33146 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices

39. LCO 3.5.2—change in suppression

pool level requirement in Modes 4 and

5 from 30 ft. 93⁄4 in. to 18 ft. 6 in.

40. 4.0—change in water level

requirement for spent fuel pool from

605 ft. 7 in. to 583 ft. 11⁄4 in.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By July 26, 1996, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Richland

Public Library, 955 Northgate Street,

Richland, Washington 99352. If a

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene is filed by the above

date, the Commission or an Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board, designated

by the Commission or by the Chairman

of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board Panel, will rule on the request

and/or petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

H. Bateman, Director, Project Directorate

IV–2: petitioner’s name and telephone

number; date petition was mailed; plant

name; and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to M. H. Philips, Jr., Esq.,

Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005–3502, attorney

for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated December 8, 1995,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Richland Public Library, 955

Northgate Street, Richland, Washington

99352.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Timothy G. Colburn,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–16267 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company,

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1

and 2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. DPR–80 and DPR–82,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices 33147

issued to Pacific Gas and Electric

Company (PG&E, the licensee), for

operation of the Diablo Canyon Power

Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, located in

San Luis Obispo County, California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow a

one-time extension of 3 months to the

period for filing the subsequent revision

to the FSAR to 9 months, rather than 6

months, after the completion of the Unit

2 seventh refueling outage.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

May 7, 1996, for exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 50.71,

‘‘Maintenance of records, making of

reports.’’

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), the

licensee must file subsequent revisions

annually or 6 months after each

refueling outage provided the interval

between successive updates to the FSAR

does not exceed 24 months. The

revision must reflect all changes up to

a maximum of 6 months prior to the

date of the filing.

Currently, licensees file their revision

to the FSAR 6 months following the

completion of their Unit 2 refueling

outage.

The licensee proposes a one-time

exemption to allow Revision 11 of the

FSAR update to be filed 9 months,

rather than 6 months, after the

completion of the Unit 2 seventh

refueling outage. The revision will meet

the requirement to be current to within

6 months of the time of the filing.

An exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) is

required to allow PG&E to complete its

comprehensive review of the Diablo

Canyon Power Plant FSAR update to

ensure its completeness and accuracy

and to incorporate any inaccuracies into

Revision 11 of the FSAR update.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. The

change will not increase the probability

or consequences of accidents, no

changes are being made in the types of

any effluent that may be released off

site, and there is no significant increase

in the allowable individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposure. Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological

plant effluents and would have no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that the environmental effects of the

proposed action are not significant, any

alternatives with equal or greater

environmental impact need not be

evaluated. The principal alternative

would be to deny the requested

exemption. Denial of the exemption

would result in no change in current

environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

identical.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statements for the Diablo Canyon Power

Plant dated May 1973.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with NRC policy, on

June 18, 1996, the staff consulted with

the California State official, Mr. Steve

Hsu of the Radiologic Health Branch of

the State Department of Health Services,

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated May 7, 1996, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

California Polytechnic State University,

Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government

Documents and Maps Department, San

Luis Obispo, California 93407.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of June 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven D. Bloom,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–16268 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket Number 301–92]

Notice of Determinations and Further

Monitoring: People’s Republic of

China’s Implementation of the 1995

Agreement on Enforcement of

Intellectual Property and Market

Access

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of determinations and

further monitoring.

SUMMARY: On May 15, 1996, based on

monitoring carried out pursuant to

subsection 306(a) of the Trade Act of

1974 (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2416(a)), the

Acting United States Trade

Representative (USTR) announced that

China was not satisfactorily

implementing the 1995 Agreement on

Enforcement of Intellectual Property

Rights and Market Access (1995

Agreement) and requested public

comment on a proposed action in

response. See 61 FR 2500 of May 17,

1996. In addition, the USTR directed the

Commissioner of Customs to limit, by

date of export, entries of textile and

apparel products listed in Annex II to

the notice in the Federal Register. This

action was necessary to prevent import

surges and was taken pursuant to a

determination under section 304(b)(1) of

the Trade Act that expeditious action

was necessary. On June 12, 1996, this

limitation was extended for a further 30-

day period commencing on June 14,

1996.

On June 17, 1996, the USTR

announced that, based on the measures

that China has taken and will take in the

future to implement key elements of the

1995 Agreement, the proposed sanctions

would not be imposed. In addition, the

USTR determined to revoke China’s

designation as a ‘‘Priority Foreign

Country’’ under section 182 of the Trade

Act (19 U.S.C. 2242). The USTR has also

determined that the limitation on textile

and apparel imports to prevent import

surges should be terminated upon

publication of this Notice and has

directed the Commissioner of Customs

accordingly.

The USTR will continue to monitor

China’s implementation of the 1995