 

Commerce, Health and Human Services, 

and State, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Council on 

Environmental Quality, and the Office 

of the United States Trade 

Representative have been invited to 

serve as ‘‘ex officio’’ members. The 

Committee meeting will be held from 

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on each day. The 

topics to be discussed will include: (1) 

Rules of procedure for the AC21; (2) 

assessment of informational needs of 

AC21 members; (3) organization of the 

AC21’s work in developing practical 

recommendations on approaches for 

bolstering coexistence among different 

agricultural production methods; and 

(4) preliminary presentations and 

introductory discussions on above work 

topic. 

Background information regarding the 

work and membership of the AC21 will 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES