Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices 18449

which the Commission determines to be

in controversy among the parties.’’ The

hybrid procedures in Section 134

provide for oral argument on matters in

controversy, preceded by discovery

under the Commission’s rules, and the

designation, following argument, of only

those factual issues that involve a

genuine and substantial dispute,

together with any remaining questions

of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory

hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings

are to be held on only those issues

found to meet the criteria of Section 134

and set for hearing after oral argument.

The Commission’s rules

implementing Section 134 of the NWPA

are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K,

‘‘Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear

Power Reactors,’’ (published at 50 FR

41662, October 15, 1985). Under those

rules, any party to the proceeding may

invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by

filing with the presiding Officer a

written request for oral argument under

10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request

must be filed within ten (10) days of an

order granting a request for hearing or

petition to intervene. (As outlined

above, the Commission’s rules in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart G, continue to

govern the filing of requests for a

hearing or petitions to intervene, as well

as the admission of contentions.) The

presiding Officer may grant an untimely

request for oral argument only upon a

showing of good cause by the requesting

party for the failure to file on time and

after providing the other parties an

opportunity to respond to the untimely

request. If the presiding Officer grants a

request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application shall be

conducted in accordance with the

hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,

those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that

an oral argument be held to determine

whether any contentions must be

resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If

no party to the proceeding requests oral

argument or if all untimely requests for

oral argument are denied, then the usual

procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G,

apply.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated May 9,

1995, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20555, and at the local

public document room at the Portland

State University, Branford Price Millar

Library, 934 SW Harrison Street,

Portland, Oregon 97207. The

Commission’s license and Safety

Evaluation Report, when issued, may be

inspected at the above locations.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19 day

of April 1996.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

William D. Travers,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 96–10178 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–373, 50–374]

Commonwealth Edison Company

(LaSalle County Station, Unit Nos. 1

and 2);

Exemption

I

The Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd, the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–11

and NPF–18, which authorize operation

of the LaSalle County Station, Units 1

and 2 (the facilities). The licenses

provide, among other things, that the

facilities are subject to all the rules,

regulations, and orders of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the

Commission) now or hereafter in effect.

The facilities are boiling water

reactors located at the licensee’s site in

LaSalle County, Illinois.

II

In 10 CFR 73.55, ‘‘Requirements for

Physical Protection of Licensed

Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors

Against Radiological Sabotage,’’

paragraph (a), in part, states that ‘‘the

licensee shall establish and maintain an

onsite physical protection system and

security organization which will have as

its objective to provide high assurance

that activities involving special nuclear

material are not inimical to the common

defense and security and do not

constitute an unreasonable risk to the

public health and safety.’’

In 10 CFR 73.55(d), ‘‘Access

Requirements,’’ paragraph (1), it

specifies that ‘‘the licensee shall control

all points of personnel and vehicle

access into a protected area.’’ Also, 10

CFR 73.55(d)(5) requires that ‘‘A

numbered picture badge identification

system shall be used for all individuals

who are authorized access to protected

areas without escort.’’ It further states

that individuals not employed by the

licensee (e.g., contractors) may be

authorized access to protected areas

without escort provided that the

individual, ‘‘receives a picture badge

upon entrance into a protected area

which must be returned upon exit from

the protected area * * *’’

By letter dated February 20, 1996, the

licensee requested an exemption from

certain requirements of 10 CFR 73.55.

The licensee proposes to implement an

alternative unescorted access system

which would eliminate the need to

issue and retrieve picture badges at the

entrance/exit location to the protected

area and would allow all individuals,

including contractors, to keep their

picture badges in their possession when

departing LaSalle County Station.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ the Commission may,

upon application of any interested

person or upon its own initiative, grant

such exemptions from the requirements

of the regulations in this part as it

determines are authorized by law and

will not endanger life or property or the

common defense and security, and are

otherwise in the public interest.

According to 10 CFR 73.55, the

Commission may authorize a licensee to

provide alternative measures for

protection against radiological sabotage

provided the licensee demonstrates that

the alternative measures have the same

‘‘high assurance’’ objective, that the

proposed measures meet the general

performance requirements of the

regulation, and that the overall level of

system performance provides protection

against radiological sabotage equivalent

to that which would be provided by the

regulation.

Currently, unescorted access into the

protected area for both employee and

contractor personnel into LaSalle

County Station, Units 1 and 2, is

controlled through the use of picture

badges. Positive identification of

personnel who are authorized and

request access into the protected area is

established by security personnel

making a visual comparison of the

individual requesting access and that

individual’s picture badge. In

accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5),

contractor personnel are not allowed to

take their picture badges off site. In

addition, in accordance with the plant’s

physical security plan, the licensee’s

employees are also not allowed to take

their picture badges off site.

The proposed system will require that

all individuals with authorized

unescorted access have the physical

characteristics of their hand (hand

geometry) registered with their picture

badge number in a computerized access

control system. Therefore, all authorized

individuals must not only have their

picture badge to gain access to the

protected area, but must also have their

hand geometry confirmed. All

individuals, including contractors, who
18450 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices

have authorized unescorted access into

the protected area will be allowed to

keep their picture badges in their

possession when departing the LaSalle

County Station.

All other access processes, including

search function capability and access

revocation, will remain the same. A

security officer responsible for access

control will continue to be positioned

within a bullet-resistant structure. It

should also be noted that the proposed

system is only for individuals with

authorized unescorted access and will

not be used for those individuals

requiring escorts.

Sandia National Laboratories

conducted testing which demonstrated

that the hand geometry equipment

possesses strong performance

characteristics. Details of the testing

performed are in the Sandia report, ‘‘A

Performance Evaluation of Biometric

Identification Devices,’’ SAND91—0276

UC—906 Unlimited Release, June 1991.

Based on the Sandia report and the

licensee’s experience using the current

photo picture identification system, the

false acceptance rate for the proposed

hand geometry system would be at least

equivalent to that of the current system.

To assure that the proposed system will

continue to meet the general

performance requirements of 10 CFR

73.55(d)(5), the licensee will implement

a process for testing the system. The site

security plans will also be revised to

allow implementation of the hand

geometry system and to allow

employees and contractors with

unescorted access to keep their picture

badges in their possession when leaving

LaSalle County Station.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the NRC

staff has determined that the proposed

alternative measures for protection

against radiological sabotage meet the

same high assurance objective and the

general performance requirements of 10

CFR 73.55. In addition, the staff has

determined that the overall level of the

proposed system’s performance will

provide protection against radiological

sabotage equivalent to that which is

provided by the current system in

accordance with 10 CFR 73.55.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

73.5, this exemption is authorized by

law, will not endanger life or property

or common defense and security, and is

otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants the following exemption:

The requirement of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) that

individuals who have been granted

unescorted access and are not employed by

the licensee are to return their picture badges

upon exit from the protected area is no longer

necessary. Thus, these individuals may keep

their picture badges in their possession upon

leaving LaSalle County Station.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not

result in any significant adverse

environmental impact (61 FR 17329).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day

of April, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jack W. Roe,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–10177 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. 301–100 and WTO/D–4]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings

Concerning the European

Communities’ Banana Regime

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 127(b)(1)

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), the

Office of the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that the United States has

requested the establishment of a dispute

settlement panel under the Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (WTO) to examine the

regime of the European Communities

(EC) for the importation, sale and

distribution of bananas. USTR invites

written comments from the public

concerning the issues raised in the

dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before May 16, 1996. In order to be

assured of timely consideration by

USTR in preparing its first written

submission to the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to the Office of the General

Counsel, Attn: EC Bananas, Room 223,

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rachel Shub, Assistant General Counsel,

Office of the General Counsel, Office of

the U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20508,

(202) 395–7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 27, 1995, the USTR initiated

an investigation under Section 302(b) of

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

2412(b)) of the EC’s regime for the

importation, sale and distribution of

bananas (Docket No. 301–100) (60 FR

52026; October 4, 1995). This

investigation specifically concerns EC

Council Regulation No. 404/93 and

related measures discriminating against

U.S. marketing companies importing

bananas from Latin America, including

a restrictive and discriminatory

licensing scheme designed to transfer

market share to and from U.S. banana

marketing firms to firms traditionally

trading bananas from African, Caribbean

and Pacific sources and from EC

territories and dependencies.

Two rounds of WTO consultations

with the EC did not result in a

resolution of the dispute. Accordingly,

on April 11,1 1996, the United States,

jointly with the governments of

Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and

Mexico, requested the establishment of

a WTO dispute settlement panel to

review the EC banana regime. Acting

jointly and severally, the United States

and the other complaining countries

have asked that panel review EC

Regulation 404/93 and subsequent EC

measures implementing the banana

regime (including those reflecting the

1994 Framework Agreement on Bananas

between the EC and Colombia, Costa

Rica, Nicaragua and Venezuela), and

find that they are inconsistent with the

following agreements and provisions,

among others: (1) Articles I, II, III, X, XI

and XIII of the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade, (2) Articles 1 and 3

of the Agreement on Importing

Licensing Procedures, (3) the Agreement

on Agriculture, (4) Articles II, XVI and

XVII of the General Agreement on

Tradein in Services, and (5) Article 2 of

the Agreement of Trade-Related

Investment Measures.

Members of the panel will be selected

after the panel is established by the

WTO. The panel is expected to meet as

necessary at the WTO headquarters in

Geneva, Switzerland to examine the

dispute. Under normal circumstances,

the panel would be expected to issue a

report detailing its findings and

recommendations six to nine months

after it is established.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute. The

provisions of 15 CFR §§ 2006.13(a) and

(c) (providing that comments received

will be open to public inspection) and