Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices 8097

for collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission, new, revision

or extension: Revision.

2. The title of the information

collection: ‘‘License Event Report.’’

3. The form number if applicable:

NRC Forms: 366, 366A, and 366B.

4. How often the collection is

required: On occasion.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: Holders of Operating Licenses

for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses: 1,500 per year.

7. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed annually to complete the

requirement or request: Approximately

50 hours per response. The total

industry burden is 75,000 hours.

8. An indication of whether Section

3504(h), Pub. L. 96–511 applies: Not

Applicable.

9. Abstract: NRC collects reports of

operational events at commercial

nuclear power plants in order to

incorporate lessons of that experience in

the licensing process and to feed back

the lessons of that experience to the

nuclear industry.

Copies of the submittal may be

inspected or obtained for a fee from the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington,

DC 20037. Comments and questions can

be directed by mail to the OMB

reviewer:

Troy Hillier, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (3150–0104),

NEOB–10202, Office of Management

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo Shelton, (301) 415–7230.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 95–3373 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–313/368, 72–1007]

In the Matter of Entergy Operations,

Inc. (Arkansas Nuclear One); Sierra

Nuclear Corporation; Director’s

Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

(DD–95–03)

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, has taken action

with regard to the Petition of July 5,

1994, by Dennis Dums, on behalf of the

Wisconsin Citizen’s Utility Board,

requesting that the Chairman exercise

his authority to: (1) Determine the

applicability of 10 C.F.R. 72.48 to 10

C.F.R. part 72 subparts K and L; (2)

determine whether Entergy Operations,

Inc. (Entergy) is in violation of any U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

regulations regarding use of 10 C.F.R.

72.48 to make modifications to the

VSC–24 cask for use at Arkansas

Nuclear One (ANO); (3) order ANO to

cease using 10 C.F.R. 72.48 until NRC

determines whether or not it is

applicable; (4) order Sierra Nuclear

Corporation to cease construction of

VSC–24 casks for use at ANO that are

being constructed based on ANO’s 10

C.F.R. 72.48 evaluation. Notice of

Receipt of Petition for Director’s

Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206, dated

August 16, 1994, was published in the

Federal Register on August 24, 1994 (59

FR 43594).

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards has

determined to grant in part and deny in

part the actions requested by the

Petition. The reasons for this decision

are explained in the ‘‘Director’s

Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206’’ (DD–

95–03), which is published below.

A copy of the decision will be filed

with the Office of the Secretary for the

Commission in accordance with 10

C.F.R. 2.206(c) of the Commission’s

regulations. As provided by this

regulation, the decision will constitute

the final action of the Commission 25

days after the date of issuance of the

decision unless the Commission on its

own motion institutes a review of the

decision within that time.

Copies of the Petition, dated July 5,

1994, and the Notice of Receipt of

Petition for Director’s Decision under 10

C.F.R. 2.206 that was published in the

Federal Register on August 24, 1994 (59

FR 43594), and other documents related

to this Petition are available in the NRC

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC 20555 and Local

Public Document Room at the

Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech

University, Russellville, Arkansas

72801.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of January 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert M. Bernero,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

Introduction

By Petition dated July 5, 1994

(Petition), Dennis Dums, on behalf of

the Wisconsin Citizen’s Utility Board

(Petitioner), filed a request pursuant to

10 C.F.R. 2.206 that the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC): (1)

Determine the applicability of 10 C.F.R.

72.48 to 10 C.F.R. Part 72 Subparts K

and L; (2) determine whether Entergy

Operations, Inc. (Entergy) is in violation

of any NRC regulations regarding use of

10 C.F.R. 72.48 to make modifications to

the VSC–24 cask for use at Arkansas

Nuclear One (ANO); (3) order ANO to

cease using 10 C.F.R. 72.48 until NRC

determines whether or not it is

applicable; (4) order Sierra Nuclear

Corporation (SNC) to cease construction

of VSC–24 casks for use at ANO that are

being constructed based on ANO’s 10

C.F.R. 72.48 evaluation.

By letter to Mr. Dennis Dums, dated

August 16, 1994, I acknowledged receipt

of the Petition. Notice of receipt was

published in the Federal Register on

August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43594). For the

reasons given below, I have now

concluded that the Petitioner’s request

should be granted in part and denied in

part.

Background

The Petitioner submitted its July 5,

1994, request to NRC in connection with

an earlier letter to NRC dated June 2,

1994, from Entergy, an NRC licensee

under 10 CFR part 50, which operates

ANO Units 1 and 2 near Russellville,

Arkansas. In its June 2 letter, Entergy

had briefly described its plans for spent

nuclear fuel storage at ANO, involving

use of the VSC–24 dry cask, in

accordance with the general license of

10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K. Entergy had

also stated in the June 2 letter that its

use of the VSC–24 would involve minor

changes to the cask design. According to

Entergy’s July 2 letter, the specific

changes involved lengthening the

approximately eighteen foot VSC–24 by

about 11 inches in order to

accommodate the slightly longer ANO

Unit 2 fuel.

The June 2 letter went on to advise

NRC of Entergy’s conclusions that

section 72.48 of the Commission’s

regulations applied to the changes

Entergy proposed to make to the cask for

use at ANO. It was this statement by

Entergy regarding the applicability of

72.48 that apparently prompted the

Petition that is the subject of this

decision.

Section 72.48 of the Commission’s

regulations covers ‘‘Changes, tests, and

experiments’’ that may be made by the

‘‘holder of a license issued under this

part’’ without prior Commission
8098 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices

1 In particular, section 72.48(a)(1) provides in

pertinent part as follows:

The holder of a license issued under this part

may:

(i) Make changes in the ISFSI [i.e., independent

spent fuel storage installation] * * * described in

the Safety Analysis Report * * *

* * * without prior Commission approval,

unless the proposed change * * * involves a

change in the license conditions incorporated in the

license, an unreviewed safety question, a significant

increase in occupational exposure or a significant

unreviewed environmental impact.

2See 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) (‘‘This general license

is limited to storage of spent fuel in casks approved

under the provisions of this part.’’)

3See 10 CFR 72.230(a)(‘‘A safety analysis report

describing the proposed cask design and how the

cask should be used to store spent fuel safely must

be included with the application.’’)

approval.1 Specifically with regard to its

determination to use section 72.48,

Entergy’s June 2 letter contended that

the minor changes proposed for the

VSC–24 cask were covered by a ‘‘plain

reading’’ of the regulations. It argued the

general license issued under 10 CFR

part 72 was a license ‘‘issued under this

part,’’ and that the minor changes to the

VSC–24 by Entergy, as the license

‘‘holder,’’ could therefore be made to

address site-specific considerations ‘‘as

determined necessary’’ by Entergy. It

also contended its approach was

consistent with the regulatory

background of the general license,

particularly the Commission’s objective

to provide for ‘‘a regulatory framework

allowing on-site spent fuel storage

‘without, to the maximum extent

practicable, the need for additional sitespecific approvals by the Commission.’

(55 FR 29181).’’ Entergy Letter at 2.

It is the foregoing determination by

Entergy with which the Petition takes

issue.

The Petition asserts as bases for its

requests that: Entergy is currently

pursuing spent fuel storage at ANO

through use of 10 CFR Subparts K and

L; ANO currently intends to utilize the

VSC–24 constructed by vendor SNC

under an SAR submitted in October

1991, and safety evaluation report

(SER), issued by the NRC in April 1993;

and NRC response, dated January 31,

1994, to an October 13, 1993, public

request for information, stated that

Subparts K and L of 10 CFR Part 72 are

silent on cask SAR and certificate

changes after the final rule; an ANO

request for a rule exemption to 10 CFR

72.234(c) was granted by the NRC to

allow for the fabrication of four VSC–24

casks to the longer length prior to NRC

approval of SNC’s June 14, 1993,

submittal of Revision 1 to the 1991

VSC–24 Cask SAR; a February 14, 1994,

memorandum to NRC Assistant General

Counsel Treby requested a legal

interpretation of the applicability of 10

CFR 72.48 to general licenses issued

under 10 CFR 72.210; a May 19, 1994,

meeting was held regarding SNC’s

revisions to the VSC–24 SAR and the

applicability of 10 CFR 72.48 to general

license users, as well as a June 3, 1994,

memorandum regarding this meeting

which stated that ‘‘the licensee can

make its own interpretation of the

regulations;’’ and a letter dated June 2,

1994, from Entergy to the NRC which

stated that Entergy has directed SNC to

fabricate all fourteen planned casks with

the increased length and that Entergy

plans to continue to conduct

evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR

72.48.

Entergy has not filed any comments

with the NRC following publication of

the Petition.

Discussion

As the discussion that follows will set

forth in detail, we have determined that

ANO, as a general licensee under 10

C.F.R. 72.210, can make use of 10 CFR

72.48. This determination is based first

on the words of 10 C.F.R. 72.48 itself

which are fully consistent with use of

the authority in that section by a general

licensee. Second, the determination is

based on regulatory policy

considerations. These include the

extensive NRC safety review at the time

of cask approval, the limited nature of

the subsequent changes permitted under

10 C.F.R. 72.48, and the fact that NRC

regulations in other contexts and over

many years have permitted utilities

such as ANO to make similar types of

changes to nuclear facilities that involve

safety issues previously reviewed by

NRC.

This approach is well suited to the 10

C.F.R. Part 72 general license

framework, especially given the

Congressional purpose underlying the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that

directed the NRC to establish a licensing

framework for spent fuel storage

technologies that can be approved by

the Commission for use at reactor sites

‘‘without, to the maximum extent

practicable, the need for additional sitespecific approvals by the Commission’’

(55 FR 29181). Because 10 C.F.R. 72.48

permits certain changes by a licensee

without Commission approval, making

it available to general licensee’s will

further this Congressional purpose.

A. The Language of Section 72.48.

An analysis of the pertinent NRC

regulations regarding use of 10 C.F.R.

72.48 by a general licensee shows that

ANO’s use of that authority is covered

by the regulations. The relevant

regulations and our analysis of them are

given below.

10 CFR 72.48(a)(1) provides as

follows:

The holder of a license issued under

this part may: (i) Make changes in the

ISFSI * * * described in the Safety

Analysis Report, * * * (iii) * * *

without prior Commission approval,

unless the proposed change, test or

experiment involves a change in the

license conditions incorporated in the

license, an unreviewed safety question,

a significant increase in occupational

exposure or a significant unreviewed

environmental impact. (Emphasis

added.)

Further 10 CFR 72.210 provides as

follows:

A general license is hereby issued for

the storage of spent fuel in an

independent spent fuel storage

installation at power reactor sites to

persons authorized to possess or operate

nuclear power reactors under Part 50 of

this chapter. (Emphasis added.)

In order to determine whether 10

C.F.R. 72.48 can be interpreted to cover

the general license in section 72.210, the

first question is whether the general

licensee is ‘‘the holder of a license

issued under this part,’’ as required for

the application of 10 CFR 72.48. We

think the language of § 72.210 answers

this question. The phrase ‘‘[a] general

license is hereby issued,’’ leaves no

doubt the general license is ‘‘a license

issued under this part.’’ Because a

general licensee is ‘‘the holder of a

license issued under this part,’’

§ 72.48(a)(1) therefore applies.

The second question, in order to

determine if 10 CFR 72.48 can be

interpreted to apply to a general license,

is whether changes to a certified cask by

a general licensee can appropriately be

termed ‘‘changes in the ISFSI * * *

described in the Safety Analysis

Report,’’ as required for the application

of 10 CFR 72.48. We think the language

of § 72.210 also resolves this issue.

Specifically, the regulatory language of

the general license authorizes ‘‘storage

* * * in an independent spent fuel

storage installation * * * in casks

approved under the provisions of this

part.’’ 2 (Emphasis added.) The ISFSI

under the general license incorporates

the NRC approved casks. Further the

NRC’s approved casks under the general

license are ISFSI components described

in a safety analysis report and,

specifically, in the cask vendor safety

analysis report (SAR).3 Therefore,

changes to an NRC-approved cask, used

in an ISFSI, by the general licensee

literally are ‘‘changes in the ISFSI * * *

described in the Safety Analysis

Report,’’ and therefore are reasonably
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices 8099

4Commission policy already permits changes to

a cask design approved by NRC in a site-specific

licensing proceeding; this determination results in

similar treatment for designs approved in

rulemaking.

5Under 10 CFR 72.48, a proposed change

involves an unreviewed safety question if:

(i) the probability of occurrence or the

consequences of an accident or malfunction of

equipment important to safety previously evaluated

in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) may be

increased;

(ii) the possibility for an accident or malfunction

of a different type than any evaluated previously in

the SAR may be created; or

(iii) the margin of safety as defined in the basis

for any technical specification is reduced.

covered by the words of section

72.48(a)(1).4

B. Regulatory Policy Considerations

The foregoing analysis of the

applicable regulations is fully supported

by the policy underlying NRC’s program

for generic cask approvals. In particular,

NRC generic approval of a cask certifies

the cask for use under a range of

environmental conditions sufficiently

broad to encompass most sites within

the United States, by using conservative

requirements that make safety of an

approved cask independent of the

effects of site-specific phenomena.

During the review of the SAR, NRC

considers all credible accidents that

could harm the cask. We analyze: drops,

tipovers, lighting, floods, high and low

temperatures, tornadoes, explosions,

and other conditions. Using the safety

analyses relied on by the NRC for the

generic approval, a general licensee

must thereafter establish that the cask is

suitable for the environmental

conditions of the licensee’s site.

However, use of the generically

approved cask does not require

additional NRC site-specific approvals,

provided the conditions in the general

license and the cask certificate are met.

The NRC’s generic approval of a dry

cask, without any site-specific approval,

fulfills the express intent of the

Congress. In the Nuclear Waste Policy

Act of 1982, Congress directed the

government (NRC and the Department

of Energy) to establish a program

allowing the NRC to approve spent fuel

storage technologies ‘‘by rule * * *

without, to the maximum extent

practicable, the need for additional sitespecific approvals by the Commission.’’

42 U.S.C. 10198(a). If NRC were to

require site-specific Commission

approval of every change to an approved

cask by a general licensee—even

changes that did not involve any sitespecific unreviewed environmental

condition or safety issue—then its

action could be viewed as seriously

undermining the statutory policy

supporting general cask approvals

without, to the maximum extent

practicable, requiring additional NRC

site-specific approvals.

10 CFR 72.48 is limited to changes

that do not involve ‘‘a change in the

license conditions incorporated in the

license, an unreviewed safety question,5

a significant increase in occupational

exposure or a significant unreviewed

environmental impact.’’ If the proposed

change involves a generic change to the

certificate of compliance or any of the

certificate’s conditions then an

application must be filed with the

Commission for approval for this

generic change.

The general licensee must also satisfy

other requirements under section 72.48.

For example, 10 CFR 72.48 requires that

a licensee must permanently ‘‘maintain

records of changes in the ISFSI’’ which

‘‘include a written safety evaluation that

provides the bases for the determination

that the change * * * does not involve

an unreviewed safety question.’’ The

NRC may examine these records during

an inspection and take appropriate

action if the changes made by the

licensee do not comply with the

regulations. Additionally, 10 CFR 72.48

requires that the licensee must annually

furnish the NRC a report containing a

brief description of the changes.

The decision whether a proposed

change involves an unreviewed safety

question is made initially by the

licensee but can be reviewed by the

NRC. If the NRC disagrees with the

licensee’s decision, the agency may,

upon review, take appropriate

enforcement action. To facilitate review

of a licensee’s decision during

subsequent inspections, the NRC

promulgated the record keeping and

reporting requirements described above,

thus requiring the licensee to maintain

records related to the licensee’s decision

under 10 CFR 72.48.

There is a similar rule under 10 CFR

Part 50 for production and utilization

facilities. 10 CFR 50.59 allows utilities

to make changes to their power plants

under circumstances comparable to

those circumstances covered by 72.48.

In particular, 10 CFR 50.59 specifically

allows a reactor licensee to modify its

facility without prior NRC approval

unless the modification involves a

change in the technical specifications

incorporated in the facility license or

involves an unreviewed safety question.

The definition and criteria in 10 CFR

50.59 for identifying whether a

proposed change involves an

unreviewed safety question are identical

to those in 10 CFR 72.48. If the

proposed change does involve either an

unreviewed safety question or a change

in the technical specifications, then the

licensee must apply for an amendment

to its license. For decades the NRC has

allowed its licensees in the first instance

to review proposed changes in their

facilities to determine whether changes

in technical specifications are involved

or unreviewed safety questions are

presented. The NRC would not be

sensibly allocating its limited resources

if the agency itself were to expressly

review and approve every single facility

change, whether or not it raises an

unreviewed safety question. Rather,

NRC retains an oversight function for

enforcement purposes, supported by

requirements for licensees to retain and

preserve all records of 50.59 changes,

just as they must retain all records of

72.48 changes. See Kelley v. Selin, No.

93–3613, Slip opinion at 11 (6th Cir.,

Jan. 11, 1995) (‘‘* * * NRC’s historical

method of regulation * * * has long

allowed licensees to make initial

determinations about changes to their

facilities and has enabled the agency to

retain its enforcement power. 10 CFR

50.59.’’)

Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons,

we have determined that ANO, and any

other general licensee under Subpart K,

can make use of the authority in 10 CFR

72.48 to make changes that comply with

the requirements of that section. We

accordingly have no basis and therefore

are declining to take enforcement action

against ANO at this time. However, in

our continuing regulatory oversight of

ANO and other general licensees, we

reserve the right to review any change

made under 10 CFR 72.48 and take

appropriate followup action.

Conclusion

Based on a review of the regulations

and taking into account the relevant

policy considerations, NRC staff has

determined that 10 CFR 72.48 can be

used by all Part 72 licensees. Therefore,

the Petitioner’s request to (1) determine

the applicability of 10 CFR 72.48 to 10

CFR Part 72, Subparts K and L; and (2)

determine whether Entergy is in

violation of any NRC regulations

regarding use of 10 CFR 72.48 has been

granted. Further, in light of the

foregoing determination that Entergy

can make use of 10 CFR 72.48, the

Petitioner’s request to (3) order ANO to

cease using 10 CFR 72.48 until NRC

determines whether or not it is

applicable, and (4) order Sierra Nuclear

Corporation to cease construction of

VSC–24 casks for use at ANO has

therefore been denied.
8100 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of January 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert M. Bernero,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety,

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–3374 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499]

Houston Lighting and Power

Company, City Public Service Board of

San Antonio, Central Power and Light

Company, City of Austin, Texas; Notice

of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

This document corrects a general

notice appearing in the Federal Register

on January 30, 1995 (60 FR 5739), in

which the NRC is considering issuance

of amendments to Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80,

issued to Houston Lighting and Power

Company, et al., for operation of the

South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,

located in Matagorda County, Texas.

This notice is necessary to correct an

erroneous date.

On page 5740, in the first sentence of

the second full paragraph in the first

column, the date ‘‘February 14, 1995’’.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thomas W. Alexion,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV; Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–3375 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Draft Security Tenets for the National

Information Infrastructure

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: OMB is publishing these draft

Security Tenants for the National

Information Infrastructure (NII) on

behalf of the Security Issues Forum of

the Information Infrastructure Task

Force. The Tenets were developed by

the Forum to help support the secure

use of the NII. The Forum is chaired by

OMB. OMB has not adopted these

Security Tenets as policy, but is

publishing them in the belief that they

are worthy of public discussion.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

no later than April 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Security Issues Forum c/o the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 10236, Washington, DC 20503.

The Tenets can be downloaded from the

IIFT gopher/bulletin board system: 202–

501–1920. The IITF gopher/bulletin

board can be accessed through the

Internet by pointing your gopher client

to IITF.DOC.GOV or by telnet to

IITF.DOC.GOV and logging in as

GOPHER. Electronic comments may be

sent to HUTHlV@A1.EOP.GOV. (Note:

e-mail address is A1, not AL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Virginia Huth, NII Security Issues

Forum, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Voice

telephone: 202–395–3785. Facsimile:

202–395–5167. E-mail:

HUTHlV@A1.EIP.GOV. (Note: e-mail

address is A1, not AL.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Government has an important public

mission to support the secure use of the

NII. In order for the support to be

effective, the Government must

cooperate with the private sector and

with the public-at-large in setting legal

and policy ground rules for security in

the NII. The Security Issues Forum

provides leadership for Federal NII

security activities. The Security Tenets

are an early step in the development of

an ‘‘NII Security Plan’’ to define the

security requirements for the NII and to

determine needed policy, technology,

and managerial controls, and what the

Federal role will be to assure that those

needs are fulfilled. The NII Security

Plan will also incorporate the security

principles developed by the

Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development.

Sally Katzen,

Administrator, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs.

Security Tenets for the National

Information Infrastructure

Security is a critical component of the

National Information Infrastructure

(NII). NII participants must have

confidence that the NII is a trustworthy,

reliable system, or they will not use it.

NII security includes the integrity,

confidentiality, and availability of the

NII and of the information in the NII. In

general, people who use the NII want to

know that their information goes where

and when they want it to, and nowhere

else. From this general proposition flow

five security tenets that the NII should

provide the people who use it.

(1) The ability to control who sees (or

cannot see) their information and under

what terms;

(2) The ability to know who they are

communicating with and that

information received comes from who it

says it is from;

(3) The ability to know that

information stored or transmitted is

unaltered;

(4) The ability to know when

information and communication

services will (or will not be) available;

and

(5) The ability to block unwanted

information or intrusions.

Two conditions attach to these

security tenets:

(1) None of these tenets is absolute.

For each tenet there may be valid

societal reasons—such as an emergency

or a need to protect another’s rights—

that cause the tenet to be conditional in

some manner.

(2) Each tenet requires NII

participants to take responsibility for

establishing the terms and conditions

under which they will exchange

information. The distributed and

empowered nature of this technology

demands a greater level of

responsibility. Education of NII

participants is thus a critical task.

[FR Doc. 95–3408 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Notice of Meeting of the Advisory

Committee on Trade Policy and

Negotiations

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice that the February 9, 1995

meeting of the Advisory Committee on

Trade Policy and Negotiation will be

held from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The

meeting will be closed to the public

from 10:00 a.m. to :15 p.m. The meeting

will be open to the public from 1:15

p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on

Trade Policy and Negotiation will hold

a meeting on December 6, 1994 from

10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will

be closed to the public from 10:00 a.m.

to 1:15 p.m. The meeting will include a

review and discussion of current issues

which influence U.S. trade policy.

Pursuant to Section 2155(f)(2) of Title

19 of the United States Code, I have

determined that this portion of the

meeting will be concerned with matters