Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices 36261 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting 

costs. 

IV. Request for 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 shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) 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. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14802 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Socioeconomic 

Assessment of Gulf of Mexico 

Fisheries Under the Grouper-Tilefish 

Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before August 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at JJessup@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Dr. Larry Perruso, (305) 361– 

4278 or Larry.perruso@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for a new information 

collection. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) proposes to collect 

demographic, cultural, economic and 

social information about Gulf of Mexico 

fisheries managed under the GrouperTilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 

Program. The survey also intends to 

inquire about the industry’s 

perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about 

the performance of the Grouper-Tilefish 

IFQ Program. The data gathered will be 

used to describe the social and 

economic changes brought about by the 

Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program, assess 

the economic performance of the 

industry under the Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 

Program, and evaluate the 

socioeconomic impacts of future federal 

regulatory actions. In addition, the 

information will be used to strengthen 

and improve fishery management 

decision-making, satisfy legal mandates 

under Executive Order 12866, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species 

Act, and the National Environmental 

Policy Act, and other pertinent statues. 

II. Method of Collection 

The socioeconomic information 

sought will be collected via in-person 

surveys. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(request for a new information 

collection). 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

120. 

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hrs. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 240. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

IV. Request for 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 shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) 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. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14770 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

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 (CNCS) has 

submitted a public information 

collection request (ICR) entitled Senior 

Corps Performance Measurement 

Surveys Parts A, B, and C 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, 

Angela Roberts, at (202) 606–6822 or 

email to aroberts@cns.gov. Individuals 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call 1–800– 

833–3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 

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 the Federal Register: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

36262 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices 

(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 email 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 CNCS, 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 

The 60-day Notice soliciting 

comments was published on Thursday, 

December 8, 2011 on page 76697. A 

total of 278 comments were received 

from 87 commenters. Most individuals 

providing comments submitted more 

than one comment each. The 

commenters represented all three Senior 

Corps programs in the following 

proportions: 65 Individuals, or 75 

percent from RSVP; 2 individuals, or 2 

percent from the Foster Grandparent 

Program; 2 individuals or percent from 

the Senior Companion Program; 12 

individuals, or 15 percent had no 

program identified; and the remaining 6 

individuals, or 6 percent represented a 

combination of programs. In all cases, 

the majority of comments were from 

RSVP, which accounted for a total of 

237 comments, or 85 percent of the total 

comments. Comments were broken out 

into eleven discrete categories, as 

follows: 

(1) The survey is partially or entirely 

unnecessary: 33 comments or 11 percent 

of the total. Of the 33 comments, 30 or 

91 percent were from RSVP. 

(2) The survey is duplicative of a tool 

or process already used by respondents: 

17 comments or 6 percent of the total. 

Of the 17 comments, 13 comments or 76 

percent were from RSVP. 

(3) The survey places a particularly 

high burden on RSVP program grantees: 

23 comments, or 8 percent of the total. 

Of the 23 comments, 100 percent were 

from RSVP. 

(4) The survey is too long, and 

contains too many questions: 19 

comments, or 6 percent of the total. Of 

the 19 comments, 17 or 89 percent were 

from RSVP. 

(5) The survey is partially or entirely 

irrelevant: 20 comments, or 7 percent of 

the total. Of the 20 comments, 17 or 85 

percent were from RSVP. 

(6) The survey represents too great a 

time burden: 40 comments or 14 percent 

of the total. Of the 40 comments, 72 

percent were from RSVP. 

(7) The survey should be conducted 

as a sample, rather than the proposed 

census: 15 comments or 5 percent of the 

total. Of the 15 comments, 14 or 93 

percent were from RSVP. 

(8) The survey is too costly: 47 

comments or 16 percent of the total. Of 

the 47, 41 comments or 87 percent were 

from RSVP. 

(9) The survey contains invasive 

questions that would be perceived as 

encroaching on the privacy of the 

respondents: 29 comments or 10 percent 

of the total. Of the 29 comments, 24 or 

83 percent were from RSVP. 

(10) The program model makes it 

difficult to reach the clients in order to 

conduct the survey: 32 comments or 12 

percent of the comments. Of the 32 

comments, 29 or 91 percent were from 

RSVP. The Senior Companion Program 

grantees did not raise this as a core 

issue, and the model supports access to 

the assigned clients and volunteers. 

(11) The condition of clients, such as 

Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia, would 

make it difficult to survey some number 

of clients: 3 comments or 1 percent of 

the total. All three of the comments 

were from representatives of the Foster 

Grandparent or Senior Companion 

programs. 

In summary, 85 percent of the 

comments were submitted by 

individuals representing the RSVP 

program. The comments from RSVP 

reflected concerns in every category, 

with particularly emphasis on time 

burden, cost, and direct client contact 

due to the program model. 

CNCS concurs that, due to the scope, 

magnitude, and decentralized volunteer 

placement structure of RSVP, the survey 

is less aligned with RSVP than with the 

Foster Grandparent and Senior 

Companion programs. 

Based on the comments received, 

CNCS will exempt RSVP grantees from 

a mandatory requirement to use the 

survey as a means to collect client 

performance data and volunteer benefit 

data. CNCS will offer RSVP the 

opportunity to participate solely on a 

voluntary basis. CNCS believes that this 

exemption addresses the concerns of the 

majority of commenters. The survey will 

be required of Foster Grandparent and 

Senior Companion program grantees. 

CNCS will make the following 

modifications in response to the 

comments: 

(1) The survey is partially or entirely 

unnecessary: 33 comments or 11 percent 

of the total. Of the 33 comments, 30 or 

91 percent were from RSVP. Response: 

CNCS believes the survey will yield 

significant data in the FGP and SCP 

programs. RSVP grantees will not be 

required to participate. 

(2) The survey is duplicative of a tool 

or process already used by respondents: 

17 comments or 6 percent of the total. 

Of the 17 comments, 13 comments or 76 

percent were from RSVP. Response: 

CNCS believes the survey will provide 

new data to demonstrate national 

outcome data in the FGP and SCP 

programs. RSVP grantees will not be 

required to participate. 

(3) The survey places a particularly 

high burden on RSVP program grantees: 

23 comments, or 8 percent of the total. 

Of the 23 comments, 100 percent were 

from RSVP. Response: Due to the scope 

and decentralized placement of RSVP 

volunteers, CNCS concurs and will 

exempt RSVP from required 

participation in the survey. 

(4) The survey is too long, and 

contains too many questions: 19 

comments, or 6 percent of the total. Of 

the 19 comments, 17 or 89 percent were 

from RSVP. Response: CNCS modified 

the survey tools by dividing one 

consolidated tool into three separate 

instruments. The Independent Living 

Surveys—comprising one instrument for 

clients (primarily frail seniors) served 

by Senior Companions and one 

instrument for caregivers of clients 

served by Senior Companions, were 

restructured to contain a total of ten 

questions each. The survey is formatted 

for ease of use, with the client or 

surrogate circling the correct response to 

each question. The Benefits to the 

Volunteer Survey is now a separate 

instrument in a similar format. 

Additionally, the Benefits to the 

Volunteer Survey frequency of use was 

changed from annual to one-time. The 

Independent Living Surveys will remain 

annual. 

(5) The survey is partially or entirely 

irrelevant: 20 comments, or 7 percent of 

the total. Of the 20 comments, 17 or 85 

percent were from RSVP. Response: 

CNCS believes the data to be collected 

through the survey is relevant to both 

the volunteer experience and the 

outcomes to clients and caregivers 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices 36263 

receiving respite. RSVP will not be 

required to participate in the survey. 

(6) The survey represents too great a 

time burden: 40 comments or 14 percent 

of the total. Of the 40 comments, 72 

percent were from RSVP. Response: 

comments about the length of the 

survey, CNCS reformat the survey into 

individual instruments that each focus 

on one discrete dimension of 

performance. 

(7) The survey should be conducted 

as a sample, rather than the proposed 

census: 15 comments or 5 percent of the 

total. Of the 15 comments, 14 or 93 

percent were from RSVP. Response: The 

method original envisioned is that all 

clients and caregivers receiving 

independent living support and/or 

respite, and all volunteers would 

participate. While RSVP will not be 

required to participate in the survey, 

there may be some opportunity to 

engage in a separate evaluation-focused 

activity that would use a sampling 

model. 

(8) The survey is too costly: 47 

comments or 16 percent of the total. Of 

the 47, 41 comments or 87 percent were 

from RSVP. Response: CNCS 

determined that RSVP would be exempt 

from participating in the survey process. 

(9) The survey contains invasive 

questions that would be perceived as 

encroaching on the privacy of the 

respondents: 29 comments or 10 percent 

of the total. Of the 29 comments, 24 or 

83 percent were from RSVP. Response: 

CNCS will eliminate or de-identify the 

data received so that individual 

responses cannot be linked back to 

specific respondents. 

(10) The program model makes it 

difficult to reach the clients in order to 

conduct the survey: 32 comments or 12 

percent of the comments. Of the 32 

comments, 29 or 91 percent were from 

RSVP. The Senior Companion Program 

grantees did not raise this as a core 

issue, and the model supports access to 

the assigned clients and volunteers. 

Response: CNCS will not require RSVP 

grantees to participate in the survey. 

(11) The condition of clients, such as 

Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia, would 

make it difficult to survey some number 

of clients: 3 comments or 1 percent of 

the total. All three of the comments 

were from representatives of the Foster 

Grandparent or Senior Companion 

programs. Response: CNCS will 

incorporate alternative protocols or 

methods, such as observation, to collect 

survey data. 

Description: CNCS is seeking approval 

of the Senior Corps Performance 

Measures Surveys that are used by 

Foster Grandparent and Senior 

Companion Program grantees (required) 

and by RSVP grantees (voluntary/ 

optional) to collect performance data 

related to independent living and 

benefits to the volunteers who serve. 

Type of Review: New. 

Agency: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Title: Senior Corps Performance 

Measures Surveys. 

OMB Number: None. 

Agency Number: None. 

Affected Public: Clients served by 

Senior Companions, caregivers served 

by Senior Companions, Foster 

Grandparent and Senior Companion 

volunteers. 

Total Respondents: 

Independent Living Surveys for 

Clients and Caregivers: 74,000. 

Benefits to Volunteer Survey: 46,000. 

Frequency: Independent Living 

Surveys for Clients and Caregivers: 

Annual. 

Benefits to the Volunteer Survey: 

One-time. 

Average Time per Response: 

Independent Living Surveys for 

Clients and Volunteers: 30 minutes per 

survey. 

Benefits to Volunteer Survey: 30 

minutes per survey. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 60,000 

hours. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintenance): None. 

Dated: June 12, 2012. 

Erwin J. Tan, 

Director, Senior Corps. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14819 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests; Office of 

Postsecondary Education; Higher 

Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) 

Title II Reporting Forms on Teacher 

Quality and Preparation 

SUMMARY: The Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008 calls for annual 

reports from states and institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) on the quality 

of teacher preparation and state teacher 

certification and licensure (Pub. L. 110– 

315, sections 205–208). The purpose of 

the reports is to provide greater 

accountability in the preparation of the 

nation’s teaching forces and to provide 

information and incentives for its 

improvement. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before August 

17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding burden and/or the collection 

activity requirements should be 

electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or mailed to U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 

20202–4537. 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 04871. 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 and OMB Control Number 

when making your request. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that Federal agencies provide interested 

parties an early opportunity to comment 

on information collection requests. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information 

and Records Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes this 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests at the beginning of 

the Departmental review of the 

information collection. 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. Please note 

that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

Title of Collection: Higher Education 

Opportunity Act (HEOA) Title II 

Reporting Forms on Teacher Quality 

and Preparation. 

OMB Control Number: 1840–0744. 

Type of Review: Revision. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES