35928 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 31, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

a copy of the ICR, call Sandy Farmer at

EPA, by phone at (202) 260–2740, by EMail at Farmer.Sandy@epamail.epa.gov

or download off the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr/icr.htm, and refer to

EPA ICR No. 1637.04.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Determining Conformity of

General Federal Actions to State

Implementation Plans, OMB Control

Number 2060–0279, ICR number

1637.04, expiring July 31, 1998. This is

a request for extension of a currently

approved collection.

Abstract: Before any agency,

department, or instrumentality of the

Federal government engages in,

supports in any way, provides financial

assistance for, licenses, permits, or

approves any activity, that agency has

the affirmative responsibility to ensure

that such action conforms to the State

implementation plan (SIP) for the

attainment and maintenance of the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS). An agency may not conduct

or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9

and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal

Register document, required under 5

CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on

this collection of information was

published on February 18, 1998 (63 FR

8196); two comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public

reporting and recordkeeping burden for

this collection of information is

estimated to average 49 hours per

response. 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 purposes

of collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities:

Federal Agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

280.

Frequency of Response: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

13,600 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost

Burden: 0.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the following addresses.

Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1637.04 and

OMB Control No. 2060–0279 in any

correspondence.

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division (2137), 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;

and

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: June 25, 1998.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 98–17520 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT

National Economic Council

Office of Science and Technology

Policy

Enhancing Federal Training and

Education Through Technology

AGENCY: National Economic Council

and Office of Science and Technology

Policy, EOP.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The National Economic

Council and the Office of Science and

Technology Policy, in consultation with

the Office of Personnel Management,

seek information about how to make the

most efficient possible use of new

information technologies for training

federal employees in ways that also will

accelerate the development of the

broader commercial marketplace. This

will require making full use of

innovations in technology for

commercial training, encouraging

interoperability of products from

competing vendors, and experimenting

with new forms of public-private

collaboration to develop high-quality

instructional software.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before September 15,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit electronic version of comments

at www.fed-training.org or written

comments by mail to Martha Livingston,

Office of Science and Technology, Room

423, Old Executive Office Building,

Washington, D.C. 20502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Mayronne, Department of Labor,

2000 Constitution, Room N–5303,

Washington, D.C. 20001. Telephone:

(202) 219–9587, ext. 171. Fax: (202)-

7968. Additional information and

materials are available at www.fedtraining.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Administration is interested in

the ability of new information and

communications technologies to

enhance lifelong learning by expanding

access, reducing cost, and improving

quality. For example:

• Access to education and training

could be expanded by allowing adults to

learn at a time, place, and pace that is

convenient for them—using the Internet,

CDROM, and/or other technologymediated forms of instruction.

• The quality of education could be

improved through the use of

technologies such as: modeling and

simulation and case-based reasoning,

which enable ‘‘learning by doing’’;

intelligent tutoring systems, which can

respond to the individual needs of the

learner and recognize common

mistakes; synchronous and

asynchronous learning networks, which

can encourage the formation of

‘‘communities of learners’’ between

students and teachers; and the

appropriate use of multimedia, which

can increase retention and ‘‘time on

task.’’

• Cost for the development of highquality instructional content/software

could be reduced by: greater re-use of

instructional modules; better authoring

tools; and open specifications for

instructional management systems—

such as the EDUCOM Instructional

Management System.

• Relevance could be increased by

reducing the time that is required to

develop instructional software, thereby

providing timely technology-based

training materials to the learner.

The Administration is pursuing a

number of policies to realize this vision,

including: (1) Eliminating barriers to

broader adoption of distance learning by

both individuals and institutions

through reforms of the Higher Education
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices 35929

Act; (2) increasing investment in R&D

for learning technologies; (3)

encouraging experimentation and

collaboration in the use of distance

learning with a new Department of

Education grant program called

‘‘Learning Anytime, Anywhere

Partnerships’’; and (4) encouraging

federal agencies to make better use of

information technology to train their

own employees. This Notice of Inquiry

focuses on this last issue.

Encouraging Federal Agencies To Make

Better Use of Learning Technology

Clearly, efficient management of the

federal government requires continuous

investment in training. The demand for

training has increased as new

technologies reshape the workplace in

ways that both make federal employees

more productive and allow them to

improve the service they provide. Both

military and civilian agencies face

enormous challenges in this area.

Advances in computers,

communication, and other areas of

information technology make it possible

to improve the efficiency of the training

process itself. Federal agencies need to

take advantage of techniques, software,

and specifications being developed for

commercial training and for university

and college instruction. This is a

difficult undertaking since the field is

changing rapidly.

Since all federal agencies share

similar challenges in this area, the

President issued an Executive

Memorandum dated January 30, 1998

directing the National Economic

Council to develop a plan which will

describe how agencies can:

• make full use of best commercial

practices when purchasing instructional

software;

• work with businesses, universities,

and other appropriate entities to foster

a competitive market for electronic

instruction;

• develop a model technical approach

to facilitate electronic instruction

building on existing agency efforts, such

as the Advanced Distributed Learning

Initiative Partnership; and

• develop and support a program of

research that will accelerate the

development and adoption of new

instructional technologies.

Request for Comments on Technology

for Federal Training and Education

To support this effort, we are

interested in receiving information in

the following areas:

Emerging or existing technical

specifications and technologies that will

enable:

• standardized methods for

identifying software components and

other tools that can facilitate electronic

commerce. These methods can include

specifications for ‘‘meta-data’’ such as

ownership, licensing restrictions,

unique identifiers, and other critical

information.

• standardized methods for tracking

student performance, preference, and

records in instructional modules. These

methods allow an instructional

management system to link a student to

a range of instructional modules and

provide information to management

systems about student performance and

learning styles. This information can be

used to maintain student records and to

improve the instructional materials

themselves.

• methods for handling individual

questions presented by students. This

includes systems for connecting

students to databases of ‘‘frequently

asked questions,’’ methods for creating

and maintaining such databases, and

systems for connecting students to live

instructors who can provide personal

answers to questions.

• methods for specifying software

components that ensure

interoperability. This can include

exemplary use of specifications for

software objects that can be combined to

create simulations or other instructional

tools. These specifications could, for

example, allow simulated vehicles to be

constructed from software objects

manufactured by many different

vendors.

• tools for creating instructional

modules quickly and efficiently from

components.

• management systems using

components described above. These

systems would provide some or all of

the following services: methods

allowing instructors to develop

curricula for individual students,

monitor individual student progress,

maintain transcripts and certifications,

allow easy movement between remedial

and advanced instruction, protect

student privacy and protect intellectual

property, and keep records facilitating

financial transactions to holders of

intellectual property and others.

(2) Subject areas where there is

significant overlap between government

and private sector requirements—and

proposed partnerships for taking

advantage of these commonalities. We

are particularly interested in: (a)

instructional software that could

improve adult basic education (e.g.,

GED equivalence; adult literacy, English

as a Second Language); and (b) subject

areas that will help workers compete for

jobs in rapidly growing fields (e.g.,

information technology).

(3) New forms of assessment that are

particularly appropriate for technologymediated instruction.

(4) Methodologies for evaluating the

effectiveness of technology-mediated

instruction on educational outcomes,

costs, and productivity of training and

published evaluations of technologymediated training.

(5) New procurement mechanisms,

public-private partnerships, and

innovative business models that will

encourage private sector investment in

the development of highq-uality

instructional software and wider

deployment and utilization of

technology-mediated instruction

throughout the economy. Our strategy

can only work if all businesses and

educational institutions with technology

and services capable of serving federal

training needs are willing and able to

compete for federal business. We are

particularly interested in comments that

will help federal agencies hold

competitions that will attract proposals

from creative institutions throughout

the economy—even institutions that

have had no previous experience in

bidding on government contracts. We

would like comments on how existing

procedures create barriers to bidding on

federal contracts and proposals for

streamlining the process.

These comments will be used to

develop a federal strategy to facilitate

the emergence of a vigorous,

competitive market in interoperable

software products for instruction. Such

a market ensures that institutions with

training needs—including federal

agencies—get high-quality, up-to-date,

instruction for their employees at a low

cost. It also ensures the widest possible

market for creative developers

producing products that can be sold into

the large markets for instructional

software products created by such open

markets.

Please provide information and

suggestions in these areas useful for

developing federal policy that will

ensure efficient federal use of

information technology based on use of

the best practices emerging in

competitive commercial markets. This

notice is for the purses of developing

policy and is not a solicitation. Please

do not send descriptions of specific

products or services.

Dated: June 24, 1998.

Holly Gwin,

Chief of Staff and General Counsel; Office

of Science and Technology Policy.

[FR Doc. 98–17502 Filed 6–26–98; 5:03 pm]

BILLING CODE 3170–01–U