32962 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2001 / Notices

Overview of This Information

(1) Type of information collection:

Revision of currently approved

collection.

(2) The title of the form/collection:

Drug Court Grantee Data Collection

Survey.

(3) The agency form number, if any,

and the applicable component of the

Department sponsoring the collection:

none. Drug Courts Program Office,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice.

(4) Affected public who will be asked

or required to respond, as well as a brief

abstract: Primary: Federal Government,

State, Local or Tribal. Other: None.

This survey will assist in the national

evaluation of drug courts. The data to be

collected will assist in determining the

effectiveness of these grants and the

information will be shared with the

drug court field to improve program

quality.

(5) An estimate of the total number of

respondents and the amount of time

estimated for an average respondent to

respond/rely: It is estimated time that

300 respondents will complete the

survey is between .75 to 1.25 hours

semi-annually.

(6) An estimate of the total public

burden (in hours) associated with the

collection: An estimate of the total

public burden hours associated with the

collection is 450–750 annual burden

hours.

If additional information is required

contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy

Clearance Officer, United States

Department of Justice, Information

Management and Security Staff, Justice

Management Division, Suite 1220,

Washington Center, 1331 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington.

Dated: June 13, 2001.

Brenda E. Dyer,

Department Deputy Clearance Officer, United

States Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 01–15431 Filed 6–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing collections of

information in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden (time and

financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and the impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed. Currently, the

Employment and Training

Administration (ETA) is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed new

collection of information for the

Resource Justification Model (RJM).

ETA would use the RJM to formulate a

budget request for the unemployment

insurance (UI) program from States’ data

and allocate appropriated funds among

the States.

A copy of the proposed information

collection request (ICR) can be obtained

by contacting the office listed below in

the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

ADDRESSES section below on or before

August 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Timothy S. Felegie, Room

C4526, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693–2934

(this is not a toll-free number). E-mail

address is tfelegie@doleta.gov and fax

number is (202) 693–3229.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

ETA developed the RJM to replace an

outdated budget formulation and

allocation process for the UI program.

Although the RJM entails a substantial

data collection effort, it would provide

ETA with current cost information to

justify budget requests for State UI

program administration. The RJM’s

goals are to build a credible budget from

State-submitted data in order to obtain

needed resources, allocate

administrative funds equitably among

States, and promote cost-effective

practices.

Using the RJM, State agencies would

submit detailed data by major cost

categories in a structured format. This

would provide States with a means to

justify their funding needs and would

provide ETA with an objective tool to

evaluate those needs. State agencies that

have an accounting system with a

relational database could build queries

for data extraction from the accounting

system; this would keep the data

collection burden at a minimum.

II. Review Focus

The Department of Labor is

particularly interested in comments

which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• 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,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

III. Current Actions

RJM consists of six modules:

—State data collection and submission

—Regional Office data review

—National Office data analysis and

evaluation

—National Office budget formulation

—Resource allocation

—Monitoring

The first module is most pertinent to

this proposed data collection effort.

Module I consists of three parts: a

mandatory Microsoft Excel file with 39

linked spreadsheets with an optional

file with four spreadsheets, a narrative

justification that explains budget

increases, and a narrative performance

and capital improvement (PCI) request.

State agencies would enter data into the

indicated cells through either hand

entry or through database extraction

from their accounting systems. The

spreadsheets are set up to calculate

much of the data to minimize data entry

to the extent possible. Each State agency

would submit Module I to ETA once

annually in February. For the first year

only, State agencies would submit PCI

requests two months earlier (December

2001) to allow time for ETA review and

consultation with the States.

The mandatory Excel file has three

basic categories of cost data: workloadrelated staff years for each major

workload activity (e.g., initial claims,

subject employers), non-workloadrelated staff years (e.g., benefit payment

control), and non-personal services

(NPS) (e.g., facilities, communications).

The optional file relates only to more

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2001 / Notices 32963

detailed data for communications,

utilities, ADP, and office equipment.

The data in each file cover four fiscal

years: the year just completed, the

current year, the next year, and the

budget request year. A Portable

Document Format version of each file

may be printed from www.ows/

doleta.gov/ by clicking on the ‘‘News’’

link or the scrolling RJM article under

the News section; this will link to a site

where the user can select the files.

Please contact Tim Felegie at (202) 693–

2934 for a paper copy of the files or for

help in using the site.

State agencies would submit a

narrative justification to explain

incremental changes from the previous

year to the budget request year that are

not related to a PCI request. Examples

include personal services or personnel

benefit increases and changes to

minutes per unit (MPU) value.

State agencies would have an

opportunity to submit PCI requests for

certain types of investments: program

performance improvements, capital

projects for facilities and technology,

and law changes. State agencies would

incorporate the PCI request into the RJM

data file and the funding increase could

be expressed as an increase in MPU

value, an increase in non-workloadrelated staff years, or an increase in

NPS. The funding increase could be

requested for a single year or spread

over multiple years. ETA would

evaluate these requests on how they

address performance and capital

improvements, impact on customer

service, and cost benefit/cost avoidance.

ETA would load the Excel file data

into a database for array and analysis.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Resource Justification Model.

Affected Public: State Government.

Cite/reference Total respondents Frequency Total responses

Average time

per response

(hours)

Burden

(hours)

RJM 1 ser .................................................................. 53 Anually ............................. 53 41 2,173

RJM 2 ser .................................................................. 53 Anually ............................. 53 30 1,590

RJM 3 ser .................................................................. 53 Anually ............................. 53 6 318

RJM 4 ser .................................................................. 53 Anually ............................. 53 12 636

RJM 5 ser .................................................................. 53 Anually ............................. 53 12 636

RJM 6 ser .................................................................. 53 Anually ............................. 53 7 371

Narrative ..................................................................... 53 Anually ............................. 53 11 583

PCI ............................................................................. 53 Anually ............................. 53 114 6,042

Totals ............................................................... ...................... .......................................... 424 ...................... 12,349

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$500,000 (based on variable cost per

State—negligible for some States and up

to $60,000 for others).

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): $375,028.

Comments submitted in response to

this comment request will be

summarized and/or included in the

request for Office of Management and

Budget approval of the information

collection request; they will also

become a matter of public record.

Dated: June 11, 2001.

Grace A. Kilbane,

Administrator, Office of Workforce Security.

[FR Doc. 01–15360 Filed 6–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–412]

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating

Company, et al.; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating License (OL) Nos.

DPR–66 and NPF–73, issued to

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company, et al. (FENOC, the licensee),

for operation of the Beaver Valley Power

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and

2), located in Shippingport,

Pennsylvania.

The proposed amendments would

change the OLs and technical

specifications for BVPS–1 and 2 to

reflect an increase in the licensed core

power level for each unit to 2689

megawatts (thermal), approximately 1.4

percent greater than the current level.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By July 19, 2001, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendments to the

subject facility operating licenses and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714,

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and is

accessible electronically through the

Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System (ADAMS) Public

Electronic Reading Room link at the

NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). If a

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board (Board),

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Board will

issue a notice of hearing or an

appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

must specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order that may be entered