Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices 59753

not necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. Exemption from

Appendix R, Paragraph O, requirements

is needed for the licensee to have

ROALs without a lube oil collection

system for collecting oil from potential

leak sites.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

With regard to environmental impact,

the Commission has evaluated the

proposed action as described below.

The proposed action will not result in

an increase in the probability or

consequences of accidents or result in a

change in occupational or offsite dose.

Therefore, there are no radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

The proposed action will not result in

a change in nonradiological plant

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no

environmental impacts associated with

this action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action. Denial of the

application would result in no change

in current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action did not involve the use of

any resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statements

related to operation of CR3, dated May

1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 29, 1997 the staff consulted

with the Florida State Official, Mr. Bill

Passetti of the Florida Department of

Health and Rehabilitative Services,

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has determined not

to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

Based upon the foregoing environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated September 5, 1997, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and

at the local public document room

located at Coastal Region Library, 8619

W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard A. Wiens,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–29141 Filed 11–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316]

Indiana Michigan Power Company;

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74,

issued to Indiana Michigan Power

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, located in Berrien County,

Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is in response to

the licensee’s application dated August

5, 1997, for exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4)

regarding submission of revisions to the

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

and design change reports for facility

changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 for

the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2. Under the proposed

exemption, the licensee would schedule

updates to the single, unified FSAR for

the two units that comprise the Donald

C. Cook Nuclear Plant once per Unit 1

fuel cycle.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Section 50.71(e)(4) of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations requires

licensees to submit updates to their

UFSAR within 6 months after each

refueling outage providing that the

interval between successive updates

does not exceed 24 months. Since the

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.

1 and 2, share a common FSAR, the

licensee must update the same

document within 6 months after a

refueling outage for either unit. Because

the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant units

have alternating refueling outages, the

regulatory requirement to submit an

update after the completion of one

unit’s refueling outage when the other

unit is scheduled for a refueling outage

within 6 to 12 months results in an

administrative burden which does not

significantly enhance safety. The

proposed exemption is needed to permit

a single update of the unified FSAR for

the two Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant

units per each Unit 1 fuel cycle.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that it will not alter or affect

plant operation. Allowing the

exemption would maintain the Donald

C. Cook Nuclear Plant FSAR current

within 24 months of the last revision

and would not exceed the 24-month

interval for submission of the 10 CFR

50.59 design change report for either

unit.

No changes are being made in the

types or amounts of any radiological

effluent that may be released offsite and

there is no increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

exposure. Therefore, there are no

significant radiological impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action will not change nonradiological

plant effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Therefore, there are no significant

nonradiological impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated. As an

alternative to the proposed action, the

NRC staff considered denial of the

proposed action. Denial of the

application would result in no change

in current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental
59754 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices

Statement for the Donald C. Cook

Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, dated

August 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on September 30, 1997, the NRC staff

consulted with the Michigan State

official, Dennis Hahn of the Michigan

Department of Public Health, Nuclear

Facilities and Environmental

Monitoring, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon its environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated August 5, 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

Maud Preston Palenske Memorial

Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph,

MI 49085.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day of

October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John B. Hickman,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–3,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–29139 Filed 11–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

SES Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

membership of the OPM SES

Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Lynn Horst, Office of Human

Resources and EEO, Office of Personnel

Management, 1900 E Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606–2165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

4314 ( c ) ( 1 ) through ( 5 ) of Title 5,

U.S.C., requires each agency to

establish, in accordance with

regulations prescribed by the Office of

Personnel Management, one or more

SES performance review boards. The

board reviews and evaluates the initial

appraisal of a senior executive’s

performance by the supervisor, along

with any recommendations to the

appointment authority relative to the

performance of the senior executive.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Acting Director.

Following are the regular members of

the SES Performance Review Board for

the Office of Personnel Management:

William F. Flynn, III, Associate Director,

Retirement and Insurance Service

Richard A. Ferris, Associate Director,

Investigations Service

Mary Lou Lindholm, Associate Director,

Employment Service

Carol Okin, Associate Director, Office of

Merit Systems Oversight and

Effectiveness

Leigh M. Shein, Acting Chief of Staff

Rose M. Gwin, Director, Office of

Human Resources and EEO

[FR Doc. 97–29121 Filed 11–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement and To Conduct a

Scoping Meeting for the Proposed

Expansion of Flying Cloud Airport,

Eden Prairie, MN

AGENCY: Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement and to

conduct public scoping.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

will be prepared on the proposed

expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport.

The expansion consists of the extension

of two parallel runways. The longer of

the two runways (Runway 09R–27L)

would be extended 1,100 feet to 5,000

feet from its current length of 3,900 feet.

The other runway to be extended,

(Runway 09L–27R) would be extended

300 feet to 3,900 feet from its current

length of 3,600 feet. Two alternatives on

the aircraft weight limitations currently

in place at Flying Cloud Airport also are

under consideration. The first

alternative would retain the current

limitation of 20,000 pounds maximum

gross weight. The second alternative

would allow aircraft up to 30,000

pounds maximum gross weight. Land

would be acquired for the expansion of

State Safety Zones A and B at the west

end of the parallel runways and for

navigational aids and lights in the

Runway Protection Zone. In addition,

land would be acquired for the eventual

construction of additional hangars south

of the parallel runways and for an

access road which would connect

County Road 4 to the building area. To

ensure that all significant issues related

to the proposed action are identified,

the FAA is soliciting information and

comments from the public concerning

this project and is advising Federal,

State and local agencies and the public

of the scoping process and scheduled

meetings that will be conducted as a

part of this process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Glen Orcutt, Airports District Office,

Federal Aviation Administration, 6020–

28th Avenue South, Room 102,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 (612)

713–4354.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice announces that the FAA, in

cooperation with the Minneapolis

Metropolitan Airports Commission

(MAC) will prepare a joint Federal/State

EIS for the proposed expansion of

Flying Cloud Airport. The EIS will

evaluate a No-Action alternative, the

proposed actions and other reasonable

alternatives that may be identified

during the agency and public scoping

meetings. The EIS will compare all

feasible alternatives, and will ensure

that mitigating measures are considered

to minimize adverse environmental

consequences.

The Minnesota scoping process

requires the preparation of an

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

(EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision

(DSD), combined in one document. The

format for the EAW is the Minnesota

Environmental Quality Board’s

Environmental Assessment Worksheet.

A Scoping EAW and DSD has been

prepared by the MAC and will be

circulated to Federal, State and Local

agencies for their review and comment.

The Scoping EAW and DSD addresses

the alternatives and potential impacts

and issues to be addressed in the

Federal/State EIS.

The environmental review of the

project will be conducted in accordance

with the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amendment (42 U.S.C. 4371, et seq.),

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508),

FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1D and

all applicable Federal and State

regulations and local ordinances.