Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 29521 

officials will use the form which will be 

filled out entirely at the site during the 

normal course of the pool and spa 

inspection. Using the form, the 

inspectors will collect information 

regarding the pool or spa facility; 

identify the type, location and features 

of the pool or spa; describe the drain 

covers, anti-entrapment device/systems, 

sump or equalizer lines at the site; and 

report on whether any actions are 

necessary to bring the pool or spa into 

compliance. 

In the Federal Register of September 

21, 2009, (74 FR 48064), the CPSC 

published a 60-day notice requesting 

public comment on the proposed 

collection of information. Seven 

comments were received. Several 

commenters suggested the time burden 

allotted for the pool operators to 

participate in the pool inspection was 

insufficient. 

Based on the public comments and 

CPSC staff’s experience inspecting 1,200 

pools and spas, the estimated burden 

hours for pool operators have been 

increased from 0.5 hours to 3.0 hours. 

One commenter recommended that 

State or local officials use the proposed 

compliance form during the inspections 

to ensure consistency. In addition, the 

commenter stated that CPSC staff 

should accept findings by State or local 

officials and not re-inspect the pool. 

CPSC staff is working with State and 

local officials to avoid a duplication of 

effort regarding pool inspections. State 

and local officials are conducting a 

limited number of pool and spa 

inspections to determine if the 

requirements of the Pool and Spa Safety 

Act have been met. CPSC staff will 

follow up with the pool owner or 

operator if corrective action is needed. 

One commenter recommended an 

additional requirement for pool 

operators to state how the facility will 

monitor the security of the drain cover 

(i.e., insure it stays fastened in place) 

and note the expiration date for the 

cover. Another commenter suggested 

that the pool operators provide 

documentation that drain covers and/or 

SVRS were correctly installed. 

CPSC staff is aware of the importance 

of ensuring the security of the drain 

cover, but those are policies for the 

facility to implement, and are not a part 

of the inspection. However, CPSC staff 

will request that the pool owner or 

operator provide the expiration date for 

the drain covers in the compliance form. 

One commenter suggested that, in 

order to minimize the burden, an 

electronic form should be used and the 

pool owners/operators should fill it out 

before the inspection. A few 

commenters requested additional 

questions, or the use of different terms 

in the compliance form. 

The purpose of the compliance form 

is to ensure that the CPSC inspection 

and data collection procedures are 

completed by CPSC staff or the 

designated State or local government 

official. The compliance form is not 

intended to be filled out by the pool 

owner or operator. Based on the CPSC 

staff’s experience with the compliance 

form to date, the information obtained 

through the form adequately identifies 

drain covers at pools and spas that do 

not meet the requirements of ASME/ 

ANSI A112.19.8, and except for the 

inclusion of the expiration date of the 

drain cover, we will not otherwise 

revise the compliance form at this time. 

One commenter recommended that 

CPSC partner with local departments of 

health, industry, or a non-profit so it can 

inspect a more representative sample of 

pools. 

CPSC is contracting with State and 

local officials to conduct pool 

inspections that follow guidelines 

provided by CPSC for inspecting pools 

for compliance with the Pool and Spa 

Safety Act. The State and local officials 

can conduct the pool inspections when 

they do their regular visits to these 

pools. CPSC staff will follow up with 

the pool owner or operator if corrective 

action is needed. 

Burden Estimates: The CPSC staff 

estimates that there may be 

approximately 700 facilities inspected 

annually. Because the investigators will 

be talking to either the pool owner/ 

operator or pool staff at the time of the 

inspection and asking questions to help 

complete the form, the CPSC staff 

estimates that the burden hours for pool 

owners or pool staff to respond to the 

questions will be approximately 3 hours 

per inspection. Thus, the estimated total 

annual burden hours for respondents 

are approximately 2,100 hours (700 

inspections × 3 hours per inspection). 

Although respondents may include 

either junior or senior pool staff, CPSC 

staff based the annualized cost to 

respondents based on the compensation 

for management-level employees, since 

such employees may be the most 

knowledgeable of the pool or spa used. 

The CPSC staff estimates that the 

annualized cost to all respondents is 

approximately $99,624 based on an 

hourly wage of $47.44 per hour ($47.44 

× 2,100) (Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(‘‘BLS’’), December 2008, all workers, 

service, management, professional, and 

related). 

The CPSC staff estimates that it will 

take an average of 2.5 hours to review 

the information collected from the oral 

communications with pool owners/ 

operators or staff. The annual cost to the 

Federal government of the collection of 

information in these regulations is 

estimated to be $19,361. This is based 

on an average wage rate of $55.97 (the 

equivalent of a GS–14 Step 5 employee). 

This represents 70.1 percent of total 

compensation with an additional 29.9 

percent coming from benefits (BLS, 

September 2008, percentage total 

benefits for all civilian management, 

professional, and related employees), or 

$79.84 × 242.5 hours. 

Dated: May 19, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12605 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Public Meetings of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Basing the U.S. Marine Corps Joint 

Strike Fighter F–35B on the East Coast 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 

(102)(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, and regulations implemented by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

Parts 1500–1508), Department of Navy 

(DoN) NEPA regulations (32 CFR Part 

775), and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) 

NEPA directives (Marine Corps Order 

P5090.2A, changes 1 and 2), DoN has 

prepared and filed with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) that evaluates the potential 

environmental consequences that may 

result from the basing of the F–35B Joint 

Strike Fighter (JSF) on the East Coast of 

the United States. 

With the filing of the DEIS, DoN is 

initiating a 45-day public comment 

period and has scheduled five public 

comment meetings to receive oral and 

written comments on the DEIS. Federal, 

state, local agencies, and interested 

parties are encouraged to provide 

comments in person at any of the public 

comment meetings, or in writing 

anytime during the public comment 

period. This notice announces the date 

and location of the public meetings and 

provides supplementary information 

about the environmental planning effort. 

DATES: The DEIS will be distributed to 

Federal, State, and local agencies, 

elected officials, and other interested 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
29522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 

parties on May 28, 2010, initiating the 

45-day public comment period which 

will end on July 12, 2010. Each of the 

five public meetings will be conducted 

as an informational open house. Marine 

Corps and Navy representatives will be 

available to clarify information related 

to the DEIS. All five public comment 

meetings will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 

p.m., on the dates and at the locations 

indicated below: 

(1) June 15, 2010, Havelock Tourist 

and Event Center, 201 Tourist Center 

Drive, Havelock, NC 28532. 

(2) June 16, 2010, Emerald Isle 

Community Center, 7500 Emerald Drive, 

Emerald Isle, NC 28594. 

(3) June 17, 2010, Fred A. Anderson 

Elementary School Cafeteria, 507 

Anderson Drive, Bayboro, NC 28515. 

(4) June 22, 2010, Holiday Inn 

Conference Convention Center, 2225 

Boundary Street, Beaufort, SC 29902. 

(5) June 24, 2010, Long County High 

School, 1 East Academy Street, 

Ludowici, GA 31316. 

Attendees can submit written 

comments at all public meetings. A 

stenographer will also be present to 

transcribe oral comments. Equal weight 

will be given to both oral and written 

comments and all comments (either 

presented orally through transcription 

and/or written) submitted during the 

public review period will become part 

of the public record on the DEIS and 

will be responded to in the Final EIS. 

Written comments may be submitted by 

regular U.S. mail or electronically as 

described below. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the DEIS is 

available at the project Web site, http:// 

www.usmcJSFeast.com, and at the local 

libraries identified at the end of this 

notice. Comments on the DEIS can be 

submitted via the project Web site or in 

writing by submitting to: USMC F–35B 

East Coast Basing EIS, P.O. Box 56488, 

Jacksonville, FL 32241–6488. Mailed 

comments must be postmarked by July 

12, 2010, and electronic comments must 

be submitted on or before July 12, 2010, 

to be considered in this environmental 

review process. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F– 

35B EIS Project Manager, Environmental 

Planning & Conservation Division, 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

Mid-Atlantic, Code EV21, 9742 

Maryland Avenue, Z–144, 1st Floor, 

Attn: Ms. Linda Blount, Norfolk, VA 

23511. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice 

of Intent for the EIS was published in 

the Federal Register on January 15, 

2009 (Vol. 74, No. 10, pp. 2514–2515). 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would base and 

operate a total of 13 squadrons of F–35B 

aircraft on the East Coast of the United 

States. The F–35B aircraft is the world’s 

first 5th generation Short Takeoff 

Vertical Landing (STOVL), stealth, 

supersonic, multi-role, fighter aircraft 

that would replace legacy Marine Corps 

air fleets of F/A–18s and AV–8Bs. 

Specifically, the proposal would base 

and operate 11 F–35B operational 

squadrons (which includes one Reserve 

squadron) with up to 16 aircraft per 

squadron and the PTC (composed of two 

Fleet Replacement Squadrons [FRSs]) 

with 20 aircraft per squadron. The 

Proposed Action involves replacing 

seven operational F/A–18 and four AV– 

8B (three operational squadrons and one 

FRS) squadrons of 152 authorized 

aircraft with up to 216 F–35Bs; 

establishing a PTC with two F–35B 

FRSs; conducting flight operations to 

meet the training and combat readiness 

requirements; transitioning associated 

military personnel; and constructing 

and/or demolishing facilities and 

infrastructure needed to base and 

operate both the operational F–35B 

squadrons and the PTC. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the Proposed Action 

is to efficiently and effectively maintain 

combat capability and mission readiness 

as the Marine Corps faces increased 

deployments across a spectrum of 

conflicts, and a corresponding increased 

difficulty in maintaining an aging legacy 

aircraft inventory. The need for the 

Proposed Action is to replace aging 

legacy aircraft and integrate the 

operational and PTC squadrons into the 

existing Marine Corps command and 

organizational structure. This action 

would also ensure that the Marine 

Corps’ aircrews benefit from the 

aircraft’s major technological 

improvements and enhanced training 

and readiness requirements. 

Alternatives Considered in the DEIS 

The DEIS evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts of four action 

alternatives and the No Action 

Alternative. 

• Alternative 1 (Preferred) would base 

three operational squadrons and the 

PTC at MCAS Beaufort and eight 

operational squadrons at MCAS Cherry 

Point. 

• Alternative 2 would base the PTC at 

MCAS Beaufort and eleven operational 

squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point. 

• Alternative 3 would base eight 

operational squadrons at MCAS 

Beaufort and three operational 

squadrons and the PTC at MCAS Cherry 

Point. 

• Alternative 4 would base eleven 

operational squadrons at MCAS 

Beaufort and the PTC at MCAS Cherry 

Point. 

• Under the No Action Alternative, 

the Marine Corps would not provide the 

facilities or functions to support basing 

or operating F–35B squadrons at these 

two Air Stations on the East Coast. 

There would be no transition of F–35B 

personnel, construction to support the 

F–35B, or F–35B operations. Existing F/ 

A–18 and AV–8B squadrons would 

continue to be used at approximately 

the current levels. The Marine Corps 

would continue to repair and operate 

the existing aircraft at greater expense as 

the F/A–18 and AV–8B aircraft continue 

to deteriorate until the end of their 

useful life. 

Environmental resources evaluated 

for potential impacts in the DEIS 

include airfields and airspace; noise; air 

quality; hazardous materials, toxic 

substances, and hazardous wastes; 

safety; land use; socioeconomics; 

environmental justice/protection of 

children; community services; utilities 

and infrastructure; transportation and 

ground traffic; biological resources; 

geology, topography, and soils; water 

resources; cultural resources; and 

coastal zone management. The DEIS 

also analyzes cumulative impacts from 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions occurring at 

or near MCAS Beaufort and MCAS 

Cherry Point. 

Environmental consequences of the 

Proposed Action would principally 

arise from construction and aircraft 

operations. Under the preferred 

alternative (Alternative 1), construction 

would occur at both Air Stations but 

would not affect any special status 

species or cultural resources. The noise 

environment at the two Air Stations 

would also change as a result of the 

preferred alternative. The other three 

alternatives have similar types and 

levels of impacts. The DEIS presents an 

array of construction and minimization 

measures associated with project design 

and planning that avoids and minimizes 

most potential impacts. The USMC will 

fully comply with regulatory 

requirements for the protection of 

environmental resources. 

Schedule: The Notice of Availability 

publication in the Federal Register and 

local print media starts the 45-day 

public comment period for the DEIS. 

The Marine Corps will consider and 

respond to all written and electronic 

comments, including email, submitted 

as described above in preparing the 

Final EIS. DoN intends to issue the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 29523 

Final EIS in November 2010, at which 

time a Notice of Availability will be 

published in the Federal Register and 

local media. A Record of Decision is 

expected in December 2010. 

Copies of the DEIS are available for 

public review at the following libraries 

in North Carolina: 

• Havelock-Craven County Public 

Library, 301 Cunningham Boulevard, 

Havelock; 

• Bogue Banks Public Library, 320 

Salter Path Rd., Suite W Pine Knoll 

Shores; 

• Carteret County Public Library, 

1702 Live Oak Street, Suite 100, 

Beaufort; 

• Emerald Isle Library, 100 Leisure 

Lane, Emerald Isle; Western Carteret 

Public Library, 230 Taylor Notion Road, 

Cape Carteret; 

• Newport Public Library, 210 

Howard Boulevard, Newport; 

• Pamlico County Library, 603 Main 

Street, Bayboro; 

• New Bern-Craven County Public 

Library, 400 Johnson Street, New Bern; 

and 

• Onslow County Public Library, 58 

Doris Avenue East, Jacksonville. 

In South Carolina, copies of the DEIS 

are available at: 

• Beaufort County Library, 311 Scott 

Street, Beaufort; 

• Hilton Head Island Library, 11 

Beach City Road, Hilton Head Island; 

• Beaufort County Library, 1862 

Trask Parkway, Lobeco; and 

• Bluffton Community Library, 42 

Bamberg Drive, Bluffton. 

In Georgia, copies of the DEIS are 

available at: 

• Ida Hilton Public Library, 1105 

Wayne Street, Darien; 

• Long County Public Library, 28 S 

Main Street, Ludowici; and 

• Brunswick Glynn County Regional 

Library, 208 Gloucester Street, 

Brunswick, GA. 

Dated: May 20, 2010. 

A. M. Vallandingham, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12632 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management invites comments on the 

submission for OMB review as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before June 25, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395–5806 or 

e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov with a 

cc: to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

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

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Acting 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Official, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes that 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

Dated: May 21, 2010. 

James Hyler, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Innovation and Improvement 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Open Innovation Web Portal. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit; Federal Government; 

Individuals or household; Not-for-profit 

institutions; State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 4,850. 

Burden Hours: 12,327. 

Abstract: The U.S. Department of 

Education’s (ED) Office of Innovation 

and Improvement (OII) has developed a 

Web-based platform, the Open 

Innovation Web Portal (Portal), to 

support communication and 

collaboration among a wide range of key 

education stackholders, including 

practitioners, funders, and the general 

public. This platform, which is 

currently operating under emergency 

clearance, allows geographically 

dispersed but like-minded entities to 

discover each other and work together 

to address some of the most intractable 

challenges in education. OII promotes 

this platform as a tool for use with the 

Investing in Innovation grant program 

(i3), which was established as the 

‘‘Innovation Fund’’ in the ‘‘American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009’’ (ARRA), signed into law by the 

President on February 17, 2009. This 

new program will provide $650,000,000 

in competitive grants to Local Education 

Agencies (LEAs), non-profit 

organizations working in collaboration 

with LEAs, or non-profit organizations 

working in collaboration with a 

consortium of schools. The Department 

must obligate funds to i3 grantees before 

the end of the fiscal year 2010, 

September 30, 2010. The Department 

also plans for the Portal to remain 

operational after i3 funding is awarded 

so that there is an ongoing community 

that focuses on innovation in education. 

Part of our intent in implementing the 

i3 program is to identify innovative new 

approaches proposed by individuals 

and organizations that have previously 

had limited experience in obtaining 

grants in the education sector yet have 

promising evidence-based ideas for 

improving American education. These 

applicants in particular face challenges 

in identifying schools or LEAs with 

which to partner given their limited 

experience in the field. Further, 

organizations without existing 

relationships in education may find it 

difficult to secure the private sector 

matching funds required of all grantees 

under ARRA. Receiving OMB’s approval 

for an extension Receiving OMB’s 

approval for an extension of the PRA 

clearance will allow continued 

operation of the Portal, which currently 

has over 3000 members, and support 

improved student achievement through 

school improvement and reform, a key 

departmental goal. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1