Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 6465

II. Method of Collection 

NASA utilizes paper and electronic 

methods to collect information from 

collection respondents. 

III. Data 

Title: NASA FAR Supplement, Part 

1827, Patents, Data, & Copyrights. 

OMB Number: 2700–0052. 

Type of review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions; 

Federal government; State, local, or 

tribal government . 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

2351. 

Estimated Time Per Response: Ranges 

from 1/2 hour to 8 hours per response. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 8,603. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of NASA, including 

whether the information collected has 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

NASA’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including automated 

collection techniques or the use of other 

forms of information technology.

Dated: January 31, 2005. 

Patricia L. Dunnington, 

Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–2302 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) has submitted the 

following information collection 

requirement to OMB for review and 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13. 

This is the second notice for public 

comment; the first was published in the 

Federal Register at 69 FR 62726, and no 

comments were received. NSF is 

forwarding the proposed renewal 

submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for clearance 

simultaneously with the publication of 

this second notice. Comments regarding 

(a) whether the collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; (d) ways to 

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 should be 

addressed to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for National Science 

Foundation, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 

10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, 

Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send e-mail 

to splimpto@nsf.gov. Comments 

regarding these information collections 

are best assured of having their full 

effect if received within 30 days of this 

notification. Copies of the submission(s) 

may be obtained by calling 703–292–

7556. 

NSF may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number 

and the agency informs potential 

persons who are to respond to the 

collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: NSF Proposal 

Review Process. 

OMB Control No.: 3145–0060. 

Proposed Project Proposal Evaluation 

Process 

The National Science Foundation 

(NSF) is an independent Federal agency 

created by the National Science 

Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 1861–75). The Act states the 

purpose of the NSF is ‘‘to promote the 

progress of science; [and] to advance the 

national health, prosperity, and 

welfare’’ by supporting research and 

education in all fields of science and 

engineering.’’

From those first days, NSF has had a 

unique place in the Federal 

Government: It is responsible for the 

overall health of science and 

engineering across all disciplines. In 

contrast, other Federal agencies support 

research focused on specific missions 

such as health or defense. The 

Foundation also is committed to 

ensuring the nation’s supply of 

scientists, engineers, and science and 

engineering educators. 

The Foundation fulfills this 

responsibility by initiating and 

supporting merit-selected research and 

education projects in all the scientific 

and engineering disciplines. It does this 

through grants and cooperative 

agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, 

universities, K–12 school systems, 

businesses, informal science 

organizations and other research 

institutions throughout the U.S. The 

Foundation accounts for about onefourth of Federal support to academic 

institutions for basic research. 

The Foundation relies heavily on the 

advice and assistance of external 

advisory committees, ad-hoc proposal 

reviewers, and to other experts to ensure 

that the Foundation is able to reach fair 

and knowledgeable judgments. These 

scientists and educators come from 

colleges and universities, nonprofit 

research and education organizations, 

industry, and other Government 

agencies. 

In making its decisions on proposals, 

the counsel of these merit reviewers has 

proven invaluable to the Foundation in 

the identification of meritorious 

projects. 

Review of proposals may involve 

large panel sessions, small groups, use 

of individuals, ad hoc ‘‘mail reviews’’

by three or more reviewers, or some 

combination of these peer review 

methods. Proposals are reviewed 

carefully by scientists or engineers who 

are expert in the particular field 

represented by the proposal. About 50% 

are reviewed exclusively by panels of 

reviewers who gather, usually in 

Arlington, VA, to discuss their advice as 

well as to deliver it. About 35% are 

reviewed first by mail reviewers expert 

in the particular field, then by panels, 

usually of persons with more diverse 

expertise, who help the NSF decide 

among proposals from multiple fields or 

sub-fields. Finally, about 15% are 

reviewed exclusively by mail. 

Use of the Information 

The information collected on the 

proposal evaluation forms is used by the 

Foundation in applying the following 

criteria when awarding or declining 

proposals submitted to the Agency: (1) 

What is the intellectual merit of the 

proposed activity? (2) What are the 

broader impacts of the proposed 

activity? 

6466 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

The information collected on reviewer 

background questionnaire (NSF 428A) is 

used by managers to maintain an 

automated database of reviewers for the 

many disciplines represented by the 

proposals submitted to the Foundation. 

Information collected on gender, race, 

and ethnicity is used in meeting NSF 

needs for data to permit response to 

Congressional and other queries into 

equity issues. These data also are used 

in the design, implementation, and 

monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the 

participation of various groups in 

science, engineering, and education.

Confidentiality 

When a decision has been made 

(whether an award or a declination), 

verbatim copies of reviews, excluding 

the identities of the reviewers, and 

summaries of review panel 

deliberations, if any, are provided to the 

PI. A proposer also may request and 

obtain any other releasable material in 

NSF’s file on his or her proposal. 

Everything in the file except 

information that directly identifies 

either reviewers or other pending or 

declined proposals is usually releasable 

to the proposer. 

While listings of panelists’ names are 

released, the names of individual 

reviewers, associated with individual 

proposals, are not released. 

The Foundation collects information 

regarding race, ethnicity, disability, and 

gender, as noted above. The FOIA and 

the Privacy Act protect this information 

from public disclosure. 

Burden on the Public 

The Foundation estimates that 

anywhere from one hour to twenty 

hours may be required to review a 

proposal. It is estimated that 

approximately five hours are required to 

review an average proposal. Each 

proposal receives an average of 6.3 

reviews, with a minimum requirement 

of three reviews.

Dated: February 2, 2005. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation.

[FR Doc. 05–2301 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301] 

Nuclear Management Company; Notice 

of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

24 and DPR–27 issued to Nuclear 

Management Company (the licensee) for 

operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Two 

Rivers, Wisconsin. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant 

(PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report to reflect the 

Commission staff’s approval of the 

WCAP–14439–P, Revision 2 analysis 

entitled, ‘‘Technical Justification for 

Eliminating Large Primary Loop Pipe 

Rupture as the Structural Design Basis 

for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 

1 and 2 for the Power Uprate and 

License Renewal Program.’’

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below:

1. Operation of PBNP in accordance with 

the proposed amendments does not result in 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change revises the analysis 

supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design 

basis for primary loop piping. The proposed 

change does not adversely affect accident 

initiators or precursors nor alter the design 

assumptions, conditions, or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed change does not alter or 

prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 

components from performing their intended 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed change does 

not affect the source term, containment 

isolation, or radiological release assumptions 

used in evaluating the radiological 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. Further, the proposed change does 

not increase the types or amounts of 

radioactive effluent that may be released 

offsite, nor significantly increase individual 

or cumulative occupational/public radiation 

exposures. The proposed change is consistent 

with safety analysis assumptions and 

resultant consequences. Therefore, it is 

concluded that this change does not 

significantly increase the probability of 

occurrence of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Operation of PBNP in accordance with 

the proposed amendments does not result in 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed change revises the analysis 

supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design 

basis for primary loop piping. The changes 

do not impose any new or different 

requirements or eliminate any existing 

requirements. The changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 

proposed changes are consistent with the 

safety analysis assumptions and current plant 

operating practice. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Operation of PBNP in accordance with 

the proposed amendments does not result in 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The proposed change revises the analysis 

supporting the PBNP dynamic effects design 

basis for primary loop piping. All the 

recommended margins regarding leak-beforebreak conditions (margin on leak rate, margin 

on flaw size, and margin on loads) are 

satisfied for the primary loop piping. The 

proposed change does not alter the manner 

in which safety limits, limiting safety system 

settings or limiting conditions for operation 

are determined. The setpoints at which 

protective actions are initiated are not altered 

by the proposed changes. Sufficient 

equipment remains available to actuate upon 

demand for the purpose of mitigating an 

analyzed event.

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination.