Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices 13265 

advice of the Board on the Naval 

Service’s Postgraduate Education 

Program and the collaborative exchange 

and partnership between NPS and the 

Air Force Institute of Technology 

(AFIT). The board examines the 

effectiveness with which the NPS is 

accomplishing its mission. To this end, 

the board will inquire into the curricula; 

instruction; physical equipment; 

administration; state of morale of the 

student body, faculty, and staff; fiscal 

affairs; and any other matters relating to 

the operation of the NPS as the board 

considers pertinent. Individuals without 

a DoD government/CAC card require an 

escort at the meeting location. For 

access, information, or to send written 

comments regarding the NPS BOA, 

contact Ms. Jaye Panza, Naval 

Postgraduate School, 1 University 

Circle, Monterey, CA 93943–5001, or by 

fax (831) 656–3145 by April 19, 2010. 

A.M. Vallandingham, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6033 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

National Board for Education Sciences 

AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences, 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

schedule and proposed agenda of an 

upcoming meeting of the National Board 

for Education Sciences. The notice also 

describes the functions of the 

Committee. Notice of this meeting is 

required by Section 10(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act and is 

intended to notify the public of their 

opportunity to attend the open portion 

of the meeting. 

DATES: April 7 and 8, 2010. 

TIME: April 7, 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; April 

8, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: 80 F Street, NW., Room 100, 

Washington, DC 20208. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Norma Garza, Executive Director, 

National Board for Education Sciences, 

555 New Jersey Ave., NW., Room 602 K, 

Washington, DC 20208; phone: (202) 

219–2195; fax: (202) 219–1466; e-mail: 

Norma.Garza@ed.gov. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Board for Education Sciences 

is authorized by Section 116 of the 

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 

(ESRA). The Board advises the Director 

of the Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES) on the establishment of activities 

to be supported by the Institute, on the 

funding for applications for grants, 

contracts, and cooperative agreements 

for research after the completion of peer 

review, and reviews and evaluates the 

work of the Institute. At this time, the 

Board consists of six of fifteen 

appointed members due to the 

expirations of the terms of nine 

members. The Board shall meet and can 

carry out official business as provided 

by the ESRA which states that a 

majority of the voting members serving 

at the time of a meeting constitutes a 

quorum. 

On April 7 from 1 p.m. to 1:15 p.m., 

the Board will approve the agenda and 

hear remarks from the chair and the 

executive director. From 1:15 p.m. to 

2:15 p.m., IES director John Easton will 

discuss priorities for the Institute, 

followed by a Board discussion until 3 

p.m. After a break ending at 3:15 p.m., 

the Board will conduct an overview of 

the agencies represented by ex-officio 

members. Presentations will follow from 

4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. from U.S. 

Department of Education officials. The 

meeting will recess at 5:30 p.m. 

On April 8, the meeting will begin at 

8:30 a.m. with a review of the prior 

day’s activity and a review of the 

agenda. At 8:45 a.m. IES commissioners 

and staff will give an update on the IES 

Centers. This will conclude at 9:45 a.m. 

Following a break until 10 a.m. the 

Board will hear presentations on 

recently released IES studies. There will 

be an update on the What Works 

Clearinghouse from 11:30 a.m. until 

12:15 p.m., followed by an open 

discussion and a consideration of next 

steps. The meeting will adjourn at 12:30 

p.m. 

A final agenda will be available from 

Norma Garza (see contact information 

above) on March 29. Individuals who 

will need accommodations for a 

disability in order to attend the meeting 

(e.g., interpreting services, assistance 

listening devices, or materials in 

alternative format) should notify Norma 

Garza no later than March 29. We will 

attempt to meet requests for 

accommodations after this date but 

cannot guarantee their availability. The 

meeting site is accessible to individuals 

with disabilities. 

Records are kept of all Committee 

proceedings and are available for public 

inspection at 555 New Jersey Ave., NW., 

Room 602 K, Washington, DC 20208, 

from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

Eastern Standard Time Monday through 

Friday. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You may view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fed-register/index.html. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1–866– 

512–1830; or in the Washington, DC, 

area at (202) 512–0000. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

John Q. Easton, 

Director, Institute of Education Sciences. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6088 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Request for Public Comment on 

Maintenance of Expenditure (MOE) 

Proposed Policy as Amended on 

2–19–10 

AGENCY: United States Election 

Assistance Commission. 

ACTION: Notice: Request for Public 

Comment. 

SUMMARY: The EAC seeks public 

comment on a Maintenance of 

Expenditure (MOE) Proposed Policy as 

Amended on 2–19–10. This advisory 

would supersede Advisories 07–003 and 

07–003A and fulfill the Election 

Assistance Commission’s (EAC) ongoing 

responsibility to provide information on 

the management of Federal funds 

provided under the Help America Vote 

Act (HAVA). EAC issues this notice 

according to a policy adopted on 

September 18, 2008 that requires EAC to 

provide notice and an opportunity for 

public comment on, among other things, 

advisories being considered for 

adoption by the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

5 p.m. EST on April 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted: Via e-mail at 

havacomments@eac.gov, and 

Via mail addressed to the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission, 1201 

New York Ave, NW., Suite 300, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
13266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices 

Washington, DC 20005, or by fax at 202/ 

566–3127. 

Commenters are encouraged to submit 

comments electronically and include 

‘‘MOE’’ in the subject line, to ensure 

timely receipt and consideration. All 

comments must be received by the EAC 

by the date specified above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is the complete text of the 

Maintenance of Expenditure (MOE) 

Proposed Policy as Amended on 2–19– 

10. 

Notice: Request for Public Comment on 

Maintenance of Expenditure (MOE) 

Proposed Policy as Amended on 

2–19–10 

Policy Overview Statement 

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 

(HAVA) requires States to meet an 

annual Maintenance of Expenditure 

(MOE) (also known as Maintenance of 

Effort) based on State expenditures for 

activities allowable under Title III of 

HAVA in the fiscal year prior to 

November 2000. HAVA requires that 

States establish a baseline spending 

level and then meet that spending level 

each year HAVA section 251 funds are 

spent by the State. The following 

questions and answers provide details 

on what is required to meet HAVA’s 

MOE requirement and how the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

will work with States to ensure they 

have a realistic, auditable plan for 

managing MOE requirements. 

1. What Is the Purpose of the 

Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE) 

Requirement Mandated by HAVA? 

The purpose of MOE is to ensure that 

recipients of Section 251 funds 

(requirements payments) use the 

payments to meet the added 

requirements placed on States by 

HAVA, while maintaining the level of 

non-Federal funding that was available 

for those activities during the fiscal year 

ending prior to November 2000. 

2. Where in HAVA Is the MOE 

Requirement? 

Section 254 of HAVA details what 

must be in the State plan. An MOE 

description is one of the pre-conditions 

for receipt of a requirements payment 

disbursement. Section 254(a)(7) requires 

States to identify in their plans: 

‘‘[H]ow the State, in using the 

requirements payment, will maintain 

the expenditures of the State for 

activities funded by the payment at a 

level that is not less than the level of 

such expenditures maintained by the 

State for the fiscal year ending prior to 

November 2000.’’ 42 U.S.C. 15404(a)(7) 

(emphasis added). 

3. What Does This MOE Policy Do? 

The purpose of this policy is to 

facilitate State compliance with the 

maintenance of effort (MOE) 

requirement in HAVA. 

This policy supersedes EAC Advisory 

drafts 07–003 and 07–003A. This policy 

provides guidelines and assistance for 

States to develop detailed, voluntary 

plans for identifying a baseline MOE 

level and maintaining that level in 

subsequent years. 

4. Who Is Covered by This Policy? 

This policy applies directly to the 50 

States, four U.S. Territories and the 

District of Columbia (referred to as 

States) that are eligible to receive 

Requirements Payments. This policy 

may also impact ‘‘lower tier’’ recipients 

indirectly (see below). However, States 

are ultimately responsible for 

demonstrating compliance with MOE. 

5. What Does the EAC Mean by the 

Term ‘‘Lower Tier’’ Recipients? 

A lower tier recipient is political 

subdivision of a State. Depending on the 

State, lower tier recipients may include, 

but are not limited to, counties, cities, 

townships, and other jurisdictions. 

6. Do States Need To Account for Lower 

Tier (Local) Spending During the Base 

Year in Calculating MOE? 

MOE tracks State expenditures on a 

prescribed set of Federal election 

activities (see question 7), which 

includes any funds appropriated by the 

State to lower tier entities to support 

those activities. Under this MOE policy, 

States may exclude lower tier spending 

from MOE when the funds used by the 

lower tier entities are not derived from 

a State appropriation or expenditure. 

7. What Types of Expenditures Must Be 

Used To Calculate the MOE Baseline 

Amount and Are Eligible To Count 

Towards Our Annual MOE 

Contribution? 

States must use all election 

expenditures that are allowable under 

Section 251 of HAVA, and that were 

funded directly by the State, or through 

a State appropriation to a lower tier 

entity in the base year, to calculate the 

baseline MOE. All allowable uses under 

Section 251 of HAVA, including: (1) 

Purchase of voting equipment; (2) 

development and operation of a 

statewide voter registration list; (3) 

development and implementation of 

provisional voting for Federal elections; 

(4) provision of information to voters at 

the polling place on election day; (5) 

verification of information provided by 

persons seeking to register to vote; and, 

(6) improvement of the administration 

of elections for Federal office should be 

included in the baseline MOE. 

For example, State X appropriates $10 

million for election activities eligible for 

funding under section 251 of HAVA. $2 

million of the $10 million was 

appropriated to county Y to provide 

Federal provisional ballots on Election 

Day. The State’s MOE is $10 million 

because it includes all funds 

appropriated to counties for that year as 

part of its aggregate MOE. 

8. When Would the EAC Like To Receive 

the Voluntary State MOE Plans and 

What Is the Process for Submission? 

EAC would like to receive MOE plans 

that can be submitted outside of the 

State plan by December 1, 2010. Once 

your plan is received, EAC’s grants 

department will work with your State to 

develop your MOE plan. EAC’s hope is 

to have MOE plans developed by each 

State that chooses to participate in the 

process in place by January 31, 2011. 

EAC will provide technical assistance, 

including easy to use templates and 

checklists for developing State MOE 

plans, by early summer 2010. 

9. Does This Policy Include a Set of 

Uniform Requirements That States Must 

Comply With To Establish a Baseline 

MOE and Meet Annual MOE 

Requirements? 

While this policy does call for a plan 

with specific elements for establishing, 

maintaining and reporting on MOE, 

EAC recognizes that the financing and 

administration of elections includes a 

particularly diverse set of practices that 

vary from State to State. As such, this 

policy calls for development of Statederived, flexible plans designed to meet 

each individual State’s circumstances. 

10. Our State Plan Already 

Acknowledges That We Will Meet the 

MOE Requirements. Do We Still Need 

To Submit the MOE Plan Discussed in 

This Policy? 

All States have acknowledged in their 

State plans that they intend to meet 

their MOE requirements. However, 

these statements do not contain 

information sufficient enough to guide 

an audit of how the State is meeting its 

MOE requirement. States adoption of 

detailed MOE plans will help ensure 

that States capture an accurate, 

defensible baseline MOE and are 

meeting annual MOE requirements. The 

plans will set the basis for auditing 

MOE and will help ensure that EAC 

resolution of any State-specific audit 

finding associated with MOE will be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices 13267 

consistent with how that State has 

proposed to meet its MOE requirement. 

Submission of the MOE plan described 

in this document is, however, voluntary 

and may not be the only means of 

satisfying section 254a(7) HAVA. 

11. What Should a State Include in Its 

MOE Plan? 

A State’s MOE plan should: 

1. Provide the date parameters for the 

‘fiscal year ending prior to November 

2000’ as described in HAVA. This base 

year will be used to set the baseline 

MOE for the State. 

2. Provide the specific cost factors 

that make up the baseline MOE, or 

proposed alternative method(s) for 

determining the baseline MOE. 

3. Establish an MOE baseline dollar 

level that is an aggregation of MOE from 

all eligible jurisdictions. 

4. Require collection of annual MOE 

levels from all eligible jurisdictions and 

outline a plan and timeline for 

collecting this information. 

5. Describe the back-up 

documentation that States and eligible 

lower tier jurisdictions must maintain 

and make available for inspection by 

EAC upon request in order to 

substantiate the State’s MOE claim. 

Documentation must include a tracking 

sheet that shows MOE baseline and 

annual MOE levels at the State and 

eligible lower tier recipient levels. 

6. Clearly state the roles and 

responsibilities of both State and 

eligible lower tier fund recipients for 

reporting MOE and keeping appropriate 

documentation to substantiate or 

validate yearly MOE levels. Note that 

both States and eligible lower tier 

recipients should do an annual 

certification of their MOE contribution. 

12. What Is a Baseline MOE? 

The baseline MOE is a dollar amount 

that captures the level of State spending 

for a particular program or activity in 

the base year. In the case of HAVA, the 

baseline is the State spending level for 

a set of election’s activities (see question 

11 below) that was in place in the fiscal 

year ending prior to November 2000. 

13. What Dates Should a State Use To 

Calculate MOE? 

HAVA requires that States use the 

fiscal year ending prior to November 

2000 to determine the MOE baseline. 

States may choose the Federal fiscal 

year, which runs from October 1, 1999 

through September 30, 2000; or the 

State fiscal year, if it is different from 

the Federal fiscal year. 

14. How Do We Know If Our State or 

Lower Tier Recipient Have an MOE 

Requirement in a Given Year? 

Each State has an MOE obligation in 

every fiscal year that it spends HAVA 

Requirements Payments funds. Eligible 

lower tier recipients may need to meet 

MOE in any fiscal year in which they 

receive Requirements Payments through 

the State, dependent upon how the State 

decides it wants to meet it’s annual 

MOE contribution. 

15. What Are the Reporting 

Requirements Associated With MOE 

Once a State Has an MOE Plan on File 

With the EAC? 

Pursuant to section 254(a)(12) and 

section 258(3) of HAVA, each State is 

required to submit as part of its annual 

report a description and analysis of how 

it has met or exceeded its baseline MOE 

for the preceding fiscal year. 

Appropriate back-up documentation, as 

described in the State’s MOE plan, must 

be kept on file and made available to 

EAC staff during site visits or to auditors 

or other officials during an audit or 

investigation. 

16. Should Our State Provide a Single, 

Aggregate Baseline Amount for MOE, or 

a Series of MOE Baseline Amounts for 

Each Eligible Local Jurisdiction? 

EAC’s requirement is that States 

provide a single baseline and report an 

annual aggregate MOE amount. 

However, because States will have to 

substantiate MOE levels, tracking MOE 

for all eligible lower tier entities that are 

required by the State to contribute to the 

MOE is will probably be necessary. 

17. Do States Have Any Flexibility in 

How Much Is Spent Annually in Each of 

the Cost Categories Identified by the 

Plan, or Do They Have To Maintain 

Expenditures in Each of the Categories? 

A State’s MOE plan should track 

expenditures by category to identify the 

MOE baseline and annual contributions. 

However, this policy does not require 

States and eligible lower tier fund 

recipients to maintain specific 

expenditures within the identified cost 

categories. This policy clarifies that only 

the aggregate State MOE level needs to 

be met on an annual basis. 

In meeting the MOE baseline of 

spending, it is left to the State to 

determine how that baseline is met, as 

an aggregate. For example, a State spent 

HAVA 251 funds in 2008. In that fiscal 

year, that State may have chosen to 

expend more of its State funds on its 

voter registration database and less of its 

State funds on providing information to 

voters at the polls than it did in the 

fiscal year ending prior to November 

2000. As long as the total baseline MOE 

is met by adding up all the categories, 

as an aggregate, individual spending for 

a single category does not have to equal 

the exact amount spent on that category 

in the fiscal year ending prior to 

November 2000. 

18. What Happens If Our State Fails To 

Meet Its MOE? 

Any audit findings related to a State 

not meeting its MOE requirements will 

be dealt with through EAC’s Audit 

Resolution Process. All current and 

future audits and compliance site visits 

that review MOE will be guided by the 

State’s MOE plan, from the point plan 

is accepted by the EAC forward. 

19. How Can States Establish the 

Baseline MOE for Lower Tier Recipients 

Where Those Jurisdictions Lack the 

Records or Detailed Accounting Needed 

To Determine the Level of Spending on 

Elections in the Base Year? 

States may propose an alternative 

measure for estimating spending in the 

base year, but only after demonstrating 

that accurate records are not attainable. 

Some alternative measures might 

include budgeted or appropriated 

amounts, contract amounts, or similar 

means compiled from available records 

from the base year. States might also 

estimate spending based on average 

increases over time, but must provide 

adequate justification and 

documentation to support the estimate. 

20. Do These States Have To Collect 

MOE Information Every Year From 

Eligible Lower Tier Recipients? 

Each State has the ability to determine 

how it wants to meet its MOE 

obligation. Once the baseline is 

established by the State, by identifying 

all expenditures with State funds in the 

base year that would have been 

allowable costs under HAVA, the State 

will need to determine how it would 

like to meet that MOE obligation on an 

annual basis. If lower tier entities are 

enlisted by the State to help meet MOE 

(similar to how some counties 

contribute to State match obligations for 

Requirement Payments) those enlisted 

entities will have to keep appropriate 

documentation to substantiate their 

MOE contributions. EAC will provide 

templates that allow for quick recording 

and roll-up of this information to the 

State level. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
13268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices 

21. How Should States Address Capital 

Expenditures in the Base Year? For 

Example, Several Counties Purchased 

Equipment in the Base Year, Which 

Appears To Establish an Unreasonable 

MOE Baseline for Those Jurisdictions 

For purposes of establishing the 

baseline MOE, HAVA does not make a 

distinction between capital 

expenditures and recurring costs 

associated with election administration 

that were incurred in the base year. 

However, when calculating MOE 

baselines, capital expenditures may be 

expensed in a manner consistent with 

IRS depreciation tables, over the 

expected life of the equipment 

purchased. 

22. How Do States Establish a Baseline 

MOE When the Year Before FY 2000 

Was Not an Election Year and the 

Election Administration Costs in That 

Year Were Lower Than in an Election 

Year? 

HAVA is clear that the timeframe for 

setting the baseline MOE is the year 

before November 2000. 

23. Does the EAC Have Any Suggestions 

for How To Enforce MOE Requirements 

With Eligible Lower Tier Fund 

Recipients? 

States should have several 

mechanisms available to ensure 

compliance with MOE requirements. 

Sub-grant agreements should be 

modified to contain MOE requirements 

and instructions. Any agreements to buy 

and transfer equipment or services to 

lower tier jurisdictions should also 

contain such a requirement. Finally, 

States, as the legal recipient of HAVA 

funds, have authority to enforce MOE 

requirements through administrative 

action which could include withholding 

future requirement payments. 

24. Can You Provide an Example of 

Another Federal Agency That Requires 

Tracking of MOE at This Detailed Level? 

State and local education agencies are 

required to go through a similar process 

to meet their MOE requirements for 

Federal funding from the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

25. What Type of Assistance and 

Training Can the States Expect From the 

EAC To Help Implement This Policy? 

EAC grants staff will be available to 

provide guidance to States on their MOE 

plans. In addition, EAC plans to provide 

technical assistance to develop tools 

and templates to help capture and track 

MOE. EAC will also publish sample 

MOE plans from States willing to share 

their work with others as a best 

practices guideline. 

26. What Authority in HAVA Allows 

EAC To Implement This Proposed 

Policy? 

Section 254(a)(7) of HAVA requires 

States to include in their State plan an 

explanation of how they will meet their 

MOE obligations. Submitting a State 

plan and all of its required sections is 

a precondition for receiving a 

requirement payment. Section 258(3) 

requires States to submit a yearly report 

that includes an analysis and 

description of the activities funded with 

Section 251 funds, as well as how 

activities conform to the State Plan 

under Section 254. This policy defines 

MOE and provides States with a 

voluntary set of guidelines and practices 

for developing a baseline MOE and 

tracking yearly progress towards 

meeting that obligation. Section 202(4) 

of HAVA requires that EAC provide 

information and training on the 

management of payments and grants 

provided through HAVA. 

Thomas R. Wilkey, 

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6006 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Extension of the Public Comment 

Period for the Draft Tank Closure and 

Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland, WA 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Extension of the public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is extending the public 

comment period for the Draft Tank 

Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington 

(Draft EIS, DOE/EIS–00391), made 

available for public comment on 

October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56194). The 

public comment period for the Draft EIS 

was to complete on March 19, 2010, and 

will be extended for 45 days. The new 

date for the close of the Public Comment 

period is now May 3, 2010. The 

extension is being made at the request 

of several reviewers. 

ADDRESSES: The Draft EIS is available 

electronically through, and written 

comments can be submitted at, 

TC&WMEIS@saic.com, or by faxing to 

(888) 785–2865. Paper copies may be 

obtained by request to the EIS Web site 

or by contacting: Mary Beth Burandt, 

Document Manager, Office of River 

Protection, P.O. Box 1178, Richland, 

Washington, 99352, 888–829–6347. The 

Draft EIS is also available at DOE’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Web site at http:// 

www.gc.energy.gov/nepa. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the Draft EIS, 

contact Ms. Burandt at the address 

above or by telephone at 1–888–785– 

2865. For further information on DOE’s 

NEPA process, contact Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance, Office of 

General Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, DC 20585–0103, 

Telephone: (202) 586–4600, or leave a 

message at (800) 472–2756. Further 

information on the Draft EIS is also 

available through the Hanford Web site 

at: http://www.hanford.gov/orp. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 

2010. 

William M. Levitan, 

Director, Office of Environmental 

Compliance, Office of Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6046 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 

Reservation 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Environmental 

Management Site-Specific Advisory 

Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge 

Reservation. The Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463, 86 

Stat. 770) requires that public notice of 

this meeting be announced in the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: Wednesday, April 14, 2010, 6 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 

475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia J. Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 

Department of Energy Oak Ridge 

Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM– 

90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 

576–4025; Fax (865) 576–2347 or e-mail: 

halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web 

site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ 

ssab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 

the Board is to make recommendations 

to DOE–EM and site management in the 

areas of environmental restoration, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES