28626 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices

Arizona Public Service Company, et al.,

Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529,

and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear

Generating Station, Units Nos. 1, 2, and

3, Maricopa County, Arizona

Date of application for amendments:

May 15, 1996

Brief description of amendments: The

amendment revised Surveillance

Requirement (SR) 4.5.2.d.2 in Technical

Specification 3/4 5.2 to state that the

trisodium phosphate (TSP) contained in

the storage baskets in containment is in

the form of anhydrous TSP, rather than

dodecahydrate TSP, as currently

specified.

Date of issuance: May 15, 1996

Effective date: May 15, 1996

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1 - 107; Unit

2 - 99; Unit 3 - 79

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The

amendment revised the Technical

Specifications.Public comments

requested as to proposed no significant

hazards consideration: No.The

Commission’s related evaluation of the

amendments, finding of emergency

circumstances, and final determination

of no significant hazards consideration

are contained in a Safety Evaluation

dated May 15, 1996.

Local Public Document Room

location: Phoenix Public Library, 1221

N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona

85004

Attorney for licensee: Nancy C. Loftin,

Esq., Corporate Secretary and Counsel,

Arizona Public Service Company, P.O.

Box 53999, Mail Station 9068, Phoenix,

Arizona 85072-3999

NRC Project Director: William H.

Bateman

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of May 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Steven A. Varga,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[Doc. 96–13878 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–9

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. 301–87]

Notice of Agreement; Monitoring and

Enforcement Pursuant to Sections 301

and 306: Canadian Exports of

Softwood Lumber

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of monitoring and

determination.

SUMMARY: On May 29, 1996, the United

States and Canada entered into an

agreement on trade in softwood lumber,

with effect form April 1, 1996. This

agreement is intended to provide a

satisfactory resolution to certain acts,

policies and practices of the

Government of Canada affecting exports

to the United States of softwood lumber

that were the subject of an investigation

initiated by the United States Trade

Representative (‘‘USTR’’) under section

302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974

(the Trade Act) and that were found to

be unreasonable and to burden or

restrict U.S. commerce pursuant to

section 304(a) on October 4, 1991. The

USTR has determined that this

agreement will be subject to the

provisions of section 306 of the Trade

Act and that USTR will monitor

Canadian compliance with this

agreement pursuant to section 306 of the

Trade Act and will take action under

section 301(a) if Canada fails to comply

with it.

DATES: The U.S.-Canada agreement on

trade in softwood lumber was signed on

May 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW, Washington, D.C. 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gordana Earp, Deputy Assistant United

States Trade Representative for

Industry, (202) 395–6160; or William

Kane, Associate General Counsel, (202)

395–6800 (for legal issues).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 4, 1991, Canada unilaterally

terminated a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) dated December

30, 1986, between the United States and

Canada under which, among other

things, Canada had imposed a 15

percent export charge on certain

softwood lumber products exported to

the United States. The MOU had been

entered into to settle a pending

countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding

examining subsidies and injury with

respect to imports of Canadian softwood

lumber. As of October 4, 1991, Canada

ceased collecting export charges under

that MOU to offset possible injurious

subsidies. In response, on October 4,

1991, (a) the U.S. Department of

Commerce announced that it would

self-initiate a CVD investigation on

softwood lumber from Canada, and (b)

the USTR initiated an investigation

pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the

Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(1)(A)) and

pursuant to section 304(a) of the Trade

Act determined that Canada’s acts,

policies and practices regarding the

exportation of softwood lumber to the

United States were unreasonable and

burdened or restricted U.S. commerce.

56 FR 50738 (October 8, 1991) as

amended by 46 FR 58944 (November 22,

1991).

USTR further determined that action

was appropriate under section 301 of

the Trade Act to restore and maintain

the status quo ante pending issuance of

a preliminary CVD determination, and,

if warranted, to impose duties to offset

any subsidies found in the investigation.

Commerce issued its preliminary CVD

determination on March 12, 1992 and

its final affirmative CVD determination

on May 28, 1992.

Both the domestic industry and

affected Canadian parties appealed

Commerce’s final subsidy determination

to binational panels established

pursuant to Chapter 19 of the U.S.-

Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Following completion of the panel

proceedings, and a decision by an

Extraordinary Challenge Committee

(ECC) established pursuant to FTA

Article 1904.13 affirming the results of

those proceedings, Commerce—

although it expressed disagreement with

the panel’s findings—on August 16,

1994, revoked the CVD order on

softwood lumber from Canada. 59 FR

42029 (Aug. 16, 1994). USTR

subsequently terminated the action

taken under section 301. 59 FR 52846

(October 19, 1994).

In response to the decisions of the

binational panel and the ECC, the

domestic industry filed a complaint

with the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit on

September 14, 1994, challenging

Chapter 19 of the FTA. On December 15,

1994, in order to create a process that

could ultimately settle the dispute

arising from the unilateral termination

in 1991 of the MOU by Canada, and in

conjunction with the domestic

industry’s withdrawal of its challenge to

Chapter 19 of the FTA, the United States

and Canada agreed to establish a

consultative process regarding trade in

softwood lumber. The process included

the participation of the U.S.

Government, Canadian federal and

provincial governments, and where

appropriate, industries and other

interested parties in both countries.

As a result, on May 29, 1996, the

United States and Canada entered into

an agreement on trade in softwood

lumber, with effect from April 1, 1996.

During its five-year term, the agreement

will foster stable growth in the North

American softwood lumber market and

ensure fair and competitive trade for

U.S. firms and workers by addressing

the disruptive effects of unprecedented

high levels of Canadian imports

previously found by the U.S.

Department of Commerce to be

subsidized. The agreement requires
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Notices 28627

Canada to assess fees on any softwood

lumber shipped from its four leading

producing provinces in excess of 14.7

billion board feet in each of the next five

years. The agreement establishes

procedures for export licensing and

information collection that will greatly

facilitate scrutiny of cross-border

lumber trade, and for expedited

determinations of whether Canada is

carrying out its obligations under the

agreement. Copies of the agreement are

available to the public in the USTR

reading room.

The agreement is intended to provide

a satisfactory resolution to the acts,

policies and practices of Canada

regarding the exportation of softwood

lumber to the United States that were

the subject of the investigation initiated

under section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade

Act and found to be unreasonable and

to burden or restrict U.S. commerce

pursuant to section 304(a) on October 4,

1991. Section 306 of the Trade Act (19

U.S.C. 2416) requires the USTR to

monitor the implementation of each

measure undertaken, or agreement that

is entered into to provide a satisfactory

resolution of a matter subject to a

section 301 investigation. Section 306

further requires that, if the USTR

considers that a country is not

satisfactorily implementing a measure

or agreement, the USTR shall determine

what further action to take under

section 301(a).

Adherence to the terms of the

agreement is vital to the achievement of

its objectives. USTR, the Department of

Commerce, the U.S. Customs Service,

and other agencies as appropriate, will

carefully monitor and vigorously

enforce this agreement. To that end,

Customs will provide USTR and

Commerce the data that Customs

collects on imports (including province

of origin and the type of permit) of

softwood lumber from Canada. If data,

including data provided by the domestic

industry, reveal that export fees called

for under the agreement are not being

collected, or if other information,

including information provided by the

domestic industry, reveals that Canada

is in material non-compliance with any

other of its obligations under the

agreement, USTR will invoke the

dispute settlement provisions of the

agreement. I have determined that if: (a)

An audit under the agreement confirms

that fees have not been collected, and

that action has not been taken

subsequently to collect the fees, (b) an

arbitral panel finds that Canada is

otherwise not in conformity with the

agreement, such as by offsetting,

reducing, or undercutting its obligations

under the agreement, and that the

situation has not been cured, or (c)

Canada unilaterally suspends its

performance of, or terminates, the

agreement in a manner inconsistent

with the agreement, the USTR pursuant

to section 306(b) of the Trade Act will

consider that Canada is not satisfactorily

implementing the agreement. In

response, the USTR will take prompt

and effective action under section 301(a)

of the Trade Act to remedy Canada’s

failure to comply with the agreement,

including, in the case where the

required export fees have not been

collected and action has not

subsequently been taken to collect the

fees, the imposition of duties on

softwood lumber from Canada

commensurate with Canada’s failure to

collect the fees under the agreement and

sufficient to ensure compliance with the

agreement and, as appropriate, other

action to enforce or ensure compliance

with the agreement.

Ira S. Shapiro,

Ambassador, Senior Counselor and

Negotiator.

[FR Doc. 96–13993 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. A96–15; Order No. 1113]

Lewiston, Nebraska 68380 (Lois

Tegtmeier, Petitioner); Notice and

Order Accepting Appeal and

Establishing Procedural Schedule

Under 29 U.S.C. 404(b)(5)

Issued May 30, 1996.

Docket Number: A96–15.

Name of Affected Post Office: Lewiston,

Nebraska 68380.

Name(s) of Petitioner(s): Lois Tegtmeier.

Type of Determination: Consolidate.

Date of Filing of Appeal Papers: May 20,

1996.

Categories of Issues Apparently Raised:

1. Effect on postal services [39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(C)].

2. Effect on the community [39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(A)].

After the Postal Service files the

administrative record and the

Commission reviews it, the Commission

may find that there are more legal issues

than those set forth above. Or, the

Commission may find that the Postal

Service’s determination disposes of one

or more of those issues.

The Postal Reorganization Act

requires that the Commission issue its

decision within 120 days from the date

this appeal was filed (39 U.S.C. 404

(b)(5)). In the interest of expedition, in

light of the 120-day decision schedule,

the Commission may request the Postal

Service to submit memoranda of law on

any appropriate issue. If requested, such

memoranda will be due 20 days from

the issuance of the request and the

Postal Service shall serve a copy of its

memoranda on the petitioners. The

Postal Service may incorporate by

reference in its briefs or motions, any

arguments presented in memoranda it

previously filed in this docket. If

necessary, the Commission also may ask

petitioners or the Postal Service for

more information.

The Commission orders:

(a) The Postal Service shall file the

record in this appeal by June 4, 1996.

(b) The Secretary of the Postal Rate

Commission shall publish this Notice

and Order and Procedural Schedule in

the Federal Register.

By the Commission.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

Appendix

May 20, 1996

Filing of Appeal letter

May 30, 1996

Commission Notice and Order of Filing of

Appeal

June 14, 1996

Last day of filing of petitions to intervene

[see 39 CFR § 3001.111(b)]

June 24, 1996

Petitioner’s Participant Statement or Initial

Brief [see 39 CFR § 3001.115 (a) and (b)]

July 15, 1996

Postal Service’s Answering Brief [see 39

CFR § 3001.115(c)]

July 30, 1996

Petitioner’s Reply Brief should Petitioner

choose to file one [see 39 CFR

§ 3001.115(d)]

August 6, 1996

Deadline for motions by any party

requesting oral argument. The

Commission will schedule oral argument

only when it is a necessary addition to

the written filings [see 39 CFR

§ 3001.116]

September 17, 1996

Expiration of the Commission’s 120-day

decisional schedule [see 39 U.S.C.

§ 404(b)(5)]

[FR Doc. 96–14006 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, DC 20549.

Extension

Rule 19b–1—SEC File No. 270–312; OMB

Control No. 3235–0354.