Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices 43187

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The

proposed information collection is

published to obtain comments from the

public and affected agencies.

Comments are encouraged and will be

accepted until; October 14, 1997.

Written comments and suggestions from

the public and affected agencies

concerning the proposed collection of

information should address one or more

of the following four points:

(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

agencies 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 submission of

responses.

Overview of this information

collection:

(1) Type of Information Collection:

Extension of a currently approved

collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection:

Employment Eligibility Verification.

(3) Agency form number, if any, and

the applicable component of the

Department of Justice sponsoring the

collection: Form I–9. Programs Office,

IRAIRA Implementation Team,

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

(4) Affected public who will be asked

or required to respond, as well as a brief

abstract: Primary: Individuals or

Households. This form was developed

to facilitate compliance with Section

274A of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (the Act), as amended

by the Immigration Reform and Control

Act of 1986 (IRCA), which prohibits the

knowing employment of unauthorized

aliens. The information collected is

used by employers or by recruiters for

enforcement of provisions of

immigration laws that are designed to

control the employment of unauthorized

aliens.

(5) An estimate of the total number of

respondents and amount of time

estimated for an average respondent to

respond: 78,000,000 responses at 9

minutes (.15) per response and

20,000,000 record keepers at 4 minutes

(0.066) per filing for record keeping.

(6) An estimate of the total public

burden (in hours) associated with the

collection annual burden hours.

If you have additional comments,

suggestions, or need a copy of the

proposed information collection

instrument with instructions, or

additional information, please contact

Richard A. Sloan 202–514–3291,

Director, Policy Directives and

Instructions Branch, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, U.S. Department

of Justice, Room 5307, 425 I Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20536. Additionally,

comments and/or suggestions regarding

the items(s) contained in this notice,

especially regarding the estimated

public burden and associated response

time may also be directed to Mr.

Richard A. Sloan.

If additional information is required

contact: Mr. Robert B. Briggs, Clearance

Officer, United States Department of

Justice, Information Management and

Security Staff, Justice Management

Division, Suite 850, Washington Center,

1001 G Street, NW, Washington, DC

20530.

Dated: August 4, 1997.

Robert B. Briggs,

Department Clearance Officer, United States

Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 97–21225 Filed 8–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National

Science Foundation, National Science

Board.

DATE AND TIME: August 21, 1997, 1:30

p.m., Closed Session. August 21, 1997,

2:15 p.m., Open Session.

PLACE: National Science Foundation,

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1235,

Arlington, Virginia 22230.

STATUS: Part of this meeting will be

open to the public. Part of this meeting

will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Thursday, August 21, 1997

Closed Session (1:30 p.m.–2:15 p.m.)

—Minutes, May 1997 Meeting

—Personnel

—NSF Budget

—Awards and Agreements

Thursday, August 21, 1997

Open Session (2:15 p.m.–4:15 p.m.)

—Minutes, May 1997 Meeting

—Closed Session Agenda Items for

October 1997

—Chairman’s Report

—Director’s Report

—Reports from Committees

—Concept Paper: Industry Reliance on

Publicly-Funded Research

—Working Paper on Federal Support for

Scientific Research

—Graduate Education

—Other Business

—Adjourn

Marta Cehelsky,

Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–21353 Filed 8–8–97; 10:25 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 19,

1997.

PLACE: The Grand Ballroom, Loews

L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:

6704B Aircraft Accident Report: InFlight Fire and Impact with Terrain,

ValuJet Airlines Flight 592, DC–9–32,

N904VJ, Everglades, Miami, Florida,

May 11, 1996.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)

314–6100.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Bea

Hardesty, (202) 314–6065.

Dated: August 8, 1997.

Bea Hardesty,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–21386 Filed 8–8–97; 12:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324]

Carolina Power & Light Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment 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 amendments to

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–71

and DPR–62 issued to the Carolina

Power & Light Company (the licensee)

for operation of the Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP)

located in Southport, North Carolina.
43188 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices

NRC Generic Letter (GL) 88–01

outlines the NRC staff’s positions on

intergranular stress corrosion cracking

(IGSCC) in boiling water reactor (BWR)

austenitic stainless steel piping.

Technical Specification (TS) 4.0.5.f

requires that the BSEP Inservice

Inspection (ISI) program be performed

in accordance with the positions

identified in GL 88–01. The proposed

amendments would modify TS 4.0.5.f in

a manner that would allow exceptions

to these positions where specific written

relief has been granted by the NRC.

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.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendments 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. The proposed amendments do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

Technical Specification 4.0.5.f provides

inservice inspection requirements (e.g.,

schedule, methods, personnel, and sampling)

for piping covered by the scope of NRC

Generic Letter 88–01, ‘‘NRC Staff Position on

IGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel

Piping’’ dated January 25, 1988. The

proposed revision to Technical Specification

4.0.5.f provides a clarification for this piping

regarding the use of alternatives on schedule,

methods, personnel, and sampling that have

been reviewed and accepted by the NRC staff.

The proposed change to Technical

Specification 4.0.5.f is an administrative

change that clarifies that alternate

requirements regarding inspection schedules,

methods, personnel, and sample expansion

are acceptable provided these alternatives

have been reviewed and approved by the

NRC staff. The proposed license amendments

do not alter the function of existing

equipment and will ensure that the

consequences of any previously evaluated

accident do not increase. As such, the

proposed license amendments do not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed amendments would not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

The proposed revision to Technical

Specification 4.0.5.f is an administrative

change [that] provides a clarification that

alternate requirements for inspection

schedules, methods, personnel, and sample

expansion for piping susceptible to

intergranular stress corrosion cracking

(IGSCC) are acceptable for use. Inclusion of

this clarification in Technical Specification

4.0.5.f is an administrative change which will

not introduce new equipment nor require any

existing equipment or systems to perform a

different type of function than they are

presently designed to perform.

3. The proposed amendments do not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

As previously stated, the proposed revision

to Technical Specification 4.0.5.f provides a

clarification allowing inspection of austenitic

stainless steel piping using alternatives on

schedule, methods, personnel, and sampling

that have been reviewed and accepted by the

NRC staff. The proposed license amendments

do not introduce any new equipment nor do

they require any existing equipment or

systems to perform a different type of

function than they are presently designed to

perform. As such, the proposed change to

Technical Specification 4.0.5.f is

administrative in nature. Therefore, the

proposed license amendments do not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendments involve no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By September 11, 1997, the licensee

may file a request for a hearing with

respect to issuance of the amendment to

the subject facility operating license 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 a petition 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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the

University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, William Madison Randall

Library, 601 S. College Road,

Wilmington, North Carolina 28403–

3297. 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,

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 Atomic

Safety and Licensing 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

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices 43189

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) the nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made 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 which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

General Counsel, Carolina Power &

Light Company, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh,

North Carolina 27602, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated July 25, 1997, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, William Madison Randall

Library, 601 S. College Road,

Wilmington, North Carolina 28403–

3297.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David C. Trimble,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–21245 Filed 8–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–302]

Florida Power Corporation; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment 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 No. DPR

72, issued to the Florida Power

Corporation, (FPC or the licensee), for

operation of the Crystal River Nuclear

generating Unit 3 (CR3) located in Citrus

County, Florida.

The proposed amendment would

revise the CR3 technical specifications

(TS) to extend the frequency for certain

surveillances related to the emergency

diesel generators (EDGs). Specifically,

TS Surveillance Requirements (SR)

3.3.8.1, and SR 3.8.1.3, would be revised

to extend the channel Functional test

surveillance frequency and the EDG

operation, respectively, from 31 days to

60 days. The proposed TS amendment

would be a one time change and

applicable until November 23, 1997.

Currently, CR3 is in a voluntary

shutdown and is in Mode 5. As part of

its EDG load capacity upgrade program,

the licensee originally planned to

replace the EDG radiator during its cycle

11R outage in 1998. The licensee has

now determined that a potential exists

for the EDGs to exceed the design basis

ambient temperature and as a result,

decided to implement the radiator

replacement during the current outage.

Initially, the planned duration for these

radiator modifications was 25 days

assuming a pre-fabricated radiator unit

could be used as the replacement

radiator. As the final design and extent

of condition for the EDGs were

determined, the licensee has discovered

that the pre-fabricated radiator design

could not be used and the radiator

replacement involved more extensive

fabrication than originally anticipated.

The licensee estimates that the revised

work scope may require 55 days,

including the necessary postmodification test for operability. This

schedule is based on a continuous work

schedule, and contingency for rework,

field challenges, or late delivery of

parts. Thus, the time required to do the

modification work exceeds the present

TS surveillance interval.

The licensee believes that while it is

possible to perform these surveillances

with one EDG inoperable, such an

approach, however, would not be