49684 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Notices 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND HUMANITIES 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request

AGENCY: National Endowment for the 

Humanities, NFAH.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for 

the Humanities (NEH) has submitted the 

following public information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval as required by the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with 

applicable supporting documentation, 

may be obtained by calling Susan G. 

Daisey, Director, Office of Grant 

Management, the National Endowment 

for the Humanities (202–606–8494) or 

may be requested by e-mail to 

sdaisey@neh.gov. Comments should be 

sent to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for the National Endowment for 

the Humanities, Office of Management 

and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, 

DC 20503 (202–395–7316), within 30 

days from the date of this publication in 

the Federal Register.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) is 

particularly interested in comments 

which: 

(1) 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; (2) 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; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) 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. 

Agency: National Endowment for the 

Humanities. 

Title of Proposal: General Clearance 

Authority to Develop Evaluation 

Instruments for the National 

Endowment for the Humanities. 

OMB Number: N/A. 

Affected Public: NEH grantees. 

Total Respondents: 750. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Average Time per Response: 30 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 375 

hours. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: 0. 

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): 0. 

Description: The NEH is seeking a 

general clearance authority to develop 

evaluation instruments for its grant 

programs. These evaluation instruments 

will be used to collect information from 

NEH grantees from one to three years 

after the grantee has submitted the final 

performance report.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan G. Daisey, Director, Office of 

Grant Management, National 

Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 311, 

Washington, DC 20506, or by e-mail to: 

sdaisey@neh.gov. Telephone: 202–606–

8494.

Carole M. Watson, 

Assistant Chairman.

[FR Doc. 05–16864 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection, 

Comment Request

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans 

to request clearance for this collection. 

In accordance with the requirement of 

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing 

opportunity for public comment on this 

action. After obtaining and considering 

public comment, NSF will prepare the 

submission requesting OMB clearance 

of this collection for no longer than 3 

years. 

Comments are invited on (a) whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Agency, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Agency’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collection of information; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information of 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be 

received by October 24, 2005, to be 

assured of consideration. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding the information collection and 

requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection request should be 

addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports 

Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by 

e-mail to splimpton@nsf.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292–7556 or 

send e-mail to splimpton@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 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, 

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title of Collection: Evaluation of the 

National Science Foundation’s Math 

and Science Partnership (MSP) Program. 

OMB Control No.: 3145–New. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Not 

applicable.

Abstract: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) requests a three-year 

clearance for an evaluation of the Math 

and Science Partnership (MSP) program. 

After three years in existence, MSP as a 

program in its entirety has not been 

evaluated regarding whether it is 

achieving its goals or purposes. The 

MSP program is a research and 

development (R&D) effort funded by the 

NSF to integrate the work of higher 

education, especially disciplinary 

faculty in math, sciences, and 

engineering, with that of K–12 

communities in order to strengthen and 

reform math and science education. The 

program is authorized under the NSF 

Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–

368), December 19, 2002 (to authorize 

appropriations for FY 2003–07 and ‘‘for 

other purposes’’). MSP is among 11 

programs specifically authorized by the 

legislation (Sec. 11 authorizes a 12th 

program, the Centers for Research on 

Mathematics and Science Learning and 

Education Improvement). 

The NSF’s MSP program portfolio 

consists of about 80 awards or projects 

(e.g. design grants, standard or 

continuing grants or cooperative 

agreements) that initially were funded 

between 2002 and 2004. The type of 

awards subject to study and data 

collection, however, include only the 

comprehensive MSPs, targeted MSPs, 

teacher institute partnerships, and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Notices 49685

Research, Evaluation, and Technical 

Assistance (RETAs), or a universe of 

approximately 65 discrete projects. 

The evaluation’s data collection and 

analysis activities will be conducted by 

COSMOS Corporation, Bethesda in 

partnership with Brown University, 

George Mason University, and The 

McKenzie Group via a contract 

administered by the NSF’s Division of 

Research, Evaluation and 

Communication (REC). This evaluation 

involves both quantitative and 

qualitative data, collected from multiple 

sources using multiple methods, 

including secondary analyses of projectrelated materials such as existing 

databases (MSP Management 

Information System—OMB 3145–0199), 

annual reports, Web sites, and relevant 

policy and methodological documents 

and original data collection through 

one-on-one interviews with key 

stakeholders conducted during site 

visits. For the MSP Management 

Information System, the contract team 

will analyze these data using 

quantitative statistical models. A second 

data source consists of annual project 

reports and other reports submitted by 

the MSP grantees to the NSF in 

accordance with Federal research 

project reporting requirements 

established at NSF under OMB 3145–

0058. A third source is U.S. Department 

of Education’s public use files on 

student achievement and school 

systems’ demographic characteristics.

The fourth source for data is the 

proposed evaluation’s original data 

collection activities. In particular and 

principally a series of site visits will be 

conducted during 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

The evaluation plan selects a random 

sample of sites to be the subject of the 

2006 and 2007 site visits. In this 

manner, data and lessons derived form 

the earlier site visits can be the basis for 

generalizing to the entire MSP Program 

portfolio during 2006 and 2007. By 

2008, with the entire census of study 

projects covered, such a sampling logic 

will no longer be relevant. The initial 

random sample will be stratified so that 

every grant site visit occurs before the 

grant expires. 

The evaluation’s overall framework 

consists of several substudies each 

focusing on a different, but essential 

part of the MSP grantee’s work (e.g., 

partnerships, the role of disciplinary 

faculty, student achievement). The 

relevant evaluation design under these 

conditions might be considered a metaanalytic rather than singular design—

e.g., providing a rationale for the 

selection of substudies as well as some 

guidance for conducting the substudies. 

Consultations have occurred with a 

team of external experts on the research 

design during the evaluation’s design 

phase and will continue to take place 

throughout the evaluation. The team of 

external experts represents the nation’s 

leading researchers and scholars on 

methodology and content in the field of 

evaluation and representatives are from 

top-tier university schools of education 

and departments of mathematics or 

science; an education advocacy group; 

and an education research council. 

The data collection instruments 

include face-to-face interviews, such as 

focus groups, and telephone or 

electronic surveys. An interview 

protocol based on the evaluation 

framework will be administered during 

the site visits. Expected respondents at 

site visits are Principal Investigators, coPrincipal Investigators, administrators, 

teams of external experts, and other 

stakeholders who participated in MSP. 

There are not costs to respondents other 

than the time involved in the interview 

or survey process. 

Information from the evaluation’s data 

collections and analysis will be used to 

improve the NSF’s program processes 

and outcomes. It will enable NSF to 

prepare and publish reports, and to 

respond to requests from Committees of 

Visitors, Congress, and the Office of 

Management and Budget, particularly as 

related to the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA) and the 

Program Effectiveness Rating Tool 

(PART).

The primary evaluation questions 

include but are not limited to: 

(1) How has the MSP Program affected 

or influenced the expertise, numbers, 

and diversity of the mathematics and 

science teaching force, K–12 student 

achievement in mathematics and 

science, and other presumed program 

outcomes? (2) What factors or attributes 

have accelerated or constrained progress 

in the MSP Program’s achievements? 

and (3) How have institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) disciplinary faculty 

(mathematics, science, and engineering) 

participated in the MSP Program, and 

what has been their role in the 

Program’s achievements? 

Respondents: Individuals and not-forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 1,200. 

Burden on the Public: 3,000 hours.

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation.

[FR Doc. 05–16825 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection: 

Comment Request

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to 

submit an information collection 

request to OMB and solicitation of 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a 

submittal to OMB for review of 

continued approval of information 

collections under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

Information pertaining to the 

requirement to be submitted: 

1. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR Part 30—Rules of 

General Applicability to Domestic 

Licensing of Byproduct Material. 

2. Current OMB approval number:

3150–0017. 

3. How often the collection is 

required: Required reports are collected 

and evaluated on a continuing basis as 

events occur. There is a one-time 

submittal of information to receive a 

license. Renewal applications are 

submitted every 10 years. Information 

submitted in previous applications may 

be referenced without being 

resubmitted. In addition, recordkeeping 

must be performed on an on-going basis. 

4. Who is required or asked to report:

All persons applying for or holding a 

license to manufacture, produce, 

transfer, receive, acquire, own, possess, 

or use radioactive byproduct material. 

5. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 20,631 (4,485 NRC 

licensees and 16,146 Agreement State 

licensees). 

6. The number of hours needed 

annually to complete the requirement or 

request: 248,034 (NRC licensees 53,948 

hours [25,983 reporting + 27,965 

recordkeeping] and Agreement State 

licensees 194,086 hours [93,431 

reporting + 100,655 recordkeeping] or 

8.2 hours per response and 6.2 hours 

her recordkeeper). 

7. Abstract: 10 CFR part 30 establishes 

requirements that are applicable to all 

persons in the United States governing 

domestic licensing of radioactive 

byproduct material. The application, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements are necessary to permit the 

NRC to make a determination whether 

the possession, use, and transfer of 

byproduct material is in conformance 

with the Commission’s regulations for 

protection of the public health and 

safety.