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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Notices 18451

1As a practical matter, the ability of Holdings to

compete, through Energy-Related Companies in

wholesale electric power markets in the Southern

system’s franchised service territories is limited by

the Codes of Conduct submitted to the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (‘‘FERC’’) in

connection with the market-based wholesale rate

application filed by Southern Energy Marketing,

Inc. (‘‘Southern Energy’’), a subsidiary of Holdings

and an exempt wholesale generator. In addition,

under current FERC interpretations of section 32 of

the Act, Southern Energy cannot engage in fuel

marketing or in other expanded fuel-related

activities.

2006.15 will apply to comments

received. Comments must be in English

and provided in fifteen copies. Pursuant

to 15 CFR § 2006.15, confidential

business information must be clearly

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’

in a contrasting color ink at the top of

each page.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the

URAA, USTR will maintain a public file

on this dispute settlement proceeding,

which will include a list of comments

received, in the USTR Reading Room:

Room 101, Office of the Untied States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

N.W., Washington DC 20508. An

appointment to review the docket

(Docket WTO/D–3, ‘‘United States—EC:

EC Banana Regime’’), may be made by

calling Brenda Webb, (202) 395–6186.

The USTR Reading Room is open to the

public from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and 1

p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Jennifer Hillman,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–10168 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 35–26508]

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding

Company Act of 1935, as Amended

(‘‘Act’’)

April 19, 1996.

Notice is hereby given that the

following filing(s) has/have been made

with the Commission pursuant to

provisions of the Act and rules

promulgated thereunder. All interested

persons are referred to the application(s)

and/or declaration(s) for complete

statements of the proposed

transaction(s) summarized below. The

application(s) and/or declaration(s) and

any amendments thereto is/are available

for public inspection through the

Commission’s Office of Public

Reference.

Interested persons wishing to

comment or request a hearing on the

application(s) and/or declaration(s)

should submit their views in writing by

May 13, 1996, to the Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20549, and serve a

copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or

declarant(s) at the address(es) specified

below. Proof of service (by affidavit or,

in case of an attorney at law, by

certificate) should be filed with the

request. Any request for hearing shall

identify specifically the issues of fact or

law that are disputed. A person who so

requests will be notified of any hearing,

if ordered, and will receive a copy of

any notice or order issued in the matter.

After said date, the application(s) and/

or declaration(s), as filed or as amended,

may be granted and/or permitted to

become effective.

SEI Holdings, Inc. (70–8823)

SEI Holdings, Inc. (‘‘Holdings’’), 900

Ashwood Parkway, Suite No. 500,

Atlanta, Georgia, 30338, a whollyowned non-utility subsidiary of The

Southern Company (‘‘Southern’’), a

registered holding company, has filed

an application pursuant to sections 9(a)

and 10 of the Act and rule 54

thereunder.

By order dated February 2, 1996

(HCAR No. 26468) (‘‘Order’’), Holdings

was authorized, through December 31,

2000, to acquire directly, or indirectly

through one or more other subsidiaries

(‘‘Intermediate Subsidiaries’’), the

securities of or other interests in one or

more energy-related businesses or

facilities (‘‘Energy-Related Companies’’).

The Energy-Related Companies could

include companies that derive

substantially all of their revenues from

brokering or marketing of electric

power, provided that the purchaser or

seller, or both the purchaser and seller,

were located within the Southeastern

Electric Reliability Council (‘‘SERC’’).1

Holdings now requests that the

Commission eliminate the restriction

imposed under the Order on the

geographic region in which such

marketing and brokering activities may

be conducted. Holdings also requests

that the Commission expand the terms

of the Order to allow Holdings, through

one or more Energy-Related Companies

(‘‘Marketing Subsidiaries’’), to broker or

market other forms of energy

commodities, in addition to electric

power, to include, without limitation,

natural gas, oil and coal, and to provide

related services to customers. No other

modification to the Order is requested.

In particular, Holdings proposes to

engage in wholesale electric power

marketing on a national scale. Holdings

also proposes to provide related ‘‘value

added’’ services to customers, such as

fuel management, storage and

procurement services. Although the

Marketing Subsidiaries might acquire

physical assets that are necessary and

appropriate to the conduct of such

business, such as oil and storage

facilities, gas reserves, gas pipeline

facilities and coal, Holdings represents

that no Marketing Subsidiary will

acquire any assets if, as a result thereof,

it would be or become an ‘‘electric

utility company’’ or a ‘‘gas utility

company’’ under the Act.

The Marketing Subsidiaries would

engage in various types of marketing

activities. These activities would

include (i) electric power and/or fuel

arbitrage transactions, which involve

simple exchanges of fuel for electric

power; (ii) dispatch control of energy

assets, which involves fixed-price

electric power in exchange for dispatch

control of electric power generation

facilities; (iii) sales of options on

capacity or energy; and (iv) national

energy supply agreements, which

involve retail sales to large energy

consumers, with facilities in many

different locations, that wish to

‘‘outsource’’ all of their energy needs to

achieve volume discounts and to

eliminate the high cost of separate

procurement programs.

Holdings proposes that the Marketing

Subsidiaries be authorized to engage in

such activities without regard to

location or identity of customers

provided that the customers exclude the

electric public utilities within the

Southern system and Southern

Company Services, Inc., a subsidiary

service company of Southern. Holdings

also states that the Marketing

Subsidiaries will not sell electric power

at retail unless such sale is approved or

allowed under applicable state law.

All activities, to include the fuel-forenergy and energy commodity brokering

and marketing activities, will generally

be carried on by personnel employed by

Southern Electric International, Inc., a

wholly-owned subsidiary of Holdings.

Those personnel are already

experienced in the day-to-day electric

power marketing activities of Southern

Energy and fuel procurement activities

of associate independent power projects

owned by Holdings.

It is anticipated that in the normal

course of business the Marketing

Subsidiaries would take appropriate

measures to hedge the risk associated

with electric power and fuel purchase or

sales contracts. Such measures could

include matches between long-term firm

or variable price electric power sales

contracts and long-term firm or variable

price fuel purchase contracts. The

Marketing Subsidiaries might may also

hedge fuel price risk through the