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
33148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Notices

Agreement, including the measures set

forth in the ‘‘Report on China’s

Enforcement Measures’’ and ‘‘Other

Measures’’ of June 17, 1996, pursuant to

section 306 of the Trade Act.

EFFECTIVE DATES: USTR’s determinations

as to the termination of the import surge

mechanism and revocation of China’s

designation as a priority foreign country

were made on June 17, 1996, and are

effective June 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street

NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Lehr, Deputy Assistant USTR

for China and Mongolian Affairs (202)

395–5050 or Catherine Field, Senior

Counsel for Multilateral Affairs (202)

395–3432.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

15, 1996, the USTR announced that

based on monitoring carried out

pursuant to section 306(a) of the Trade

Act, China was not satisfactorily

implementing the 1995 Agreement on

Enforcement of Intellectual Property

Rights and Market Access (1995

Agreement). Pursuant to sections 301 (a)

and (c)(1) and section 306(b)(1), the

USTR proposed to impose increased

duties on selected products of China

and requested public comment on that

proposed action. See 61 FR 2500 of May

17, 1996, for background on the

announcement and proposed action.

To prevent import surge of products

subject to quantitative restraints,

pursuant to section 304(b)(1) and

sections 301 (a) and (c) the USTR

directed the Commissioner of Customs

to limit the quantity of imports of the

textile and apparel products listed in

Annex II to that Federal Register notice.

On June 12, 1996, the USTR extended

her directive for an additional 30-day

period commencing on June 14, 1996.

On June 17, 1996, the Chinese

government confirmed that two

documents of that date, entitled ‘‘Report

on China’s Enforcement Measures’’ and

‘‘Other Measures’’ are an accurate

description of the measures that the

Chinese government has taken and will

take in the future to implement key

elements of the 1995 Agreement. Based

on this confirmation, on June 17, 1996,

the USTR, pursuant to section

301(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Trade Act,

determined not to impose the proposed

sanctions and to terminate the directive

to Customs limiting entry of certain

products. In addition, pursuant to

section 182(c)(1)(A) of the Trade Act,

the USTR determined to revoke China’s

designation as a ‘‘priority foreign

country.’’

Pursuant to section 306 of the Trade

Act the USTR will monitor China’s

implementation of the 1995 Agreement,

including the measures described in the

documents of June 17, 1996. If, on the

basis of this monitoring, the USTR

considers that China is not satisfactorily

implementing the 1995 Agreement or

these measures, the USTR will decide

what further action to take under

section 301(a) of the Trade Act.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–16320 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

Request for Third-Country

Antidumping Investigation of Sodium

Azide From Japan

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Request for written comments.

SUMMARY: On March 11, 1996 the

Government of Canada, through its

embassy in the United States, filed with

the United States Trade Representative

(‘‘USTR’’) a request for the initiation of

a third-country antidumping duty

investigation with respect to sodium

azide from Japan, pursuant to section

783 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 1677n). The

petition attached to the request alleges

that imports of sodium azide from Japan

are being sold in the United States at

less than fair value (i.e., dumped), and

that an industry in Canada is materially

injured and threatened with material

injury by reason of these imports. The

petition alleges that ICI Canada Inc. is

the sole Canadian producer of sodium

azide. USTR invites comments from the

public on the appropriateness of

initiating a section 783 investigation

with respect to sodium azide from

Japan, on the substantive and

procedural standards USTR should

establish for the determinations of the

Department of Commerce and

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

in such an investigation, if initiated, and

on other issues that may be relevant.

DATES: Written comments from the

public are due on or before 12 noon, on

July 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Kane, Associate General

Counsel, (202) 395–6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

232 of the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act of 1994 added section 783 to the

Tariff Act of 1930 concerning

antidumping petitions by third

countries. Under section 783, the

government of a WTO member may file

with USTR a petition requesting that an

investigation be conducted to determine

if imports from another country are

being sold in the United States at less

than fair value, and an industry in the

petitioning country is materially injured

by reason of those imports. After

receiving a petition, USTR must consult

with Commerce and ITC, provide an

opportunity for public comment, and

determine whether to initiate an

investigation. Before initiating any

investigation, USTR must obtain the

approval of the WTO Council for Trade

in Goods. The URAA Statement of

Administrative Action (H.R. Doc. 103–

316, vol. l1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 845–

6) (‘‘SAA’’) notes that, in determining

whether to initiate an investigation,

USTR will take into account whether

the petitioning country provides an

equivalent opportunity to the United

States to seek the initiation of an

antidumping investigation.

Should USTR determine to initiate an

investigation, it must request Commerce

and the ITC to make determinations

with respect to dumping and injury,

respectively. If both determinations are

affirmative, Commerce must issue an

antidumping order in accordance with

section 736 of the Tariff Act.

USTR is to specify the substantive

and procedural requirements for the

Commerce and ITC determinations. The

SAA indicates that USTR is to develop

consistent, transparent standards of

general applicability that provide

meaningful guidance to Commerce and

ITC, while according them the necessary

flexibility to develop appropriate

procedures. With regard to procedural

issues, USTR is to specify deadlines,

persons who may participate in the

investigation, and the applicability of

requirements such as hearings and

exchanges of information under

administrative protective order. With

regard to substantive issues, USTR is to

specify the extent to which existing

antidumping standards will apply,

particularly with regard to the ITC’s

injury determination. In the SAA, the

Administration stated its intention that

the standards should, to a considerable

extent, permit the ITC to incorporate by

analogy existing standards concerning

injury to a U.S. industry, but also noted

that certain concepts, such as regional

industry, may have little applicability in

third-country investigations.

On January 16, 1996, an antidumping

petition was filed on behalf of American

Azide Corporation, the sole U.S.

producer of sodium azide, pursuant to

section 732 of the Tariff Act of 1930.