Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices 12253

2The statutory requirement of declaring DART

controversies 30 days after the close of the claims

filing period is obviously a problem that will be

faced annually by the Copyright Office. To correct

for the inequities that this requirement poses, the

Office will be seeking legislative amendment of 17

U.S.C. 1007(b) in the 104th Congress by changing

the phrase ‘‘Within 30 days after the period

established for the filing of claims * * *’’ to ‘‘After

the period established for the filing of claims

* * *’’

in controversy are to be authorized for

distribution within 30 days of the

finding that they were not in

controversy—that is, no later than April

29. Prior to the passage of the Copyright

Royalty Tribunal Reform Act, the

Tribunal was given one year to resolve

any controversies in royalty distribution

after their declaration. As a result of this

one year period, the Tribunal had a

greater amount of time to address

controversies and address issues such as

discovery and collection and

presentation of evidence, and this time

period was reflected in the construction

and operation of the Tribunal’s

procedural and administrative rules.

However, with the passage of the CRT

Reform Act, the time period for

resolving controversies has been cut in

half. This time reduction, along with the

novel demands and requirements of the

CARPs, has required the Copyright

Office to adopt completely new rules

and procedures for distribution of

royalties and has, consequently, made

the meeting of certain statutory

deadlines exceedingly difficult.

Nowhere is this more evident than the

March 30 deadline for declaring DART

distribution controversies.

The Administrative Conference of the

United States has considered the issue

of how agencies should respond to

circumstances that affect their ability to

adhere to schedule, and has issued a

series of recommendations concerning

statutory time limits. 43 FR 27509 (June

26, 1978), 1 CFR 305.78–3. The

Administrative Conference said:

[I]t should be recognized that special

circumstances, such as a sudden substantial

increase in caseload, or complexity of the

issues raised in a particular proceeding, or

the presence of compelling public interest

considerations, may justify an agency’s

failure to act within a predetermined time.

An agency’s departure from the legislative

timetable should be explained in current

status reports to affected persons or in a

report to Congress.

Id. at para. 4.

The Copyright Office has already

faced the difficulties of meeting the

March 30 deadline for declaring DART

controversies and initiating arbitration.

The Office postponed the deadline for

the 1992 and 1993 DART royalties, prior

to the consolidation of these royalties

with the 1994 royalties, because it was

soon after the passage of the CRT

Reform Act and we had not yet

implemented procedural rules for the

CARPs. See 59 FR 9773. Although we

have now adopted final procedural

rules, 59 FR 63025, good cause

nonetheless remains for postponing the

statutory deadline of March 30, 1995,

for declaring controversies and

initiating arbitration for the 1992–94

DART proceeding.

An important facet of the new CARP

procedural rules adopted by the Office

are regulations creating a 45-day

precontroversy discovery period, prior

to initiating arbitration, in which

claimants are directed to exchange their

direct cases, make discovery requests,

file their objections regarding selection

of the arbitrators, and otherwise engage

in precontroversy motions practice. 37

CFR 251.45. Adoption of a

precontroversy discovery period was

strongly urged by all of the

commentators to the Office’s rulemaking

proceeding, see 59 FR 63030, and was

endorsed by Representative William

Hughes, Chairman of the House

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property

and Judicial Administration of the

House Committee on the Judiciary, in

his statement accompanying the House

version of the Copyright Royalty

Tribunal Reform Act. See 139 Cong.

Rec. H10973 (daily ed. Nov. 22,

1993)(‘‘In order to reduce the amount of

actual litigation time, and thereby

reduce expenses, I encourage the

Librarian to promulgate regulations

permitting exchange of information

before the tolling of the 180-day

decision period, and, to the extent

practicable, generally to permit

precontroversy discovery.’’).

There can be no meaningful

precontroversy discovery period under

the current requirement of beginning

DART arbitration within 30 days of

filing the claims. The 45-day

precontroversy discovery period

prescribed in § 251.45(a) could not take

place prior to March 30, since it would

overlap the period for filing claims.

Shortening the period to 30 days

beginning the first day after the filing of

claims would reduce the benefits of

precontroversy discovery enjoyed by

claimants in other proceedings and

deny DART claimants a period in which

to negotiate settlements. Exchange of

direct cases on the first day after the

close of the filing period for claims is

also impossible since the Office will not

have had sufficient time to prepare the

claimant service list, and it is highly

unlikely that most claimants will be

prepared to exchange their direct cases

immediately after the filing period.

There is, therefore, justifiable cause for

postponing the March 30, 1995, date for

determining controversies for the 1992–

94 DART funds to permit proper and

efficient operation of the Office’s

procedural rules.2

In order to assure that there is not a

lengthy delay in distribution of 1992–94

DART royalties, the Office will publish

the precontroversy discovery schedule

in the Federal Register shortly after

receipt of the comments on the

existence of controversies. In addition to

the prehearing schedule, the Office will

also announce the date on which

controversies will be declared, if any,

and arbitration will commence.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

Approved:

James H. Billington,

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 95–5329 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc.; 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 Nos. NPF–

2 and NPF–8 issued to Southern

Nuclear Operating Company (the

licensee) for operation of the Joseph M.

Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

located in Houston County, Alabama.

The proposed amendment would

allow modifications to relocate the

lower level steam generator water level

taps to be made during the upcoming

refueling outages for both units. These

modifications affect the Technical

Specifications associated with the

reactor trip system and the engineered

safety feature actuation system

setpoints.

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.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the
12254 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices

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

50.9(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. The proposed changes to the steam

generator low-low water level reactor trip

and ESF actuation setpoint and to the steam

generator high-high water level turbine trip

and feedwater isolation setpoint do not

significantly increase the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated in the FSAR. Several analyses

previously performed in the FSAR required

re-analysis. All acceptance criteria for the reanalyzed accidents continue to be met.

Therefore, there is no increase in the

consequences of any previously evaluated

accident. The change to the steam generator

low-low water level setpoint affords

additional margin to spurious trips. No

fission product barriers are affected. The

relocation of the steam generator lower level

tap does not result in increased failure

probability of the SG level tap, sensing line,

or instrument. Therefore, the proposed

changes to the Technical Specifications do

not significantly increase the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated in the FSAR.

2. The proposed changes to the Technical

Specifications do not create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident than any

accident already evaluated in the FSAR. No

new limiting single failures or accident

scenarios have been created or identified due

to the proposed changes. All safety-related

systems will continue to perform as

designed. No new challenges to any installed

safety systems have been created by the

proposed setpoint modifications. Therefore,

the possibility of a new or different accident

is not created.

3. The proposed steam generator water

level setpoint changes do not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Some re-analysis was necessary because of

the proposed setpoint changes; however, all

margin associated with the current

acceptance criteria continues to be

unaffected. The proposed design and

installation of the new level taps using the

criteria of the ASME Code with inherent

safety factors assure that the margin of safety

in the structural integrity of the steam

generator shell is not reduced. Setpoint

uncertainty calculations have confirmed

adequate margin exists between the assumed

analysis setpoints and the revised setpoints.

Therefore, there is no significant reduction in

the margin of safety due to the setpoint

changes or the physical modification.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written

comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

Federal workdays. Copies of written

comments received may be examined at

the NRC Public Document Room, the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By April 5, 1995, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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 HoustonLove Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdenshaw Street, Post Office Box

1369, Dothan, Alabama 36302. If a

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices 12255

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide reference to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceedings, subject to

any limitations in the order granting

leave to intervene, and have the

opportunity to participate fully in the

conduct of the hearing, including the

opportunity to present evidence and

cross-examine witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

H. Bateman: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to M. Stanford Blanton,

Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office

Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North,

Birmingham, Alabama 35201, attorney

for the license.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 10, 1994, 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

Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369,

Dothan, Alabama 36302.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Byron L. Siegel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5364 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446]

Texas Utilities Electric Co.; 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 Nos. NPF–

87 and NPF–89 issued to Texas Utilities

Electric Company (TU Electric, the

licensee) for operation of the Comanche

Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and

2 located in Somervell County, Texas.

The proposed amendment would

modify the Comanche Peak Steam

Electric Station (CPSES) Technical

Specification (TS) 3/4.6.2,

‘‘Depressurization and Cooling

Systems—Containment Spray System’’

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.2.1b,

is replaced with NUREG–1431 SR

3.6.6A.4. This change replaces the

specific pump flow and head values

now contained in the SR with the

general requirement that the pump

develop the required head at the flow

test point. Also Bases 3/4.6.2.1

‘‘Containment Spray System’’ will be

revised to expand the detail consistent

with the NUREG–1431 Bases SR

3.6.6A.4. The Bases from NUREG–1431

has minor modifications to reflect (1)

that the CPSES containment spray

pumps are tested via a special test line

which allows testing at flows higher

than that allowed by the miniflow

recirculation line; (2) the ‘‘pump design

curve’’ is termed the ‘‘analytical pump

curve’’; and (3) the reference to the

technical requirements manual where

the pump head requirements are

defined is provided for the user’s

information.

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.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination 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. Do the proposed changes involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

The relocation of the specific values for

flow and developed head at the flow test

point to the Technical Requirements Manual

(TRM) is essentially an administrative

change. The change does not change the

plant hardware or operating procedures. As

such, the change has no impact on the

probability of an accident.

The consequences of an accident

previously evaluated, as it relates to the

performance characteristics of the

containment spray pumps, depends on the

pumps meeting the performance

characteristics in the analytical pump curve

used by the containment analyses. Since the

limitations established in the TRM will

continue to ensure that this analytical pump

curve is met, there is no impact on the