27332 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Notices

of moral rights. We would like to see

examples of as many visual art contracts

as possible, especially those with

waivers, and would appreciate any

party sending us such contracts.

The Copyright Office specifically

invites comments on the following

questions:

Awareness of rights. To what extent

are artists aware of VARA and the rights

of integrity and attribution provided by

VARA? Has awareness of VARA

increased? Please give examples.

Extent of waiver. Are waiver of moral

rights provisions routinely included in

artists’ contracts? Do parties that obtain

waiver of moral rights in a contract

exercise the waiver or is a waiver

secured merely as an ‘‘insurance

policy’’? Does waiver vary depending on

the nature of the work? For example, are

mobiles and sculptures treated

differently than paintings and prints?

Does it vary based on the location of the

work, for example, murals that are part

of buildings? What experiences have

artists had with owners of buildings?

Does it vary depending on the

purchaser? Does it matter whether the

purchaser is a national or regional

institution, an owner of a public or

private building, an art collector or

investor? Please give examples where

possible.

Contract specifics. What is the

economic effect of a waiver in the

course of contract negotiations? Is there

any evidence on how much a waiver is

worth—that is, how much more a

purchaser would pay if the artist waived

the right? Are there proportionately

more waivers given for artistic works

that are included in buildings than for

other types of works? When a waiver is

included in a contract, does the contract

specifically identify the work and use

for which the waiver applies? What

types of contracts include waivers:

contracts for sale of work? contracts for

transfer of copyright ownership?

contracts for commissioned works?

contracts that include only a waiver

provision? If a waiver is included in a

contract, is that waiver limited in

duration? If limited in duration, what is

the typical term of the waiver?

Artists’ concerns. What are the factors

artists consider when determining

whether to agree to a waiver of moral

rights in a contract? Describe any

instances where artists were coerced

into waiving their moral rights. Has

VARA had an effect on commission of

visual art?

Do artists have unequal bargaining

power when dealing with established

galleries and other organizations? If the

artist’s selling power (demand for his or

her works) or reputation affects or

determines whether or not waiver will

be required, how much experience or

how well know does the artist have to

be in order to avoid waiver? Give

specific examples, if possible.

Experience in other countries. What

types of experiences have artists had

with moral rights abroad? Are artists

asked to waive their moral rights in

contracts entered into in foreign

countries? If so, in what countries?

Experience with U.S. law. Should

moral rights be waivable? Should the

provisions of the Visual Artists Rights

Act be amended or modified in any

way?

The Copyright Office is interested in

receiving public comment on these

issues and any other issues relevant to

the VARA study.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 95–12606 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–30–M

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 95–031]

National Environmental Policy Act;

International Space Station Program

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

Tier 2 environmental impact statement

(EIS) and conduct scoping for the

assembly and operation of the proposed

International Space Station (ISS)

Program.

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations for

Implementing the Procedural Provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), and

NASA’s policy and procedures (14 CFR

Part 1216 Subpart 1216.3), intends to

prepare a Tier 2 EIS for the ISS Program.

The proposed action by NASA is to

continue to provide U.S. participation

in the assembly and operation of the

ISS. The alternative is cancellation of

the ISS Program, specifically, the ‘‘No

Action’’ alternative. The Tier 2 EIS will

focus on those areas of the ISS Program

which have changed substantially since

the Tier 1 EIS was prepared. This

includes modifications to the space

station itself, its assembly and

operation, and an assessment of the

probability and consequences of reentry

of the station into Earth’s atmosphere.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to

submit written comments to NASA on

or before July 7, 1995, to ensure full

consideration during the scoping

process.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be in

writing and addressed to Mr. David

Ruszczyk, NASA Johnson Space Flight

Center, Code OF, Houston, Texas

77058–3696.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David Ruszczyk, 713–244–7756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NASA

issued the Final Tier 1 Environmental

Impact Statement for Space Station

Freedom, March 1991 (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Tier 1 EIS’’). The Tier

1 EIS was prepared as part of the

decision process to determine whether

to proceed with the development,

assembly, and operation of a human

occupied space station in cooperation

with the Canadian Space Agency, the

European Space Agency, and Japan’s

National Space Development Agency.

Several programmatic and design

configuration alternatives were

considered, along with the alternative to

take no action. The program decision,

made on the basis of the Tier 1 EIS and

other relevant documents, was to

proceed with full scale design and

development of the concept known as

Space Station Freedom.

At the time the Tier EIS was prepared,

detailed design information was not

available. As a consequence, some

issues relating to the potential

environmental effects of Space Station

Freedom were deferred to the Tier 2 EIS.

These issues included the impacts of

any significant design modifications

that might be incorporated as the design

matured; and a quantitative analysis of

the probability and consequences of

accidental or uncontrolled reentry into

the Earth’s atmosphere during assembly

and operation. Other impacts that were

reserved include venting of nontoxic

gases during station operation, and

change to a hydrazine propulsion

system.

On March 9, 1993, the President

directed NASA to undertake a major

redesign of the space station program in

such a manner that major reductions in

the projected costs of Space Station

Freedom could be realized. An Advisory

Committee on the Redesign of the Space

Station was chartered to provide advice

with respect to the redesign options for

the U.S. space station program. The

results of the redesign studies were

presented in the Space Station Redesign

Team Final Report to the Advisory

Committee on the Redesign of the Space

Station, dated June 1993. The result was

the currently proposed ISS, which
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Notices 27333

includes design modifications and

agreements to include Russia as a

partner, and incorporates Russian

hardware and capabilities into the

program.

The proposed action considered in

this Tier 2 EIS is to continue the

implementation of the U.S. contribution

to the overall effort to assemble and

operate the ISS. The remaining

alternative involves the ‘‘No Action’’

alternative (i.e., cancellation of U.S.

participation in the ISS). Significant

design changes that have occurred since

the Tier 1 EIS include, but are not

necessarily limited to, the following:

The number of research laboratories on

the space station has been increased

from three to six; the number of logistics

modules has been increased from one to

two; the pressurized volume has been

almost doubled; the crew size has been

increased from four to six; and the

orbital inclination has been changed

from 28.5 degrees to 51.6 degrees,

permitting space station access by

Russian launch vehicles and additional

mission control capabilities from

Russia’s mission control center. The ISS

contemplates 15 Russian launches,

increasing the total number of launches

through completion of assembly from 32

to 44, and reducing the number of U.S.

launches from 29 to 27, one European

launch, and one launch yet to be

determined. Accordingly, resupply

flights to the completed ISS will now

include Russian as well as U.S. flights;

whereas Space Station Freedom was to

be resupplied exclusively by U.S. Space

Shuttle flights. The planned U.S.

launches will not include any

expendable launch vehicles; only the

Space Shuttle will be used. However,

the U.S. may use expendable launch

vehicles in a contingency or backup

role.

The design of the ISS has progressed

to the point where it is now possible to

conduct a quantitative analysis of the

probability and consequences of

accidental or uncontrolled reentry into

the Earth’s atmosphere. The Tier 2 EIS

will assess the probabilities and

potential impacts associated with

accidental or uncontrolled reentry. The

Tier 2 EIS also will address

decommissioning alternatives,

including the plan presented in the Tier

1 EIS.

Other issues to be addressed in the

Tier 2 EIS include, but will not

necessarily be limited to, the following:

the cumulative effects of the U.S.

launches associated with the assembly

and operation of the ISS; the change to

a Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine/

Nitrogen Tetroxide propulsion system;

and the venting and outgassing of

nontoxic gases from the ISS. The Tier 2

EIS will address environmental effects

on the United States and the integrated

ISS impacts on the global commons.

Written public input and comments

on the range of alternatives being

considered and the potential

environmental issues related to the

assembly and the operation of the

International Space Station are hereby

solicited.

Dated: May 12, 1995.

Benita A. Cooper,

Associate Administrator for Management

Systems and Facilities.

[FR Doc. 95–12553 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M

[Notice 95–032]

Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive

License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant a patent

license.

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice of

intent to grant MERCO Incorporated,

1667 Cole Boulevard, Suite 400, Golden,

Colorado 80401, a partially exclusive

license to practice the invention

protected by U.S. Patent No. 5,128,797,

‘‘NON-MECHANICAL OPTICAL PATH

SWITCHING AND ITS APPLICATION

TO DUAL BEAM SPECTROSCOPY

INCLUDING GAS FILTER

CORRELATION RADIOMETRY,’’ which

was issued on July 7, 1992, by the

United States of America as represented

by the Administrator of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The partially exclusive license will

contain appropriate terms and

conditions to be negotiated in

accordance with the Department of

Commerce patent licensing regulations

(37 CFR 404). NASA will negotiate the

final terms and conditions and grant the

license unless, within 60 days of the

date of this notice, the Director of Patent

Licensing receives written objections to

the grant, together with supporting

documentation. The Director of

Licensing will review all written

responses to the notice and then

recommend to the Associate General

Counsel (Intellectual Property) whether

to grant the license.

DATES: Comments to the notice must be

received by July 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Code GP,

Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Harry Lupuloff, NASA, Director of

Patent Licensing, (202) 358–2041.

Dated: May 16, 1995.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 95–12552 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY

National Institute for Literacy Advisory

Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Institute for Literacy

Advisory Board, National Institute for

Literacy.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This Notice sets forth the

schedule and proposed agenda of a

forthcoming meeting of the National

Institute for Literacy Advisory Board

(Board). This notice also describes the

function of the Board. Notice of this

meeting is required under section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. This document is

intended to notify the general public of

their opportunity to attend the meeting.

DATES AND TIMES: June 15, 1995, 9 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: World Education, 210

Lincoln Street, 6th Floor, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharyn M. Abbott, Acting Executive

Officer, National Institute for Literacy,

800 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite

200, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone

(202) 632–1503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board

is established under Section 384 of the

Adult Education Act, as amended by

Title I of Public Law 102–73, the

National Literacy Act of 1991. The

Board consists of ten individuals

appointed by the President with the

advice and consent of the Senate. The

Board is established to advise and make

recommendations to the Interagency

Group, composed of the Secretaries of

Education, Labor, and Health and

Human Services, which administers the

National Institute for Literacy (Institute).

The Interagency Group considers the

Board’s recommendations in planning

the goals of the Institute and in the

implementation of any programs to

achieve the goals of the Institute.

Specifically, the Board performs the

following functions: (a) Makes

recommendations concerning the

appointment of the Director and the

staff of the Institute; (b) provides

independent advice on operation of the

Institute; and (c) receives reports from

the Interagency Group and the Director

of the Institute. In addition, the Institute

consults with the Board on the award of