Notices. Notice of availability of draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for implementation of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission
4,844 words·~22 min read·
/register/2006/09/05/06-7388A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7020-02-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,845] Airtex Products, Marked Three, AR; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on August 4, 2006 in response to a petition filed by the Department of Workforce Services of the State of Arkansas on behalf of workers at Airtex Products, Marked Three, Arkansas. The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn.
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of August 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14594 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,985] Bristol Compressors, a Subsidiary of York International, a Johnson Controls Company, Bristol, VA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on June 30, 2006, applicable to workers of Bristol Compressors, a subsidiary of York International, a Johnson Controls Company, Bristol, Virginia.
The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40550). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of compressors. New findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-53,659, issued on January 7, 2004, for workers of Bristol Compressors, Inc., a subsidiary of York International Corporation, Bristol, Virginia who were engaged in employment related to the production of compressors.
That certification expires January 7, 2006. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date from March 2, 2005 to January 8, 2006, for workers of the subject firm. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-58,985 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Bristol Compressors, a subsidiary of York International, a Johnson Controls Company, Bristol, Virginia, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 8, 2006, through June 30, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of August 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14591 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,765] Indiana Tube Corporation, Evansville, IN; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on July 21, 2006 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Indiana Tube Corporation, Evansville, Indiana.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of August 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14593 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,436] Jacquard, LLC, Burlington House Division, Cliffside, NC; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On July 20, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm.
The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on July 31, 2006 (71 FR 43214). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination signed on June 13, 2006 based on the finding that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision thereof, means that at least three workers with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers or 5 percent of the workers with a workforce of 50 or more.
The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40158). In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding the subject firm's employment numbers and requested an investigation relating to the fact that a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm are threatened to become separated from employment. A review of the additional information determined that the workers of the subject firm may be eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance on the basis of an employment decline that took place during the period relevant to the investigation and threats of further separations in the coming months; furthermore, sales and production decreased during the relevant period.
The Department conducted a survey of subject firm's major declining customers, which revealed customers increased their reliance on jacquard fabric during the relevant period. Additionally, the customers' declines in subject firm purchases coincided with the subject firm's sales decline. In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. The investigation further revealed that the workers of the subject firm were certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance as adversely affected secondary workers as suppliers of jacquard fabric to a trade certified customer, under petition number TA-W-54,813, which expired on May 21, 2006. Conclusion After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with jacquard fabric produced at Jacquard, LLC, Burlington House Division, Cliffside, North Carolina contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of workers and to the decline in sales or production at that firm or subdivision. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Jacquard, LLC, Burlington House Division, Cliffside, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 22, 2006 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of August 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14592 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-52,050] Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, MN; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand On May 17, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded *Former Employees of Merrill Corporation* v. *Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor,* Court No. 03-00662, to the Department of Labor (Department) for further investigation, in light of the Department's Notice of Revised Determination on Remand for Lands' End, A Subsidiary of Sears Roebuck and Company, Business Outfitters CAD Operations, Dodgeville, Wisconsin (Lands' End), TA-W-56,688 (issued on March 24, 2006). Plaintiffs, workers of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (Merrill), created electronic documents for clients for filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Plaintiffs lost their jobs when Merrill shifted that work to India. The details of Merrill's business activities and the Plainitffs' responsibilities can be found in the **Federal Register** notices cited below. The Department's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance for the workers of Merrill was issued on July 2, 2003 and published in the **Federal Register** on July 22, 2003 (68 FR 43373). The Notice of Negative Determination on Remand for workers of Merrill was issued on April 2, 2004 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2004 (69 FR 20645). In both determinations, the Department denied the workers eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)because Merrill does not produce an “article” within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974. On November 17, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration on Remand for workers of Merrill. The Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72857). The Department determined that the workers are not eligible to apply for TAA because Merrill does not produce an “article” since electronic creations are not “articles” unless they are embodied in a physical medium. The Department also determined that even if Merrill produced an “article,” the uniqueness of each filing means that there cannot be any articles which are like or directly competitive with the “articles” created by Merrill and, consequently, there cannot be any increased imports of such articles. In the Department's Lands' End determination, the Department stated that “the Department has revised its policy to acknowledge that there are tangible and intangible articles and to clarify differences between intangible articles and services * * * Products that would have been considered an article if embodied in a physical medium will now be considered an article * * * Workers providing services that may result in the incidental production * * * however, are not engaged in the production of an article for the purposes of the Act.” (71 FR 18357) Applying the revised policy to the immediate case, the Department determines that Merrill provides a service, incidental to which Plaintiffs produce an intangible article. Under the revised policy, however, the incidental production of an article does not change the Department's treatment of workers who work for a firm that produces an article incidental to providing a service. Rather, the Lands' End determination reinforces this policy (“Workers providing services that may result in the incidental production * * * are not engaged in the production of an article for the purposes of the Act”). The Department has consistently held that workers who work for a firm that provides a service, such as sales and repair, are not eligible for TAA benefits. The Department's policy was recently upheld by the USCIT in *Former Employees of Gale Group, Inc.* , 403 F.Supp.2d 1299 (CIT 2005). 1 In the *Gale* opinion, the USCIT established that workers in a service firm are not eligible to apply for benefits under the Trade Act. *Id.* at 1303. 1 The Plaintiffs in *Gale* appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Upon further investigation, after the *Lands End* determination, the Department concluded that Gale Group, Inc. produced an article, not incidental to the provision of a service. The Department sought a remand and certified the plaintiffs. *See Notice of Revised Determination on Remand for Gale Group, Inc.,* TA-W-54, 434 (July 19, 2006). The Department's decision in *Gale* was not a repudiation of the USCIT's decision in *Gale.* During the third remand investigation, the Department confirmed that the subject workers manipulate information into a format required for filing with the SEC and that Merrill does not generate revenue by the sale of the filings. The Department also confirmed that the filings created by the subject workers adhere to the customer's specifications and accommodate the special needs dictated by the SEC. SSAR 8, 18. As stated in the USCIT's *Gale* opinion, TAA is only available to workers in a firm engaged in production of an article. One significant factor that distinguishes a production firm from a service firm is that the former operates commercially as a manufacturing firm and generates its revenue from the sale of the manufactured articles; the manufacturer is in the business of making and selling an article. This is in contrast to a service firm that operates commercially as a service provider and generates its revenue from the provision of services. That an article is created incidental to the provision of the service does not make the service firm a production firm. A commercial tax preparation firm that prepares and files tax forms with the Internal Revenue Service is in the business of providing tax-related services for a fee. The firm simply receives data from its client and places it into a format acceptable to the government. That the service may result in the creation of an article, a tax return, does not make it a production firm. The tax preparation firm is not selling its customers a tax return; rather, it is selling its expertise in correctly manipulating the customer's tax data into the proper form. Similarly, Merrill is in the business of providing financial document related services for a fee. It receives data from its clients and reformats it in a form acceptable to the government. The fact that its services may result in the incidental production of an article, an SEC filing, does not make Merrill a production firm. Even if the Plaintiffs did produce an article for purposes of the Trade Act, they would not be eligible to apply for TAA because there was neither a shift of production to a qualified country nor increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject facility. Under the Department's interpretation of “like or directly competitive,” (29 CFR 90.2) “like” articles are those articles which are substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics and “directly competitive” articles are those articles which are substantially equivalent for commercial purposes (essentially interchangeable and adapted to the same uses), even though the articles may not be substantially identical in their inherent or intrinsic characteristics. Given the nature of the SEC filings, there are no articles which are “like” or “directly competitive” to any single “article” created by Merrill because each electronic file is a unique document. Thus, there are no articles which are essentially interchangeable or can be adapted to the same use as a Merrill document, and there are no articles “like or directly competitive” with any Merrill “article.” Because there are no articles which are like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject company, there cannot be any imports, much less increased imports. Therefore, neither Section 222(a)(2)(A) nor Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act, as amended, has been satisfied. The Department determines that the revised policy articulated in Lands' End does not affect Plaintiffs' claim and determines that the subject workers are not eligible to apply for TAA. Conclusion After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of August 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14590 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (06-063)] National Environmental Policy Act; Mars Science Laboratory Mission AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of availability of draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS)for implementation of the Mars Science Laboratory
(MSL)mission. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended,
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and NASA policy and procedures (14 CFR Part 1216 subpart 1216.3), NASA has prepared and issued a DEIS for the proposed MSL mission. The DEIS addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with implementing the mission. The purpose of this proposal is to explore the surface of Mars with a mobile science laboratory (rover). This environmental impact statement
(EIS)is a tiered document (Tier 2 EIS) under NASA's Programmatic EIS for the Mars Exploration Program (MEP). The DEIS presents descriptions of the proposed MSL mission, spacecraft, and candidate launch vehicle; an overview of the affected environment at and near the launch site; and the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The MSL mission is planned for launch during the September-November 2009 time period from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida, on an expendable launch vehicle. The arrival date at Mars would range from mid-July 2010 to not later than mid-October 2010, depending on the exact launch date and selected landing site, yet to be determined, on the surface of Mars. Using advanced instrumentation, the MSL rover would acquire significant, detailed information regarding the habitability of Mars from a scientifically promising location on the surface. The mission would also fulfill NASA's strategic technology goals of increasing the mass of science payloads delivered to the surface of Mars, expanding access to higher and lower latitudes, increasing precision landing capability, and increasing traverse capability (mobility) to distances on the order of several kilometers. The DEIS evaluates two alternatives in addition to the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 1), the proposed MSL rover would utilize a radioisotope power system, a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. Under Alternative 2, an MSL rover would utilize solar energy as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. DATES: Written comments on the DEIS must be received by NASA no later than October 23, 2006, or 45 days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability of the MSL DEIS, whichever is later. ADDRESSES: Comments submitted via first class, registered, or certified mail should be addressed to Mark R. Dahl, Mail Suite 3X63, Planetary Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001. Comments submitted via express mail, a commercial deliverer, or courier service should be addressed to Mark R. Dahl, Mail Suite 3X63, Planetary Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, Attn: Receiving & Inspection (Rear of Building), NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20024-3210. While hard copy comments are preferred, comments may be sent by electronic mail to *mep.nepa@hq.nasa.gov.* The DEIS may be reviewed at the following locations:
(a)NASA Headquarters, Library, Room 1J20, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546;
(b)Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Visitors Lobby, Building 249, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109. Hard copies of the DEIS also may be examined at other NASA Centers (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below). Limited hard copies of the DEIS are available, on a first request basis, by contacting Mark R. Dahl at the address, telephone number, or electronic mail address indicated herein. The DEIS is also available in Adobe® portable document format at *http://spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/msl/index.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark R. Dahl, Planetary Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001, telephone 202-358-4800, or electronic mail *mep.nepa@hq.nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MEP is currently being implemented as a sustained series of flight missions to Mars, each of which will provide important, focused scientific return. The MEP is fundamentally a science driven program whose focus is on understanding and characterizing Mars as a dynamic system and ultimately addressing whether life is or was ever a part of that system. The core MEP addresses the highest priority scientific investigations directly related to the Program goals and objectives. MSL investigations would be a means of addressing several of the high-priority scientific investigations recommended to NASA by the planetary science community. The overall scientific goals of the MSL mission can be divided into four areas:
(1)Assess the biological potential of at least one selected site on Mars,
(2)characterize the geology and geochemistry of the landing region at all appropriate spatial scales,
(3)investigate planetary processes of relevance to past habitability, and
(4)characterize the broad spectrum of the Martian surface radiation environment. The following specific objectives are planned for the mission to address these goals: —Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds; —Inventory the chemical building blocks of life (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur); —Identify features that may represent the effects of biological processes; —Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of Martian surface and near-surface geological materials; —Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and regolith; —assess long-timescale ( *i.e.* , 4-billion-year) atmospheric evolution processes; and —Determine the present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide. The proposed MSL mission would utilize a rover with advanced instrumentation to acquire significant detailed information regarding the habitability of Mars from a scientifically promising location. The mission would also fulfill NASA's strategic technology goals of increasing the mass of science payloads delivered to the surface of Mars, expanding access to higher and lower latitudes, increasing precision landing capability, and increasing traverse capability (mobility) to distances on the order of several kilometers. Mobility is essential because evidence for past or present life on Mars will very likely not be so abundant or widespread that it will be available in the immediate vicinity of the selected landing site. Without the mobility necessary to conduct in situ exploration, it may not be possible to uniquely characterize a target location. The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) consists of continuing preparations for and implementing the MSL mission to Mars. The proposed MSL rover would utilize a MMRTG as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. Under Alternative 2, NASA would discontinue preparations for the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and implement an alternative MSL mission to Mars. The alternative MSL rover would utilize solar energy as its primary source of electrical power to operate and conduct science on the surface of Mars. With either the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) or Alternative 2, the MSL spacecraft would be launched on board an expendable launch vehicle from CCAFS, Florida during the September-November 2009 time period. Under the No Action Alternative, NASA would discontinue preparations for the MSL mission, and the spacecraft would not be launched. With either the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) or Alternative 2, the potentially affected environment for a normal launch includes the area at and in the vicinity of the launch site, CCAFS in Florida. The environmental impacts of a normal launch of the mission for either alternative would be associated principally with the exhaust emissions from the expendable launch vehicle. These effects would include:
(1)Short-term impacts on air quality within the exhaust cloud and near the launch pad, and
(2)the potential for acidic deposition on the vegetation and surface water bodies at and near the launch complex. Potential launch accidents could result in the release of some of the radioactive material on board the spacecraft. The MMRTG planned for use on the rover for the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) would use plutonium dioxide, with a radioisotope inventory of approximately 58,700 curies, to provide electrical power. For either alternative, two of the science instruments on the rover would use small quantities of radioactive material, totaling approximately two curies, for instrument calibration or science experiments. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with NASA, has performed a risk assessment of potential accidents for the MSL mission. This assessment used a methodology refined through applications to the Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, Mars Exploration Rover, and New Horizons missions. DOE's risk assessment for the proposed MSL mission indicates that in the event of a launch accident the expected impacts of released radioactive material at and in the vicinity of the launch area, and on a global basis, would be small. Alternative 2 would not involve any MMRTG-associated radiological risks since an MMRTG would not be used for this mission alternative. NASA will hold public comment meetings during which the public is invited to participate in an open exchange of information and submission of comments on the DEIS. Each public meeting will begin with an opportunity for informal discussions with project personnel, followed by a brief NASA presentation on the MSL mission, and conclude with the submission of formal comments, both written and oral. These meetings will be held on: —September 27, 2006, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. and 6 p.m.-9 p.m. at the Florida Solar Energy Center; H. George Carrison Auditorium; 1679 Clearlake Road, Cocoa, Florida 32922; —October 10, 2006, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill; Congressional Room A; 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Further information on the public meetings can be obtained by contacting Mark R. Dahl at the address or telephone number indicated herein, or by visiting the MSL DEIS Web site at: *http://spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/msl/index.htm.* Advanced registration for attending any of the meetings is not required. The FEIS may be examined at the following NASA locations by contacting the pertinent Freedom of Information Office:
(a)NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 (650-604-3273);
(b)NASA, Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA 93523 (661-276-2704);
(c)NASA, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Cleveland, OH 44135 (216-433-2813);
(d)NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301-286-4721);
(e)NASA, Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 (281-483-8612);
(f)NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 (321-867-9280);
(g)NASA, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 (757-864-2497);
(h)NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 (256-544-1837); and
(i)NASA, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529 (228-688-2118). Any person, organization, or governmental body or agency interested in receiving a copy of NASA's Record of Decision after it is rendered should so indicate by mail or electronic mail to Mr. Dahl at the addresses provided above. Written public input and comments on alternatives and environmental issues and concerns associated with the proposed Mars Science Laboratory mission are hereby requested. Olga M. Dominguez, Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure and Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14649 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information Collection AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Science Foundation
(NSF)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. 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 to be collected; 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 on this notice must be received by November 6, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Contact Suzanne Plimpton, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone 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. to 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday. You also may obtain a copy of the date collection instrument and instructions from Ms. Hines. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title of Collection:* Model Institutions for Excellence Graduates’ Survey. *OMB Approval Number:* 3145-NEW. *Expiration Date of Approval:* Not Applicable. *Type of Request:* Intent to seek approval to establish an information collection for three years. *Proposed Project:* The Division of Human Resource Development (EHR/HRD) of the National Science Foundation
(NSF)has requested impact information on the Model Institutions for Excellence
(MIE)Program. Jointly funded by NSF and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the MIE Program funded eight minority-service undergraduate institutions to promote under represented minority participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Now NSF seeks follow-up information on program graduates to determine whether or not they have continued their education in STEM graduate programs and/or STEM employment, and how the MIE program influence their decisions with respect to graduate school and employment. NSF proposed a one-time on-line survey of the 931 MIE students who received bachelor's degrees in a STEM field from one of the MIE colleges between 2002 through 2005. *Estimate of Burden:* The Foundation estimates that, on average, 30 minutes per respondent will be required to complete the survey, for a total of 465.5 hours for all respondents. Respondents from the eight institutions that received NSF MIE support will complete this survey once. *Respondents:* STEM graduates from MIE programs. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 931. *Estimates Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 465.5 hours. Dated: August 29, 2006. Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation. [FR Doc. 06-7388 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 2
Traces to 2 documents
4 references not yet in our index
- 26 USC 2813
- 403 F. Supp. 2d 1299
- 29 CFR 90.2
- 14 CFR 1216
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of availability of draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for implementation of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission
F. Supp.403 F. Supp. 2d 1299
Cite26 USC 2813
Cite29 CFR 90.2
Cite14 CFR 1216
Cites 6Cited by 0 across 0 sources