20570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the CFTC’s regulations 

were published on December 30, 1981. 

See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The 

Federal Register notice with a 60-day 

comment period soliciting comments on 

this collection of information was 

published on February 10, 2010 (75 FR 

6637). 

Burden statement: The respondent 

burden for this collection is estimated to 

average one hour per response. These 

estimates include the time needed to 

review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining information 

and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train 

personnel to be able to respond to a 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 13. 

Estimated number of responses: 13. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 169 hours. 

Frequency of collection: Annually. 

Send comments regarding the burden 

estimated or any other aspect of the 

information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the addresses listed below. Please refer 

to OMB Control No. 3038–0023 in any 

correspondence. 

Andrea Musalem, Division of Clearing 

and Intermediary Oversight, U.S. 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581; and 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 

CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

David Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9014 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 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 (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), has submitted a public 

information collection request (ICR) 

entitled the Community Stakeholder 

Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP 

Grantees to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) 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, 

Katharine Delo Gregg at (202) 606–6965. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TTY–TDD) may call (202) 606–3472 

between 8:30 a.m. and 5 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 this Federal Register: 

(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 e-mail 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 the Corporation, 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 

A 60-day public comment Notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 12, 2010. This comment period 

ended March 15, 2010. A total of 12 

commenters submitted 33 comments. 

Comment 1. The Corporation is urged 

to take a step back and consider other 

ways in which ‘‘true stakeholder 

support’’ can be obtained. 

Response—Corporation disagrees and 

believes that the proposed collection is 

at least one valid method assessing 

stakeholder support. 

Comment 2. The federal registry 

explains the purpose of the survey is to 

help provide TTA to existing projects. 

The purpose statement on the survey 

does not talk about TTA. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

will be edited per comment. 

Comment 3. Two commenters 

suggested that the language needs to be 

simplified. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 4. The tool asks 

assessments that I believe may be well 

beyond the reach of our stakeholders to 

properly assess. 

Response—The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

why the intended recipients should be 

able to adequately respond. 

Comment 5. The burden of 

administrative demand far exceeds any 

perceived benefit from my perspective. 

Response The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

that the benefit of the survey depends 

on its use by the grantee. 

Comment 6. Speaking more generally, 

this assessment should reflect how 

successfully respondents feel their 

respective RSVP’s are doing to fulfill 

their missions and provide volunteers 

and services that have a meaningful and 

significant impact on the needs of the 

communities they operate in. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 7. Questions should better 

address the processes and guidelines 

applied to RSVP projects. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 8. Three commenters 

suggested that there should be fewer 

questions about how projects are 

perceived by the community and a few 

more about the operations of the project. 

Response—The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

that the purpose of the instrument is to 

measure community impact of RSVP 

grantees. 

Comment 9. Three commenters 

suggested that there are some 

similarities of the current questions. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

and questions edited per comment. 

Comment 10. I would also like to have 

the issue of a project that does not have 

a formal advisory council addressed. 

Response—Instrument instructions 

have been edited per comment. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 20571 

Comment 11. Advisory Council 

members should answer the questions 

only with a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Response—Several of the instrument 

questions were simplified as suggested. 

Comment 12. Not all methodology 

and assumptions are valid. 

Response—We have reviewed the 

methodology and assumptions as you 

suggest to ensure accuracy. 

Comment 13. In order to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected, certain terms 

used in the questions should be better 

defined. 

Response—We clarified general terms 

as defined by Senior Corps. We cannot 

enhance the definition of most terms 

used beyond what is stated in the tool 

as they will be interpreted from each 

respondent’s perspective and that is 

okay for this assessment. 

Comment 14. To minimize the burden 

of the collection of information tool 

should be shortened; be user friendly; 

and be filled out by project director not 

Advisory Council. 

Response—We have adjusted the 

length of the instrument and have 

expanded deployment via electronic 

survey and email attachment. The 

purpose tool is to assess how the project 

is interacting with its community 

partners and impacting the community 

from the community partners’ 

perspective so it is not appropriate for 

the project director to fill out the survey. 

Comment 15. Two commenters 

suggested that an Assessment Tool is 

not needed for the performance of the 

projects that already have a high rating, 

but only for those that are weak or 

satisfactory. 

Response—Corporation disagrees 

because an assessment of all programs is 

needed to properly evaluate RSVP. 

Comment 16. We believe that one way 

to enhance the quality of information to 

be collected is to ask questions that 

require community partners to provide 

the Corporation with information it 

currently lacks. 

Response—The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

that the purpose of the instrument is to 

measure community impact of RSVP 

grantees and to clarify that the benefit 

of the survey depends on its use by the 

grantee not the Corporation for National 

and Community Service. 

Comment 17. The assessment misses 

the substance of what RSVP is all about. 

Response—A team of RSVP projects 

have been consulted and the 

instructions for the instrument have 

been edited to clarify that the purpose 

of the instrument is to measure 

community impact of RSVP grantees. 

Comment 18. One way to minimize 

the burden of information collection on 

all concerned is to collect it only once. 

Response—We concur. 

Comment 19. Assume that community 

partners who are disappointed in their 

experience with RSVP ‘‘will walk with 

their feet’’ and that those community 

partners who remain affiliated with 

RSVP are, by definition, satisfied and 

not have to fill out the assessment. 

Response—The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

that the purpose of the instrument is to 

measure community impact of RSVP 

grantees. 

Comment 20. To minimize the burden 

of collecting this information would be 

to design a survey instrument that 

would sample the universe rather than 

distribute it to the Community Advisory 

Councils. 

Response—The instrument is required 

to be completed by all grantees. 

Comment 21. Concerned with the 

level of knowledge that advisory council 

members would need to complete this 

assessment. 

Response—Program regulations 

require that grantee advisory councils be 

knowledgeable in the areas covered by 

the instrument. 

Comment 22. For continuity, it would 

also be helpful if the format was a 

response to a statement versus a 

response to a question—there’s a mix in 

this document. 

Response—In order to procure the 

most useful responses the tool best 

lends itself to a variety of query and 

response formats. 

Comment 23. The [respondents] will 

be partial to their RSVP program and 

answer the question to support their 

program and the RSVP Director needs to 

help explain and give advice to the 

[respondents] to be able to answer the 

questions. 

Response—The instructions for the 

instrument have been edited to clarify 

that the benefit of the survey depends 

on its use by the grantee. Program 

regulations require that grantee advisory 

councils be knowledgeable in the areas 

covered by the instrument. 

Description 

The Corporation is seeking approval 

of Community Stakeholder Assessment 

of Senior Corps RSVP Grantees. The 

information collection is intended to be 

completed by the Community 

Participation Groups of current RSVP 

grantees. The information collection 

will be used to collect data to assist 

grantees in self-improvement and to 

enhance technical assistance for current 

grantees. The Corporation will not use 

the results of this information collection 

for decision-making purposes regarding 

grant awards. 

Type of Review: New. 

Agency: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Title: Community Stakeholder 

Assessment of Senior Corps RSVP 

Grantees. 

OMB Number: None. 

Agency Number: None. 

Affected Public: Community 

Participation Groups of current 

recipients of Senior Corps RSVP Grants. 

Total Respondents: 700. 

Frequency: Annual. 

Average Time per Response: 2.5 

hours. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1750 

hours. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintenance): None. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

Angela Roberts, 

Acting Director, Senior Corps. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9059 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 10–04 and 10–14] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of two 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notifications 

to fulfill the requirements of section 155 

of Public Law 104–164 dated 21 July 

1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following are copies of letters to the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Transmittals 10–04 and 10–14 with 

associated attachments. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES