35968 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

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

amendments dated May 19, 2000, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and accessible

electronically through the ADAMS

Public Electronic Reading Room link at

the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Beth A. Wetzel,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

III–1, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–14189 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Public Meeting on 10 CFR Part 70,

Integrated Safety Analysis Guidance

Document, Standard Review Plan

Chapter 11 and Streamlining Licensing

Reviews

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: NRC will host a public

meeting in Rockville, Maryland. The

meeting will provide an opportunity for

discussion of: (1) The Draft Integrated

Safety Analysis guidance document

prepared by the industry; and (2)

Chapter 11, Management Measures, in

the Standard Review Plan (SRP) for fuel

cycle facilities (NUREG–1520) that was

made available during April 2000.

The revised SRP can be reviewed on

the internet at the following website:

http://techconf.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/

downloader/Partl70llib/073–

0098.htm. At the end of the SRP

discussion, a program developed by the

Fuel Cycle staff to streamline licensing

reviews and actions will be discussed.

Purpose

This meeting will provide an

opportunity to discuss: (1) The Draft

Integrated Safety Analysis guidance

document prepared by the industry; and

(2) Chapter 11, Management Measures,

in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) for

fuel cycle facilities (NUREG–1520) that

was made available during April 2000.

At the end of the SRP discussion, a

program developed by the Fuel Cycle

staff to streamline licensing reviews and

actions will be presented.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for

Thursday, June 8, 2000, from 9:30–4 and

Friday, June 9, 2000, from 9–4. The

discussion of the Draft Integrated Safety

Analysis guidance document is

scheduled for June 8 from 9:30–11:30

followed by the SRP Chapter 11

discussion from 1–4, and continuing on

the morning of June 9, 2000, if needed.

This meeting is open to the public.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in

the Atomic Safety Licensing Board

Hearing Room at Two White Flint

North, Room T–3–B–45, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

Visitor parking around the NRC

building is limited; however, the

meeting site is located adjacent to the

White Flint Station on the Metro Red

line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Persinko, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301)

415–7190, e-mail axp1@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Theodore S. Sherr,

Chief, Licensing and International Safeguards

Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and

Safeguards, NMSS.

[FR Doc. 00–14190 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL

REVIEW BOARD

Panel Meeting: July 10, 2000—Idaho

Falls, Idaho: Discussions of Technical

Issues Related to Managing and

Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel and

High-Level Radioactive Waste;

Presentations on Human Factors

Involved in Transporting the Waste

and Manufacturing Waste Casks;

Update on Transportation Modal Study

Pursuant to its authority under

section 5051 of Public Law 100–203,

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987, on Monday, July 10, 2000, the

Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board’s (Board) Panel on the Waste

Management System will meet in Idaho

Falls, Idaho, to discuss technical issues

related to managing spent nuclear fuel

and high-level radioactive waste,

including human factors involved in

transporting such waste. The Board is

charged by Congress with reviewing the

technical and scientific aspects of the

Department of Energy’s (DOE) civilian

radioactive waste management program,

including disposing of, packaging, and

transporting the waste.

The panel meeting will be held at the

Shilo Inn, 780 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho

Falls, Idaho 83402–1822. The telephone

number is (208) 523–0088; the fax

number is (208) 522–7420. The meeting

will start at 8 a.m. and will be open to

the public.

An overview on transportation

protocols by the DOE’s Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management will

begin the meeting. This discussion will

be followed by updates on a

transportation modal study by a

representative of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and on naval spent fuel

disposal and transportation by a

representative of the Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program. A representative of

the Association of American Railroads

(AAR) and a manufacturer of nuclear

waste casks will then discuss human

factors related to railroad operations and

cask manufacturing. Next will be a

presentation on performance

specifications for transportation of spent

fuel by another representative of the

AAR. In midafternoon, the Panel will

hear from state, local, and Tribal

representatives on their views of

technical issues related to transporting

and managing spent nuclear fuel and

high-level radioactive waste.

Time will be set aside at the end of

the day for public comments. Those

wanting to speak are encouraged to sign

the ‘‘Public Comment Register’’ at the

check-in table. A time limit may have to

be set on individual remarks, but

written comments of any length may be

submitted for the record. Interested

parties also will have the opportunity to

submit questions in writing to the

Board. As time permits, the questions

will be answered by one or more Board

members during the meeting.

A detailed agenda will be available

approximately one week before the

meeting. Copies of the agenda can be

requested by telephone or obtained from

the Board’s Web site at www.nwtrb.gov.

Transcripts of the meeting will be

available on the Board’s Web site, via email, on computer disk, and on a

library-loan basis in paper format from

Davonya Barnes of the Board staff,

beginning on August 7, 2000.

A block of rooms has been reserved at

the Shilo Inn. When making a

reservation, please state that you are

attending the Nuclear Waste Technical

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35969

Review Board meeting. For more

information, contact the NWTRB, Karyn

Severson, External Affairs, 2300

Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300,

Arlington, Virginia 22201–3367; (tel)

703–235–4473, (fax) 703–235–4495; (email) info@nwtrb.gov.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board was created by Congress in the

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act

of 1987. The Board’s purpose is to

evaluate the technical and scientific

validity of activities undertaken by the

Secretary of Energy related to managing

the disposal of the nation’s spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

waste. In the same legislation, Congress

directed the DOE to characterize a site

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to

determine its suitability as the location

of a potential repository for the

permanent disposal of spent nuclear

fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Dated: May 31, 2000.

William D. Barnard,

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Technical

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 00–14103 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–AM–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–194]

WTO Consultations Regarding

Measures Treating Export Restraints

as Subsidies

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the United

States Trade Representative (USTR) is

providing notice that on May 19, 2000,

Canada requested consultations with the

United States under the Marrakesh

Agreement Establishing the World

Trade Organization (WTO Agreement),

regarding U.S. measures that treat a

restraint on exports of a product as a

subsidy to other products made using or

incorporating the restricted product if

the domestic price of the restricted

product is affected by the restraint. The

measures identified by Canada in its

consultation request are those

provisions of the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110,

H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. I, 103d Cong., 2d

Sess., 656, in particular at 925–926

(1994)) and the Explanation of the Final

Rules (the Explanation), U.S.

Department of Commerce,

Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63

Federal Register 65,348, 65,349–51

(November 25, 1998)) interpreting

section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1677(5)), as amended by the

URAA. Canada alleges that the SAA and

the Explanation are inconsistent with

Article 1.1, 10 (as well as Articles 11, 17

and 19, as they relate to the

requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of

the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures (SCM

Agreement). Canada also alleges that by

maintaining these measures, the United

States violates Article 32.5 of the SCM

Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the

WTO Agreement. Pursuant to Article 4.3

of the WTO Dispute Settlement

Understanding (‘‘DSU’’), consultations

are to take place within a period of 30

days from the date of receipt of the

request, or within a period otherwise

mutually agreed between the United

States and Canada. USTR invites written

comments from the public concerning

the issues raised in this dispute.

DATES: Although the USTR will accept

any comments received during the

course of the dispute settlement

proceedings, comments should be

submitted on or before June 12 to be

assured of timely consideration by

USTR.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Sandy McKinzy, Litigation

Assistant, the Monitoring and

Enforcement Unit, Office of the General

Counsel, Room 122, Attn: Export

Restraint Dispute, Office of the United

States Trade Representative, 600 17th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508,

(202) 395–3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Hunter, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., (202) 395–

3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

127(b) of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C.

3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and

opportunity for comment be provided

after the United States receives a request

for the establishment of a WTO dispute

settlement panel. Consistent with this

obligation, but in an effort to provide

additional opportunity for comment,

USTR is providing notice that

consultations have been requested

pursuant to the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding . If such

consultations should fail to resolve the

matter and a dispute settlement panel is

established pursuant to the DSU, such

panel, which would hold its meetings in

Geneva, Switzerland, would be

expected to issue a report on its findings

and recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by Canada

In its consultation request, Canada

alleges that the SAA and the

Explanation are measures that treat an

export restraint as a subsidy. Because

Canada appears to allege that an export

restraint cannot be considered to be a

subsidy within the meaning of Article

1.1 of the SCM Agreement, Canada

claims that the SAA and the

Explanation are inconsistent with

Articles 1.1, 10, 11, 17, 19 and 32.1 of

the SCM Agreement. Canada also

appears to allege that due to the

existence of the SAA and the

Explanation, the United States has

failed to ensure that its laws, regulations

and administrative procedures are in

conformity with its WTO obligations as

required by Article 32.5 of the SCM

Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the

WTO Agreement.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies. A person

requesting that information contained in

a comment submitted by that person be

treated as confidential business

information must certify that such

information is business confidential and

would not customarily be released to

the public by the commenter.

Confidential business information must

be clearly marked ‘‘BUSINESS

CONFIDENTIAL’’ in a contrasting color

ink at the top of each page of each copy.

Information or advice contained in a

comment submitted, other than business

confidential information, may be

determined by USTR to be confidential

in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that

information or advice may qualify as

such, the submitter—

(1) Must so designate the information

or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as

‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ in a

contrasting color ink at the top of each

page of each copy; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a nonconfidential summary of the

information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the

URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will

maintain a file on this dispute

settlement proceeding, accessible to the

public, in the USTR Reading Room:

Room 101, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,