Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Notices 53659

amount of controversy exists over the

legality of the use of the Internet by

Indian Tribes as a means of offering

gaming. Of particular note is the

requirement of the IGRA that gaming by

Indian Tribes be conducted ‘‘on Indian

lands.’’ 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1),

§ 2710(d)(1) and 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4).

Particpants in the hearing, and those

submitting written comments are asked

to consider the following questions:

1. How does the requirement under

IGRA that tribal gaming be conducted

‘‘on Indian lands’’ affect the ability of

the tribes to engage legally in Internet

gambling?

2. What is the effect of other federal

gambling statutes on tribal Internet

gambling?

3. What is the scope of available

Internet gambling offered by Indian

tribes today?

4. What, if any, legislative or

regulatory changes are required to

clarify the effect of the IGRA on tribal

Internet gambling?

5. What are the challenges implicit in

regulating Internet gaming on Indian

lands?

Philip N. Hogen,

Commissioner, National Indian Gaming

Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–27274 Filed 10–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7567–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Comment Request;

Submission for OMB Review; Title of

Collection: NSF Survey of Scientific

and Engineering Research Facilities at

Colleges and Universities

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice.

1. SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and as part of

its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden, the

National Science Foundation (NSF) is

inviting the general public and other

Federal agencies to comment on this

proposed continuing information

collection. This is the second notice for

public comment, the first was published

on July 31, 1997, in the Federal Register

at 62 FR 147, 41093–41094. We received

comments from two sources and after

due consideration sent replies to the

commenters. NSF is forwarding the

proposed renewal submission, the

comments with our responses, to OMB

for clearance simultaneously with the

publication of this second notice

2. DATES: The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) should receive

written comments on or before

November 14, 1997.

3. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer

for National Science Foundation, 725—

17th Street, N.W, Room 10235,

Washington, D.C. 20503. Please include

the current OMB Control Number 3145–

0101 with your comments.

4. SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION:

(a) Abstract. In 1995 OMB approved

both the 1996 and 1998 survey cycles of

the NSF Survey of Scientific and

Engineering Research Facilities at

Colleges and Universities (OMB No.

3145–0101). The survey collects

information on the science and

engineering (S&E) research facilities at

the nation’s higher education

institutions. The minor modifications to

the approved 1998 questionnaire make

the data of more use to Federal agencies

and policy makers.

(b) Proposed Modifications to the

OMB-Approved 1998 Survey

◆ Sample size. As requested by NIH,

NSF, and OMB, we are requesting that

the 1998 survey sample be increased

from 315 to 365 to allow analyses by

Carnegie classification, by minority

serving institutions and institutions

within the EPSCoR States for policy

makers.

◆ Items to be modified in the 1998

survey.

√ GSF (gross square feet) in addition

to the currently collected NASF (net

assignable square feet). Institutions

already have the GSF of a project to

calculate the NASF of that project.

√ Proportion of repair/renovation or

new construction project cost, in

addition to the currently collected

repair/renovation or new construction

cost as a total, including non-fixed

equipment over $1 million. This data

are readily available to the institutions

and should add very little burden.

√ Percentage of institutional funds, in

addition to the currently collected

proportion of construction and repair/

renovation cost attributable to

institutional funds. The question will be

posed in two parts: one asking if the

institution has ready access to these

data; and second, if data are available,

asking the institution to supply that

data. This way of posing the question

assures minimal burden to the

respondent.

√ Percentage of total animal research

NASF assigned to levels of restricteduse laboratories, in addition to the total

NASF or animal laboratories, This is

information readily available to the

institutions and would be of minimal

burden.

(c) Item to be dropped from the 1998

survey. We plan to omit the status of

institutions relative to the cap on taxexempt bonds (modification request by

NIH and NSF).

5. Use of the Information

The information from this survey will

be used by Federal policy makers,

planners, and budget analysts in making

policy decisions, as well as by academic

officials, the S&E establishment, and

State agencies that funds universities

and colleges. The survey will provide

updated data on the status of and trends

in scientific and engineering research

facilities to help policy makers with

decisions about the health of academic

S&E research, funding, regulations, and

reporting guidelines.

Specifically, data will be used in:

◆ A separate report of the findings

for Congress;

◆ A special report for NIH on the

Status of Biomedical Research Facilities;

◆ Other NSF compilations such as

National Patterns of R&D Resources and

Science and Engineering Indicators;

◆ Special reports for other Federal

agencies on an as-needed basis; and

◆ A public release file of collected

data in aggregate form made available to

researchers on the World Wide Web

6. Expected Respondents

The sample size for the 1998 survey

is planned to be increased from 315 to

365 of the nation’s higher education

institutions, selected to provide

nationally representative data for both

undergraduate and graduate degreegranting schools. The respondents will

have the option to complete the survey

on disk. With the improvements in the

computer-aid survey 60% of the

institutions are expected to respond

through this method in 1998.

7. Burden on the Public

The average completion time for the

survey by academic institutions was

reduced (from 43 to 24 hours) between

1988 and 1994. In 1996, with the

continued improvements in

institutional databases and the

introduction of the option to complete

the survey on disk, completion time was

further reduced by one hour, bringing

the 1996 average completion time for

the survey by academic institutions to

23 hours.

Much of the data noted in the

proposed modification are readily

available to the respondents. It is

expected that the proposed

modifications to the questionnaire will

cause little or no change in burden
53660 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Notices

hours. With an estimated 60% of the

institutions expected to respond

through this method in 1998, which will

make possible a substantial reduction in

response burden over 1996 (when 40%

responded electronically). However,

with the addition of 50 institutions the

overall response time is expected to

remain 24 hours.

Throughout the years as the survey

instrument and data collection

techniques have improved the response

rate has improved and the average

burden on the institutions declined.

The Burden estimates are as follows:

Fiscal year

Number

of institutions

Hours

to respond

1992 ................................ 303 30.

1994 ................................ 309 24.

1996 ................................ 307 23.

1998 ................................ 357 24 est.

Dated: October 7, 1997.

Gail A. McHenry,

NSF Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–27203 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket NO. 50–382]

Entergy Operations, Inc.; 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. NPF–

38 issued to Entergy Operations Inc.,

(the licensee) for operation of the

Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit

3, located in St. Charles Parish,

Louisiana.

The proposed amendment would

change Waterford 3 Technical

Specifications 3.3.3.7.3 (TSs) and

Surveillance Requirement 4.3.3.7.3 for

the broad range gas detection system. A

change to the TS Basis 3/4.3.3.7 has

been included to support this change.

This change to the TSs is necessary due

to a potential unreviewed safety

question identified during final review

prior to installation of a new broad

range gas detection system approved by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Staff on August 19, 1997 (Amendment

133). In effect, Entergy Operations is

requesting that the TSs and associated

Basis for the broad range gas detection

system that were in effect prior to

Amendment 133 be retained instead of

implementing the approved

Amendment 133.

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 10 CFR

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. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The broad range gas detection system has

no effect on the accidents analyzed in

Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis

Report. The habitability of the control room

will be unchanged by use of the currently

installed monitoring system and this change

to the Technical Specifications. Since this

proposed change will make operation of the

facility the same as before Amendment 133,

the probability and consequences of an

accident associated with this change have

been previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed change will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of any accident

previously evaluated.

2. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change create

the possibility of a new or different type of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed Technical Specification

change in itself does not change the design

or configuration of the plant. Since this

proposed change will make operation of the

facility the same as it was before Amendment

133, no new or different type of accident

from any accident previously evaluated will

be created.

Therefore, the proposed change will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

Response: No.

The broad range gas detection system has

no effect on a margin of safety as defined by

Section 2 of the Technical Specifications.

The habitability of the control room will be

unchanged from the configuration of the

currently installed detection system and this

change to the Technical Specifications. The

margin of safety remains unchanged from the

original licensing basis of the plant.

Therefore, the proposed change will 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

amendment involves 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 Chief, Rules 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.