Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Notices 10337

Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600,

Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684–6100.

David I. Tevelin,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 01–3901 Filed 2–12–01; 3:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820–SC–M

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Adoption of Final Environmental

Impact Statement

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Adoption of Final

Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA) procedures

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and

consistent with 40 CFR 1506.3, TVA has

decided to adopt a Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) issued by the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office

of Fissile Materials Disposition in June

1996. This FEIS is titled Disposition of

Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium.’’

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Notice of the availability of the FEIS

was published by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency in the

Federal Register on June 28, 1996. A

separate DOE Notice of Availability,

summarizing the Highly Enriched

Uranium Final EIS appeared in the

Federal Register that same day. TVA

has determined that the FEIS meets the

standards for an adequate FEIS and can

be adopted.

DATES: Submit comments no later than

March 19, 2001, to Bruce Yeager, Senior

NEPA Specialist, at the address listed

below.

ADDRESSES: The FEIS can be inspected

at the following locations:

TVA Corporate Library, East Tower

Plaza, 400 West Summit Hill Drive,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

TVA Corporate Library, Signal Place

Building (North), 1st floor, Quadrant

‘‘A’’, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga,

Tennessee 37402.

Chattanooga-Hamilton County

Bicentennial Library, 1001 Broad Street,

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.

Athens-Limestone Public Library, 405

E. South St., Athens, Alabama 35611.

Unicoi County Public Library, 201

Nolichucky Ave., Erwin, Tennessee

37650.

Richland Public Library, 955

Northgate Dr., Richland, Washington

99352.

Aiken County Public Library, 314

Chesterfield St. SW, Aiken, South

Carolina 29801.

Oak Ridge Public Library, 1401 Oak

Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

32093.

The complete FEIS and Summary are

also available in electronic format on

the U. S. Department of Energy NEPA

website at http://www.tis.eh.doe.gov/

nepa.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce Yeager, Senior NEPA Specialist,

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West

Summit Hill Drive, Mailstop WT 8C,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632–

8051 or e-mail at blyeager@tva.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June

1996, the Department of Energy, Office

of Fissile Materials Disposition released

an FEIS titled ‘‘Disposition of Surplus

Highly-Enriched Uranium.’’ This FEIS

assessed the environmental impacts that

may result from the disposition of U.S.

origin weapons-usable highly enriched

uranium (HEU) that was or may be

declared surplus to national defense or

defense-related program needs. In

addition to the No Action Alternative,

this EIS assessed four alternatives that

would aid U.S. non-proliferation

policies. These alternatives would

eliminate the weapons usability of HEU

by blending it down with natural

uranium, low enriched uranium (LEU)

or depleted uranium to create LEU to be

used either as commercial reactor fuel

feedstock or disposed of as low-level

radioactive waste. The EIS assessed the

disposition of approximately 200 metric

tons of surplus HEU.

The potential blending sites

considered in the EIS were: DOE’s Y–12

Plant at Oak Ridge, TN; DOE’s Savannah

River Site in Aiken, SC; the Babcock

and Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division

Facility in Lynchburg, Virginia; and the

Nuclear Fuel Services Fuel Fabrication

Plant in Erwin, TN. Several domestic

commercial nuclear fuel fabrication

plants, including Siemens Nuclear

Power’s plant in Richland, Washington,

were identified as potential destinations

for the LEU produced. Evaluations of

impacts at the potential blending sites

on site infrastructure, water resources,

air quality, noise, socioeconomic

resources, waste management, public

and occupational health and

environmental justice were included in

the EIS. The impact of intersite

transportation of nuclear and hazardous

materials was also assessed. The

preferred alternative was blending down

as much of the HEU to LEU as possible

while gradually selling the

commercially usable LEU for use as

reactor fuel. DOE plans to continue the

activity over an approximately 15 to 20

year period.

The DOE issued a HEU Draft EIS on

October 27, 1995 and held open the

formal public comment period on this

Draft EIS through January 12, 1996. In

preparing the HEU Final EIS, DOE

considered comments received via mail,

fax, electronic bulletin board;

transcribed messages from telephone;

and recorded comments and concerns

from interactive public meetings held in

Knoxville, TN on November 14, 1995,

and Augusta, Georgia on November 16,

1995. The Final EIS was released in

June 1996, a Notice of Availability was

published in the Federal Register on

June 28, 1996 and a Record of Decision

issued July 29, 1996.

The Tennessee Valley Authority

proposes to take actions related to this

same project. TVA proposes to enter

into contracts with Framatome-Cogema

and Siemens for fuel blending and

fabrication services, as well as execute

an Interagency Agreement with the DOE

to obtain approximately 33 metric tons

of HEU. These 33 metric tons of HEU

are a portion of the 200 metric tons

identified in the DOE EIS. The HEU for

eventual use as blended down LEU fuel

in TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant

near Athens, Alabama, would originate

from DOE’s Y–12 Plant at Oak Ridge,

Tennessee and the Savannah River Site

in Aiken, South Carolina. Blending

down and processing of the HEU to LEU

would occur at the Nuclear Fuel

Services (NFS) facility in Erwin,

Tennessee and at DOE’s Savannah River

Site (SRS) in Aiken South Carolina.

Commercial fuel fabrication would

occur at Siemens Power Corporation

(SPC) in Richland, Washington.

As a Federal agency, TVA must

independently assess the environmental

impacts of its actions in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA). In its regulations

implementing NEPA, the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) strongly

encourages agencies to reduce

paperwork and duplication. One of the

methods identified by CEQ to

accomplish these goals is adopting the

environmental documents prepared by

other agencies, 40 CFR 1500.4(n). Under

applicable regulations, TVA is allowed

to adopt the Department of Energy FEIS

as its own, since the actions covered by

the DOE EIS and TVA’s proposed

actions are substantially the same.

The actions assessed in DOE’s EIS

relating to the blending down of HEU to

LEU and the subsequent use of LEU as

commercial reactor fuel, are also the

actions that TVA seeks to carry out by

entering into the necessary contracts

and Interagency Agreement to obtain

and use the fuel at TVA’s Browns Ferry

Nuclear Plant. TVA has carefully

10338 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2001 / Notices

reviewed the EIS and has concluded

that the EIS adequately assesses the

environmental impacts associated with

the blending down of HEU and use of

the resulting LEU-derived commercial

reactor fuel. The impacts of the

technical areas and issues TVA

evaluated were bounded by the

assessment in DOE’s EIS and did not

constitute substantial changes to

relevant environmental concerns.

Accordingly, TVA has adopted the DOE

FEIS, ‘‘Disposition of Surplus Highly

Enriched Uranium Final Environmental

Impact Statement,’’ and has determined

that no supplement or additional

environmental review is required to

support TVA’s proposed action. The

Notice of Adoption also constitutes the

Notice of Availability of the same EIS at

locations previously identified under

the section titled, ‘‘Addresses.’’

Dated: February 7, 2001.

Kathryn J. Jackson,

Executive Vice President, River System

Operations and Environment, Tennessee

Valley Authority.

[FR Doc. 01–3693 Filed 2–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–U

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Trade Policy Staff Committee; Review

of Guatemala’s Beneficiary Status

Under the Caribbean Basin Trade

Partnership Act

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Request for comments in

connection with review of Guatemala’s

beneficiary status under the Caribbean

Basin Trade Partnership Act.

SUMMARY: The Trade Policy Staff

Committee (TPSC) is conducting a

review of Guatemala’s status as a

beneficiary country under the Caribbean

Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA).

This review will focus on Guatemala’s

performance with respect to worker

rights, based on the eligibility criteria

established in the CBTPA and objectives

identified to the Government of

Guatemala in October 2000. The TPSC

is requesting written comments from the

public to assist in developing

information regarding Guatemala’s

current performance in the area of

worker rights.

DATES: Public comments should be

received by noon, March 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be

submitted to: Gloria Blue, Executive

Secretary, TPSC, Office of the USTR,

600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20508 Attention: Guatemala CBTPA

Review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

procedural questions concerning public

comments, contact Gloria Blue,

Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the

USTR, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20508 (202) 395–3475.

All other questions regarding the review

should be addressed to Christopher

Wilson, Director for Central America

and the Caribbean, Office of the Western

Hemisphere of the USTR (202) 395–

5190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On October 2, 2000, the President

designated Guatemala as a CBTPA

beneficiary country. This designation

followed a review by the TPSC of

Guatemala’s adherence to the eligibility

criteria established in the CBTPA,

including (1) an evaluation of the extent

to which Guatemala provides

internationally recognized worker

rights, including the right of association,

the right to organize and bargain

collectively, a prohibition on the use of

any form of forced or compulsory labor,

a minimum age for the employment of

children, and acceptable conditions of

work with respect to minimum wages,

hours of work, and occupational safety

and health, and (2) whether Guatemala

has implemented its commitments to

eliminate the worst forms of child labor.

The review of Guatemala’s eligibility

for the CBTPA preferences involved

extensive consideration of the worker

rights situation in that country. The

United States raised specific concerns

with respect to anti-union violence,

labor law reform, the rights of

association and collective bargaining,

and other issues. Guatemalan officials

were taking some steps to address these

concerns. For example, the United

States welcomed the Ministry of Labor’s

efforts to that date to facilitate a

resolution to the situation arising from

a 1999 incident involving violence

against banana workers. The

Guatemalan executive branch had also

presented legislation to bring the

country’s labor laws into conformity

with ILO recommendations.

On the basis of these actions and

assurances, the TPSC in October

recommended that the President

designate Guatemala as a CBTPA

beneficiary country. However, the

United States indicated its concern that

the overall worker rights environment in

Guatemala represented a threat to those

seeking to advance basic,

internationally-recognized rights for

workers. Instances of anti-union

violence were cited. The widespread

impunity for those who provoked and

carried out such violence was a

particularly serious concern.

Consequently, at the time Guatemala’s

CBTPA designation was announced, the

U.S. Trade Representative also

announced that Guatemala’s CBTPA

beneficiary country status would be

reviewed in April 2001, with a focus on

further improvements in the area of

worker rights. This review will cover

the following factors: (a) Actions taken

by the Guatemalan executive branch,

within its authority, to ensure the

physical safety and human and civil

rights of union leaders and the effective

criminal prosecution of persons charged

with provoking anti-union violence,

including killings of union leaders; (b)

steps taken by the Government of

Guatemala to provide for the reemployment of the 900 banana workers

that were fired in 1999 and settlement

of related labor law violations; (c)

progress towards enacting a new Labor

Code; and (d) performance in labor law

enforcement and judicial administration

related to the protection of labor rights.

As a further indication of the

seriousness with which the United

States views these issues, the U.S. Trade

Representative initiated a review of

Guatemala’s eligibility as a beneficiary

developing country under the

Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP), also to be concluded in April

2001, and focusing on the government’s

response to anti-union violence and

other aspects of internationally

recognized worker rights. USTR

requested public comments in

connection with this review through a

Federal Register notice dated January

10, 2001.

Written Comments

Persons submitting written comments

should provide twenty (20) copies by

the date and to the address specified

above. If possible, comments should be

submitted before this date. Where

possible, please supplement written

comments with a computer disk of the

submission. The disk should have a

label identifying the software used and

the submitter.

Comments should provide

information on the current situation for

worker rights in Guatemala, focusing in

particular on the factors in the review

summarized above. Due to the

overlapping nature of the CBTPA review

process and the GSP review process,

individuals and organizations which

have submitted comments in connection

with the GSP review are informed that

those comments will also be considered

in connection with the CBTPA review

and do not need to be resubmitted.