Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Notices 64889

Forms 5500–EZ for electronic filing

using modem, magnetic tape, floppy

diskette, or CD–ROM; and, (3) software

developers (a company, trade, business,

or other person that creates, programs,

or otherwise modifies computer

software) applying for codes required to

develop EFAST-compliant computer

software for electronically preparing

and filing the Form 5500 and/or Form

5500–EZ. Applicants provide some or

all of the following information

depending on applicant type: name and

title of applicant, mailing address,

Employer Identification Number (EIN),

telephone number, facsimile number

and e-mail address (optional), contact

person if different than applicant, and a

signed agreement concerning the terms

and conditions of the electronic filing

program. Applicants receive, depending

on applicant type, some or all of the

following codes: electronic signature;

filer identification number; personal

identification number; encryption key;

electronic filing identification number;

password; and software developer ID.

Applicants use these codes, as

applicable, in connection with

electronic filing, electronic

transmission, or the development of

EFAST software for the Form 5500 and

5500–EZ.

The information provided by the

applicants on EFAST–1, combined with

the codes supplied to the applicants by

the program, allow EFAST to verify a

filer, transmitter, or software

developer’s standing as a qualified

participant in the EFAST electronic

filing program for the Form 5500 and

5500–EZ. EFAST–1 information also

establishes a means of contact between

the EFAST program and filers,

transmitters, and software developers

for information exchange.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Agency: Department of Labor, Pension

and Welfare Benefits Administration.

Title: Application for EFAST

Electronic Signature and Codes for

EFAST Transmitters and Software

Developers.

Agency Form: EFAST–1.

OMB Number: 1210–0117.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit;

Not-for-profit institutions.

Total Respondents: 10,800.

Total Responses: 10,800.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,600.

Estimated Total Burden Cost: $4,100.

II. Desired Focus of Comments

The Department is particularly

interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agencies, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agencies’ 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;

• 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 submission of

responses.

III. Current Actions

The Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration is requesting an

extension of the currently approved ICR

pertaining to the Application for EFAST

Electronic Signature and Codes for

EFAST Transmitters and Software

Developers (Form EFAST–1). The

Department is not proposing or

implementing changes to the existing

ICR at this time.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of the ICR; they will also

become a matter of public record.

Dated: December 11, 2001.

Gerald B. Lindrew,

Deputy Director, Office of Policy and

Research, Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–30891 Filed 12–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–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 of 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 on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

received by February 12, 2002, to be

assured of consideration. Comments

received after that date would 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 Blvd., Rm.

295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by E-mail

to splimpto@nsf.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292–7556 or

send E-mail to splimpto@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: The Evaluation of

NSF’s Louis Stokes Alliance for

Minority Participation (LSAMP)

Program.

OMB Control No.: 3145–NEW.

Expiration Date of Approval: Not

applicable.

1. Abstract

This document has been prepared to

support the clearance of data collection

instruments to be used in the evaluation

of the Louis Stokes Alliance of Minority

Participation (LSAMP) Program. The

goal of this program is to increase the

number of interested, academically

qualified minority students receiving

baccalaureate degrees in science,

technology, engineering and math

(STEM), continuing to graduate school

to attain a STEM graduate degree, and

entering the STEM workforce. The

program makes awards to alliances,

which are composed of institutional

64890 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2001 / Notices

partnerships (e.g., with two- and fouryear higher education institutions,

business, research labs, and local, state,

and federal agencies). LSAMP projects

fund students, offer a range of student

support services, and undertake

systemic reform of undergraduate

education in STEM (particularly

curricular improvement and faculty

professional development). This mixedmethods study will gather data through

telephone interviews with project staff,

a survey questionnaire of program

graduates, and in person interviews

with faculty, staff, and students at three

selected case study sites. The process

evaluation component of this study will

identify strategies that accelerate or

inhibit the attainment of project goals,

strategies employed to promote linkages

among Alliance partners, and the

manner in which the LSAMP model has

evolved since its inception. The impact

evaluation component of this study will

examine program impact on institutions

of higher education in promoting

diversity in STEM, and participant

career outcomes.

2. Expected Respondents

The expected respondents are project

directors and/or managers of all 27

projects; LSAMP graduates who

received program funding and who

earned STEM baccalaureate degrees

between 1992 and 1997; ad, faculty,

staff, and student participants at the

three selected case study sites.

3. Burden on the Public

The total elements for this collection

are 308 burden hours for a maximum of

795 participants annually, assuming a

90–100% response rate. The average

annual reporting burden is under 1 hour

per respondent. The burden on the

public is negligible because the study is

limited to project participants that have

received funding from the LSAMP

Program.

Dated: December 10, 2001.

Suzanne H. Plimpton,

NSF Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–30893 Filed 12–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Enforcement Program and Alternative

Dispute Resolution Request for

Comments

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is announcing its

intent to evaluate the use of Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the NRC’s

enforcement program, which is

governed by the NUREG–1600, ‘‘General

Statement of Policy and Procedure for

NRC Enforcement Actions’’

(Enforcement Policy). The NRC is

undertaking this evaluation because

ADR techniques have proven to be

efficient and effective in resolving a

wide range of disputes governmentwide. The Commission is seeking public

comment in the form of answers to

questions presented in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

this notice.

DATES: The comment period expires

January 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Submit written responses to

the questions presented in the

Supplementary Information section of

this notice to Michael Lesar, Chief,

Rules and Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, Mail Stop T–6 D59,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Hand

deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Copies of comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

MD 20852. Comments may also be sent

electronically to Mr. Lesar, E-mail

mtl@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terrence Reis, Office of Enforcement,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001 (301) 415–

3281, E-mail txr@nrc.gov, or Francis X.

Cameron, NRC ADR Specialist, Office of

the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

20555–0001, (301) 415–1642, E-mail

fxc@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘ADR’’ is

a term that refers to a number of

voluntary processes, such as mediation

and facilitated dialogues, that can be

used to assist parties in resolving

disputes and potential conflicts. The

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act

of 1996 (ADR Act) encourages the use of

ADR by Federal agencies, and defines

ADR as ‘‘any procedure that is used to

resolve issues in controversy, including

but not limited to, conciliation,

facilitation, mediation, fact finding,

minitrials, arbitration, and use of an

ombudsman, or any combination

thereof’’ (5 U.S.C. 571(3)). These

techniques involve the use of a neutral

third party, either from within the

agency or from outside the agency, and

are typically voluntary processes in

terms of the decision to participate, the

type of process used, and the content of

the final agreement. Federal agency

experience with ADR has demonstrated

that the use of these techniques can

result in more efficient resolution of

issues, more effective outcomes, and

improved relationships between the

agency and the other party.

The NRC has a general ADR policy

(57 FR 36678; August 14, 1992) that

supports and encourages the use of ADR

in NRC activities. In addition, the NRC

has used ADR effectively in a variety of

circumstances, including rulemaking

and policy development, and EEO

disputes. Section 2.203 of the

Commission’s regulations provides for

the use of ‘‘settlement and compromise’’

in proceedings dealing with

enforcement issues. In addition, § 2.337

of the Commission’s proposed revisions

to the NRC hearing process provides for

ADR in NRC proceedings (see, 66 FR

19610, 19645; April 16, 2001). In at least

one instance, an NRC enforcement case

has been resolved through the use of a

‘‘settlement judge’’ from the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board Panel

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.203 of the

Commission’s regulations, but there has

been no systematic evaluation of the

need for ADR in the enforcement

process. The NRC’s participation in a

1998 interagency initiative to encourage

the use of ADR by Federal agencies, and

the NRC’s receipt of a request to use

ADR in a recent enforcement case, have

prompted the agency to consider

whether a new, specific ADR policy

would be beneficial in the enforcement

area.

Use of ADR by the NRC and other

Federal Agencies. In order to encourage

Federal agencies to take advantage of

the benefits of ADR, Congress enacted

the ADR Act. The Act requires each

agency to do the following:

1. Adopt a policy that addresses the

use of ADR;

2. Designate a senior official to be the

dispute resolution specialist for the

agency;

3. Provide ADR training on a regular

basis; and

4. Review each standard agency

agreement for contracts, grants, and

other assistance with an eye towards

encouraging the use of ADR.

As noted above, ‘‘ADR’’ is a term that

describes a set of processes which assist

parties in resolving their disputes

quickly and efficiently. Mediation, early

neutral evaluation, facilitated dialogues,

and arbitration are examples of these

ADR processes. Central to each ADR

process is the use of an objective third

party or neutral, for example, a