41738 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices

least seven calendar days in advance of

the first meeting. Such announcement

shall state the times, dates, and place of

the meetings, the testimony to be heard,

whether any of the meetings, or any

portion of a meeting, is to be closed, and

if so, which ones, and the name and

telephone number of the person to

contact for further information.’’

All meetings of the CARP are open to

the public, unless otherwise specified.

To ensure that the public receives

adequate notice of such meetings, the

rule requires that the Office publish a

schedule of the meetings at least seven

days before the first meeting. See 59 FR

2550 (January 18, 1994). As set forth

below, there are no further meetings for

this proceeding scheduled at this time;

thus, the seven-day advance publication

requirement is unnecessary in this

instance. Accordingly, this notice

fulfills the requirements of § 251.11(b)

for the proceeding to determine the

distribution of the 1995–98 DART

royalties in the Musical Works Funds.

On June 19, 2000, the parties to this

proceeding met with the arbitrators for

the purpose of setting a schedule and

discussing the procedural aspects of this

proceeding. The key procedural issue

before the Panel at the outset of the

proceeding was the consideration of the

issue designated to the CARP of whether

to suspend formal hearings and make

the determination as to the distribution

of the 1995–98 DART royalties in the

Musical Works Funds on the written

pleadings. See Order in Docket No. 99–

3 CARP DD 95–98 (December 22, 1999).

After hearing argument from all parties,

the Panel announced its decision to

waive the requirement of oral

evidentiary hearings and to proceed

upon the written record alone. The

Panel stated in its Order that the

following schedule would govern the

remainder of the proceeding:

Deadline for submission of any

revision desired at this time of a party’s

claim, pursuant to § 251.43(d): July 7,

2000.

Deadline for submission of any

rebuttal case desired by a party: July 28,

2000.

Deadline for submission of findings of

fact and conclusions of law and

proposed orders, including specific

calculations of royalty payments:

August 18, 2000.

Deadline for submission of reply

findings of fact and conclusions of law

and proposed orders: August 28, 2000.

Order in Docket No. 99–3 CARP DD

95–98 (June 19, 2000).

At this time, the parties have not

moved to close any portion of the

proceeding to the public. Further

refinements to the schedule will be

issued as orders to the parties

participating in the proceeding. All

changes will be noted in the docket file

of the proceeding, as required by the

Copyright Office regulations governing

the administration of CARP

proceedings. 37 CFR 251.11(c).

Dated: June 30, 2000.

David O. Carson,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–17108 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permits Issued Under the

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under

the Antarctic Conservation of 1978,

Public Law 95–541.

SUMMARY: The National Science

Foundation (NSF) is required to publish

notice of permits issued under the

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.

This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office,

Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,

National Science Foundation, 4201

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

12, 2000, the National Science

Foundation published a notice in the

Federal Register of permit applications

received. Permits were issued on June

28, 2000 to the following applicants:

Norbert Wu, Permit No. 2001–008

Tom Yelvington, Permit No. 2001–010

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–17061 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Conservation Act of 1978; Notice of

Permit Modification

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

SUMMARY: The Foundation modified a

permit to conduct activities regulated

under the Antarctic Conservation Act of

1978 (Pub. L. 95–541; Code of Federal

Regulations Title 45, Part 670).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer,

Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,

National Science Foundation, 4201

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

Description of Permit and Modification

1. On September 21, 1999, the

National Science Foundation issued a

permit (ACA #2000–001) to Dr. Steven

D. Emslie after posting a notice in the

August 17, 1999 Federal Register.

Public comments were not received. A

request to modify the permit was posted

in the Federal Register on April 11,

2000. No public comments were

received. The modification, issued by

the Foundation on May 16, 2000, allows

for entry into additional Antarctic

Specially Protected Areas for the

purpose of conducting surveys and

excavations by surveying ice-free areas

to locate evidence of a past or modern

breeding penguin colony. Access to the

Antarctic Specially Protected Areas will

be on an opportunity basis only

depending upon vessel cruise tracks and

schedules.

Location

ASPA 104—Sabrina Island, Balleny

Island

ASPA 105—Beaufort Island

ASPA 107—Dion Islands

ASPA 108—Green Island, Berthelot

Islands

ASPA 112—Coppermine Peninsula,

Robert Island

ASPA 115—Lagotellerie Island,

Marguerite Bay

ASPA 116—New College Valley,

Caughley Beach, Cape Bird

ASPA 117—Avian Island, Northwest

Marguerite Bay

ASPA 126—Byers Peninsula, Livingston

Island

ASPA 133—Harmony Point, Nelson

Island

ASPA 134—Cierva Point, Danco Coast

ASPA 149—Cape Shirref, Livingston

Island

ASPA 150—Ardley Island, King George

Island

ASPA 154—Cape Evans, Ross Island

Dates

January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2005.

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–17062 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–336]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et

al.; Millstone Nuclear Power Station

Unit 2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from the requirements of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 130 / Thursday, July 6, 2000 / Notices 41739

CFR Part 50), Appendix R, Section III.J

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

65, issued to the Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company, et al., (NNECO or the

licensee), for operation of the Millstone

Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, located

in Waterford, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The licensee has requested an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III. J

to the extent that it requires emergency

lighting units with at least an 8-hour

battery power supply to light all areas

needed for operation of safe shutdown

equipment and in access and egress

routes thereto. The licensee based this

exemption request primarily on the

security lighting system currently

installed at the plant for access and

egress route emergency lighting to meet

the underlying purpose of the rule. The

underlying purpose of the rule is to

ensure that lighting of sufficient

duration and reliability is provided to

allow operation of equipment required

for post-fire, safe shutdown of the

reactor.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for an

exemption dated February 14, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated April 5

and May 31, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed for the

licensee to avoid the burden of full

compliance with the regulations. Full

compliance with the regulations would

require battery powered lights to

illuminate a large outdoor area for an 8-

hour period. It is not considered

practical to illuminate large outdoor

areas with battery powered lighting for

an 8-hour period. The licensee already

has diesel-powered security lighting in

the same area and portable lighting

equipment is also available. As noted

above, the underlying purpose of the

rule can be met without the burden of

installing additional lighting.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC has completed its evaluation

of the proposed action. The underlying

purpose of the rule the licensee is

requesting to be exempted from is to

ensure that the plant can be safely shut

down in the event of a fire.

Based on the availability and

reliability of the security lighting and

the availability of portable lighting,

there is reasonable assurance that the

access and egress routes through the

yard area that are relied on for safe

shutdown of the facility can be accessed

in the event of a fire.

On the basis of its review, the staff

concludes that the licensee will still

have the capability to safely shut down

the plant, in the event of a fire, after this

exemption has been granted.

The proposed action will not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, no changes

are being made in the types of effluents

that may be released off site, and there

is no significant increase in

occupational or public radiation

exposure. Therefore, there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect non-radiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that

there are no significant environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). 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

Statement for the Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Unit 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 16, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Connecticut State official,

Michael Firsick of the Division of

Radiation, Department of Environmental

Protection, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of 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 the licensee’s letter

dated February 14, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated April 5

and May 31, 2000, which are available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC. Publicly

available records will be accessible

electronically from the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) Public Library

component of the NRC Web site, <http:/

/www.nrc.gov> (the Electronic Reading

Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of June, 2000.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Jacob I. Zimmerman,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–17033 Filed 7–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Sequoyah

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

Environment Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact

Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility

Operating Licenses Nos. DPR–77 and

DPR–79, issued to the Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA, the licensee) for

operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

(SQN) Units 1 and 2, respectively. The

facility is located in Hamilton County,

Tennessee.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise

License Condition 2.B.(5) in each of the

licenses, which authorizes possession of

byproduct and special nuclear materials

(SNM). The License Condition states:

Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30,

40, and 70, to possess, but not separate, such

byproduct and special nuclear materials as

may be produced by the operation of the

facility.

These proposed amendments change

the words ‘‘as may be produced by the

operation of the facility’’ to ‘‘as may be

produced by the operation of the

Sequoyah or Watts Bar Unit 1 Nuclear

Plants.’’ Upon NRC approval of the