10724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

1NSF Information Quality Guidelines are 

available on http://www.nsf.gov/policies/

infoqual.jsp. OMB Information Quality Guidelines 

are available on http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

inforeg/infopoltech.html. OMB standards and 

guidelines for statistical surveys are available on 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/

standards_stat_surveys.pdf. 

accommodate the scheduling priorities 

of the key participants. 

Harmony R. Myers, 

Acting Advisory Committee Management 

Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04104 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To 

Establish an Information Collection 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) is 

inviting the general public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on this 

proposed information collection. 

Comments: Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Foundation, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Foundation’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 automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

DATES: Written comments on this notice 

must be received by April 28, 2015, to 

be assured consideration. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

Send comments to address below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, 

Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone 

(703) 292–7556; or send email to 

splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339, which is accessible 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a 

year (including federal holidays). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title Of Collection: Generic Clearance 

of Survey Improvement Projects From 

the National Science Foundation. 

OMB Number: 3145—NEW. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Not 

applicable. 

Type of Request: Intent to seek 

approval to establish a generic clearance 

for survey improvement projects for the 

National Science Foundation. 

Abstract: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) requests that the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) grant a generic clearance that 

will allow NSF to rigorously develop, 

test, and evaluate its survey instruments 

and methodologies. NSF has a mandate 

to ‘‘provide a central clearinghouse for 

the collection, interpretation, and 

analysis of data on scientific and 

engineering resources and to provide a 

source of information for policy 

formulation by other agencies of the 

Federal Government.’’ This request is 

part of an ongoing initiative to improve 

NSF surveys as recommended by both 

its own guidelines and those of OMB.1

In the last decade, state-of-the art data 

collection and analysis methods have 

been increasingly instituted by NSF and 

other federal agencies, and are now 

routinely used to improve the quality 

and timeliness of data and analyses. 

These new methods or techniques many 

times help reduce respondents’ 

cognitive workload and burden. The 

purpose of this generic clearance is to 

allow NSF to continue to adopt and use 

these methods or techniques to improve 

its current data collections on science, 

engineering, and technology inputs, 

outputs and outcomes. They will be 

used to improve the content of existing 

surveys, to aid in the development of 

new data collections to capture changes 

in the U.S. science and engineering 

(S&E) enterprise, and to fill gaps in 

coverage of the S&E enterprise in the 

existing NSF portfolio. 

Following standard OMB 

requirements, NSF will submit to OMB 

an individual request for each survey 

improvement project it undertakes 

under this generic clearance. NSF will 

request OMB approval in advance and 

provide OMB with a copy of the 

questionnaire (if one is used) and 

materials describing the project. 

NSF envisions using a variety of 

survey improvement techniques, as 

appropriate to the individual projects, 

such as focus groups, cognitive and 

usability laboratory and field 

techniques, exploratory interviews, 

behavior coding, respondent debriefing, 

pilot studies, pretests and split-panel 

tests. NSF has used such techniques in 

previous activities conducted under 

generic clearances granted to individual 

divisions. 

a. Focus Groups. A qualitative 

methodology that brings together a 

small number of relatively homogenous 

subjects to discuss pre-identified topics. 

A protocol containing questions or 

topics focused on a particular issue or 

issues is used to guide these sessions, 

and is administered by a trained 

facilitator. Focus groups are useful for 

exploring and identifying issues with 

either respondents or stakeholders. 

Focus groups are a good choice during 

the development of a survey or survey 

topic, when a pre-existing questionnaire 

or survey questions on the topic do not 

yet exist. NSF has used focus groups for 

several projects under the Science 

Resources Statistics generic clearance 

(OMB Control Number 3145–0174) to 

assist with redesign of surveys when it 

became evident that the content of a 

survey was outdated and did not reflect 

current issues or the context that 

respondents were facing. 

b. Cognitive and Usability Laboratory 

and Field Techniques. A qualitative 

methodology that refers to a set of tools 

employed to study and identify errors 

that are introduced during the survey 

process. These techniques are generally 

conducted by a researcher with an 

individual respondent, though observers 

may sometimes be present. Cognitive 

techniques are generally used to 

understand the question-response 

process, whereas usability is generally 

used to understand respondent 

reactions to the features of an electronic 

survey instrument, for instance, its 

display and navigation. In concurrent 

interviews, respondents are asked to 

think aloud as they actually answer the 

survey. In retrospective interviews, 

respondents answer the survey as they 

would normally, then ‘think aloud’ 

afterwards. Other techniques, which are 

described in the literature and which 

will be employed as appropriate 

include: Follow-up probing, memory 

cue tasks, paraphrasing, confidence 

rating, response latency measurements, 

free and dimensional sort classification 

tasks, and vignette classifications. The 

objective of all of these techniques is to 

aid in the development of surveys that 

work with respondents’ thought 

processes, thus reducing response error 

and burden. These techniques are 

generally very useful for studying and 

revising a pre-existing questionnaire. 

NSF has used cognitive and usability 

testing in previous generic clearance 

projects (OMB Control Numbers 3145– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 10725 

2Number of respondents listed for any individual 

survey may represent several methodological 

improvement projects. 

0157 and 3145–0174) to improve 

existing survey items, to develop and 

refine new content on existing surveys, 

and to explore content for new surveys. 

c. Exploratory Interviews. A technique 

where interviews are conducted with 

individuals to gather information about 

a topical area. These may be used in the 

very early stages of developing a new 

survey. They may cover discussions 

related to administrative records, 

subject matter, definitions, etc. 

Exploratory interviews may also be used 

to investigate whether there are 

sufficient issues related to an existing 

data collection to consider a redesign. 

NSF has used such interviews 

extensively in recordkeeping studies 

with respondents to several of its 

establishment surveys to determine both 

what types of records institutions keep 

(and therefore what types of information 

they can supply), as well as where and 

in what format such records are kept. 

d. Respondent Debriefing. A 

technique in which individuals are 

queried about how they have responded 

to a particular survey, question, or series 

of questions. The purpose of the 

debriefing is to determine if the original 

survey questions are understood as 

intended, to learn about respondents’ 

form filling behavior and recordkeeping 

systems, or to elicit respondents’ 

satisfaction with the survey. This 

information can then be used (especially 

if it is triangulated with other 

information) to improve the survey. 

This technique can be used as a 

qualitative or quantitative measurement, 

depending on how it is administered. 

This technique has been employed in 

NSF generic clearance projects (OMB 

Control Number 3145–0174) to identify 

potential problems with existing survey 

items both quantitatively (response 

behavior study, or RBS, using web 

survey questions with respondents to 

the Survey of Graduate Students and 

Post-doctorates in Science and 

Engineering, or GSS) and qualitatively 

(interviews using semi-structured 

protocols with Higher Education R&D 

Survey respondents). 

e. Pilot Studies/Pretests. These 

methodologies are used to test a 

preliminary version of the data 

collection instrument, as was done with 

the Early Career Doctorate Project. 

Pretests are used to gather data to refine 

questionnaire items and scales and 

assess reliability, validity, or other 

survey measurement issues. Pilot 

studies are also used to test aspects of 

implementation procedures. The sample 

may be purposive in nature, or limited 

to particular groups for whom the 

information is most needed. 

Alternatively, small samples can be 

selected to statistically represent at least 

some aspect of the survey population. 

f. Split Panel Tests. A technique for 

controlled experimental testing of 

alternatives. Thus, they allow one to 

choose from among competing 

questions, questionnaires, definitions, 

error messages, surveys, or survey 

improvement methodologies with 

greater confidence than other methods 

alone. Split panel tests conducted 

during the actual fielding of the survey 

are superior in that they support both 

internal validity (controlled 

comparisons of variables under 

investigation) and external validity 

(represent the population under study). 

Nearly any of the previously mentioned 

survey improvement methods can be 

strengthened when teamed with this 

method. 

g. Behavior Coding. A quantitative 

technique in which a standard set of 

codes is systematically applied to 

respondent/interviewer interactions in 

interviewer-administered surveys or 

respondent/questionnaire interactions 

in self-administered surveys. Though 

this technique can quantifiably identify 

problems with the wording of questions, 

it does not necessarily illuminate the 

underlying causes. 

Use of the Information: The 

information obtained from these efforts 

will be used to develop new NSF 

surveys and improve current ones. 

These surveys will generally be used to 

monitor outputs and outcomes of NSF 

funding over time (particularly data that 

is not being collected in annual and 

final reports), and manage and improve 

programs. Data collected through survey 

questionnaires can be used in program 

evaluation studies and can be matched 

to administrative data to understand 

NSF’s portfolio of investments. 

Specifically, the information from the 

survey questionnaire improvement 

projects will be used to reduce 

respondent burden and to improve the 

quality of the data collected in these 

surveys. These objectives are met when 

respondents are presented with plain, 

coherent, and unambiguous 

questionnaires asking for data 

compatible with respondents’ memory 

and/or current reporting and 

recordkeeping practices. The purpose of 

the survey improvement projects will be 

to ensure that NSF surveys are 

continuously attempting to meet these 

standards of excellence. Improved NSF 

surveys will help policy makers make 

decisions on R&D funding, graduate 

education, scientific and technical 

workforce, innovation, as well as 

contribute to increased agency 

efficiency and reduced survey costs. In 

addition, methodological findings have 

broader implications for survey research 

and may be presented in technical 

papers at conferences or published in 

the proceedings of conferences or in 

journals. 

Estimate of Burden: NSF estimates 

that a total reporting burden of 171,000 

hours over the three years of the 

requested generic clearance is possible 

from working to evaluate/improve 

existing surveys and to develop new 

ones. This includes both the burden 

placed on respondents participating in 

each activity as well as burden imposed 

on potential respondents during 

screening activities. Table 1 provides a 

list of potential improvement projects 

for which generic clearance activities 

might be conducted, along with 

estimates of the number of respondents 

and burden hours that might be 

involved in each. 

TABLE 1—POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Improvement project type Number of 

respondents 2 Hours 

Cognitive Testing ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 15,000 

Focus Groups .......................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 10,000 

Card Sorting ............................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 

Interviews ................................................................................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 

Panelist Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 7,000 12,000 

Past Awardee Survey .............................................................................................................................................. 9,000 14,000 

Usability Testing ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 10,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

10726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 1—POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS—Continued 

Improvement project type Number of 

respondents 2 Hours 

Additional surveys not specified .............................................................................................................................. 35,000 100,000 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 76,000 171,000 

Respondents: The respondents are 

PIs, program coordinators, or 

participants in NSF activities. 

Estimates of Annualized Cost to 

Respondents for the Hour Burdens 

The cost to respondents generated by 

the list of potential projects is estimated 

to be $3,205,680 over the three years of 

the clearance. No one year’s cost would 

exceed $3,205,680. In other words, if all 

work were done in one year, costs in 

that one year would be $3,205,680 and 

the costs in each of the other 2 years 

would be zero. As in previous requests 

for generic clearance authority, the total 

cost was estimated by summing all the 

hours that might be used on all projects 

over the three years (76,000) and 

multiplying that figure by the hourly 

wage ($42.18) of the level of employee 

who typically answers NSF 

questionnaires or attends NSF 

workshops. This wage amount is the 

May 2011 national cross-industry 

estimate of the mean hourly wage for a 

financial analyst, or Job Category 13– 

2051, by the Bureau of Statistics. 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/#data. The total 

hours are based on similar NSF projects 

over the past few years. 

There are no capital, startup, 

operation or maintenance costs to the 

respondents. The costs generated by 

future data collections will be described 

in the clearance request for each specific 

data collection. NSF does not anticipate 

any capital, startup, operation, or 

maintenance costs for future surveys. 

Dated: February 23, 2015. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04097 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 72–16; NRC–2014–0154] 

North Anna Power Station Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact; 

issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering a 

license amendment request for the 

Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) 

License SNM–2507 for the North Anna 

Power Station (NA) independent spent 

fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located 

in Louisa County, Virginia. 

DATES: The environmental assessment 

and finding of no significant impact 

referenced in this document are 

available on February 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2014–0154 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2014–0154. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced in this document 

(if that document is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

a document is referenced. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

Trefethen, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

5137, email: Jean.Trefethen@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The NRC is considering a license 

amendment request for Special Nuclear 

Materials License Number SNM–2507 

for the NA ISFSI located in Louisa 

County, Virginia (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14160A707). The applicant, 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

(Dominion), is proposing to amend 

Technical Specifications (TS) 4.2.3, 

‘‘Storage Pad,’’ to define the minimum 

center-to-center spacing for 

Transnuclear-32 spent nuclear fuel 

storage casks, with heat loads no greater 

than 27.1 kilowatts (kW), from 16 feet 

(feet) to 14 feet. The NRC staff has 

prepared a final environmental 

assessment (EA) as part of its review of 

this proposed license amendment in 

accordance with the requirements in 

part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR). Based on the final 

EA, the NRC has determined that a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is appropriate. The NRC is also 

conducting a safety evaluation of the 

proposed license amendment pursuant 

to 10 CFR part 72, and the results will 

be documented in a separate Safety 

Evaluation Report (SER). If Dominion’s 

request is approved, the NRC will issue 

the license amendment following 

publication of this final EA and FONSI 

and the SER. 

II. Final Environmental Assessment 

Summary 

On August 23, 2011, during an 

earthquake centered in Mineral, 

Virginia, 25 of 27 of the Transnuclear32 casks on NA ISFSI Pad I shifted from 

their original positions. The shifting 

changed the center-to-center spacing of 

the casks from 16 feet to a range of 15 

feet 2.25 inches to 16 feet 11.25 inches. 

Dominion is proposing to amend SNM– 

2507 TS 4.2.3, which would change the 

allowable distance between individual 

casks (center-to-center) from a nominal 

16 feet to a minimum of 14 feet for those 

casks with heat loads no greater than 

27.1 kW. Dominion is requesting this 

license amendment in lieu of moving 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES