Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices 7225

LSC recognizes that many ideas could

improve the law school’s relationship

with the legal services community, but

may not fit in the above category. Thus,

under the Innovative Clinical Programs

Category, the Corporation encourages

new and innovative approaches to legal

services delivery that are not currently

being provided by law school clinics or

legal services programs. These

innovative projects must show a close

collaboration between the law school

clinic and the legal services program.

Such programs could be on either a

local, state or national level. In addition,

under this category, LSC is soliciting

applications from law schools with an

established mandatory pro bono

program or seeking a substantial

expansion of its voluntary pro bono

program.

Eligibility: (1) All law schools and

consortia of law schools that are

currently accredited by the American

Bar Association or accredited for

purposes of bar admission by the state

bar associations of the states in which

the law schools are located are eligible

to apply; (2) any LSC-funded legal

services program is eligible to apply;

and (3) any 501(c)(3) organization with

the capability to oversee a summer

fellowship program is eligible to apply.

No 1995–96 LSCCP grant funds, in

any category, may be used to fund

conferences or research projects. This

limitation does not restrict funds being

used for research related to

representation or advocacy on behalf of

eligible clients. The application should

demonstrate that existing law school or

legal services program support for law

school clinical efforts will be continued,

and that any LSC funds granted will be

used solely for new or expanded

operations.

Awards Process

Grant proposals will be carefully

evaluated by an advisory panel of peer

reviewers from the law school

community, the legal services

community, the client community and

LSC staff. Awards will be based on the

merit of the proposal and the extent to

which it meets the goals of the LSCCP.

An applicant may submit a grant

proposal for one category only.

1. Proposed Collaboration

The applicant should detail the

proposed working relationship between

the law school clinic and the legal

services program that will be involved

in the project. If such collaboration is

not an aspect of the proposal, the

applicant should detail the efforts that

were made to secure such collaboration

and why they were unsuccessful.

2. Project Goals and Objectives

The applicant should set forth the

project’s goals and objectives, which

will be reviewed in terms of the quality

of the proposed project, evidence of the

client need to be served, and the longterm benefits to the organization and the

legal services community.

3. Applicant’s Capability to Accomplish

Objectives

The applicant should detail its

structure and staffing, past history with

similar activities, and other work on

behalf of the low-income individuals.

Qualifications and experience of project

participants and staff should be

disclosed. A timetable for

implementation of the project should

also be included.

4. Community Involvement and

Support

The applicant should state how the

proposed activity will complement

existing legal services delivery provided

in its area. The extent to which a

cooperative effort exists among law

schools, legal services programs,

community groups, local courts, and bar

associations should be described.

Current letters of support or other

evidence of support may be included

with the proposal.

5. Project Feasibility

The applicant should address the

reasonableness of the proposed costs in

terms of the benefits to be derived and

the relationship to the project’s overall

goals.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Leslie Q. Russell,

Assistant to the Director, Office of Program

Services.

[FR Doc. 95–3040 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Council on the Humanities;

Meeting

February 1, 1995.

Pursuant to the provisions of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public

L. 92–463, as amended) notice is hereby

given that a meeting of the National

Council on the Humanities will be held

in Washington, DC on February 16–17,

1995.

The purpose of the meeting is to

advise the Chairman of the National

Endowment for the Humanities with

respect to policies, programs, and

procedures for carrying out his

functions, and to review applications for

financial support and gifts offered to the

Endowment and to make

recommendations thereon to the

Chairman.

The meeting will be held in the Old

Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. A

portion of the morning and afternoon

sessions on February 16–17, 1995, will

not be open to the public pursuant to

subsections (c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of

section 552b of Title 5, United States

Code because the Council will consider

information that may disclose: Trade

secrets and commercial or financial

information obtained from a person and

privileged or confidential; information

of a personal nature the disclosure of

which will constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy; and information the disclosure

of which would significantly frustrate

implementation of proposed agency

action. I have made this determination

under the authority granted me by the

Chairman’s Delegation of Authority

dated July 19, 1993.

The agenda for the sessions on

February 16, 1995, will be as follows:

8:30–9:00 a.m. Coffee for Council Members—

Room 527

Committee Meetings

(Open to the Public) Policy Discussion

9:00–10:00 a.m. Education Programs—Room

M–14

Public Programs—Room 415

Research Programs—Room M07

Challenge Grants/Preservation and Access

& Interdivisional Technology—Room 315

Federal-State Partnership—Room 507

10:00 a.m. until Adjourned. (Closed to the

Public) Discussion of specific grant

applications before the Council

The morning session on February 17, 1995,

will convene at 10:00 a.m., in the 1st Floor

Council Room, M–09, and will be open to the

public, as set out below. The agenda for the

morning session will be as follows:

(Coffee for Staff and Council members will

be served from 10:00–10:30 a.m.)

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Reports

A. Introductory Remarks

B. Introduction of New Staff

C. Contracts Awarded in the Previous

Quarter

D. Budget Reports

E. Legislative Report/Reauthorization

F. Committee Reports on Policy and General

Matters

G. 1. Overview

2. Education Programs

3. Research Programs

4. Challenge Grants/Preservation and

Access & Interdivisional Technology

5. Public Programs

6. Federal-State Partnership

7. Jefferson Lecture
7226 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices

(The meeting will be closed to the public

at this point.)

The remainder of the proposed meeting

will be given to the consideration of specific

applications (closed to the public for the

reasons stated above).

Further information about this meeting can

be obtained from Mr. David C. Fisher,

Advisory Committee Management Officer,

Washington, DC 20506, or call area code

(202) 606–8322, TDD (202) 606–8282.

Advance notice of any special needs or

accommodations is appreciated.

David C. Fisher,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–3007 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7536–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory

Committee; Notice of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting.

Name: DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory

Committee.

Date and Time: February 24, 1995 from

8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., February 25, 1995

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Place: Arlington Renaissance Hotel,

Gallery II, 950 North Stafford Street,

Arlington, VA 22203.

Type of Meeting: Open.

Contact Person: John W. Lightbody,

Program Director for Nuclear Physics,

National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson

Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703)

306–1890.

Minutes: May be obtained from the contact

person listed above.

Purpose of Meeting: To advise the National

Science Foundation and the Department of

Energy on scientific priorities within the

field of basic nuclear science research.

Agenda

February 24, 1995

• Discussion of Budgets and Status of DOE

and NSF Nuclear Physics Programs (D.

Hendrie, DOE; J. Lightbody, NSF)

• Presentation of Preliminary

Subcommittee Report regarding Additional

Capital Equipment for the RHIC Facility (C.

Gelbke)

• Reports of Town Meetings of the

Division of Nuclear Physics of the American

Physical Society (by conveners)

February 25, 1995

• Discussion of Town Meeting Reports

• Progress Reports of the Long Range Plan

Working Groups (LRPWG)

• Discussion of process and plans for full

LRPWG Meeting

• Public Comment (*)

(*) Persons wishing to speak should make

arrangements through the Contact Person

identified above.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–2947 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353]

Philadelphia Electric Company;

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1

and 2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering two actions: (1) Issuance of

an exemption from the requirements of

10 CFR 50, Appendix J, and (2) an

amendment to Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85,

issued to Philadelphia Electric

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Limerick Generating Station (LGS),

Units 1 and 2, located in Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would grant (1)

an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Sections II.H.4, III.C.2, and

III.C.3, and (2) an amendment to change

the Technical Specifications (TS) for the

Limerick Generating Station (LGS),

Units 1 and 2, in conjunction with the

removal of the main steam isolation

valve (MSIV) leakage control system

(LCS) and the proposed use of an

alternate leakage pathway.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Sections

II.H.4 and III.C.2 require leak rate testing

of MSIVs at the calculated peak

containment pressure related to the

design basis accident, and Section

III.C.3 requires that the measured MSIV

leak rates be included in the combined

local leak rate test results. The proposed

deletion of the MSIV LCS and proposed

use of an alternate leakage pathway

affects the description of an existing

exemption (NUREG–0991, and its

Supplement 3), which allows the leak

rate testing of the MSIVs at a reduced

pressure and allows exclusion of the

measured MSIV leakage from the

combined local leak rate test results.

The proposed TS amendment would

permit an increase in the allowable

MSIV leakage rate from 11.5 standard

cubic feet per hour (scfh) to 100 scfh for

any one MSIV and a combined

maximum pathway leakage rate of 200

scfh for all four main steam lines, and

would delete TS requirements for the

currently installed MSIV LSC, because

the proposed system removal makes the

TS inapplicable.

The proposed action for the TS

amendments is in accordance with the

licensee’s application for amendment

dated January 14, 1994, as

supplemented by letters dated August 1,

October 25, December 13, and December

22, 1994; and the proposed action for

the exemption is in accordance with the

letter dated December 22, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed exemption is similar to

the current exemption from 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix J, Sections II.H.4 and

III.C.2. The exemption is needed since

the design of the MSIVs is such that

testing in the reverse direction tends to

unseat the value and would result in a

meaningless test. The total observed

MSIV leak rate resulting from a leakage

test where two MSIVs on one steam line

are tested utilizing a reduced pressure

(22 psig) will continue to be assigned to

the penetration. The proposed

exemption is also similar to the current

exemption from 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Section III.C.3. The licensee

proposes that the MSIV leakage rate will

continue to be accounted for separately

in the radiological site analysis in

accordance with the existing exemption.

However, the existing exemption from

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section

III.C.3 will not be applicable when the

MSIV LCS is replaced with an Alternate

Treatment Path (ATP) (main steam lines

and condenser).

The proposed action regarding the TS

amendment will reduce the need for

repairs of the MSIVs, resolve concerns

associated with the current LCS

performance capability at high MSIV

leakage rates, and provide an effective

method for dealing with a potential

MSIV leakage during a postulated lossof-coolant accident (LOCA). Many

boiling water reactors (BWRs) have

difficulty meeting their MSIV leakage

rate limits. Extensive repair, rework,

and retesting efforts have negative

effects on the outage costs and

schedules, as well as significant impact

on the licensee’s as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA) radiological

exposure programs. The alternatives

proposed by the licensee to deal with

MSIV leakage make use of components

(main steam lines and condenser) that

are expected to remain intact and

serviceable following a design basis

LOCA.

Enviroinmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed actions

related to the granting of an exemption