Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices 13475

in a three-part medical facility, the other

two parts of which are owned by

WANC, it would be very difficult to find

a buyer other than WANC willing to

offer a purchase price as favorable to the

Plan as that offered by WANC.

7. In summary, the applicant

represents that the proposed transaction

satisfies the criteria of section 408(a) of

the Act for the following reasons: (1)

The Plan will receive a cash purchase

price of no less than the Minimum

Purchase Price, subject to possible

upward adjustment pursuant to the

Reappraisals, which the Trustee has

determined to be no less than the fair

market value of the Property; (2) The

Plan will incur no costs or expenses

relating to the transaction; (3) The

Trustee has determined that retention of

the Property would not be in the best

interests of the Plan due to the necessity

of renovation expenses; and (4) The

Trustee has determined that the Plan is

unlikely to secure an unrelated buyer

willing to pay a purchase price for the

Property as favorable to the Plan as the

proposed purchase price under the

Agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald Willett of the Department,

telephone (202) 219–8881. (This is not

a toll-free number.)

General Information

The attention of interested persons is

directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the

subject of an exemption under section

408(a) of the Act and/or section

4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve

a fiduciary or other party in interest of

disqualified person from certain other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including any prohibited transaction

provisions to which the exemption does

not apply and the general fiduciary

responsibility provisions of section 404

of the Act, which among other things

require a fiduciary to discharge his

duties respecting the plan solely in the

interest of the participants and

beneficiaries of the plan and in a

prudent fashion in accordance with

section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does

it affect the requirement of section

401(a) of the Code that the plan must

operate for the exclusive benefit of the

employees of the employer maintaining

the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) Before an exemption may be

granted under section 408(a) of the Act

and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,

the Department must find that the

exemption is administratively feasible,

in the interests of the plan and of its

participants and beneficiaries and

protective of the rights of participants

and beneficiaries of the plan;

(3) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be supplemental to, and

not in derogation of, any other

provisions of the Act and/or the Code,

including statutory or administrative

exemptions and transitional rules.

Furthermore, the fact that a transaction

is subject to an administrative or

statutory exemption is not dispositive of

whether the transaction is in fact a

prohibited transaction; and

(4) The proposed exemptions, if

granted, will be subject to the express

condition that the material facts and

representations contained in each

application are true and complete, and

that each application accurately

describes all material terms of the

transaction which is the subject of the

exemption.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of

March, 1995.

Ivan Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations,

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–6118 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Meetings of Humanities Panel

AGENCY: National Endowment for the

Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), notice is

hereby given that the following

meetings of the Humanities Panel will

be held at the Old Post Office, 1100

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David C. Fisher, Advisory Committee

Management Officer, National

Endowment for the Humanities,

Washington, D.C. 20506; telephone

(202) 606–8322. Hearing-impaired

individuals are advised that information

on this matter may be obtained by

contacting the Endowment’s TDD

terminal on (202) 606–8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed meetings are for the purpose

of panel review, discussion, evaluation

and recommendation on applications

for financial assistance under the

National Foundation on the Arts the

Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,

including discussion of information

given in confidence to the agency by the

grant applicants. Because the proposed

meetings will consider information that

is likely to disclose: (1) Trade secrets

and commercial or financial information

obtained from a person and privileged

or confidential; or (2) information of a

personal nature the disclosure of which

would constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy, pursuant

to authority granted me by the

Chairman’s Delegation of Authority to

Close Advisory Committee meetings,

dated July 19, 1993, I have determined

that these meetings will be closed to the

public pursuant to subsections (c) (4)

and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United

States Code.

1. Date: April 3, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program:This meeting will review

Subventions Program applications in

Classics, the Renaissance and Early Modern

Studies, submitted to the Division of

Research Programs, for projects after

September 1, 1995.

2. Date: April 10, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review

Subventions Program applications in History

and American Studies, submitted to the

Division of Research Programs, for projects

beginning after September 1, 1995.

3. Date: April 12, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review

Subventions Program applications in

Literature and Cultural Studies, submitted to

the Division of Research Programs, for

projects beginning after September 1, 1995.

4. Date: April 17–18, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Room: 430.

Program: This meeting will review

applications submitted to Humanities

Projects in Libraries and Archives during the

March 10, 1995 deadline, submitted to

Division of Public Programs, for projects

beginning after June 1, 1995.

David C. Fisher,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–6144 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7536–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Call for Nominations for Nuclear Safety

Research Review Committee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Call for nominations.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is inviting

nominations of qualified candidates to

consider for appointment to its Nuclear

Safety Research Review Committee

(NSRRC). Nominations will be accepted

until April 20, 1995.
13476 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to: Ms.

Jude Himmelberg, Office of Personnel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. George Sege, Designated Federal

Officer for the NSRRC, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555; telephone: 301–415–6593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Committee advises the Director of the

NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research—and through him the

Commission—on the quality and

conduct or NRC research activities and

makes recommendations concerning the

overall management and direction of the

nuclear safety research program.

The 12-member Committee is

composed of senior experts in nuclear

engineering or science capable of

providing technical advice on the broad

range of topics that are the subject of

nuclear safety research for nuclear

power plants and other facilities.

Maintaining balance and diversity of

experience, knowledge, and judgment is

an important consideration in the

selection of members. Committee

members serve a two-year term and may

be reappointed for up to two additional

two-year terms.

Over the next two years, the

Committee will be examining such

issues as quality of nuclear safety

research relative to the needs of the user

of the research products, the long-range

direction of the nuclear safety research

programs, the peer review process of

research products and the capability of

individuals and facilities where nuclear

safety research is conducted.

In order to maintain a good balance of

capabilities on the Committee,

candidates should have expertise in

nuclear engineering and nuclear safety,

with emphasis on demonstrated

capabilities in the area of thermalhydraulic performance of nuclear power

reactor systems.

Selection for membership will be

based on demonstrated capability and

professional accomplishment in the

indicated area of specialization, in the

conduct or management of scientific or

engineering research and in applying

research to nuclear safety issues.

Nominations for membership must

include a re ́sume ́ describing the

educational and professional

qualifications of the nominee and the

nominee’s current address and daytime

telephone number. Nominees must be

U.S. citizens and be able to devote about

80 hours per year to Committee

business.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–6060 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–423]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.;

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

No. 3, Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

49, issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Millstone Nuclear Power Station,

Unit No. 3, located in New London

County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would relax the

setpoint tolerance for the pressurizer

safety valves and the main steam safety

valves from ±1% to ±3%.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated August 4, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

setpoint tolerance to assure both

pressurizer safety valves and main

steam safety valves remain within

technical specification tolerances and

reduce the potential for filing

unnecessary Licensee Event Reports.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the relaxation of the

setpoint tolerance for the pressurizer

safety valves and the main steam safety

valves from ±1% to ±3% is acceptable.

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 proposed

action does involve features located

entirely within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not

affect nonradiological plant effluents

and has 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 is no measurable environmental

impact associated with 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

Statement for the Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Unit No. 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the staff consulted with the Connecticut

State official 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 the licensee’s letter

dated August 4, 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

Learning Resource Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, Thames

Valley Campus, 574 New London

Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip F. McKee,

Director, Project Directorate I–4, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6063 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M