2268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 

competitive award programs in 

accordance with section 103(a) of the 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and 

Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 

7613(a). Reviews are undertaken to 

ensure that projects supported by NIFA 

are of high quality, and are consistent 

with the goals and requirements of the 

funding program. 

Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo 

a programmatic evaluation to determine 

worthiness of Federal support. The 

evaluations consist of a peer panel 

review and may also entail an 

assessment by Federal employees and 

electronically submitted (ad-hoc) 

reviews in the Peer Review System. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

information collected from the 

evaluations is used to support NIFA 

grant programs. NIFA uses the results of 

the proposal evaluation to determine 

whether a proposal should be declined 

or recommended for award. When NIFA 

has rendered a decision, copies of 

reviews, excluding the names of the 

reviewers, and summaries of review 

panel deliberations, if any, are provided 

to the submitting Project Director. 

Given the highly technical nature of 

many of these proposals, the quality of 

the peer review greatly depends on the 

appropriate matching of the subject 

matter of the proposal with the 

technical expertise of the potential 

reviewer. In order to obtain this 

information, an electronic questionnaire 

is used to collect information about 

potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If 

the reviewer is already in our database, 

the questionnaire asks potential 

reviewers to update their basic 

biographical information including 

address, contact information, 

professional expertise, and their 

availability to review for NIFA in the 

future. If the reviewer is new they are 

prompted to complete the 

questionnaire. This information has 

been invaluable in the NIFA review 

process, which has been recognized by 

the grantee and grantor community for 

its quality. 

The applications and associated 

materials made available to reviewers, 

as well as the discussions that take 

place during panel review meetings are 

strictly confidential and are not to be 

disclosed to or discussed with anyone 

who has not been officially designated 

to participate in the review process. 

While each panelist certifies at the time 

of preparing a review they do not have 

a conflict-of-interest with a particular 

application and will maintain its 

confidentiality in the Peer Review 

System, a certification of their intent at 

the time of the panel review 

proceedings is collected to emphasize 

and reinforce confidentiality not only of 

applications and reviews but also panel 

discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest 

and Confidentiality Certification Form, 

the panelist affirms they understand the 

conflict-of-interest guidelines and will 

not be involved in the review of the 

application(s) where a conflict exists. 

The panelist also affirms their intent to 

maintain the confidentiality of the panel 

process and not disclose to another 

individual any information related to 

the peer review or use any information 

for personal benefit. 

Estimate of Burden: NIFA estimates 

that anywhere from one hour to twenty 

hours may be required to review a 

proposal. It is estimated that 

approximately five hours are required to 

review an average proposal. Each 

proposal receives an average of four 

reviews, accounting for an annual 

burden of 20 hours. NIFA estimates it 

receives 4,600 competitive applications 

each year. The total annual burden on 

reviewers is 92,000 hours. NIFA 

estimates that the potential reviewer 

questionnaire takes an estimated 10 

minutes to complete. The database 

consists of approximately 50,000 

reviewers. The total annual burden of 

questionnaire is 8,330 hours. NIFA 

estimates that the potential Conflict-ofInterest and Confidentiality Certification 

Form takes an estimated 10 minutes to 

complete. The agency has 

approximately 1,000 panelists each 

year. The total annual burden of the 

certification form is 167 hours. The total 

annual burden of the component of the 

entire review process is 100,497 hours. 

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 will 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 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. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

to OMB for approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. 

Done in Washington, DC this 9th day of 

January 2012. 

Catherine E. Woteki, 

Under Secretary, Research, Education, and 

Economics. 

[FR Doc. 2012–629 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

Dairyland Power Cooperative: CapX 

2020 Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse 

Transmission Line Project 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to extend public 

comment period for a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is 

extending the public comment period 

for the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to meet its 

responsibilities under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

7 CFR 1794 related to providing 

financial assistance to Dairyland Power 

Cooperative (Dairyland) for its share in 

the construction of a proposed 345- 

kilovolt (kV) transmission line and 

associated infrastructure between 

Hampton, Minnesota and the La Crosse 

area in Wisconsin (the proposed 

project). Dairyland is participating in 

the proposed project with a number of 

other utilities (Applicants). 

The purpose of the proposed project 

is to: (1) Improve community reliability 

of the transmission system in Rochester, 

Winona, La Crosse, and the surrounding 

areas, which include areas served by 

Dairyland; (2) improve the regional 

reliability of the transmission system; 

and (3) increase generation outlet 

capacity. 

DATES: Written comments on this Draft 

EIS will be accepted 30 days following 

the publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. Written comments 

should be sent to Stephanie A. Strength, 

see the Address portion of this notice. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Draft EIS may 

be viewed online at the following Web 

site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP–

CapX2020–Hampton-RochesterLaCrosse.html and at the following 

repositories: 

Alma Public Library, 312 North Main 

Street Alma, WI 54610, Phone: 608– 

685–3823. 

Arcadia Public Library, 406 E Main 

Street Arcadia, WI 54612, Phone: 

608–323–7505. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Notices 2269 

Campbell Library, 2219 Bainbridge 

Street La Crosse, WI 54603, Phone: 

608–783–0052. 

Cannon Falls Library, 306 West Mill 

Street Cannon Falls, MN 55009, 

Phone: 507–263–2804. 

Dairyland Power Cooperative, 500 Old 

State Highway 35, Alma, WI 54610, 

Phone: 608–685–4497. 

Galesville Public Library, 16787 South 

Main Street Galesville, WI 54630, 

Phone: 608–582–2552. 

Holmen Area Library, 103 State Street 

Holmen, WI 54636, Phone: 608–526– 

4198. 

Kenyon Public Library, 709 2nd Street 

Kenyon, MN 55946, Phone: 507–789– 

6821. 

Riverland Energy Cooperative, N28988 

State Road 93, Arcadia, WI 54612, 

Phone: 608–323–3381. 

Rochester Public Library, 101 2nd Street 

SE., Rochester, MN 55904, Phone: 

507–328–2300. 

Shirley M. Wright Memorial Library, 

11455 Fremont Street Trempealeau, 

WI 54661, Phone: 608–534–6197. 

Tri-County Electric, 31110 Cooperative 

Way, Rushford, MN 55971, Phone: 

507–864–7783. 

La Crosse Public Library, 800 Main 

Street La Crosse, WI 54601, Phone: 

608–789–7100. 

Onalaska Public Library, 741 Oak 

Avenue South, Onalaska, WI 54650, 

Phone: 608–781–9568. 

People’s Cooperative Services, 3935 

Hwy 14 E, Rochester, MN 55903, 

Phone: 507–288–4004. 

Plainview Public Library, 345 1st 

Avenue Northwest, Plainview, MN 

55964, Phone: 507–534–3425. 

Van Horn Public Library, 115 SE 3rd 

Street Pine Island, MN 55963, Phone: 

507–356–8558. 

Xcel Energy, 5050 Service Drive 

Winona, MN 55987, Phone: 507–457– 

1236. 

Xcel Energy, 1414 West Hamilton 

Avenue Eau Claire, WI 54701, Phone: 

715–839–2621. 

Zumbrota Public Library, 100 West 

Avenue Zumbrota, MN 55992, Phone: 

507–732–5211. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

obtain copies of the Draft EIS, to 

comment on the Draft EIS, or for further 

information, contact: Stephanie 

Strength, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, USDA, Rural Utilities 

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW., Room 2244, Stop 1571, 

Washington, DC 20250–1571, or email 

stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) are participating in the EIS as 

cooperating agencies, with RUS as the 

lead Federal agency. The Draft EIS 

addresses the construction and 

operation of the Proposed project, 

which, in addition to the 345-kV 

transmission line and associated 

infrastructure, includes 161-kV 

transmission lines in the vicinity of 

Rochester, Minnesota; construction of 

two new and expansion of three 

substations, with a total transmission 

line length of approximately 150 miles. 

Counties through which the proposed 

project may pass include Dakota, 

Goodhue, Wabasha, and Olmsted in 

Minnesota, and La Crosse, Trempealeau, 

and Buffalo in Wisconsin. The Draft EIS 

also addresses rebuilding an existing 

Dairyland 39-mile long 161 kV line that 

extends from Alma to north La Crosse, 

Wisconsin, which may be co-located in 

whole or in part with the 345-kV line. 

Among the alternatives addressed in 

the Draft EIS is the No Action 

alternative, under which the proposed 

project would not be undertaken. 

Additional alternatives addressed in the 

Draft EIS include route alternatives also 

considered in the EISs prepared for the 

Proposed project by the states of 

Minnesota and Wisconsin. RUS has 

carefully studied public health and 

safety, environmental impacts, and 

engineering aspects of the Proposed 

project. 

RUS used input provided by 

government agencies, private 

organizations, and the public in the 

preparation of the Draft EIS. RUS will 

prepare a Final EIS that considers all 

comments received on the Draft EIS. 

Following the 30-day comment period 

for the Final EIS, RUS will prepare a 

Record of Decision (ROD). Notices 

announcing the availability of the Final 

EIS and the ROD will be published in 

the Federal Register and in local 

newspapers. 

In accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulation, ‘‘Protection 

of Historic Properties’’ (36 CFR part 800) 

and as part of its broad environmental 

review process, RUS must take into 

account the effect of the proposed 

project on historic properties. Pursuant 

to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its 

procedures for public involvement 

under NEPA to meet its responsibilities 

to solicit and consider the views of the 

public during Section 106 review. Any 

party wishing to participate more 

directly with RUS as a ‘‘consulting 

party’’ in Section 106 review may 

submit a written request to the RUS 

contact provided in this notice. 

The proposed project involves 

unavoidable impacts to wetlands and 

floodplains; this Notice of Availability 

also serves as a statement of no 

practicable alternatives to impacts on 

wetlands and floodplains, in accordance 

with Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, 

respectively (see Draft EIS Sections 3.2 

and 3.5). 

Any final action by RUS related to the 

proposed project will be subject to, and 

contingent upon, compliance with all 

relevant Federal, State and local 

environmental laws and regulations, 

and completion of the environmental 

review requirements as promulgated in 

RUS’ Environmental Policies and 

Procedures (7 CFR part 1794). 

Nivin Elgohary, 

Assistant Administrator, Electric Programs, 

Rural Utilities Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–705 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 3–2012] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 18—San Jose, CA, 

Application for Subzone, Tesla Motors, 

Inc. (Electric Passenger Vehicles), Palo 

Alto and Fremont, CA 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) by the City of San Jose, 

California, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting 

special purpose subzone status for the 

electric passenger-vehicle 

manufacturing facilities of Tesla Motors, 

Inc. (Tesla), located in Palo Alto and 

Fremont, California. The application 

was submitted pursuant to the 

provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), 

and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR 

part 400). It was formally filed on 

January 10, 2012. 

The Tesla facilities (currently 

employing over 1,000 workers) consist 

of two sites: Site 1 (25.2 acres)— 

corporate headquarters, research and 

development, and manufacturing plant, 

located at 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo 

Alto, California; and, Site 2 (210 

acres)—manufacturing plant, located at 

45550 Fremont Boulevard, Fremont, 

California. The facilities are used to 

manufacture electric passenger vehicles 

and related components, including 

battery packs, powertrain systems, and 

electronic modules (up to 200,000 units 

of each per year) for commercial sale. 

Components and materials sourced from 

abroad (representing 16 to 55% of the 

value of the finished products) include: 

Oils, greases, fluids, refrigerants, 

adhesives, sealants, anti-freeze/coolants, 

alcohols, plastic tubes/pipes/hoses/ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES