66400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

public document room located at the

Ocean County Library, Reference

Department, 101 Washington Street,

Toms River, NJ 08753.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ronald B. Eaton,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–33056 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–410]

Long Island Lighting Company Nine

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2;

Environmental Assessment And

Finding Of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the issuance of an Order

approving, under 10 CFR 50.80, an

application regarding a proposed

indirect transfer of control of ownership

and possessory rights held by Long

Island Lighting Company (LILCO) under

the operating license for Nine Mile

Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2

(NMP2). The indirect transfer would be

to the Long Island Power Authority

(LIPA), a corporate municipal

instrumentality of New York State.

LILCO is licensed by the Commission to

own and possess an 18 percent interest

in NMP2, located in the town of Scriba,

Oswego County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would consent to

the indirect transfer of control of the

license to the extent affected by LILCO

becoming a subsidiary of LIPA. This

restructuring of LILCO as a subsidiary of

LIPA would result from LIPA’s

proposed purchase of LILCO stock

through a cash merger at a time when

LILCO consists of its electric

transmission and distribution system,

its retail electric business, substantially

all of its electric regulatory assets, and

its 18 percent share of NMP2. LILCO

would continue to exist as an ‘‘electric

utility’’ as defined in 10 CFR 50.2

providing the same electric utility

services it did immediately prior to the

restructuring. No direct transfer of the

operating license or interests in the

station would result from the proposed

restructuring. The transaction would not

involve any change to either the

management organization or technical

personnel of Niagara Mohawk Power

Corporation (NMPC), which is

responsible for operating and

maintaining NMP2 and is not involved

in the LIPA acquisition of LILCO. The

proposed action is in accordance with

LILCO’s application dated September 8,

1997, as modified and supplemented

October 8, 1997, and November 7, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is required to

enable LIPA to acquire LILCO as

described above.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed corporate

restructuring and concludes that there

will be no physical or operational

changes to NMP2. The corporate

restructuring will not affect the

qualifications or organizational

affiliation of the personnel who operate

and maintain the facility, as NMPC will

continue to be responsible for the

maintenance and operation of NMP2

and is not involved in the acquisition of

LILCO by LIPA.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the

restructuring would not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and

would have no other environmental

impact. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there are no significant environmental

effects that would result from the

proposed action, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impact

need not be evaluated.

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 does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statements Related to the Operation of

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit

No. 2, (NUREG–1085) dated May 1985.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on December 10, 1997, the staff

consulted with the New York State

official, Mr. Jack Spath, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the 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 LILCO’s

application dated September 8, as

modified and supplemented by letters

dated October 8 and November 7, 1997,

which are 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 Reference and Documents

Department, Penfield Library, State

University of New York, Oswego, New

York 13126.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of December 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–33057 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

Revision of a Currently Approved

Collection of Information

AGENCY: Panama Canal Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

109 Stat. 163), this notice announces the

Panama Canal Commission (PCC) is

planning to submit to the Office of

Management and Budget a Paperwork

Reduction Act Submission (83-I) for a

revision of a currently approved

collection of information entitled
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66401

1 Delta V is the rapid change of a vehicle’s speed

due to a crash. A 12 mph delta V is the equivalent

of a vehicle traveling at 12 mph crashing into an

immovable solid object such as a heavy concrete

wall.

‘‘Personnel Administration Forms,’’

OMB Number 3207–0005.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposed action regarding the collection

of information must be submitted by

February 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments

concerning this notice to Edward H.

Clarke, Desk Officer for Panama Canal

Commission, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

D.C. 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth Huff, Office of the Secretary,

Panama Canal Commission, 202–634–

6441.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies

must obtain approval from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for each

collection of information they conduct

or sponsor. Collection of information is

defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR

1 1320.3(c). Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

requires Federal agencies to provide a

60-day notice in the Federal Register,

and otherwise consult with members of

the public and affected agencies

concerning each proposed collection of

information, by soliciting comments to:

(a) evaluate 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) evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information; (c) enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (d) minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology.

Title: Personnel Administration

Forms.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Background: The information

requested is authorized by 35 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 251

and 253, and sections 3652, 3654, and

3661–3664 of Title 22, United States

Code. The information is needed to

determine the qualifications, suitability

and availability of applicants for Federal

employment in the Panama Canal area

so U.S. Federal agencies can be supplied

with elegibles to fill vacant positions.

Abstract: On December 30, 1981, PCC

requested OMB approval for a collection

of information entitled ‘‘Personnel

Administration Forms.’’ OMB approved

this collection for use through January

31, 1985 and assigned it OMB Number

3207–0005. On December 17, 1984, PCC

requested another extension and

received OMB approval and use through

March 31, 1988. Prior to the expiration

of the collection in subsequent years,

PCC continued requesting approval for

a revision of the collection and received

approval through July 31, 1991,

September 30, 1994, and February 28,

1998. The information requested is used

by Recruitment and Examining Division

(HRR) employees performing examining

and suitability duties, by subject-matter

experts on rating panels, and by agency

officials making selections to fill

vacancies.

Estimated Burden: The estimated

burden of providing the information

varies, depending upon the applicant’s

individual circumstances. The burden

time for a full application is estimated

to vary from 40 to 300 minutes with an

average of 120 minutes per response,

including supplemental qualifications

forms when required, and 10 to 60

minutes with an average of 30 minutes

to update applications already on file.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

7453.

Total Annual Reporting Hour Burden:

9082.

Respondents: Applicants for

employment.

Frequency of Collection: When

persons apply or update applications.

Jacinto Wong,

Chief Information Officer, Senior Official for

Information Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 97–33003 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3640–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA)

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of motor vehicle defect

petition.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

reasons for the denial of a June 19, 1997

petition submitted to NHTSA under 49

U.S.C. 30162 by Donald Friedman,

requesting that the agency commence a

proceeding to determine the existence of

defects related to motor vehicle safety in

the air bag systems and the two-point

automatic seat belt systems in all

vehicles manufactured since 1987. After

reviewing the petition and other

information, NHTSA has concluded that

further expenditure of the agency’s

investigative resources on the

allegations in the petition does not

appear to be warranted. The agency

accordingly has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Thomas Cooper, Chief, Vehicle

Integrity Branch, Office of Defects

Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–5218.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

19, 1997, Mr. Donald Friedman

submitted a petition requesting the

agency to investigate ‘‘the safety

performance of certain motor vehicles

built in compliance with the automatic

crash protection requirements of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

(FMVSS) No. 208; ‘Occupant crash

protection.’ ’’ The petition concerns

vehicles with ‘‘driver air bags built from

1987 to the present.’’ It also ‘‘concerns

some automobiles with two-point

automatic belts.’’

The petition alleges two distinct

defects in the subject vehicles. One

alleged defect involves the safety of

those individuals who are of a ‘‘short

stature (around 5 feet tall)’’ who

position the seat so that they can both

reach the pedals and see ‘‘safely’’

through the windshield. By positioning

themselves in such a manner, they may

be very close to the air bag. The

petitioner alleges that this positioning,

when combined with air bags which

deploy at a delta V 1 of 12 miles per

hour (mph) and less and which deploy

with aggressive force, can cause serious

and fatal injuries.

The petition alleges a second defect in

vehicles with automatic seat belts that

restrain only the torso portion of the

body. It alleges that if shorter people

‘‘ride without the lap belt and with their

seat in a rearward position’’ they are

‘‘likely to submarine’’ in a crash, and

that [‘‘w]hen this happens, the twopoint belt can catch the occupant’s chin

and cause serious neck injuries

including paraplegia or quadriplegia.’’

NHTSA is denying the petition for the

following reasons:

I. Alleged ‘‘Aggressive Air Bags’’

The petition covers all vehicles with

driver side air bags built since 1987.

Essentially, this includes all vehicles

sold with air bags in the United States.

Previously, NHTSA studied this class of

vehicles and found that the performance