35460 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.
117 / Monday, June 20, 2005 / Notices
likelihood of selecting appropriate
practitioners; and the roster is a
systematic and efficient way to identify
practitioners.
The roster and the referral system
provide an efficient, credible and user-
friendly source from which to
systematically identify experienced
environmental neutral professionals;
increase the use of collaborative
processes by providing a useful tool for
locating appropriate practitioners; and
provide users with a detailed
Practitioner Profiles, reflecting
information contained in the
application, to be used as a helpful first
step in the process of selecting an
appropriate neutral.
E. Burden Statement
The application compiles data
available from the resumes of dispute
resolution and consensus building
professionals into a format that is
standardized for efficient and fair
eligibility review, database searches,
and retrievals. A professional needs to
complete the form only one time. Once
the application is approved, the roster
member has continual access to his or
her on-line account to update
information, on a voluntary basis. The
burden includes time spent to review
instructions, review resume
information, and enter the information
in the form.
Likely Respondents: Environmental
dispute resolution and consensus
building professionals (new
respondents); existing roster members
(for updating)
Proposed Frequency of Response:
One, with voluntary updates
approximately once per year.
Estimated Number of New
Respondents (first extension year): 30.
Estimated Number of Existing
Respondents—for updating (first
extension year): 125.
Estimated Number of New
Respondents (per year for succeeding
year): 30.
Estimated Number of Existing
Respondents—for updating (per year for
succeeding year): 125.
Respondent Time Burden Estimates:
Estimated Time per New Response:
150 minutes (2.5 hours).
Estimated Number of Updates (per
year): 1, for 125 existing respondents.
Estimated Time for Update: 15
minutes.
Estimated Total First Extension Year
Burden: 4500 minutes (75 hours) (30
new respondents); 1875 minutes (31.25
hours) (125 updates).
Estimated Total Subsequent Year
Annual Burden: 4500 minutes (75
VerDate jul<14>2003 17:24 Jun 17, 2005 Jkt 205001
hours) (30 new respondents); 1875
minutes (31.25 hours) (125 updates).
Respondent Cost Burden Estimates (at
$150 per hour): No capital or start-up
costs.
Estimated Cost per Respondent (first
extension year): $375 (new
respondents); $38 (updates).
Estimated Cost per Respondent
(subsequent year): $375 (new
respondents); $38 (updates).
Estimated Total First Extension Year
Burden: $11,250 (new respondents);
$4,750 (updates).
Estimated Total Subsequent Year
Annual Burden: $11,250 (new
respondents); $4,750 (updates).
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purpose of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information and
transmitting information.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 5601–5609)
Dated the 14th day of June 2005.
Christopher L. Helms,
Executive Director, Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation, and
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–12073 Filed 6–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–FN–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY:National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review;
ACTION:
comment request.
SUMMARY: The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13.
This is the second notice for the public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 70 FR 18430, and
one comment was received. NSF is
forwarding the proposed renewal
submission to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for clearance
simultaneously with the publication of
this second notice. Comments regarding
(a) whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; (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 should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725—17th Street, NW.,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or
send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Comments regarding these information
collections are best assured of having
their full effect if received within 30
days of this notification. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling 703–292–7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comment: On April 11, 2005, we
published in the Federal Register (70 FR
18430) a 60-day notice of our intent to
request renewal of this information
collection authority from OMB. In that
notice, we solicited public comments
for 60 days ending June 10, 2005. On
comment was received from the public
notice. The comment came from B.
Sachau of Floram Park, NJ, via e-mail on
April 18, 2005. Ms. Sachau objected to
the information collection. Ms. Sachau
suggested that NSF discontinue funding
education-related projects and leave
education to the state and local
authorities and possibly to the
Department of Education. Ms. Sachau
had no specific suggestions for altering
the data collection plans other than to
discontinue or ‘‘sunset’’ them entirely.
Response: We responded to Ms.
Sachau on April 27, 2005, stating that
we could not comment on the political
issues raised in her e-mail. We
described the program and noted that
NSF takes seriously its mission as
20JNN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 117 / Monday, June 20, 2005 / Notices
directed by Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
monitor and evaluate awards made
under the Math and Science Partnership
(MSP) program. On April 28, 2005 we
received a reply from Ms. Sachau
requesting her ‘‘comments stand for the
public record. NSF believes that because
the comment does not pertain to the
collection of information on the
required forms for which NSF is seeking
OMB approval, NSF is preceding with
the clearance request.
Title: The Evaluation of NSF’s Math
and Science Partnerships (MSP)
Program.
OMB Control Number: 3145–0199.
Abstract
This document has been prepared to
support the clearance of data collection
instruments to be used in the evaluation
of the Math and Science Partnership
(MSP) Program. The goals for the
program are to (1) ensure that all K–12
students have access to, are prepared
for, and are encouraged to participate
and succeed in challenging curricula
and advanced mathematics and science
courses; (2) enhance the quality,
quantity, and diversity of the K–12
mathematics and science teacher
workforce; and (3) develop evidence-
based outcomes that contribute to our
understanding of how students
effectively learn mathematics and
science. The motivational force for
realizing these goals is the formation of
partnerships between institutions of
higher education (IHEs) and K–12
school districts. The role of IHE content
faculty is the cornerstone of this
intervention. In fact, it is the rigorous
involvement of science, mathematics,
and engineering faculty—and the
expectation that both IHEs and K–12
school systems will be transformed—
that distinguishes MSP from other
education reform efforts.
The components of the overall MSP
portfolio include active projects whose
initial awards were made in prior MSP
competitions, as well as those to be
awarded in the current MSP
competition: (1) Comprehensive
Partnerships that implement change in
mathematics and/or science educational
practices in both higher education
institutions and in schools and school
districts, resulting in improved student
achievement across the K–12
continuum; (2) Targeted Partnerships
that focus on improved K–12 student
achievement in a narrower grade range
or disciplinary focus within
mathematics or science; (3) Institute
Partnerships: Teacher Institutes for the
21st Century that focus on the
development of mathematics and
VerDate jul<14>2003 17:24 Jun 17, 2005 Jkt 205001
science teachers as school-and district-
based intellectual leaders and master
teachers; and (4) Research, Evaluation
and Technical Assistance (RETA)
projects that build and enhance large-
scale research and evaluation capacity
for all MSP awardees and provide them
with tools and assistance in the
implementation and evaluation of their
work.
The MSP online monitoring system,
comprised of four web-based surveys,
will collect a common core of data about
each component of MSP. The web
application for MSP will be developed
with a modular design that incorporates
templates and self-contained code
modules for rapid development and
ease of modification. A downloadable
version will also be available for
respondents who prefer a paper version
that they can mail or fax to Westat.
Information from the system will be
used to document the Partnerships’
annual progress toward meeting the Key
features of MSP projects, such as
developing partnerships between IHEs
and local school districts, increasing
teacher quality, quantity, and diversity,
providing challenging courses and
curricula, utilizing evidence-based
design and outcome measures, and
implementing institutional change and
sustainability.
Expected Respondents
The expected respondents are
principal investigators of all projects;
STEM and education faculty members
and administrators who participated in
MSP; school districts and IHEs that are
partners in an MSP project.
Burden on the Public
We estimate that the total number of
annual respondents will be 1,848. The
estimated annual response burden is
34,382.
Dated: June 15, 2005.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 05–12094 Filed 6–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50–454, STN 50–455, STN
50–456, and STN 50–457]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses; Correction
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Issuance; correction.
PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
35461
SUMMARY: This document corrects a
notice appearing in the Federal Register
on June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33222), that
incorrectly stated the date of issuance of
amendments deleting the technical
specification requirements related to
hydrogen recombiners as May 19, 2005.
The correct date of issuance of the
amendments is May 26, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George F. Dick, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone (301) 415–
3019, e-mail: GFD@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page
33222, in the second column, in the
entry for Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN
50–455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Ogle County, Illinois; Docket Nos.
STN 50–456 and STN 50–457,
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Will County, Illinois, the date of
issuance is corrected to read from ‘‘May
19, 2005’’ to ‘‘May 26, 2005’’.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day
of June 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Dick, Sr.,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5–3176 Filed 6–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70–3103]
Safety Evaluation Report for the
Proposed National Enrichment Facility
in Lea County, NM, NUREG–1827;
Notice of Availability
AGENCY: United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability of Safety
Evaluation Report.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) has issued a Safety Evaluation
Report (SER) for the Louisiana Energy
Services (LES) license application,
dated December 12, 2003, docketed on
January 30, 2004, and as revised by
letters dated February 27, 2004, July 30,
2004, September 30, 2004, April 22,
2005, April 29, 2005, and May 25, 2005,
for the possession and use of source,
byproduct, and special nuclear
materials at its proposed National
Enrichment Facility (NEF) in Lea
County, New Mexico.
The SER discusses the results of the
safety review performed by NRC staff in
20JNN1