Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices 28565

Petitioner: Bowie Resources Limited.

[Docket No.: M–1999–100–C]

FR Notice: 64 FR 57663.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6)

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use an alternate method

in lieu of front wheel brakes on diesel

graders used at the Bowie No. 2 Mine.

The petitioner proposes to limit the

speed of the graders to 10 miles per

hour by block welding a steel stop bar

across the gear selector slot to the 5th

and 6th gears, and train the diesel

grader operators to drop the grader

blade in the event the brakes fail and on

how to recognize the appropriate speeds

to use on different roadway and slope

conditions. This is considered an

acceptable alternative method for the

Bowie No. 2 Mine. MSHA grants the

petition for modification for the Bowie

No. 2 Mine with conditions.

Petitioner: Wabash Mine Holding

Company.

[Docket No.: M–1999–107–C]

FR Notice: 64 FR 70054.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use an alternate method

in lieu of the front wheel brakes on

diesel graders. The petitioner proposes

to equip diesel graders with devices that

limit the speed of the diesel graders to

10 miles per hour and to train the diesel

grader operators to drop the grader

blade in the event the brakes fail. This

is considered an acceptable alternative

method for the Wabash Mine. MSHA

grants the petition for modification for

the Wabash Mine with conditions.

Petitioner: Blue Mountain Energy, Inc.

[Docket No.: M–1999–109–C]

FR Notice: 64 FR 70054.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use an alternate method

in lieu of the front wheel brakes on

diesel graders. The petitioner proposes

to equip diesel graders with devices that

limit the speed of the diesel graders to

10 miles per hour and to train the diesel

grader operators to drop the grader

blade in the event the brakes fail. This

is considered an acceptable alternative

method for the Deserado Mine. MSHA

grants the petition for modification for

the Deserado Mine with conditions.

Petitioner: Black Beauty Coal

Company.

[Docket No.: M–1999–110–C]

FR Notice: 64 FR 70054.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use an alternate method

in lieu of the front wheel brakes on

diesel graders. The petitioner proposes

to limit the speed of the diesel graders

to 10 miles per hour and to train the

diesel grader operators to drop the

grader blade in the event the brakes fail.

This is considered an acceptable

alternative method for the Air Quality

#1 Mine. MSHA grants the petition for

modification for the Air Quality ι1 Mine

with conditions.

Petitioner: Consolidation Coal

Company.

[Docket No.: M–1999–119–C]

FR Notice: 64 FR 70055.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.312(c)

and (d).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to test automatic closing

doors and automatic fan signal devices

every 31 days without shutting down

the fan and without removing miners

from the mine. This is considered an

acceptable alternative method for the

Shoemaker Mine. MSHA grants the

petition for modification for the

Shoemaker Mine for tests of: (1) The

automatic fan stoppage signal device;

and (2) the automatic closing air flow

reversal prevention doors to be

performed without shutting down the

mine fan, and without removing the

miners from the mine with conditions.

Petitioner: Plateau Mining Company.

[Docket No.: M–1999–137–C]

FR Notice: 64 FR 1914.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use an alternative method

in lieu of the front wheel brakes on

diesel graders. The petitioner proposes

to equip diesel graders with devices that

limit the speed of the diesel graders to

10 miles per hour, and to train the

diesel grader operators to drop the

grader blade in the event the brakes fail.

This is considered an acceptable

alternative method for the Willow Creek

Mine. MSHA grants the petition for

modification for the Willow Creek Mine

with conditions.

Petitioner: Lodestar Energy, Inc.

[Docket No.: M–1999–141–C]

FR Notice: 65 FR 1914.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use an alternative method

in lieu of the front wheel brakes on

diesel graders. The petitioner proposes

to equip the diesel grader with devices

that limit the speed of the diesel grader

to 10 miles per hour, and to train the

diesel grader operators to drop the

grader blade in the event the brakes fail.

This is considered an acceptable

alternative method for the Baker Mine.

MSHA grants the petition for

modification for the Baker Mine with

conditions.

Petitioner: Mallie Coal Company, Inc.

[Docket No.: M–98–091–C]

FR Notice: 64 FR 2519.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.380(f)(4).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use one twenty or two

ten-pound portable chemical fire

extinguishers on each Mescher Jeep.

The petitioner proposes to install one

fire extinguisher in the operator’s deck

if two fire extinguishers are used, and

install the other fire extinguisher on the

jeep readily accessible to the operator. If

one fire extinguisher is used, it will be

installed in the operator’s deck. A total

of twenty pounds of fire extinguisher

capability will be carried on each jeep

and the operator will inspect each fire

extinguisher daily prior to entering the

mine. This is considered an acceptable

alternative method for the Mine No. 4.

MSHA grants the petition for

modification for the Mine No. 4 with

conditions.

[FR Doc. 01–13042 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

[Docket No. ICR–1218–0173(2001)]

Course Evaluation Form; Extension of

the Office of Management of Budget’s

Approval of Information-Collection

(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of an opportunity for

public comment.

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public

comment concerning its request for an

extension of the information-collection

requirements contained in its Course

Evaluation Form.

Request for Comment: The Agency

has a particular interest in comments on

the following issues:

• Whether the proposed informationcollection requirements are necessary

for the proper performance of the

Agency’s functions, including whether

the information is useful;

• The accuracy of the Agency’s

estimate of the burden (time and costs)

of the information-collection

requirements, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

28566 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices

• The quality, utility, and clarity of

the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on

employers who must comply; for

example, by using automated or other

technological information-collection

and -transmission techniques.

DATES: The public must submit written

comments to the office listed under

ADDRESSES on or before July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Docket Office, Docket No. ICR

1218–0173(2001), OSHA, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N–2625,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20201; telephone: (202)

693–2350. Commenters may transmit

written comments of 10 pages or less by

facsimile to: (202) 693–1648.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail

Butler, Division of Administration and

Training Information, OSHA Office of

Training and Education, 1555 Times

Drive, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018;

telephone (not toll free): (847) 297–

4810; e-mail: gail.butler@osha.gov or

facsimile: (847) 297–4810. A copy of the

Agency’s Information-Collection

Request (ICR) supporting the need for

information-collection requirements

specified in the Course Evaluation Form

is available for inspection and copying

in the Docket Office, or by requesting a

mailed copy from Todd Owen at (202)

693–2444. For electronic copies of this

ICR, contact OSHA on the Internet at

http://www.osha.gov/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Department of Labor, as part of it

containing effect to reduce paperwork

and respondent (e.g., employer) burden,

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and continuing information-collection

requirements in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program

ensures that information is in the

desired format, reporting burden (time

and costs) is minimal, collection

instruments are clearly understood, and

OSHA’s estimate of the information

burden is correct.

Section 21 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970 (the ‘‘OSHA

Act’’) (see 29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (‘‘OSHA’’ or the

‘‘Agency’’ to conduct training and

employee education. Paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c) of Section 21 require,

respectively, that the Agency:

‘‘(C)onduct, directly or by grants or

contracts,(1) education programs to

provide an adequate supply of qualified

personnel to carry out the purposes of

this Act, and(2) informational programs

on the importance of and proper use of

adequate safety and health equipment’’;

‘‘(C)onduct, directly or by grants or

contracts, short-term training of

personnel engaged in work related to

(their) responsibilities under the Act’’’

and ‘‘(1) provide for the establishment

and supervision of programs for the

education and training of employers and

employees in the recognition,

avoidance, and prevention of unsafe and

unhealthful working conditions in

employments covered by this Act, and

(2) consult with and advise employers

and employees, and organizations

representing employers and employees

as to effective means of preventing

occupational injuries and illnesses.

As authorized by the appropriate

provisions of section 21 of the Act, the

OSHA Training Institute (the

‘‘Institute’’) provides basic,

intermediate, and advanced training and

education in occupational safety and

health for federal and state compliance

officers, Agency professionals and

technical-support personnel, employers,

employees, organizations representing

employees and employers, educators

who develop curricula and teach

occupational safety and health courses,

and representatives of professional

safety and health groups. This program

includes the courses on occupational

safety and health provided by the

Institute at its national training facility

in Des Plaines, Illinois. In addition to

conducting courses at the OSHA

Training Institute in Des Plaines,

Illinois, the Institute is also

administering a program whereby

several institutions in various locations

throughout the United States have been

authorized as OSHA Training Institute

Education Centers. These Education

Centers conduct a specific number of

OSHA courses that are geared for

private sector and other Federal Agency

personnel. The goal of the Education

Center program is to expand the

accessibility of high-quality OSHA

training courses.

All students completing training

courses at the Institute and the

Education Centers are requested to

complete the Course Evaluation Form

(OSHA Form 49, 08–98 edition) on the

last day of class. Students may be

Federal, state, private sector, local or

tribal government employees. The

Course Evaluation Form contains ten

close-ended questions. The form

requests participant feedback on ten

elements to assess communication and

accomplishment of learning objectives,

course content, training environment,

relevance of topics to job, effectiveness

of exercises, workshops, laboratories,

field trips and audiovisuals, usefulness

of course materials and handouts, and

overall rating of course. The feedback

provides an overall impression of the

student’s experience for the course.

Students provide more detailed

feedback in the narrative sections of the

form. Course Evaluation Form student

input provides a standardized tool for

collecting quality data that has been

used to determine program successes

and shortcomings. This quality data has

assisted the Training Institute in

directing resources where they can do

the most good. All Course Evaluation

Forms are reviewed by the course

chairperson, instructors, the Institute

Director and the supervisor responsible

for that course. Ratings provide baseline

data from which to draw conclusions

about the effectiveness and quality of

the training courses and to assess the

level of student satisfaction with the

course. Evaluation data is used to

determine which courses may need

improvement. Problem areas are noted

and the supervisor discusses them with

the course chairperson. Courses needing

further improvement are scheduled for

a more comprehensive follow-up course

evaluation with recommendations for

improvement. Revised courses are

closely monitored to determine if

problem areas have been resolved.

II. Proposed Actions

OSHA proposes to extend Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approval of the collection-ofinformation (paperwork) requirements

specified in Course Evaluation Form.

The Agency will summarize the

comments submitted in responses to

this notice, and will include this

summary in its request to OMB to

extend the approval of these

information-collection requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of

currently approved informationcollection requirements.

Title: Course Evaluation Form.

OMB Number: 1218–0173.

Affected Public: Individuals; business

or other for-profit organizations; Federal

government; State, Local, or Tribal

governments.

Number of Respondents: 16,300.

Frequency: On occasion.

Total Responses: 16,300.

Average Time per Response: 10

minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,716

hours.

IV. Authority and Signature

R. Davis Layne, Acting Assistant

Secretary of Labor for Occupational

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices 28567

Safety and Health, directed the

preparation of this notice. The authority

for this notice is the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506)

and the Secretary of Labor’s Order No.

3–2000 (65 FR 50017).

Dated: Signed at Washington, DC on May

18, 2001.

R. Davis Layne,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 01–13043 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts

Combined Arts Advisory Panel

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public

Law 92–463), as amended, notice is

hereby given that two meetings of the

Leadership Initiatives Advisory Panel to

the National Council on the Arts will be

held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 2506 as follows:

Visual Arts (Creativity and Organizational

Capacity categories): June 19–21, 2001, Room

716. A portion of this meeting, from 1:30 a.m.

to 2:30 p.m. on June 21st, will be open to the

public for policy discussion. The remaining

portions of this meeting, from 9 a.m. to 5:30

p.m. on June 19th and 20th, and from 9 a.m.

to 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. on June 21st,

will be closed.

Opera (Creativity and Organizational

Capacity categories): June 26–27, 2001, Room

714. A portion of this meeting, from 1 p.m.

to 2 p.m. on June 27th, will be open to the

public for policy discussion. The remaining

portions of this meeting, from 10 a.m. to 6:15

p.m. on June 26th, and from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

and 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 27th, will

be closed.

The closed portions of these meetings are

for the purposes of Panel review, discussion,

evaluation, and recommendation on

applications for financial assistance under

the National Foundation on the Arts and the

Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,

including information given in confidence to

the agency by grant applicants. In accordance

with the determination of the Chairman of

May 12, 2000, these sessions will be closed

to the public pursuant to (c)(4)(6) and (9)(B)

of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

Any person may observe meetings, or

portions thereof, of advisory panels that are

open to the public, and, if time allows, may

be permitted to participate in the panel’s

discussions at the discretion of the panel

chairman and with the approval of the fulltime Federal employee in attendance.

If you need special accommodations due to

a disability, please contact the Office of

AccessAbility, National Endowment for the

Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20506, 202/682–5532,

TDDY–TDD 202/682–5496, at least seven (7)

days prior to the meeting.

Further information with reference to this

meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy

Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines &

Panel Operations, National Endowment for

the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/

682–5691.

Dated: May 17, 2001.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations,

National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 01–12911 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537–01–M

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY

Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: National Institute for Literacy

(NIFL).

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

schedule and proposed agenda of a

forthcoming meeting of the National

Institute for Literacy Board (Advisory

Board). This notice also describes the

function of the Advisory 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.

DATE AND TIME: June 7, 2001 from 10:00

am to 5:00 pm.

ADDRESSES: National Institute for

Literacy, 1775 I Street, NW., Suite 730,

Washington, DC 20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shelly Coles, Executive Assistant,

National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I

Street, NW., Suite 730, Washington, DC

20006. Telephone number (202) 233–

2027, email scoles@nifl.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Advisory Board is established under the

Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Title

II of Public Law 105–220, Sec. 242, the

National Institute for Literacy. The

Advisory Board consists of ten

individuals appointed by the President

with the advice and consent of the

Senate. The Advisory 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

Advisory 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 Advisory Board

performs the following function (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 Director of

the Institute. In addition, the Institute

consults with the Advisory Board on the

award of fellowships. The National

Institute for Literacy Advisory Board

meeting on June 7, 2001, will focus on

future and current NIFL programs

activities, and other relevant literacy

activities and issues. Records are kept of

all Advisory Board proceedings and are

available for public inspection at the

National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I

Street, NW., Suite 730, Washington, DC

20006, from 8:30 am to 5 pm.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Carolyn Y. Staley,

Acting Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 01–12994 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6055–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Meeting Notice

In accordance with the purposes of

sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic

Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards will hold a meeting on June

6–8, 2001, in Conference Room T–2B3,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland. The date of this meeting was

previously published in the Federal

Register on Friday, November 17, 2000

(65 FR 69578).

Wednesday, June 6, 2001

8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening

Remarks by the ACRS Chairman

(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make

opening remarks regarding the conduct

of the meeting.

8:35 a.m.–11:20 a.m.: Proposed RiskInformed Revisions to 10 CFR 50.46 and

Proposed Revisions to the Framework

for Risk-Informing the Technical

Requirements of 10 CFR Part 50

(Open)—The Committee will hear

presentations by and hold discussions

with representatives of the NRC staff

regarding proposed risk-informed

revisions to 10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance

Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling

Systems for Light-Water Nuclear Power

Reactors,’’ and proposed revisions to the

framework for risk-informing the

technical requirements of 10 CFR Part

50.

11:20 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Potential

Margin Reductions Associated with

Power Uprates (Open)—The Committee

will hear a presentation by and hold

discussions with ACRS Senior Fellow,

Dr. A. W. Cronenberg, regarding his