Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Notices 15731

use of appropriate automated, electrical,

mechanical or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submissions of responses.

ADDRESSES: A.B. Spellman, National

Endowment for the Arts, 1100

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20506–000, telephone

202–682–5421 (this is not a toll-free

number), fax 202–578–5049.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Murray Welsh,

Director, Administrative Service, National

Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 97–8279 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Submission for OMB Review:

Comment Request

Title of Collection: Survey of Earned

Doctorates.

In compliance with the requirement

of Section 3508(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)

publishes periodic summaries of

proposed projects. Such a notice was

published at 62 FR 2691, dated January

17, 1997. No comments were received.

The materials are now being sent to

OMB for review. Send any written

comments to Desk Office, OMB, 3145–

033, OIRA, OMB, Washington, D.C.

20503. OMB should receive comments

within 30 days after the date of this

notice.

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 data collection

techniques and other forms of

information.

Proposed Project: The Survey of

Earned Doctorates has been conducted

continuously since 1958 and is jointly

sponsored by five Federal agencies in

order to avoid duplication. It is an

accurate, timely source of information

on our Nation’s most precious

resource—highly educated individuals.

Data is obtained from each person

earning a research doctorate on their

field of specialty, educational

background, sources of support in

graduate school, postgraduation plans

for employment, and demographic

characteristics. The information is used

extensively by the Federal government,

universities and others. The National

Science Foundation, as the lead agency,

publishes statistics from the survey in

the annual publication series Selected

Data on Science and Engineering

Doctorates (available in print and

electronically on the World Wide Web).

The National Academy of Sciences also

disseminates a free report entitled

Summary Report: Doctorate Recipients

from U.S. Universities.

We anticipate a response rate of 95%

and expect a total of 42,750 (45,000×.95)

respondents who earned a research

doctorate. We estimate the average

burden per respondent to be 20 minutes

and the entire information burden for

the respondents to be 14,250 hours.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Gail. A. McHenry,

NSF Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–8352 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–341]

Detroit Edison 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 an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

43, issued to Detroit Edison Company

(the licensee), for operation of the Fermi

2 facility located in Monroe County,

Michigan.

The proposed amendment would

revise the technical specifications to

allow elimination of response time

testing requirements for selected

instrument loops in the reactor

protection system, isolation system, and

emergency core cooling system based on

the BWR Owners’ Group Topical Report

NEDO–32291A, ‘‘System Analyses for

Elimination of Selected Response Time

Testing Requirements,’’ October 1995.

Specifically, the response time testing

requirements proposed to be eliminated

are:

(1) Reactor protection system

instrumentation—Sensors for reactor

vessel steam dome pressure-high and

reactor vessel low water level—Level 3.

(2) Isolation actuation system

instrumentation—Sensors for reactor

vessel low water level—Level 1 and

main steam line flow-high, and;

(3) Emergency core cooling system

actuation instrumentation.

The March 27, 1997, application

requested that this amendment be

processed on an exigent basis. The need

for exigent processing exists in that

failure of the Commission to act in a

timely manner would result in the

delaying of resumption of operation of

Fermi 2. The licensee was unable to

make a more timely application because

the licensee only recently discovered

that the existing technical specifications

require response time testing prior to

restarting the unit. The NRC has

determined that the licensee used its

best efforts to make a timely application

for the proposed changes and that

exigent circumstances do exist and were

not the result of any intentional delay

on the part of the licensee.

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine 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) The changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The purpose of the proposed Technical

Specification changes is to eliminate

response time testing requirements for

selected instrument loops in the Reactor

Protection System, Isolation System, and

Emergency Core Cooling System. However,

because of the continued application of other

Technical Specification testing requirements

such as channel calibrations, channel checks,

channel functional tests, and logic system

functional tests, the response time of these

systems will be maintained within the

acceptance limits assumed in plant safety

analyses and required for successful