Federal Register: 49 Fed. Reg. 50017 (Dec. 26, 1984).

12-26-84Vol. 49 No. 249Pages 50017-50152

WednesdayDecember 26, 1984

m/mm mm m

m , m=.==mI

m m Nm N mm u m

mmmmm

wA m=__------ -

m

m

m

m

m

mm

g

m

m

m mm m

m

=__. ,._m

m CONTINUED INSIDE

Selected Subjects

Administrative Practice and ProcedureSurface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Air Pollution ControlEnvironmental Protection Agency

AliensImmigration and Naturalization Service

Animal DrugsFood and Drug Administration

Banks, BankingFederal Home Loan Bank Boatd

BridgesCoast Guard

FisheriesNational Oceanic and Atmosphenc Administration

Freedom of InformationAgriculture Department

Health CareVeterans Administration

Loan Programs-Housing and Community DevelopmentEducation Department

RadioFederal Communications Commission

Radio and Television BroadcastingFederal Communications Commission

IT Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Selected Subjects

Selected Subjects

FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily. Monday through Friday,(not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays),by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives andRecords Service. General Services Administration, Washington,

'DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (49 Stat. 500, asamended; 44 U.S.C. Ch, 15) and the regulations of theAdministrative Committee of'the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I).Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. -

The 'Federal Register provides a uniform system for makingavailable to the public regulations and legal notices issued byFederal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations andExecutive Orders and Federal agency documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, documents required to bepublished by act of Congress and other Federal agencydocuments of public interest. Documents are on file for publicinspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day beforethey are published, unless earlier filing is requested by theissuing agency.The Federal Register will be furnished by mail to subscribersfor $300.00 per year, or $150.00 for 6 months, payable inadvance. The charge for individual copies is $L50 for eachissue, or $1.50 for each group of pages as actually bound. Remitcheck or money order, made payable to the Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC20402.

There are no restrictions on the republication of materialappearing in the Federal Register.

Questions and requests for specific information may be directedto the telephone numbers listed under INFORMATION ANDASSISTANCE in the READER AIDS section of this issue.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.Civil Aeronautics Board

Contents Federal Register

Vol. 49, No. 249

Wednesday. Decembcr 2o. 1924

Agriculture DepartmentRULES

50017 Freedom of Information Act; implementation;official records, fee schedule

Antitrust DivisionNOTICES

50121 National Cooperative Research Act;implementation; notification and Federal Registerpublication provisions

Arts and Humanities, National FoundationNOTICES

50125 Agency information collection activities underOMB review

Civil Aeronautics BoardRULESForeign air carriers:

50027 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Coast GuardPROPOSED RULESDrawbridge operations:

50055 Louisiana

Commerce DepartmentSee also Minority Business Development Agency.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;National Technical Information Service.

Defense DepartmentSee Engineers Corps; Navy DepartmenL

Education DepartmentRULESPostsecondary educatiom

50028 College housing programNOTICESGrants; availability, etc..

50070 Business and international education programPostsecondary education:

50071 National defense and direct student loanprograms; directory of designated low-racomeschools for teacher cancellation benefits;availability

Energy DepartmentSee aLso Energy Information Administration;Federal Energy Regulatory Comnumssion; Hearingsand Appeals Office, Energy Department.NOTICES

50072 Motor vehicle fuel economy; 1985 gas mileagegide; availability

50072

50073

Energy Information AdministrationNOTICESForms; availability. etc..

Industrial energy conservation program reportingform; inquiryPetroleum facility operator identification survey;inquiry

Engineers CorpsNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc.:

50069 Moss Landin, CA harbor expansion

Environmental Protectlon AgencyPROFO3ED RULESAir pollutants, hazardous; national emissionstandards:

50146 Mercury from mercury-cell chior-allkali planfs,sludge drying and incinerator plants, andmercury ore processing facilities

NOTICESAir quality; prevention of significant deterioration:

50106 Permit extensionsMeetings:

50106 Interagency Toxic Substances Data CommitteePesticide programs

50106 Confidential information and data access byGAO

Pesticides; temporary tolerances:50105 Aiitraz

Federal Aviation AdministrationPROPOSED RULES

50054 Restricted areas; correction (2 documents

Federal Communications CommissionRULESCommon carrer services:

50030 INTELSAT global communications satellitesystem; ownership and operation of U.S. earthstations; policy statement

Radio and television broadcasting.50045 Ov(ersighh update clarifications, editorial

corrections, etc.PROPOSED RULESFrequency allocations and radio treaty matters:

50056 Radiodetermination satellite serv.ce applicationrequest denial, etc.

Radio services, special:50059 Private land mobile services; public safety

channel allocation, Los Angeles, Ctli. extensionof time

NOTICESHearings, etc.:

50109 Astro Broadcasting System et al50109 Cleburne Broadcasting Co. et a.50107 C&P Broadcasting et al50107 Lawson Broadcasting, Inc., Debtor-In-Possession.

et al50107 Ricbford Broadcasting Co. et al.50108 Scenic Sounds, Inc.. et aL.50108 Stearns County Broadcasting Co., Inc., et a].50108 Tamarack Investment Corp. et a].

50079,5008250081

Federal Energy Regulatory CommimssinNOTICESHcarigs, etc.

ANR Pipeline Co. (2 documents]

Carolina Power & light Co.

IV Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wedmesday, December 26, 1984 / Contents

5008250083500815008350081,50083500845008550084500815008450082500845008250084500855008550085

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.D. R. Lauck Oil Co., Inc. (2 documents)Davie County, N.C.East Tennessee Natural Gas Co.Gulf States Utilities Co. (2 documents)

Idaho Natural Energy, Inc.Lee, William S.Mount Hood HydroOzark Gas Transmission SystemPortland General Electric Co.Public Service Co. of New HampshireRoberts, James WTexas Eastern Transmission-Corp.Texas Gas Pipe Line Corp.Trunkline Gas Co.Tucson Electric Power Co.Yankee Atomic Electric Co.

Federal Home Loan Bank BoardRULESFederal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation:

50019 Earnings based accounts; limitations

Federal Reserve SystemNOTICESBank holding company applications, etc..

50110 AT Financial Corp. et al.50110 Southwest Virginia Bankshares, Inc., et al.

Federal Trade CommissionNOTICES

50111 Premerger notification waiting periods; earlyterminations

Fish andWildlife ServiceRULESHunting:

50049 Refuge specific hunting regulations; correction

-Food and Drug AdministrationRULESAnimal drugs, feeds, and related products:

50028 Coopers Animal Health, Inc., sponsor namechange

NOTICESHuman drugs:

50112 Amrinone lactate; review period for patentextension

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Community Services Office; Health Resourcesand Services Administration; Public Health Service.

Health Resources and Services AdministrationNOTICES

50113 Advisory committee reports, annual; availability (2documents)Meetings; .advisory committees:

50112 January (1985]

Hearings and Appeals Office, Energy DepartmentNOTICES

50086, Special refund procedures; implementation and50094 inquiry (2 documents)

Immigration and Naturalization ServiceRULES

50018 Aliens arriving by civil aircraft; designation ofports of entry; liability for inspectional overtime;exemption

Indian Affairs BureauNOTICESReservation establishment, additions, etc..

50116 Squaxin Island Indian Reservation, WA

Interior DepartmentSee also Fish and Wildlife Service; Indian AffairsBureau; Land Management Bureau; MineralsManagement Service; Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement Office.NOTICES

50115 Privacy Act; systems of records

Justice DepartmentSee also Antitrust Division; Immigration andNaturalization Service.NOTICESPollution control; consent judgments:

50121 Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewage Authority50121 Welch, WV

Labor DepartmentSee also Mine Safety and Health Administration.NOTICESMeetings:

50122 Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy LaborAdvisory Committee

Land Management BureauNOTICESEnvironmental statements; availability, etc..

50117 Mt. Hope Molybdenum Project, NV50117 Utah combined hydrocarbon leasing

Oil and gas leases:.-50117 Wyoming (2 documents)

Sale of public lands:50117 Utah

Management and Budget OfficeNOTICES

50134 Audit requirements for State and localgovernments receiving Federal aid; provisions ofAttachment P of Circular A-102 superseded;proposed circular

50122501235012350123501245012450124,501255012550125

Mine Safety and Health AdministrationNOTICESPetitions for mandatory safety standardmodifications:

Blair Coal Co., Inc.Booker Fork Coal Corp.C.R. & C. Coal Co.International Salt Co.Maynard Branch Mining Co., Inc.Rio Algom Mining Corp.Scotts Branch Mining Co. (2 documents)

Signal Mountain Cement Co.White River Shale Oil Corp.

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 20, 1984 / Contents V

Mineral Management ServiceNOTICESOuter Continental Shelf; development operationscoordination:

50118 Conoco Co.50118 ODECO Oil & Gas Co.

50066,50067500655006450064,5006550066

Minority Business Development AgencyNOTICESFinancial assistance application announcements:

California (3 documents)

District of ColumbiaMarylandPennylvania (2 documents)

Washington

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministrationRULESFishery conservation and management-

50049 Spiny lobsterPROPOSED RULESFishery conservation and management:

50060 Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog

National Park ServiceNOTICESHistoric Places National Register, pendingnominations:

50119 Arizona et al.Meetings:

50120 Gateway Advisory Commission50120 Upper Delaware Citizens Advisory Council

National Technical Information ServiceNOTICESPatent licenses, exclusive:

50068 Oncogene Science, Inc. &

National Transportation Safety BoardNOTICES

50126 Accident reports, safety recommendations, andresponses, etc.; availability

Navy DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

50069, Naval Research Advisory Committee (250070 documents)

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPROPOSEDRULESProduction and utilization facilities, domesticlicensing:

50054 Property insurance requirements; extension oftime

NOTICES50126 Agency information collection activities under

OMB reviewApplications, etc.:

50130 Boston Edison Co.50131 Florida Power & light Co. et al.50127, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (350132, documents)5013350128 Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.

50128

5013150129

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. et al.Environmental statements; availability, etc:

Connecticut Power & Light Co. et al.Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

Pension Benefit Guaranty CorporationNOTICESMultiemployer pension plans; bond/escrowexemption requests:

50139 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., et al.Multiemployer pension plans; substantial damagedetermination requests:

50138 Arrow Transportation Co. et al. withdrawn

Public Health ServiceNOTICESOrganization, functions, and authority delegations:

50113 Centers ror Disease Control50114 Food and Drug Administration

Small Business AdministrationRULES

50027 Small business size standards; correction

50141

5014050140

State DepartmentNOTICESMeetin-s:

International Radio Consultative Committee (2documents)Shipping Coordinating Committee (2 documents)International Telegraph and TelephoneConsultative Committee

Surface Mining Reclamation and EnforcementOfficePROPOSED RULESAbandoned mine land reclamation program:

50054 Abandoned mine land fund, apportionmentpolicy; comment period closed

NOTICES50120 Abandoned mine lands and State regulatory

programs administration; annual evaluationreports; availability

Textile Agreements Implementation CommitteeNOTICESCotton, wool, and man-made textiles:

50068 RomaniaTextile consultation: review of trade:

50068 Hong Kong

Transportatlon DepartmentSe2 aI.o Coast Guard; Federal AviationAdministration.

Treasury DepartmentNOTICES

50143 Agency Information collection actiities underOMB reviewNotes, Treasury:

50141 Q-1988 series

Veterans AdministrationRULESMedical benefits:

50029 Medical services definition

VI Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26. 1984 / Contents

Separate Parts in This Issue

Part I150146 Environmental Protection Agency

Reader AidsAdditional information including a list of publiclaws, telephone numbers, and finding aids, appearsm the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 I Contents vii

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found inthe Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

7 CFR1 ........................................ 500178 CFR239 ............ 5001810 CFRProposed Rules:50 ................ 5005412 CFR563 .... .. 50019564 ............ 5001913 CFR-121 .................................... 5002714 CFR211 ........... 50027Proposed Rules:71 ................................. 5005473 (2 documents) ............. 5005421 CFR510 ................................ 5002830 CFRProposed Rules:872. ............ 50054

33 CFR.Proposed Rules:117 ...... ............. 50055

34 CFR614 ... .. ................ .... ... 50028,

38 CFR17 ..... ............ 5002940 CFRProposed Rules:61 ......... ..... ........ 04

47 CFRCh. I ........ ................... .5003073 .................................. 5004578-....... ................... 50045Proposed Rules:2 (2 documents) ............. 50056,

5005973 ......... .. 5005990 ........... 5005950 CFR32 ................. 50049645 .............................. . .50049Proposed Rules:652. .................... ...... 50060

'50017

Rules and Regulations Fcd2ral Register

Vol. 49. No. 249

Wedne-sday. December 25, 1934

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains regulatory documents havinggeneral applicability and legal effect, mostof which are keyed to and codified inthe Code of Federal Regulations, wh:ch ispublished under 50 titles pursuant to 44U.S.C. 1510.The Code of Federal Regulations is soldby the Supenntendent of Documents.Prices of new books are fisted m thefirst FEDERAL REGISTER issue of eachweek.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary

7 CFR Part 1

Official Records; Fee Schedule

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA.

ACTION:. Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department ofAgriculture adopts as a Final Rule, withno changes, the Proposed Rule publishedin the Federal Register on August 6,1984(49 FR 31292). This rule amends the FeeSchedule (Appendix A, Subpart A, 7CFR Part 1), by increasing fees to becharged for certifying and authenticatingrecords and for providing aerialphotographic reproductions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 25.1985.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.Don Widener, Fiscal Policy andManagement Division, Office of Financeand Management, USDA, Washington,D.C. 20250; (202] 382-1221.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDepartment of Agriculture makesavailable copies of records, includingphotographic reproductions, to thepublic. Due to the increased costs ofcertifying, authenticating, andreproducing records, includingphotographic reproductions, it isnecessary for the Department toincrease the fees charged for certifying,authenticating, and reproducing copiesof such records. Accordingly, this FinalRule amends the regulations to set forththe fee changes.

A Proposed Rule was published in theFederal Register on August 6,1984 (49FR 31292) proposing to increase feescharged for certifying and authenticatingrecords and for providing aerialphotograpic reproductions. The publicwas given 30 days to submit comments

on this Proposed Rule. No commentswere received.

This Final Rule has been issued inconformance with Executive Order12291 and Departmental Regulation1512-1 and been determined not to be a"major rule." In addition, it will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities asdefined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] because the feesprovided for in this proposed rule arenot new but merely reflect a minmunalincrease in the costs currently borne bythose persons requesting Governmentphotographic reproductions andcertification and authentication ofrecords. John E. Carson, Director, Officeof Finance and Management, madethese determinations.

List of Subjects m 7 CFR Part I

Freedom of Information.

PART 1-ADMINISTRATIVEREGULATIONS

Accordingly, Appendix A of SubpartA, Part 1, title 7 Code of FederalRegulations, is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for AppendixA, Subpart A, Part 1 is amended to readas follows.

Authority.: I I-.SAL 201. 52.7 i S (C.2244-.31 I VSt: 9701; nd 7 CFR 75lall6ltxiiii

Appendix A-Fee Schedule

2. Section 8, pararaph S, is revised toread as follows:

Secr 8. Fceo for rccordn erd rdolacdservice.

g. Certifications "_O0 each;Authentications underDepartmcnt Seal(including aenal photographo) 1,33.0 ech.

3. Section 10, paragraphs a and b, arerevised to read as follows:

Sec. 10. Agenczez which furntshpholographic reprcdaclion .

a. Arial photor ophic r,'cpductiens. Thefollov.ng agencies of the Dzpartment furmishaerial photographic rmproduction=Agricultural Stabilization and Concervation

Service (ASCS), APFO. USDA-ASCS. 22West 2300 South. P.O. Box 30010, Salt LakeCity, Utah 84130.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS}, USDA.Cartographic Divislon. Ft. Worth FederalCenter. P.O. Box (,367, Ft. Worth. Texas76115.

b. Od rp.ofajmphzcreprdactans. Othertypes of photographic reproductions may beobtained from the folloving agencies of theDepartment,Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Senice (ASCS], Inforrmation Divisma, P.O.Box 2415, Washington. D.C. 20013.

Forest Service (FS), USDA. P.O. Box 2417,Vashinrton. D.C. 20013, or nearest ForestService Regional Office.

Office of Governmental and Public Affairs(OCPA), USDA. Photographic Division.Room 530A. Washington. D.C. 20250.

Soil Conservation Service (SCSI. USDA,Information Division. Audio Vis-al Branch,Washington. D.C. 2=20.

National Agricultural Ubrary MNAL. USDA.Room ,CO, NAL Bailding, Eelts-ille, P.D20705.

4. Section 16, paragraph c, is revisedto read as follows:

Sec . I(Pcphirep mdckpon pc&r.

c. Aenaiphate plucreproductrasi..There Is no minimum charge on aerialphotography orders. The pnces for varioustypes of aerial photographic reproductionsare set forth below. Size measurements referto the approximate size m inches of the paperrequired to produce the pnnL

1. Black.and./hfte co pnnr

2. AenalF Phato Inda Sheets.

C a - 2 RC cc.-d t:za) Fr saJo24," -- Gi - 4Ss

.=¢ _zo :_ ,- 1C0Lz:."ta' 2.50

3. B : -z;tent.(proA74knprinb1J.

17.%17 8diO m140.

4. Reproduclions from colorn egallrem.

50018 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

Prce each

Size so filmcolor poadiepaper trans.

__ _ _ _ _ ]parency

1OXlOcoact .......................... S5.00 $15.o0012X 12 enlargement .................. 20.0020X20 enlargement . ....... 25.0024x24 enlargement ............ ......... 30.0038x38 enlargement .................... 45.00

5. Reproductions from color positivetransparencies (natural color or colorinfrared).

Pnce each

White ColorSize oaque film

color pOlitiIrn trans-Irm - s-

film parency

1Ox10 contact .......................... $8.00 $12.0012X 12 enlargement . 25.0020X20 enlargement .............. . 30.0024X24 enlargement ................................ 35.0038c38 enlargement ......................... 50.00

6. Special need. For special needs notcovered above, persons desiring aerialphotographic reproductions should contactthe Departmental Aerial PhotographyCoordinator, Aerial Photography Field Office,USDAASCS, 2222 West 2300 South, P.O. Box30010, Salt Lake City, Utah 84130.

Signed at Washington, D.C. on December 4,1984.

John E. Carson,Director, Office of Finance and Management.[FR Doc. 84-33456 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 amlBILWNG CODE 3410-98-M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

•Immigration and Naturalization

Service

8 CFR Part 239

Special Provisions Relating to Aircraft:Designation of Ports of Entry for AlienArriving by Civil Aircraft

AGENCY: Immigration and NaturalizationService, Justice.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule eliminates thecurrent exemption of carrier liability forinspectional overtime of aircraft arrivingon schedule where permission is grantedto land at other than a designatedinternational airport of entry between5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. This change ismade in order to bring the regulationmore closely in conformity with 8 U.S.C.1353(b) which provides that an aircarrier is exempted from payingovertime charges if (1] the inspection isperformed at a designated port of entry,and (2) the aircraft is operating on aregular schedule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 25,1985.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.For General Information:

Loretta J. Shogren, Director, PolicyDirectives and Instructions,Immigration and NaturalizationService, 425 1 Street NW.,Washington, D.C. 20536, Telephone:(202) 633-3048

For Specific Information:Ellis B. Linder, Immigration Inspector,

Immigration and NaturalizationService, 425 1 Street NW.,Washington, D.C. 20536, Telephone:(202) 633-2745

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ruleeliminates the current exemption ofcarrier liability for inspectional overtimeof aircraft arriving on schedule wherepermission is granted to land at otherthan a designated international airportof entry between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.This change is made in order to bringthe regulation more closely inconformity with 8 U.S.C. 1353(b) whichprovides that an air carrier is exemptedfrom paying overtime charges if: (1) Theinspection is performed at a designatedport of entry, and (2) the aircraft isoperating on a regular schedule.Definitions of "international" and"landing rights" airports are clarified. Inaddition, this final rule eliminates anyarguable conflict between the Secretaryof the Treasury's powers pursuant to 49U.S.C. 1509(b) and the AttorneyGeneral's authority under 8 U.S.C. 1229,and more appropriately places anyfinancial liability for inspectionalservices on the benefiting user, not onthe Government of the United States.

Notice of proposed rule making waspublished in the Federal Register on July18,1984 at 49 FR 29104, with an initialcomment period of 30 days. Thecomment period was later extended anadditional 30 days, ending September17,1984. During the 60 day publiccomment period, five comments werereceived. Three commenters supportedand two opposed the proposed rule.

One commenter in opposition statedonly that the transfer of liability fromthe U.S. Government to U.S. carriers andeventually to U.S. citizens isunwarranted.

The other comments received inopposition to the change were put forthby one writer. A summary of thesecomments and the Service reply follow:

(1) The proper forum for alteringpolicy on overtime payments is theCongress.

The "overtime policy" being amended'is now a regulation. Therefore, propermethod for amending the situation, theexemption of carrier liability for

inspectional overtime, is by regulatoryaction. The reference to comprehensivelegislation concerning overtime paymentis misplaced. The regulation wasdesigned to amend current overtimeprovisions. Further, the policy is In linewith Administration policy of requiringfees for services rendered,

(2) Inadequacy of number ofinternational airports contained in 8CFR 100.4c)(3).

The reference to the lack of sufficientinternational airports contained in 8CFR 100.4(c)(3) attacks the proposal forwhat it does not do and the argument Isirrelevant to the issue at hand.

(3) The proposal would violateinternational agreements.

We disagree. The agreements referredto evidently are concerned with routesand airport landing fees. They are notrelevant to the question of Inspectionalovertime.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), theCommissioner of Immigration andNaturalization certifies that this rule willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities. This is not a major rule withinthe meaning of section 1(b) of E.O,12291. It id estimated that the Servicewill save approximately $4,500,000annually in government liability forinspectional overtime.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 239

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Aliens,Inspections, Landing requirements, Portof entry.

Accordingly, Chapter I of Title 8 of theCode of Federal Regulations Is amendedas follows:

PART 239-SPECIAL PROVISIONSRELATING TO AIRCRAFT:DESIGNATION OF PORTS OF ENTRYFOR ALIENS ARRIVING BY CIVILAIRCRAFT

1. Section 239.1 is revised as follows:

§ 239.1 Definitions.

(a) Scheduled Airline. This termmeans any individual, partnership,corporation, or association engaged inair transportation upon regularschedules to, over, or away from theUnited States, or from one place toanother in the United States, andholding a Foreign AIr Carrier permit or aCertificate of Public Convenience andNecessity issued pursuant to the FederalAviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 731).

(b) International Airport, Aninternational airport is one designatedby the Commissioner for the entry of

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26, 1934 / Rules and Regulations 50)19

aliens with the prior approval of theSecretary of Commerce, Secretary of theTreasury and the Secretary of Healthand Human Services.

(c) Landing Rights Arpor An airport,although not designated asinternational, at which permission toland has been granted to aircraftoperated by scheduled airlines by theCommissioner of Customs.

2. Section 239.2 is amended byrevising paragraph (a); existingparagraphs (b), (c), and (d] areredesignated (c), (d), and (e),respectively, and a new paragraph (b) isadded as follows:

§ 239.2 Landing requirements.

(a] Place of landing. Aircraft carryingpassengers or crew reqmred to beinspected under the Act shall land at theinternational air ports of entryenumerated in Part 100 of this chapterunless permission to land elsewhereshall first be obtained from theCommissioner of Customs in the case ofaircraft operated by scheduled airlines,and in all other cases from the districtdirector of Customs or other Customsofficer having jurisdiction over theCustoms port of entry nearest theintended place of landing.Notwithstanding the foregoing, aircraftcarrying passengers or crew required tobe inspected under the Act on flightsoriginating in Cuba shall land only atFort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport,Fort Lauderdale, Florida, unlessadvance permission to land elsewherehas been obtained from the DistrictDirector of the Immigration andNaturalization Service at Miam.Florida.

(b) Inspection at other thaninternational anports. Wheneverpermission is granted to land at otherthan an international airport designatedin § 100.4(c)(3] of this chapter, theowner, operator, or person m charge ofthe aircraft shall pay any additionalovertime expenses incurred ininspectingpassengers or crew on boardsuch aircraft.

(Secs. 103 and 239 of the Imngratioa andNationality Act, as amended(8 U.S.C. 1103and 1229))

Dated- November 17,1984.

Alan C. Nelson,

Commzssioner Immgration andNaturalization Service.[FR Doc. 84-33427 Filed 12-24-84; &45 am]BILLING COEO 4910-14-

FEDERAL HOME LOANl BANK BOARD

12 CFR Parts 563 and 564

[No. 84-7171

Earnings-BaCed Accounts

Dated. Deccriber 10,1234.

AGENCY: Federal Home Loan BankBoard.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMNPY= The Federal Home Loan BankBoard ("Board"), as operating head ofthe Federal Savings and Loan InzuranceCorporation ("FSLIC" or "Corporation"),is placing limitations on the issuance byisured institutions of accounts that

provide for the payment of interest to bedetermined by reference to an indexbased on the profitability or incomederived from assets of the institutions.The purpose of the limitations is toaddress concerns regarding the safetyand soundness of institutions issuingsuch instruments, the insurability ofsuch instruments, and the advertising,sales, and distribution practices withrespect to such instruments.EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17,194.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Christopher Bolle, (202), 377-7057,Attorney, Office of General Counsel.1700 G Street, NV., Washington, D.C.20552.SUPPLEMENTAftY INFORMATION: OnOctober 15,1984, the Board proposed arule limiting the issuance of andclarifying the FSLIC insurance onearnings-based accounts ("EBAs"). TheBoard had recently become aware that anumber of institutions whose accountsare insured by the FSLIC ("insuredinstitutions" had issued or wereconsidering the issuance of EBAs, whichare certificates of deposit the interest onwhich is determined to some degree bythe profitability of assets of the issuinginstitution. In some cases the assets areto be acquired with the accountproceeds and in other cases the assetsare already owned or controlled by theinstitution. The Board stated its belief inthe preamble to the proposal that EBAs,if used properly, can be a valuabletechnique for matching portions ofinsured institutions' asset and liabilityportfolios. The Board was concerned.however, by some features of theseaccount programs which its staff hadreviewed, and therefore proposedcertain limitations to protect the safetyand soundness of institutions engaged inthis activity and to protect personsinvesting in these instruments. Theproposed rule was intended to limit therisk-related aspects of EBAs whileproviding institutions with reasonable

flexibility to utilize these newinstruments.

CommentsThe Board received a total of 20

comments on the proposal Of thosecomments, 9 were from insuredinstitutions, 3 were from investmentbanking firms, 3 were from law firms, 3were from thrift industry tradeassociations, one was from a stateregulatory agency, and one was from asavings and loan holding company. Allof the commenters agreed with theBoard that EBAs are a potentiallyvaluable tool for the thrift industry, butthat some regulation of this new; type ofinstrument was necessary in theinterests of safety and soundness andconsumer protection.

A majority of those commenting (15]expressed the view that the proposeddefinition of EBAs was too restrictive,and argued that the proposed limit onthe amount of contingent interestunpaired the matching function of EBAs,made them less attractive investmentsfor depositors, and in general would notfurther the purposes of the proposal.These commenters were primarilyconcerned that the structure of theproposed provision would tend to forceup the guaranteed ("floor)l rate payableon EBAs. Consequently. it was argued.EBAs would be less effective minsulating institutions from interest-rate and credit rsk. A number ofalternatives were suggested. includingrising the limitation; adjusting the limiton contingent interest to account forinflation; limiting only the floor rate;limiting contingent interest to apercentage of the institution's return onthe assets used to compute suchcontingent interest; and a combinationof these methods. Several commentersexpressed their belief that the proposedlimitation on contingent interest waspreempted by regulations of theDepository Institutions DeregulationCommittee.

One commenter requested that finalaction on the proposal be postponed toallow for more study and development -

of the uses of EBAs. The Board declinesto postpone action because it believesthat the final rule will add certainty.clarity, and flexibility over that providedin the proposal, and these benefitsshould not be denied to institutionspending further study. The Board alsonotes that if further study mdicates theneed for changes in the final rule. suchchanges could readily be made bymeans of rulemaking to amend this rule.

Commenters also made-a number ofsuggestions for technical or clarifyingchanges. These suggestions are


discussed below in the explanation ofthe provisions of the final rule.

Definition of Earnings-Based AccountsThe final rule includes in its definition

of the term "earnings-based account"any purported account that provides forthe payment of interest to bedetermined, to any extent, directly orindirectly, by reference to an indexbased upon the profitability of, orincome or earnings derived from, certainassets ("indexed assets"). This includesaccount instruments that guarantee a"floor" rate of return as well as makingprovision for contingent additionalinterest based on the return on indexedassets. Such assets include those thatare, directly, or indirectly owned,controlled by, or within the control of,the issuing institution, to cover a varietyof arrangements possible in this type ofaccount offering, including theattachment of instruments withearnings-based returns to certificates ofdeposit which would not otherwise beEBAs. The definition includes assetsacquired by investment of the accountproceeds as well as assets already inportfolio or controlled indirectly by theissuing institution, such-as asets of asubsidiary or affiliate.

The proposal included in itsdefinitional section a provisionregarding the features which, if includedin an EBA, would disqualify suchinstrument as an "insured account" andtherefore make such instrumentineligible for FSLIC insurance. Suchdisqualifying provisions included those:(1) Granting holders or owners of theinstruments any form of ownershipinterest or rights in the indexed assets,(2) providing for the possibility of loss ofprincipal, dire6tly or indirectly, orthrough a provision for negative interest,and (3) requiring or permitting thepayment of contingent or variableinterest, however derived, in excess of70 percent of the actual dollar amount ofthe fixed or guaranteed interest payableon the accounts.

The majority of commenters assertedthat the third factor was not appropriatefor inclusion in the final rule because itwas not within the Board's authority orwould tend to frustrate the purposes ofthe proposal by making EBAs less well-matched for institutions and lessattractive for investors. The proposedprovision was included because theBoard was concerned that institutionsmust retain some interest in the indexedassets in order for an EBA properly tobe characterized as an account. Inaddition, the proposed provision wasintended to ensure that the primarycharacteristict'of EBAs would be thoseof debt and not those of an equity

investment in the indexed assets. Tothat end, the proposed limitation on EBAcontingent interest was designed so thatthe return derived from the debtobligation of the issuer, and not thereturn derived from indexed assets,would predominate in the total return onEBAs. It was the Board's view at thetime of proposal that this provisionwould adequately preserve the primary"account/debt characteristics" of EBAswhile not substantially reducing theirattractiveness to institutions or toinvestors.

In light of the comments received onthe proposed contingent interest limit,the Board has reexamined this issue.Many commenters asserted that, whilethey may not have had a theoreticalobjection to "accountness" provisions,the proposed limitation wouldsignificantly impair the valuablematching function of EBAs by limitingcontingent interest to a portion of thefixed interest. These commentersobserved that the structure of an EBAenables institutions to share some oftheir credit and interest-rate risk withdepositors. It was noted that tisnecessitates offering to depositors apotential return in excess of the marketrate for fixed-yield CDs. Commentersargued that the proposal, by limitingcontingent interest to.70 percent of fixedinterest, would tend to encourageinstitutions to offer a higher fixed("floor") interest rate in order to attractthese deposits. Commenters asserted,and the Board agrees, that such a resultwould nullify the primary benefit ofEBAs for institutions, by reducing theirability, through offering a low "floor"rate, to share some risks withdepositors. The Board further concursthat an EBA which does not perform thisrisk-sharing function would be of littleor no benefit.

A number of commenters assertedthat the proposed limitations oncontingent interest, and any forms ofregulation of EBAs, was preempted bythe actions of the Depository InstitutionsDeregulations Committee ("DIDC"].Commenters stated that the proposedrule was a limitation on the issuance ofaccounts based on their method ofcalculation of interest payable. It wasargued that an interpretive rule of theDIDC permitted institutions to payinterest on accounts not subject tointerest-rate limitations based on anyindex, including one within the controlof the institution. See 12 CFR 1204.201(9184).

The Board agrees that the DepositoryInstitutions Deregulation and MonetaryControl Act of 1980 ("DIDMCA") grantsauthority to regulate interest rates solely

to the DIDC. However, it notes that theissues with respect to EBAs is not theaggregate amount of interest payable,but whether the method of calculationindicates that the investment isfunctionally more comparable to debt orequity. Specifically, the issue at hand Iswhether an unregulated EBA should betreated as an insured account. TheBoard has concluded that where Uninstitution issues an instrument whoseinterest rate is substanially determinedby the issuer's return on assets, such aninstrument is, in reality, merely a pass-through of the issuer's economic interestin those assets, and that such aninstrument represents an investment inthose assets rather than a debtobligation of the issuer. In Its proposedand final rules, the Board has used itsauthority to define the term "insuredaccount" and to approve the forms ofaccount issued by insured institutions toestablish limits within'which EBAscould be issued and within which theycould be deemed to be insured accounts.See 12 U.S.C. 1724, 1728. The Boardobserves that the DIDMCA did nottransfer the Board's authority in eitherarea to the DIDC. Further, the Boardnotes that, in its consideration of 12 CFR1204.201, the DIDC did not at any timeconsider whether an instrument whichpayed interest based on the Issuer'sassets would be an account, and that allDIDC rules presume the existence of adeposit or account.

The Board Considered several optionssuggested by commenters for alleviatingconcerns regarding limitations oncontingent interest,including: Raising thelimitation to a higher proportion of thefloor rate, not limiting the structure ofEBAs in any way, and limiting the floorrate. The Board continues to believe thatthe method of determining the return onEBAs raises substantial questions as totheir insurability, and therefore declinesto remove all restrictions on the methodof calculation of interest,

The Board has, however, to thegreatest extent consistent withaddressing the "accountness" issue,attempted to leave the total return onEBAs to managerial discretion. Thus, thefinal rule requires only that EBAs payguaranteed interest in a form consistentwith an insured account, but does notregulate the ultimate return on suchaccounts.

The Board-has concluded that, in lightof the fluidity of interest rates generally,and because of the need by institutionsfor flexibility to tailor EBAs to theirindividual needs and those of themarket place, the most appropriatemethod of aetermining the"accountness" of EBAs is to consider

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 50021

the' fixed floor rate of such instrumentsm relation to similar obligations ofsimilar maturities. Generally speaking,this approach was also reflected m theproposal, based on the Board'spreliminary determination that themeans of establishing the return on aninstrument should be one of the factorsin defining an insured account. To thatend, the proposal was designed toensure that EBAs would be treated asinsured accounts if their return werecalculated primarily on an index notderived from the return on assets withinthe control of the issuer. Upon furtherevaluation, the Board has concludedthat the proposed limit on contingentinterest is not the only means to assessthe returns-structure of an EBA. TheBoard believes that a related approach,which would consider the floor rate inrelation to the market rate for similarinstruments, would adequately addressthe Board's concerns while allowingmore flexibility to institutions instructunng EBAs.

The final rule addresses tis issue byincluding a provision which would deeman EBA to be an insured account if thefixed-interest component of the returnon such instrument is equal to or greaterthan two-tirds of the return on AAA-rated corporate bonds as of the date ofissuance of the EBA. Tns approachfollows the reasoning established by theFinancial Accounting Standards Board("FASB") in its directives concerning theaccounting treatment for convertibledebt securities. The FASB test set forthin FASB APB opinion-No. 14 (March,1969) and Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 55, amendingAPB No. 15 (February, 1982),characterizes a convertible security asan obligation or as an investmentdepending on how the cash yield of theinstrument compares with that of a non-convertible debt instrument of similarterms. Under the FASB releases, aninstrument would be treated as anequity investment if its cash yield wereless than two-thirds of the AAA-corporate bond rate on the grounds thata greater disparity of return wouldindicate that the instrument was notpredomnantly a debt obligation.

The Board believes that such a test isappropriate with respect to EBAsbecause establishing the predominanceof the "debt" or "equity" components ofan instrument is inherent in anydetermination of EBA "accountness."The Board has concluded that a testanalogous to that applied by the FASB isappropriate because it provides foranalysis of an instrument based on thevalue, in economic terms, placed on thedebt aspects of the instrument. If the

instrument is structured so that theguaranteed portion of the interest rate isso low as to indicate that theinstrument's only real value is as a"pass-through," then it will be treated assuch, and not as an insured account. If,on the other hand, the guaranteed rate isequal to or greater than two-thirds of theAAA-rated corporate-bond rate, theinstrument would be deemed to be aninsured account because debt featurespredominate. In the Board's view, tlustest will ensure that EBAs retainprimarily debt characteristics, and willthus be insurable as accounts. Inaddition, the Board believes that tlusprovision will give institutions moreflexibility in structuring EBAs by notlimiting contingent interest in any way.

The index for such yields used in thefinal rule, that published by the FederalReserve Board ("FRB") in release HIS(519) of Moody's AAA Bond Index, waschosen because: (1) Board data indicatesthat, because of FSLIC insurance,insured accounts are regarded aspresenting a risk similar to that of top-quality corporate bonds, and thereforewould provide a similar yield; (2) theFRB publication is readily available; and(3) the Board's analysis and availabledata demonstrate a significantcorrelation between the AAA-ratedbond yield and yields on long-termcertificates of deposit. Although thebond-yield index does not break downyields by maturities, the Board believesthat such a breakdovm is not necessarybecause of the similar variability ofmaturities of EBAs (see discussion ofmonitoring, below).

The proposal also expressed theBoard's concern that institutions shouldretain an economic interest in theindexed assets. Upon furtherconsideration, the Board has concludedthat, provided the guaranteed interestpayable on an EBA is sufficient tojustify characterization as an account,the institution's retention of aneconomic interest is primarily an issueof safety and soundness. Therefore, thefinal rule addresses this concern in theprovisions concerning -afety anrdsoundness, as discussed below.

LimitationsAs noted above, the Board believes

that earnings-based accounts offeradvantages over fixed-rate instrumentsin terms of matching liabilities withassets. Well-structured accounts of thistype could prove to be very useful aspart of the overall business plan of aninstitution. The proposal noted a numberof areas, however, that the Boardbelieved could give rise to substantialrisks to issuers or purchasers of EBAs.The issues will be discussed below in

the order in wich they appeared in theproposaL

1.Aet-II'orlh Compliance

As proposed, the final rule prohibitsinstitutions which do not meet theregulatory net-worth requirement of 12CFR 563.13(b) froin issuing theseaccounts. Institutions meeting theregulatory net-worth requirement couldIssue earnings-based accounts inamounts up to five percent of assets orin a greater amount with the priorpermission of the Supervisory AgentThe Board considered the suggestion bysome commenters that institutions not incompliance with their net-worthrequirement should be allowed to issueEBAs with approval of the SupervisoryAgent. The Board, however, remainsconcerned that institutions with low networth may not have the resources tosurvive possible losses in the event thatther earnings-based-account programperforms poorly. The Board believesthat the risks attending such programsoutweigh the possible benefits for veryweak institutions.

2. Size of Issuance

The proposal contained provisionslimiting the amount of EBAs whichcould be issued by institutions inrelation to their asset size and inconsideration of a number of factorsrelated to the ability of the institution tocontrol or absorb the risks inherent inEBA offerings. Several commentersasserted, and the Board has noted, thatEBAs are, in some respects, a "safer"form of account than a fixed-rate CDbecause of their nsk-shanng features. Anumber of commenters also assertedthat the proposed limitation on theamount of EBAs which institutions couldissue was too restrictive, and demedinstitutions, particularly small ones, theability to use EBAs to their fullpotential. Suggested changes involvedremoving all limits or raising the limits.

The Board. however, continues to beconcerned that a number of factorsattendant on EBA issuance, especiallyEBA programs which aredisproportionately large in relation tothe asset size of institutions, mayexacerbate the basic problems of creditns!% and undue concentration of ns:,while creating nslhs not otherwisepresent in other funding processes.Thus, althoujoh EBAs are an attractivefunding method for institutions if wiselyused, they are not without risk.

While the Board realizes that anylimitation on the amount of EBAs wichcould be issued will limit their benefitsto institutions to some extent, itcontinues to believe that the nshs


inherent in over-concentration on EBAsoutweigh the potential benefits toinstitutions. The Board believes thatalternatives suggested by commenters,such as prescribing diversificationstandards for indexed pools, would bedifficult to implement, and would resultin practice in greater limitations oninstitutions' flexibility than would theproposed volume limitations. It hastherefore determined to include thislimitation substantially as proposed.

The Board intends to monitor the useof EBAs carefully. As experience withtus new source of funding increases, theBoard may consider revising the volumelimitations if it finds that the risksassociated with EBA programs are lesssevere than anticipated. The Boardagain wishes to note that its loans-to-one-borrower and conflicts-of-interestrules apply to investments made inconnection with these accounts and thatinstitutions, underwriters, and the publicshould be aware of the effect that thoserules could have on EBA programs. TheBoard does not believe, however, thatsuch rules address all of its concernsabout these programs, particularlywhere a small institution undertakes avery large program.

To address these concerns, the finalrule limits the total amount of earnings-based accounts issued by an institutionto an amount equal to five percent of theassets of the institution, or up to 20percent of the assets of the institutionwith prior permission from theSupervisory Agent. The final ruleclarifies that, in cases whereSupervisory Agent permission is notobtained, the five-percent-of-assetslimitation applies to all EBAsoutstanding as of the date of issuance,and that institutions would not be mviolation of the final rule if a subsequentreduction in the institution's assetscause previously issued EBAs to be inexcess of the five-percent limit.

The Board has, however, clarified theproposal in several respects in responseto comments regarding permission toexceed the five-percent-of-assetslimitation on an EBA issuance. Severalcommenters asserted that the criteria forSupervisory Agent approval were toonarrowly drawn, and that they werephrased in such a way as to make thempreconditions for approval. Commenterssuggested that these factors should notbe conditions, but should merely beconsidered in determining whether suchpermission should be granted. Theproposal was not intended to make suchfactors prerequisites. The language ofthe final rule therefore clarifies that theSupervisory Agent's permission must bebased upon consideration of these

factors, but is not contingent upon them.The factors to be considered under thefinal rule are in most respects identicalto those proposed, and include: whetherthe institution meets or exceeds a"snapshot" net-worth requirement ofthree percent (calculated without theuse of five-year averaging and twenty-year phase-rn as currently permittedunder § 563.13 (b)(2) (i)-(ii)), theinstitution's deposit-growth pattern, itsasset-underwriting capabilities, itscompliance with the asset-compositiontest contained in Internal-Revenue CodesectiorL7701(a)(19), and supervisoryconcerns.

As noted above, the Board believesthat it may be an unsafe and unsoundpractice for an institution to fail toretain a substantial economic interest inthe indexed assets. Therefore, the finalrule requires that the Supervisory Agentconsider whether the institution retainsa substantial economic interest in theindexed assets. The Board believes thatconsideration of these factors by theSupervisory Agent will allow for moreflexibility for institutions, whilecontinuing to address the concern thatinstitutions have sufficient strength andexpertise to safely issue large amounts

- of EBAs.Because of potential confusion by

prospective depositors over the importof the term "approval" as used inproposed § 563.3-10(b)(1), the final rulesubstitutes the term "permission" for"approval" to avoid implications thatthe Board or the Supervisory Agentshave endorsed any EBA. Institutionsand their agents also should note thatthe Board believes that any reference topermission to issue EBAs in advertisingor disclosure materials relating to EBAswould be regarded as misleading if notaccompanied by an equally prominentstatement that such pernussion did notconstitute an endorsementby the Board,the FSLIC, any Federal Home LoanBank, or the Supervisory Ageny.

The list of factors in the final ruleotherwise differs from the proposed listin that, at the suggestion of commenters,the term "excessive growth" iseliminated. The fnal rule provides forconsideration of whether the institutionhas increased total liabilities at anannual rate greater than 25 percentwithin any three-month period duringthe twelve months preceding the date ofthe application.

The Board's concerns in this area areidentical to those detailed in itsreproposed rule revising mnimum net-worth requirements set forth in 12 CFR563,13(b) for insured institutions (Bd.Res. No. 84-681; November 30,1984) (the"net-worth reproposal"). In general, the

Board believes that the 25-percent figureis appropriate based on staff studies ofthe recent FSLIC caseload showing thatinstitutions that have grown more than25 percent have been responsible for adisproportionate share of expectedFSLIC losses.

Institutions should also note that, ifadopted substantially as proposed, thenet-worth reproposal could have varyingconsequences with respect to thelimitations in this rule on amounts ofEBAs which could be issued, In somecases, the regulatory net worth requiredunder the net-worth reproposal couldactually exceed the amount requiredunder the "snapshot" net-worth testincorporated in the list of factors to beconsidered by the Supervisory Agent ingranting permission to exceed the five-percent-of-assets limits of this rule. Aninstitution could pass the test foradditional issuance or EBAs in § 563.3-10(b)(1) while failing to have the notworth required under § 563.13(b) andthus be prohibited from issuing anyEBAs under § 563.3-10(b)(Z). Inconsidering action on a final rule on net-worth requirements, the Board intendsto consider whether amendments to§ 563.3-10(b)(1) or (2) would beappropriate, and what form suchamendments should take. The Boardtherefore solicits comments on whatmodifications might be appropriateshould the net-worth reproposal beadopted substantially as proposed,

The final rule adopts as proposed theprovision regarding information to besubmitted to the Supervisory Agentbefore an application for issuance ofEBAs in excess 6f five percent of assetswill be deemed complete, Thus, anapplication for such permission will bedeemed complete when the SupervisoryAgent has been supplied with thefollowing: (1) A description of theanticipated and the maximum amountsof earnings-based accounts to be offeredby the applicant; (2) informationdescribing in detail the loans to be usedin calculating the contingent interest onthe certificates, (3) a description andanalysis of the institution's underwritingand credit experience in the making ofsuch loans; (4) the exact method ofcalculating contingent interest'on thecertificates; (5) information showing thefinancial condition of the applicant,including, but not limited to, theapplicant's net worth; (6) a detailedanalysis showing the extent to whichthe proposed offering would affect theapplicant's exposure to interest-rate andcredit risk; (7) information describingthe deposit growth pattern of theapplicant over the preceding threecalendar years; and (8) a copy pf a


resolution adopted by the applicant'sboard of directors establishing abusiness plan designed, in conjunctionwith the offering, to reduce interest-rateand credit risk to the institution. Anapplication will be deemed to beapproved if a written notice by theSupervisory Agent of objection to theapplication stating the grounds for suchobjection is not received by suchapplicant within 30 days of the date theapplication is deemed complete.3. Asset Pools Used in Programs

The proposal reflected the Board'sconcern that institutions would attemptto finance acquisitions of equityinterests by means of earnings-based-account programs. The Board believesthat the risk and profit-sharing aspectsof these programs would make such adevice iuappropriate. In order toaddress this concern, the proposalwould have limited the assets whichcould be used to establish the interestindex to loans secured by real property.The Board proposed this provision toensure that the programs were use&formatching purposes, and to limit thepossibility that such instruments wouldbe deemed to be equity investments bydepositors and thus not insurable by theFSLIC. However, a number ofcommenters pointed out that while sucha limitation could be appropriate forassets used to establish the index overthe long term, it would often not bepossible to invest the proceeds of a largeoffering immediately in secured realproperty loans in accordance withprudent underwriting standards. TheBoard, however, does not believe thatany amendment in this area isnecessary. The Board notes that there isnothing in the final rule which limitsinstitutions' ability to invest theproceeds of an EBA offering. Theproposal and the final rule only limit thetypes of assets which may be used asindexed assets. In addition, institutionsare in no way prohibited from providingfor an interim fixed or independentlyvariable rate of return on EBAs prior tothe inclusion of assets in the indexedpool.

The proposal also would haveprohibited the issuance of earning-basedaccounts which would provide for thepayment of contingent or variableinterest to account holders in excess ofthe actual income derived by theinstitution from the specified assets.This provision reflected the Board'sconcern that the matching function ofEBAs could be significantly impaired ifan institution issued earniggs-basedaccounts providing for the payment ofinterest to account holders based on thecontract return on the underlying assets

rather than on the institution's actualreturn.

A number of commenters believedthat this proposed provision wouldunnecessarily limit institutions' abilityto structure programs where the loansused as indexed assets would matureafter the EBAs. They also suggestedrevising this provision to allow aninstitution to pay interest up to thecoupon rate of the loan regardless of theactual return on the loan. The Board hasconsidered this issue, and has concludedthat the risks for abuse, and forinstitutions committing themselves to anegative cash-flow position, outweighthe potential benefits of loosening theproposed limitation. The Board alsobelieves that the matching function ofEBAs would be significantly dilutedwere indexed assets to be of a longerterm than the EBAs. Therefore, the finalrule adopts the proposed provisionprohibiting the payment of contingentinterest in excess of the gross receipts,other than amounts attributable torepayment of principal, derived from theindexed assets.

4. Control OverAssetsMost of the earnings-based accounts

of which the Board currently is awareare being offered through securitiesfirms. Because the return on theinstruments is dependent upon themanagement efforts of the issuer, someunderwriters are concerned that theymay be liable if the issuer does not actin accordance with its disclosed policy.In some cases, the underwriter hasretained the right to veto any investmentdecision of the institution under theprogram. While the Board recognizesthat the concerns of underwritersprompting such provisions may be valid.it is concerned that such provisions mayeffectively abrogate the institution'sasset-management responsibility and,further, may result in the institutionbecoming overly dependent upon theundewriter and encourage "brokeragedeals" in which third parties takecontrol of significant portions of aninstitution's asset and liability business.

To address these concerns, theproposal provided that no person otherthan the institution may exercise controlover assets upon which the interestindex is based or assets otherwiseacquired in connection with theissuance of earnings-based accounts.This provision was not intended touifringe on traditional contractprovisions ensuring compliance withestablished prudent loan-underwritingor asset-acquisition standards.

A number of commenters expressedconcern that the proposed provisionwould eliminate the possibility of using

loan participations as indexed assets,and suggested changes to permit this.The Board does not believe that it isnecessary to modify this provision in thefinal rule because, as proposed, theprovision only affects the mstitution'scontrol over the assets used incalculating the index on earnings-basedaccounts. In the case of loanparticipations, the asset in question isnot the whole loan, but the institution'sparticipation in that loan. Thus, thisprovision only requires that theinstitution maintain control over theacquisition and disposition of theparticipation, not of the underlying loan.

5. Disclosure and Related Issues

The proposal contained a provisionprohibitin-, in connection with theissuance, purchase, sale, or redemptionof any earnings-based account,deceptive practices by institutions andtheir agents. The Board observed anumber of potentially serious problemsthat could arise with respect toearnings-based accounts but that wouldnot be present for accounts with fixedinterest rates or interest rates tied toindices outside the control of the insuredinstitution. These concerns ariseprimarily in three areas. First, thedepositor's return is dependent to alarge extent upon the institution's abilityto acquire high-quality assets andmanage them so as to providedepositors with a lgh rate of return.Thus the return on earnings-basedaccounts depends in part upon themanagement expertise of the issuer,although the prinmcipal must beguaranteed by the issuer and is insuredby the FSLIC. The Board thereforewished to ensure that potential investorshave sufficient information as to theissuer's expertise and other materialfactors upon which to base theirinvestment decision. Second, the Boardwas concerned that some institutionsmay attempt to abuse their control overthe assets used to establish the returnon earnings-based accounts by usinglow-quality assets to create their indiceswhile retaining full use of their higher-quality assets. Third, the Board wasconcerned that the institution's ability tocontrol the method of accounting forincome from the assets could be abusedto the detriment of the account holders.

The Board continues to believe thatthe proposed provision willencouragefull and accurate disclosure of allmaterial facts relating to earnings-basedaccounts to prospective depositors, andthe final rule adopts this provisionsubstantially as proposed. Facts whichthe Board would deem to be materialinclude, but are in no way limited to:


Identification of the index to be used indetermining the rate of interest payable;the method used to calculate the actualinterest to be paid, including the effectof early withdrawal and attendantpenalties; the mimmum and/orguaranteed interest payable on theaccounts; the limitations on FSLICinsurance coverage on contingentunaccrued interest a description andanalysis of the issuer's loanunderwriting and managementcapabilities and experience; disclosureof any conflict of interest involved in orpotentially affecting the program; and astatement that earnings-based accountsdo not and cannot convey anyownership or security interest in theassets used to calculate the interestpayable on the accounts.

The only change made in the final rulerelates to the scope of protectionafforded. The proposed provision wouldhave prohibited any deceptive practiceswith respect to any account holder. Itwas noted, however, that the proposalas drafted would not have covereddeceptive practices with respect topersons having an interest in accountsheld by others for their benefit. Thisomission was inadvertent. The final ruletherefore clarifies that this provisionapplies to deceptive practices withrespect to any person. In addition, thefinal rule would include, at thesuggestion of one commenter, aprovision affording all defensescurrently available under section lob ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78j(b)). The Board agrees thatsuch a provision is necessary to allow a"safe harbor" under this provision.

6. Securities-Tied AccountsThe Board proposed to prohilfit the

issuance or sale by an institution ofEBAs where such sale is linked in anymanner to the purchase of any security.This prohibition was designed toaddress a growing interest on the part ofinsured institutions in the possibility ofissuing insured accounts which could beconverted into stock of the issmnginstitution or which would be attachedto warrants or options for the purchaseof such stock. The Board was concernedthat this practice could constitute apotential misuse of FSLIC insurancecoverage on the account facet of thetransaction, and would result in equityfeatures becoming predominantin theinstruments, thus rendering themineligible for FSLIC insurance coverage.The Board also believed that there wasa great potential for confusion andabuse in the sales of such "packages"because of the difficulty in determiningthe insurance covirage and other rightscreated by an investment which

attempts to be both an insured accountand an equity investment.

The Board continues to believe thatthere is a substantial possibility forabuse in this area, and thereforebelieves it would be inappropriate todelete this provision from the finalregulation; as some commenterssuggested. The final rule thereforeprohibits the attachment of any security,e.g., an equity security, interest in alimited partnership, or interest in a realestate investment trust, or right topurchase or obtain a security, to anearmings-based account. The final rulewould not prohibit the attachment of aninsured account to an EBA because, onfurther examination of this issue, theBoard has concluded that thepossibilities for abuse by this means arevery limited with respect to EBAs. TheBoard does wish to note, however, thatthis provision in its final form should notbe construed to prohibit the sale of asecurity to the holder of an EBA exceptwhere such sale is tied to the sale of theEBA. This provision also should not beconstrued as prohibiting the attachmentof an instrument providing an earnings-based return to a non-EBA account,although the resulting package would bedeemed to be an EBA. The final ruleonly prohibits the issuance ordistribution of an EBA accompanied bya security or right to obtain or purchasea security. The Board further notes thatinstitutions should be cognzant of therequirements applicable to "brokers" ofsecurities pursuant -to-section 15 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and thecircumstances under which personsassociated with an issuer of securitieswho participate in sales of the issuer'ssecurities will not be considered to beacting as "brokers" as that term isdefined in the Securities Exchange Actof 1934.

7 Accounts issued to Owners of PoolAssets

The proposal required insuredinstitutions issuing earmngs-basedaccounts to take reasonable steps toensure that persons having any interestin the underlying assets, includingownership of property securing loans inthe pool, do not acquire these accounts.This bar reflected the Board's desire toprevent persons from using theseprograms as a means of obtaining FSLICinsurance for their own investment inassets by using the insured institution asa straw party. Commenters questionedwhether the proposed provision wouldput an undue burden on institutions.

The Board, in adopting this provisionas proposed, notes that it requires onlyreasonable steps to be taken byinstitutions to avoid the issuance of

EBAs to persons with an interest inindexed assets. The Board believes thatthe inclusion of a legend on EBAinstruments and disclosure documentsand a cross-check of EBA holders orowners with prospective mortgagors orvice-versa would not be undulyburdensome, and would in most casesprovide the institution with sufficientinformation to avoid cross-ownership ofindexed assets and EBAs.

Insurance Coverage of ContingentInterest Amounts

A number of earnings-based CDprograms provide for the use of theinstitution's interest in "equity kilcker"loans or shared appreciation loans Incalculating the contingent interestpayable to the account holders. In somecases, where the interest on theaccounts is calculated on the basis ofthe performance of a pool of such loans,this component of the interest iscalculated on the basis of the fundsderived from the total equityparticipations of the pool. However,such interest cannot be calculated untilthe institution actually receives thefunds at the maturity of the loans or thesale of the mortgaged properties. Theproposal provided that contingentinterest would be insured only to theextent that it had unconditionallyaccrued to EBA holders pnor to the dateof default of the insured institution.

The Board continues to believe that Itis inappropriate for the FSLIC to insurethe mere expectations, as opposed toactual rights, or depositors under theseor other programs not providing forspecific interest rates, Thisis Inaccordance with the provisions of TitleIV of the National Housing Act, whichprovides that accounts are insured up tothe withdrawable value of the account.See 12 U.S.C. 1724(a). Under the currentregulations, the insured amount of anaccount is the net withdrawable valueof the account as of the date of default,See 12 CFR 564.1(b). Contingent amountsof interest would not be withdrawableunder the terms of the account becausethey would not have unconditionallyaccured to the account holders.

While the Board believes that theexisting regulations provide someguidance as to the treatment ofcontingent interest in insurancesettlement (e.g. a contingent interestwould not be deemed to bewithdrawable, as it would not haveaccrued), it believe3 that the use of theterm "withdrawable" in the statuteneeds clarification. In practice, the useof "net withdrawable value" as used InPart 564 is often confused with early-withdrawal penalty considerations,

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26. 1984 / Rules and Regulations E025

which are not relevant m determininginsurance coverage. In fact, the questionof the value of an account does notdepend upon the amount which thedepositor would have been able towithdraw himself on the date of default,but upon the amount for which theinsured institution is unconditionallyliable to the insured member as of thatdate. Therefore, the proposal wouldhave amended Part 564 to provide thatthe insured amount of an account doesnot include any interest or principal thepayment or accrual of which is subjectto any contingency under the terms ofthe account agreement.

Commenters questioned whether theproposed provision would have requiredthat contingent interest beboth accruedand announced as of the date of defaultto be included in the amount of aninsured account The proposal was notintended to produce tis result. Therequirement of announcement in thecurrent and final rules refers to accountsissued by share associations, whosecooperative form requires that they payinterest only to the extent they.haveearnings. Thus, share accounts do not,techmcally speaking, bear a statedmterest, and interest must be announcedbefore it is ascertainable or payable.The final rule addresses this distinctionby clarifying that the requirement thatirerest be announced as of the date ofdefault applies only to share accounts.The final rule thus would not require theannouncement of contingent interestprior to the date of default, but only thatsuch interest not be subject to anycontingency, such as loses or non-performance of other assets in theindexed pool, to be included m theamount of the insured account.

The Board also proposed to prohibitthe issuance of EBAs wluch containedprovisions for maturity m the event ofinsolvency of the institution,enforcement or other regulatory orsupervisory action by regulatoryauthorities or the appointment of aconservator or receiver. Commentersrequested that the final rule not prohibitthe accleration of maturity of EBAswhere the issuer's status as an insuredinstitution is terminated. Thesecommenters asserted that a prohibitionon such acceleration could leavedepositors with no protection in such anevent and therefore as a general matterwould greatly chill the market for EBAs,particularly because EBAs tend to belong-term instruments and accountholders would be unable to assess theissuing institution's future health.

While the Board is cognizant of thisconcern, it continuesto believe thisprohibition is necessary to prevent

institutions from attempting to evade thegeneral insurance provision by using theinsolvency of the restitution to triggerthe accrual of contingent interest, 'hcrethe institution would have no liabilityfor such "interest" if it were healthy. Inaddition, the Board notes both thehistorical rarity of involuntaryterminations of insurance and thestatutory protections afforded todepositors m such cases. The Boardbelieves for these reasons thatcommenters' fears on this issue areexaggerated.Monitoring of Earnigs-Based-AccountsPrograms

In the preamble to the proposal, theBoard noted that it would be monitoringthe use of EBAs prior to the date of thefinal rule in order to obtain moreinformation on how EBAs will be usedm the industry.

Information received by the Board'sOffice of Exammations and Supervisionindicates that, as of November 21, U84,institutions in three Federal Home LoanBank districts (the 9th. 11th, and 12th)had issued or received approval to issueEBAs. Of the institutions currentlyissuing or which have received approvalto issue EBAs, four were utilizingunderwriters to distribute the EBA9, andone was engaged in a direct ofltringthrough its own offices and facilities.Three institutions had received approvalprior to the adoption of the proposal,and two had obtained approval underthe terms of the proposal. Offering sizesranged from $30 to -340 million dollars.The certificates' maturities ran-ed fromone year to twelve years, with themajority of offerings being in the eight-to-twelve year range. All of the issuers,intended to use primarily loan securedby income-producing propertieo withincome and/or profit participations asindexed assets. The issucrs vereinstitutions vith substantial experiencein malang the types of loans used asindexed assets.

Effective DateBecause the Board was concerned

about the imminent possibility of abuseof EBA programs pending adoption oftis final rule, and becausc the Boardwished to eliminate questionsconcerning the insurability of EBAs sothat institutions that wished to goforward under the rule as proposedcould do so, the proposal provided that,if it were adopted as a final rulesubstantially as proposed, the effectivedate would be October 17,1984. As thefinal rule is being adopted substantiallyas proposed, it will therefore apply to aUEBA instruments issued on or afterOctober 17, 1984, except with respect to

those EBA programs of institutions thatraceived written notice of non-objectionfrom the Supervisory Agent prior to suchdate. The Board aclmowledges,however, that the provision in the finalrule on contingent versus fixed interestdiffers from the proposal in that it is lessrestrictive. Therefore, the Board ishereby authorizing Supervisory Agentsto permit modifications to EBAprograms for wich institutions hadreceived the Supervisory Agent'sw~ritten notice of non-objection prior tothe date of publication of the final rulewith respect to the maximum amount ofcontin.gent interest payable, pro,,idedthat the amended program is mcompliance with the provisions of thefinal rule. By this means, the Boardhopes to eliminate the need forinstitutions that wish to availthemselves of the final rule's newprovision to repeat the full applicationprocess. Further, the Board believes thatan EBA insured under the terms of theproposal would be structured so that theissuer retained a substantial interest mthe indexed assets. Therefore, anyinstitution whose Issuance of EBAs waspermitted under the proposal need notobtain permission to continue suchoffering.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to -ection 3 of the RegulatoryFlexbility Act, Pub. L 93-354,94 Stat1164 (September 19, 1930), the Board isproviding the following initial regulatoryflexibility analysis:

1. Reasons, obfectives, andlegalbases underlhajn the rules. Theseelements have been discussedelsewhere m the supplementaryinformation regarding the rule.

2. Small entities to ,,hich the ridesappl.3 The rules apply to all insuredinstitutions.

3. Impact of the rules on smallinstilutions. To the extent that the rulesaffect small institutions, this has beendiscussed elsewhere m the proposaL

4. Orarlppng or conflcting federalrules. There are no federal rules whichduplicate, overlap, or conflict with therules.

5. Alftriatives to the rules. The finalrule permits issuance of earnmng-basedaccounts b the maximum extentconsistent with safety-and-soundnessprmciples. Other alternatives, such asprohibiting such accounts entirely,would eliminate the benefits which theymay offer to institutions and accountcustomers or would not address safety-and-soundness concerns potentiallyarising from the use of earnings-basedaccounts.

50026 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26,

List F Subjects m 12 CFR Parts 563 and564

Banks, Banking, Bank depositinsurance, Savings and loanassociations.

Accordingly, the Board herebyamends Parts 563 and 564, SubchapterD, Chapter V, Title 12 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER D-FEDERAL SAVINGS ANDLOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION

PART 563-OPERATIONS

1. Add new § 563.3-10 as follows:

§ 563.3-10 Earnings-based accounts.(a) Definition. An earnings-based

account is any account that provides forthe payment af interest which isdetermined, to any extent, directly orindirectly, with r6ference to an indexbased upon the profitability, earnings,cash-flow, appreciation, or other form ofreturn on assets which are, directly orindirectly, owned by or under or withinthe control of the insured institution("contingent interest"): Provided, Thatearnings-based instruments are notinsured accounts if:

(1) The fixed or guaranteed portion ofthe interest or return on suchinstruments is less than 66.667 percentof the average yield for AAA-ratedcorporate bonds ("Moody's seasoned")published in the issue of the FederalReserve Board publication H15 (519)"Selected Interest Rates" most recentlypreceding the date of issuance of suchinstruments;

(2) The instruments grant the investoran ownership interest of any kind, otherthan a security interest arising fromoperation of law, in such assets; or

(3) The instruments put the investorsfunds at risk by providing for negativeinterest or by limiting the obligation torepay principal on the basis of assetperformance.

(b) Limitations. If authorized byapplicable law, an insured institutionmay issue earnings-based accounts onlyin accordance with the followingconditions:

(1) The total outstanding amount of allsuch accounts issued by the insuredinstitution may not, as of the date of theissuance of any earnings-based account,exceed an amount equal to five percentof the insured institution's assets, exceptthat such amount may be increased to 20percent of the insured institution'sassets with prior permission of theSupervisory Agent pursuant toparagraph (c) of this section;

(2) The insured institution is incompliance with its regulatory net-worth

requirements under § 563.13(b) of thispart;

(3) Assets the income or return onwhich is the basis for the index used inthe accounts may only be loans securedby real property;

(4) Only the insured institution, andno other person, may exercise controlover the selection or disposition ofassets upon which the index is based orassets otherwise acquired in connectionwith the issuance of such accounts;

(5) No insured institution or its agentsshall, directly or indirectly:

(i) Employ and device, scheme, orartifice.to defraud,

(i) Make any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances inwhich they were made, not misleading,or

(iii) Engage in any act, practice, orcourse of business which operates orwould operate as a fraud or deceit onany person, in connection with the saleor issuance of any earnings-basedaccount;

(iv) Provided, That the defensesavailable to an action under section 10bof the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78j(b) shall be available toany person subject to art action underthis paragraph [b)(5);

(6) An insured institution may not payor commit to pay contingent interest inan-amount greater than the amount ofgross receipts, other than amountsattributable to repayment of principal,derived from the assets the return onwhich the interest index is based;

(7) The maturity, acceleration ofmaturity, mandatory redemption, orsimilar right or option with respect to anearnings-based account may not beconditioned upon the financial conditionof the insured earnings-based or uponany supervisory-or other regulatoryaction, including, but not limited to, theappointment of a conservator orreceiver, with respect to such insuredinstitution;

(8) No insured institution shall issue,sell, or otherwise participate in thedistribution of any earnings-basedaccount the sale of which isaccompanied by a security or right topurchase a security; and

(9) The issuing insured institutionshall use all reasonable means to ensurethat persons who hold or have abeneficial interest in such accounts donot have an interest of any kind in theassets used to calculate the contingentinterest. Such means include, but are notlimited to, the inclusion of anappropriate legend on the face of theaccount certificates.

(c) Supervisory Aqent permission forincreased issuance. (1) The SupervisoryAgency may grant permission to aninsured institution to issue earnings-based accounts in an amount of up to 20percent of the institution's assets, uponconsideration by the Supervisory Agentof the following factors:

(i) Whether the institution meets orexceeds the net-worth requirementspecified in paragraph (d) of this sectionor any amount of net worth required tobe maintained in an applicablesupervisory directive or operatingagreement;

(ii) Whether the institution hasincreased its total liabilities at anannual rate of greater than 25 percentduring any three-month period in the 12months preceding the date ofapplication;

(iii) Whether the institution'sunderwriting experience indicates anability to adequately underwrite theloans anticipated to be used incalculating the index under the program;

(iv) Whether the institution meets theasset-composition test imposed on aninstitution seeking to qualify as a"domestic building and loanassociation" pursuant to section7701(a)(19) of the Internal Revenue Codaof 1954 (as amended);

(v) Whether there are no other basesfor supervisory concern with respect tosuch institution; and

(vi) Whether, under the terms of theissuance in question, and in fact, theinstitution would retain a substantialeconomic interest in the indexed assetsin proportion to the risks attending suchissuance.

(2) Permission shall be deemedgranted by the Supervisory Agent 30days after notification to the applicantthat such application is complete, unlessthe applicant receives written noticefrom the Supervisory Agent within suchperiod that objection has been taken,

(3) An application shall be deemed tobe complete for purposes of this sectionwhen the Supervisory Agent hasreceived the following items.

(i] A description of the anticipatedand the maximum amounts of earnings-based accounts to be offered by theapplicant;

(ii) Information describing in detailthe loans to be used in calculating thecontingent interest on the certificates;

(iii) A description and analysis of theinsured institution's underwriting andcredit experience in the making of suchloans;

(iv) The exact method of calculatingcontingent interest on the certificates-

(v) Information showing the financialcondition of the applicant includiing, but

1984 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 1 Rules and Regulations 50027

not limited to, the applicant's net worth(under § 563.13(b) and paragraph(c)(1)i} of this section;

(vi) A detailed analysis showing theextent to which the proposed offeringwould affect the applicant's exposure tointerest-rate and credit risk:

(vii) Information describing theapplicant's deposit growth over thepreceding three calendar years; and

(viii) A copy of a resolution adoptedby the applicant's board of directorsestablishing a plan of operationsdesigned, in conjunction with theoffering, to reduce interest-rate andcredit risk to the insured institution.

(d) For purposes of paragraph [c)(1)(i)of this section, the term "net-worthrequirement" means:

(1) An amount at least equal to threepercent of all liabilities (i.e., total assets,net of the following: loans in process,specific reserves, and deferred creditsother than deferred taxes; minus networth as defined by § 561.13 of thissubchapter); or

(2) for institutions subject to therequirements of § 563.13(b)(2)(iii) of thispart, the applicable percentage of suchliabilities required by § 563.13(b)(2)(iii).

(e) Effective date. This section shallbe effective with respect to anyinstruments issued or sold on or afterOctober 17,1984, except that it shall notapply to accounts issued after such dateunder an earnings-based-accountsprogram for which an institution had,prior to such date, received writtennotice of intent not to object to suchissuance from the Supervisory Agent.PART 564-SETTLEMENT OF

INSURANCE

2. Revise § 564.1(b) as follows:

§ 564.1 Settlement of insurance upondefaulL

( b- *o i re

(b] Amount of insured account. Theamount of an insured account is the

amount which the insured memberwould have been entitled to withdrawas of the date of default, plus interest onany savings account accrued to suchdate or dividends prorated to such dateat the announced or anticipated ratewithout regard to whether such accountis subject to any pledge: Provided, thatthe amount of an insured account shallnot include any amount the accural orpayment of wich is any way contingentor, in the case of a share account, whichhas not been announced as of the dateof default under the terms of theaccount. In the case of a savings accountwith a fixed or minimum term or aqualifying or notice period that has notexpired as of such date, dividends orinterest thereon shall-be computed as if

the account could have been withdrawnon such date without any penalty orreduction in the rate of earnings.

(Sees. 401-405,407.49 Stat. 12.3-1 Sec.303. Pub. L 96-,11. as amended: (22 I US.C.1724-1728.1730): Reor,. Plan No. 3 of 19-17.12FR 4231.3 CFR. 1943-1248 Comp,. p. 1071)

By the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.J. 1. Finn,Secretari.

IFR Doc. 84-33351 Filed 12-24-&4: 8AS am]BILUNG CODE 670-I--M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 121

Small Business Size Standards;,Correction

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.ACTIoN: Final rule; Correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects afinal rule on small business sizestandards whch was published in theFederal Register on February 9,1984 [49FR 5024]. The action is necessary tocorrect a typographical error in a crossreference.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Canellas. Director. SizeStandards Staff. Small BusinessAdministration, 1441 L Street. NW.,Washington. D.C. 20416. (202) 653--G373.

The following correction is made mFR Doc. 84-3183 appearing on 50.4 inthe issue of February 9.1984:

On page 5044. column three.§ 121.11(a)(2) is corrected by revising itto read as follows:

§ 121.11 Procedure for size appeals.(a) * * *(2) Classifications by contracting

officers of the Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) Code and/or theSmall Business Administration (SBA)size standard applicable to a product orservice for the purpose of Governmentprocurements and sales made pursuantto §§ 121.5 and 121.6 of this part(product or service classification).

Dated: December 19. 1934.James C. Sanders,Administrator.

IFR Doc. 84-33493 Filed 12-24-,1: 145 am]BILUNG CODE 0525-01-M

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

14 CFR Part 211

[Rog. ER-1397; Economic Reg. AmdL No.171

Reporting and RecordkeepingRequirements; OIMB Control Number

AGENCY: Civil Aeronautics Board.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule gives noticethat on September 19.1934 the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB] hasapproved the revised rules concerningthe information required in applicationsfor foreign air carrier permits and theprocedures for submitting suchapplications under 14 CFR Part 211 andPart 30. Subpart Q.DATE December 18,1984.EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19.1984.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTNancy Pitzer Trowbridge. Office ofSecretary. Department ofTransportation. Room 6420D. P-AD. 400Seventh Street, SW.. Washington. D.C.2o9D. (202) 75-3205.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects m 14 CFR Part 211

Air carriers and air transportation.Foreign. Reporting and recordkeepuigrequirements.

PART 211-[AMENDED]

§§ 211.1,211. 211.10-211.16 and 211.20[Amended]

Effective August 22.1984. the CABamended Part 211 of its EcononcRegulations through the issuance ofamendment No. 16 (ER-138l] to thispart. Sections 211.1 and 211.2 wereamended and new § § 211.10 through211.16 and 211.20 were added. Thisregulation informs the public that thisamendment was approved by OMB onSeptember 19. 1934. Accordingly. thefollowing note is added at the end of'§ 211.1.211.2. 211.10. 211.11.211.12.211.13. 211.14. 211.15. 211.16. and 11.20.

Note.The information collectionrequircment contained in this part havebeen approved by the Office of Managementand Eudet under number 3924--8C93.

This amendment is issued by theundersigned pursuant to delegation ofauthority from the Board to theSecretary in 14 CFR 38524(b) (sec. 204 ofthe Federal Avialion Act of 1958. asamended. 72 Stat. 743: 49-U.S.C. 1324).

50028 Federal Regkster / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

By the Civil Aeronautics Board.Phyllis T. Kaylor,Secretary.[FR Dec. 84-33379 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILING CODE 6320-01-U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 510

New Animal Drugs; Change of SponsorName

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is amending theanimal drug regulations to reflect asponsor name change for several newanimal drug applications (NADA's) fromWellcome Animal Health, Inc., toCoopers Animal Health, Inc.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 1984.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:John W. Borders, Center for VeterinaryMedicine (HFV-238), Food and DrugAdministration, 5600 Fishers Lane,Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-6243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheCenter for Veterinary Medicine hasbeen advised of a corporate namechange from Wellcome Animal I-ealth,Inc., to Coopers Animal Health, Inc. Thisis an administrative change which doesnot in any other way affect approval ofthe firm's NADA's. The regulations in 21CFR 510.600(c) are amendedaccordingly.


Administrative practice andprocedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, -Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 512(i), 82Stat. 347 (21 U.S.C. 360b(i))) and underauthority delegated to the Commissionerof Food and Drugs (21 CFR 5.10) andr.edelegated to the Center for VeterinaryMedicine (21 CFR 5.83), Part 510 isamended in § 510.600 in paragraph (c)(1)by removing the entry for "WelcomeAnimal Health, Inc." and byalphabetically adding a new sponsorentry for "Coopers Animal Health, Inc."and in paragraph (c)(2) by revising theentry for "017220," to read as follows:

PART 510-NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and druglabeler codes of sponsors of approvedapplications.* * * * *

(c) * **(1) * *"

Fim name and address lb

Coopers Arnal Health, Inc.. Kansas city. MO64108 01

-~(2) **

Drug labelercode

017220 Coop64

Effective d

Washington, D.C. 20224, Telephone:(202) 755-1843,SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In theDepartment of Education AppropriationAct, 1985, the Congress amended section402(c) of the Housing Act to extend theauthority for discounted prepayments ofCollege Housing loans until October 1,1985.,

uger The Secretary is therefore amendingS the final regulations published In the

Federal Register on July 17,1984, 49 FR7= 29018-29022, to extend for one year the

period of time during which aninstitution may prepay a loan at adiscount.Executive Order 12291

Firm name and address The regulations have been reviewedby the Deprtment in accordance with

pas] Healt,.c, Kansas atcy. Mo Executive Order 12291. They are108. classified as non-major because they do

not meet the criteria for majorregulations established in the Order.

'ate. December26, 1984. Regulatory Flexibility Act

(Sec. 512(i), 82 Stat. 347 (21 U.S.C. 360b(iJ))Dated: December 18, 1984.

Marvin A. Norcross,Acting Associate Director for ScientificEvaluation.[FR Doc. 84-33401 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILWNG CODE 4160-01-M

DEPAFTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 614

College Housing Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Educationamends the regulations governing theCollege Housing Program. Theamendment is needed to implement thelegislative amendment to the HousingAct of 1950 made by section 308 of theDepartment of Education AppropriationAct of 1985. This amendment extendsthe period for accepting discountedprepayments of college housing loansuntil October 1, 1985.EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendment to theregulations takes effect either 45 daysafter publication in the Federal Registeror later if the Congress takes certainadjournments. If you want to know theeffective date of this amendment, call orwrite the Department of Educationcontact person.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:For further information contact John K.Uchima,.Chief, Loan ManagementBranch, U.S. Department of Education,L'Enfant Plaza, P.O. Box 23471,

The Secretary certifies that theseregulations will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Thisamendment merely extends the date foraccepting discounted prepayments ofCollege Housing loans.

Waiver of Rulemakmg

In accordance with section431(b)(2)(A) of the General EducationProvisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232(b)(2)(A)),and the Administrativq Procedure Act, 5U.S.C. 553, it is the practice of theSecretary to offer interested parties theopportunity to comment on proposedregulations. However, since the changemade in the regulations merelyincorporates a statutory change Intoexisting regulations and does not itselfestablish new substantive policy, publiccomment could have no effect on thecontent of this amendment. Therefore,the Secretary has determined under 5U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that proposedrulemaking on this regulation isunnecessary and contrary to the publicinterest.

Intergovernmental ReviewThis program is listed in other

regulations promulgated by theSecretary (34 CFR Part 79) as subject tothe intergovernmental reviewrequirements, and section 204 of theDemonstration Cities and MetropolitanDevelopment Act of 1960. The objectiveof these requirements and ExecutiveOrder 12372, which implements theserequirements, is to foster anintergovernmental partnership and astrengthened federalism by relying on

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 20, 1984 f Rules and Regulations 50929

State and local processes for State andlocal government coordination andreview of proposed Federal financialassistance.

In accordance with the Order, thisdocument is intended to provide earlynotification of the Department's specificplans and actions for this program.However, the limited discount programoffered by the Secretary is not subject tosection 204 because no financialassistance for capital construction isawarded,

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 614Co~leges-and unversities, Education,

Housing, Loan programs-housing andcommunity development.Citation of Legal Authority

A citation of statutory or other legalauthority is placed in parentheses on theline following each substantiveprovision of these regulations.(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceNumber 84.142-College Housing Program)

Dated: December 19,1984.T.H. Bell,Secretary of Education.

The Secretary amends Part 614 ofTitle 34 of the Code of FederalRegulations as follows:PART 614-COLLEGE HOUSING

PROGRAM

§ 614.63 [Amended]In § 614.63(b)(1), "October 1,1984" is

amended to read "October 1,1985"[FR Doc. 84-33471 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE "4000.-O-M

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

38 CFR Part 17

Definition of Medical Services

AGENCY: Veterans Admimstration.ACTION: Final regulation amendments.

SUMMARY: The Veterans Adminstrationis amending its medical regulations (38CFR Part 17) to conform with provisionsof Pub. L 98-160, Veterans' Health CareAmendments of 1983. The amendmentredefines medical services to includepreventive health care and providescontinuing treatment eligibility forcertain persons disabled as a result ofVA treatment.EFFECTIVE DATE: November 21, 1983.FOR IFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Joseph F. Fleckenstein, MedicalAdministration Service (136F). VeteransAdministration, 810 Vermont Avenue,NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 389-2337

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pub. L98-160 amended 38 U.S.C. 61(6)(A)(i) toinclude preventive health care servicesas part of the definition of medicalservices. The law also amended 38U.S.C. 610(a)(3) relating to eligibility forVA hospital and nursing home care.That section authorizes care for aperson receiving VA compensation. Thestatutory amendment authorizescontinuing eligibility for care for certainpersons who had received compensationfor an injury or disability as a result ofreceiving VA care or as a result ofparticipation in a rehabilitation programunder 38 U.S.C. chapter 31. Continuinghospital and nursing home careeligibility is provided when theindividual's compensation payments arediscontinued due to receiving paymentsfrom a judgment or tort settlement inconnection with the injury or disability,so long as such eligibility is provided forin the court judgment or settlement.

On pages 34533 and 34534 of theFederal Register of August 31,1984, anotice of proposed rulemaking waspublished for 38 CFR 17.30(m)(1) and17.48(b)(1). Interested persons weregiven 30 days to submit comments,suggestions or objections. No commentswere received. The regulations areadopted as final without change.

The Administrator has determinedthat this amendment to VA regulationsis considered nonnajor under thecriteria of Executive Order 12291,Federal Regulation. It will not have anannual effect on the economy of $100million or more; will not result in majorincreases in costs for consumers,individual industries, Federal, State orlocal government agencies, orgeographic regions, nor will it havesignificant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investment,productivity, innovation, or on theability of the United States-basedenterprises to compete with fbreign-based enterprises in domestic or exportmarkets.

The Administrator certifies that thisamendment will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities as they aredefined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Pursuant to 5U.S.C. 605(b), these regulations areexempt from the initial and finalregulatory flexibility analysesrequirements of sections 603 and 604.The reason for this certification is thatthis change will regulate only theeligibility of individuals to thesebenefits.

The Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Numbers are: 64.002, 64.009,64.010, and 64.011.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17Alcoholism, Claims, Dental health,

Drug abuse, Foreign relations,Government contracts, Governmentprograms-Health, Health care, Healthfacilities, Health professions. Medicaldevices. Medical research, Mentalhealth programs. Nursing homes,Philippines, Veterans.

Approved: November 29,1934.By direction or the Administrator.

Everett Alvarez, Jr.,D&puty4 Admintgrator.

PART 17-4AMENDED]

38 CFR Part 17, MEDICAL, is amendedas follows:

1. In § 17.30, paragraphs (1) and (m)(1)are revised to read as follows:§ 17.30 Deflnitlons.

(1) Hospital care. The term "hospitalcare" includes:

[1) Medical services rendered in thecourse of hospitalization of any veteranand transportation and mcidentalexpenses pursuant to the provisions of§ 17.10);

(2) Such mental health services,consultation, professional counseling,and training for the members of theimmediate family or legal guardian of aveteran, or the individual in whosehousehold such veteran certifies anintention to live, as may be essential tothe effective treatment and.rehabilitation of a veteran or dependentor survivor of a veteran receiving careunder the provisions of § 17.54(c) (38U.S.C. 601(5)), as amended by Pub. L93-82, sec. 101(b); Pub. L 94-581, sec.102(1); and

(3)(i) Medical services rendered in thecourse of the hospitalization of adependent or survivor of a veteranreceiving care under the provisions of§ 17.54(c), and (ii) transportation andincidental expenses for such dependentor survivor of a veteran who is in needof treatment for any injury, disease, ordisability and is unable to defray theexpense of transportation. (38 U.S.C.601(5), as amended by Pub. L 93-82, sec.101(b): Pub. L. 98-160)

(in) Aedical services. The term"medical services" includes, in additionto medical examination, treatment, andrehabilitative services:

(1) Surgical services, dental servicesand appliances as authorized in§§ 17.60f). 17.120. 17.123 and 17.123a,optometric and podiatric services, (in thecase of a person otherwise receivingcare or services under this chapter) thepreventive health care services set forthin 38 U.S.C. 652. and except for veterans


authorized outpatient care under§ 17.60(e), wheelchairs, artificial limbs,trusses and similar appliances, specialclothing made necessary by the wearingof prosthetic appliances, and such othersupplies or services as are medicallydetermined to be reasonable andnecessary. (38 U.S.C. 601(6)(A)(i); sec.108, Pub. L. 98-160)

2. In § 17.48, paragraph (b) is revisedto read as follows:

§ 17.48 Considerations applicable Indetermining eligibility for hospital, nursinghome or domiciliary care.

(b)(1) Under paragraph (c)(1) of§ 17.47, veterans who are receivingdisability compensation awarded under§ 3,800 of this title, where a disease,injury or the aggravation of an existingdisease or injury occurs as a result ofVA examination, medical or surgicaltreatment, or of hospitalization m a VAhealth care facility or of participation ina rehabilitation program under 38 U.S.C.chapter 31, under any law administeredby the VA and not the result of his/herown willful misconduct. Treatment maybe provided for the disability for whichthe compensation is being paid or forany other disability. Treatment underthe authority of § 17.47(c](1) may not beauthorized during any period whendisability compensation under § 3.800 ofthis title is ndt being paid because of theprovisions of § 3.800(a)(2), except to theextent continuing eligibility for suchtreatment is provided for in thejudgment for settlement described in§ 3.800(a)(2) of this title. (38 U.S.C.610(a); sec. 701, Pub. L. 98-160)

(2) Under paragraph (c)(3) of § 17.47,"No adequate means of support"-whenan applicant is receiving an income of$415 or more per month from any sourcefor personal use, this fact will beconsidered prima facie evidence ofadequate means of support. This issubject to rebuttal by a showing thatsuch income is not adequate to providethe care required by reason of theveteran's disability or that the income isnot available for the veteran's usebecause of other obligations such ascontributions in whole or in partto thesupport of a spouse, child, mother orfather. In all such cases of allegedinadequate means of support, thecircumstances will be submitted to theDirector for decision. (38 U.S.C. 610(a);sec. 701, Pub. L. 98-160).*t * * * *r

[FR Dec. 84-33374 Filed 12-24--84; 8:45 am]BILLING CVDE 8320-01-M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I[CC Docket No. 82-540; FCC 84-605]

Modification of Policy on Ownershipand Operation of U.S. Earth StationsThat Operate With the INTELSATGlobal Communications SatelliteSystemAGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION- Report and order;, policystatement.

SUMMARY: The FCC adopts a moreliberal earth station ownership policywhich modifies the current policy on theownership and operation of U.S.international earth stations that operatewith the INTELSAT GlobalCommunications Satellite System. Thejoint ownership arrangement that theFCC established in 1966 addressed theneeds of a nascent satellitetelecommunications industry. The FCChas, however, always recognized thedynamic nature of the satellite and earthstation technologies. The FCC thus findsthat reformulation of its current policy istimely in light of significantadvancements in both satellite andearth station technologies and thetransformation of INTELSAT from anorganization with few membersmanaged by Comsat to a financiallystable entity with its own managementstaff and over one hundred members.The FCC is granted broad discretion infashioning an earth station oAvnershippolicy under section 201(c](7 of theCommunications Satellite Act of 1962.DATES By January 18,1985: (1) Alloperating licenses held by Comsat onbehalf of all ESOC members, or by allESOC members jointly, for each of theinternational earth stations shall beamended to reflect new ownershipinterests as set forth in order;, (2] Comsatsubsidiary shall file section 214application for certification as commoncarrier to provide earth station servicesvia INTELSAT; and (3] Comsat WSDshall file an application: (a) To modifyits 214 authonzationsin order to transferearth station activities to the separatesubsidiary;, and (b) to transfer to thissubsidiary all Title III radio licensesissued to WSD on its own behalf or onbehalf of ESOC for the operation ofsatellite earth stations via INTELSAT.By February 1,1985: Comsat shall filetariffs for INTELSAT space segmentthrough WSD and file earth stationtariffs through separate common carriersubsidiary, to become effective on 45days notice.

ADDRESSES: Federal CommunicationsCommission, Washington, D.C. 20554.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Laura R. Stein, Common Carrier Bureau,International Facilities Diyision (202)632-7265.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Report and Order

In the matter of modification of policy onownership and operation of U.S. earthstations that operate with the INTELSATGlobal Communications Satellite System; CCDocket No. 82--540.

Adopted: December 4,19084.Released: December 18, 1084,By the Commission.

1. On August 17,1982, we initiatedthrough the release of a Notice ofInquiry (NO]) the above-captionedproceeding to solicit comments onwhether our current policy, establishedin 1966, on the ownership and operationof U.S. earth stations which operatewith the InternationalTelecommunications SatelliteOrganization (INTELSAT) globalcommunications satellite system still

,best serves the public interest.i OnApril 20,1984, we issued a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM)addressing the concerns of both theCommission and interested parties onthe status of our current earth stationownership policy. 2 In response to theNPRM, comments were filed by theAmerican Telephone and TelegraphCompany (AT&T), TRTTelecommunications Corporation (TRT),American Satellite Company (ASC),Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO), RCAGlobal Communications, Inc. (RCA),MCI International (MCII), rIT WorldCommunications Inc. (ITT), FederalExpress Corporation (Federal Express),U.S. Satellite Corporation, Inc. (USSC),the Hawaiian Telephone Company(Hawaiian), the NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA], EquatorialCommunication Services (Equatorial),the Communications SatelliteCorporation (Comsat), InternationalRelay, Inc. (IRI), Satellite GatewayCommunications, Inc. (SGC), GannettSatellite Information Network, Inc.(Gannett), Public Broadcasting Service(PBS), and the American BroadcastingCompanies, Inc. (ABC), CBS Inc. (CBS),and the National BroadcastingCompany, Inc. (NBC), (the "Networks"),

I Notice of Inquiry, Modification or Policy onOwnership and Operation of U.S. Earth Statonathat Operate with the INTELSAT GlobalCommunications Satellite System, go FCC 2d 1450(1982j.

2 97 FCC 2d 444 (1984).


filing jointly. Reply comments weresubmitted by AT&T, Comsat, IRI, ITT,RCA, Hawaiian, TRT, the Networks, andWalter Hinchman Associates, Inc.(Hinchman).

2. Below we shall summarize: (a] Theexisting earth-station ownership policy;(b) the Notice of Inquiry and the filingselicited therefrom, including Comsat'swholesale/retail proposal; (c)subsequent developments; (d) the Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking; and (e) thecomments and reply comments to theNotice of Proposed Rulemaking. Wethen analyze the filings and concludethat a more open and flexible earthstation ownership policy will best servethe public interest by increasingefficiencies and reducing costs to users.

L Background

A. Existing Commission Policy

3. Our current earth station policy wasenunciated in 1966 3 and wasimplemented in 1967 by Comsat and theU.S. international service carriersthrough a camer-created Agreementestablishing the Earth StationOwnership Committee (ESOC).4 Underour existing policy, international earthstations in the United States are ownedby a consortium of carriers, includingComsat as well as certain U.S.international service carriers. Theseinternational service carriers are AT&T.RCA, ITT, WUI and Hawaiian. Comsat,through its World Systems Division(WSD], has a fifty-percent ownershipshare and the international servicecamers share the remaining fifty-percent interest in approxinateproportion to their usage of thefacilities.5 Comsat serves as manager ofthese earth stations, subject to theoverall control and guidance on basicpolicy and investment matters by acommittee composed of all co-owners.0

3 Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission'sRules and Regulations With Respect to Ownershipand Operation of Initial Earth Stations in the UnitedStates for Use in Connection with the ProposedGlobal Commercial Commumcation SatelliteSystem ("Second Report and Order"), 5 FCC 2d 812(195).

4 The joint licensees entered into the Agreementconsistent with the Commission's SecondReporland Order., The carriers have operated theinternational earth stations sinced the 1960'spursuant to the Commission's policy decisions,construction/transfer orders, and the ESOCAgreement.5 While the earth stations are jointly owned.

Comsat is also the sole US. investor/provider ofINTELSAT space segment and is also the sole U.S.representative to INTELSAT.5 RCA serves as manager of the ESOC earthstation in Guam, the smallest consortium.

Voting shares witlun this committee arein accordance with ownershippercentages.

4. In accordance with the ESOCAgreement, as amended," the carriersset up separate earth station ownershipconsortiums for the contiguous UnitedStates, Hawaii, and Guam. TheAgreement also prescribes, inaccordance with the 196M policydecision, the ownership sharepercentages for Comsat, AT&T,Hawaiian, Ir, RCA, and WUI in eachconsortium." Pursuant to the Agreement,ESOC earth stations are made availableto Comsat for the purpose of furnishingearth station and space segmentcommunications services underapplicable tariffs to authorized carrersand users. Comsat, in turn, compensatesthe carriers for their investment bypaying the ESOC owners a monthlyrental rate for each half-circuitestablished through the stations.

B. Notice of Inquiry

5. For the purpose of elicitingdiscussion on possible changes in ourearth station owmerslup policy and thecarers' owmership arrangements, theNOI distinguished between two classesof earth stations: General purpose andspecial purpose.0 The NOI also

7 Tho Agreement was amended to add Guam as aseparate consortium. Sco RCA Glob)7Communcotions, 1nC.. 10 FCC 2d 1037 [193). PuertoRicoVirgim Islands is also a consortium but it hasno international earth stations at thl time.

8 Becauze the ESOC mcmbes were unable toagree among themselves upon an allocation ofownership shares, we re the Initial owneishipperentarces In proportion to the carriers' pro]_etcduse of the stations. Since the initial allocation ofshares, we have approved requests by ESOCmembers for modifications in ovncrhip sharc3.including- (a) Purchase by AT&T of ITs Interest Inthe four contiguou U.S. stations, AmericanTelephone nod Telegraph Company and FT WorldCommunications Inc. File No. I-P-C-8i-010(releaszd June 10, 1931), and. (b) purchase by RCAof Hra interest In the Guam earth station. RCA andITT. File No. I-S-P-82-M (released February 10,1933). We have also authorized 103 percentownmership of earth stations to Comsat wbhre It isdirectly serving end u-ers (TV service via the SantaPaula. California earth station) and where thu localcarrier does not desire joint ownerchip (AmericanSamoa, Palau. Saipan, Marshall Llandst. andMicronesia).

o General purpose earth stations era the--Standard A 1C0-32 meters in diameter). Standard B(10-13 meters in diameter), and Standard C (10-I9meters in diameter) facilities v,:ith ihich all U.S.International carrier Interconnect their operatingcenters in order to offer nternational switched andprivate line services to the public. These earthstations are owned by ESOC. Special purpoce earthstations are Standard B or non-standard earthstations designed to meet private fine necds ofadedicated user or group of uscr. Stch stations areenvisioned to be located near a customer's prcmise3in order to reduce landline nterconncrtlon cs3ts,improve quality of service. or both.

distinguished between existing stationsand new stations.10 With regard togeneral purpose earth stations, wesolicited comments on the merits ofindividual carrier ownership versuscontinued consortium ownership ofexisting and new earth stations. We alsorequested parties to propose regulatorycriteria that we should apply in decidingwhether to authorize new generalpurpose earth stations. As to specialpurpose earth stations, we requestedcomment only on whether new specialpurpose earth stations should be ownedand operated in a competitive fashion oriu an ESOC-like manner. Existingspecial purpose earth stations areindependently owned outside ofESOCand we did not envision moving thesefacilities into an ESOC-like consortium.We further sought comment onregulatory criteria for consideringindividual applicqtions for specialpurpose earth stations.

6. We also asked for comments on therelationship of Comsat's corporate'structure to the issues in the proceeding.Several of the issues we identified were:(a) Whether Comsat's current ownershipshare of general purpose earth stationsshould be n the parent company'sWorld Systems Division (WSD), as it isnow, or transferred from WSD to aComsat subsidiary; (b) whetherComsat's ownership of new earthstation should be in the WSD or in aseparate subsidiary- and (c) w'hetherComsat's existing tariff, wlch bundlesthe earth station and space segmentelements into one rate, should-beunbundled if entities other than Comsator ESOC were to be authorized toconstruct and operate internationalearth stations. Finally, we requestedcomment on the proper role of Comsat,as the U.S. Signatory to INTELSAT, inany ownership arrangement withparticular emphasis on: (a) The methodof coordinating U.S. earth station -investment and operation withINTELSAT space segment; and (b) theextent of carrier and public participationn Comsat/INTELSAT forums.

7 The comments received in responseto the NOI indicated that all parties,"'

30 E- tsn3 stationn wee considered to ba

stations that have ben authorized, whathr crnotthey vem actually operating or undir construction.

iFesrpndzn t were Comnat. AT&T. ITrand AllAmerica Cables lilinej jointly. RCA. Western UnionTe!eroph Company. TR'Telecommun cationsCe ratto. American Satellite Company. HomePax Office. National Public Radio. AmercanPetroleum Institute. and ABC. NEC. and CBS filingjointly. th3 Depattmecnts of Defense and Justice, andMIA-COM.


with the exception of Comsat, favoredan open entry policy and proposed withrespect to new general and specialpurpose earth stations that any carrierbe allowed to apply to the Coinussionfor authorization subject only to the"public interest, convenience, andnecessity" test of section 201(c) of theCommmcations Satellite Act of 1962.12

These parties claimed that a morecompetitive earth station ownershippolicy, coupled with an unbundling ofComsat's tariff, would lead to lowerend-to-end rates without compromisingservice quality or injuring Comsat.Comsat favored the preserVation of thecurrent ownership arrangement andargued that independent ownershipwould promote a proliferation of earthstations ffihat could jeopardize the lowcost and high quality service providedby the existing arrangement, thusharming U.S. and INTELSAT interests.

8. Subsequent to the filing ofcomments and reply comments, Comsat,in recognition that its views were notsupported by the other parties, proposeda new approach hat it believed wouldpreserve the benefits of the currentarrangements (e.g., efficient use of theINTELSAT system and the ability ofactual and potential U.S. carriers whichare competitors in the provision of end-to-end international communicationsservices to obtain fair and equitableaccess to the INTELSAT system) whilebeing more acceptable to otherinterested parties. ii Comsat's proposalcontemplated that the ESOC memberswould negotiate among themselves thedissolution of the current ownershiparrangement and convert the existingESOC stations into "wholesale/retail"combination stations at which Comsat'sinternational "wholesale" facilities andoperations, as well as the carriers' ene-to-end "retail" facilities and operations,would be collocated. Comsat wouldacquire the land, buildings, antennasand most of the common electronicequipment. Comsat would then provideearth station services and theINTELSAT space segment to the end-to-exid service carriers who in turn wouldprovide a through service to theircustomers. Following a three-yearmoratorium, the "retail" service carriers

1247 U.S.C. 721(c).

'2 Comsat moved for leave to file a pleading titled"Proposal for Restructuring Earth StationOwnership and Operation Arrangements." Motionof Communications Satellite Corporation for Leaveto File a Proposal for Restructuring Earth StationOwnership and Operations Arrangements June 23,1983. The Commission granted the motion andreopened the docket for additional comments andreplies by interested parties. Earth StationOwnership, Mimeo No. 5713 (released August 2,1983).

would have the option of continuing toparticipate in joint earth stationownership arrangements and/or seekauthority to construct and operate theirown general purpose and most types ofspecial purpose earth stations.14

9. Comments received with regard toComsat's 'wholesale/retail" facilitiesproposal were divided amont thoseparties who favored the proposal as astarting point for negotiations, thosetotally opposed to it, and-those,including AT&T, who proposedalternative approaches. All partiesopposed the proposed three-yearmoratorium on new applications for allgeneral purpose and most specialpurpose earth stations by arguing thatany moratorium could give to Comsat ananticompetitive head start in the earthstation service market.

C. Recent Developments

10. Several recent developments in theinternational telecommunications arena,some of which we noted in the NPRM,highlight both the tensions Which existwithin ESOC and the need for us to re-examine our current earth stationownership policy. First, on April 9,1984,we denied applications filed by RCAand WUI for review of an order issuedpursuant to delegated authority by theChief, Common Carrier Bureau is whichresolved a dispute among WUI, RCAand Comsat relating to the financing ofthe U.S. earth stations that operate withthe INTELSAT syptem.' 6 In that order,

14Under this proposal, ESOC joint owners wouldnegotiate the dissolution of the consortium and adivision of the earth stations' assets. Also,applications for INTELSAT Business Service (IBS]and certain small earth stations could be submittedto the Commission during the moratorium period.

'3 Memorandum Opinion and Order. In the Matterof joint Request ofCommunications SatelliteCorporation and RCA Global Communications. Inc,to Resolve Dispute Concerning the Manner bywhich Capital Contributions for International EarthStation Facilities may be Adjusted. Mimeo 1202(released December 9,1983).

39The Commission affirmed the Bureau's findingthat an ESOC member cannot, in accord withCommission policy, unilaterally suspend its capitalcontributions and compel the remaining jointownerf including Comsat and AT&T. to absorb anyresulting shortfall. We found that such withholdingof funds is tantamount to a forced ownershiprealignment and is thus contrary to Commissionorders which expressly require an ESOC member topetition the Commission for an adjustment ofownership shares. The Commission also denied theRCA request for stay pending court review.Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mimeo. 34410(released April 9.1984). On April 26. 1984. RCA fileda Petition for Review in the United Statbs Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia of theCommission'e April 0. 1984 order. Case No. 84-1162(D.C. Cir.).

we also denied the requests of RCA andWUI that we reallocate ownershipshares within ESOC, noting that whileRCA and WUI had made whole theircapital accounts, the immediate EarthStation Ownership proceeding was theappropriate vehicle by which toconsider any new ownership scheme.On August 1,1984, RCA filed a petitionfor immediate interim relief whichrequested the reallocation of ownershipshares.1 7 Second, in an itemaccompanying the NPRM, theCommission granted Comsnt'sapplication to provide INTELSATBusiness Service, (IBS) space segmentcapacity to U.S. carriers to enable thesecarriers to establish for their customersdedicated international earth stations tocarry all types of digital communicationsservices. 8 Third, the Commissiongranted the applications filed by Comsatand a number of carriers to constructand operate IBS earth stations in theUnited States. 19

11. Fourth, on January 13,1984, theUnited States Court of Appeals for theD.C. Circuit vacated and remanded ourAugust 19,1982 Report and Order in theAuthorized User proceeding 2o in which

"2The Commission released a Public Noticerequesting comment on RCA's petition. I-S-P-84-006 (released August 17.1984). In response to thisnotice, comments were filed by AT&T. WUI. RCA.IT. and Hawaiian. Reply comments were filed byAT&T. WUI. and RCA. with RCA filing late. Today.in this proceeding, we grant RCA'a motion for leaveto file late reply comments. See pars. 41. infra. fordiscussion of the ESOC capital contributionsdispute.1s In the Matter of the Application of the

Communications Satellite Corporation for SuchAuthority as may be Necessary for it to Participatein a Program to Provide Satellite Capacity for NowDigital Business Services as part of the INTELSATSystem, FCC 84-124, Mimeo, No. 34374 (releasedApril 11,1984).

" Communications Satellite Corporation, FCC 84-124. Mimeo No. 34374 (released April 11, 10841:International Relay. Inc.. FCC 84-125. Mlmes No.34383 (released April 11, 1994): CommunicationsSatellite Corporation. FCC 84-126. Mimco No, 3390(released April 11. 1984]; ITT WorldCommunications. Inc., Mimeo No. 5197 (releasedJuly 8. 1984): TRT Telecommunications Corporation,Mimeo No. 5195 (released July 8, 1984). InternationalRelay. Inc., Mimeo No. 5194 (released July 9.1084):Satellite Gateway Communications. Inc., Miome No,6305 (released August 31.10M4).10IT World Communications Inc. v. FCC. 725 F.

2d 732 (D.C. Cir.. Jan. 13.1984) ("Autorized User IIOpimon*". vacated and remanded ProposedModification of the Commission's Authorized UserPolicy concerning Access to the InternationalSatellite Services of the Communications SatelliteCorporation. 90 FCC 2d 1394 (1984) ("AuthorizedUser Ill,. revising Authorized Entities and Users, 4FCC 2d 421 (1981). recon. in part 6 FCC 2d 593 (1987)("Authorized Userr'j. On March 27. the Court ofAppeals denied our petition for rehearing.

Feder3l Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulatiodr 5Q033

we, had decided to permit Comsat tooffer end-to-end service' to the publicthrough a separate subsidiary andrequire Comsat to offer basic INTELSATtransmission .capacity at U.S. generalpurpose earth stations to both carriersand non-carriers pursuant to a singletariff to be filed with the Commission.While upholding our legal position, thecourt found that we had abused ourdiscretion by not considering, prior toimplementing our Authorized User I1policy, issues under examination in twoinquiries then pending before theCommission, Direct Access 21 and EarthStation Ownership, which the court "found to be directly related to the issuesin Authorized User I. We subsequently,released an NPRM in the Earth StationOwnership proceeding and a Report andOrder in the Direct Access docket. 2 Wethen issued a Further Notice of Inquirysoliciting comment on the impact of ouractions in the DirectAccess order andEarth Station Ownership NPRM on ourproposedAuthorized User II policy.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking12. Upon review of the responses

addressing the classification schemeproposed in the NOl, we found that theproffered classes did not adequatelyreflect the future earth stationenvironment. We thus tentativelyadopted a more practical classificationscheme based on prevalent technology,i.e., IBS, television, and multi-purposeearth stations. We also identified in theNPRM several legal, policy, technical,economic, and operational concerns thatinterested parties had for the most partaddressed in their responsive pleadingsto the NOL We then proffered anddiscussed our tentative conclusionsbased upon a thorough review of bothour earth station ownership policy and

21Regulatory Policies Concerning Direct Access toINTELSAT Space Segment for the U.S. InternationalService Carriers, 90,FCC 2d 1440(1982) (Notice ofInquiry)"2 Subsequent to the issuance by the Court ofAppeals of Authrized Usertll Opinion, we adopteda Report and Order in the Direct Access proceedingIn which we concluded that none of the "directaccess" proposals., ie., bases, capitalizedleaseholds. Indefeasible rights of use (IURs), ordirect investment in INTELSAT, would serve thepublic interest. In the Matter of Regulatory PoliciesConcerning Direct Access to INTELSA T SpaceSegment for the .U.:International Service Corriers.97 FCC Zd,29 (released April-25,1984) at para. 3.We statedthat as to thoseconcerns upon whichproponents of direct access based.their support, wewould consolidate intt the Coosot Structureproceeding-and the immediate Earth StationOwnership proceeding measures alternative todirect access which should enhance the position ofthe end-user as well as Comsat's carrier customers.We emphasized. hdwever, that in terminating the'Direct Access inquiry we were ntotforeclosing ourreconsideration of direct access should:our -alternative measures prove ineffective. DirectAccess at para. 3.

the comments submitted in response tothe NOI. We stated in the NPRM thatour overriding concern in:1966, thesuccessful establishment of a globalsatellite system, may no longer, in 1984,.justify a rigid policy under whichComsat is a fifty percent owner and soleoperator of U.S. international earthstations. We noted that INTELSAT isnow a financially and operationallysound organization with over 100members and its own management staffand that recent innovations in satelliteand earth station technology have madetechnically feasible greater carrierparticipation in earth station ownershipand operation. We further stated ourbelief that a more open and flexibleownership/operation policy wouldincrease intramodal competition (i.e.,increased competition among providersof satellite services) thereby serving toencourage innovation, promoteefficiency and create a downwardpressure on rates. Finally, we noted that'intermodal competition may also beincreased by our proposed policy assatellite services are provided moreefficiently.

13. We tentatively concluded in theNPRM that the adoption of a more openand flexible earth station ownership.policy which relies on competitiveforces is consistent with theCommunications Act of 1934 and theCommunications Satellite Act of 1962.23We tentatively concluded thatindividually owned and operated IBSand television earth stations aretechnically feasible, create few, if any,significant economic or efficiencyproblems, will not significantly affectour foreign partners in INTELSAT, andwill result in lower cost and technicallysuperior services to consumers. Withregard to multi-purpose stations, westated that many of these concernswould likely arise. We proposed thatComsat be required to file cost-basedtariffs for INTELSAT space segmentusage through its World SystemsDivision and file earth station tariffsthrough a separate subsidiary aciing asan international service' carrier.2 4 In the

3 The Commission's authority over-internationalearth stations within-the.United States isfound inTitles LI. andl of the Communications Act of1934. as amended, and Titles1, II, and lioft theCommunications Satellite Act of 1952. as amended.Section 201(c)(7) of the Communications SatelliteAct, in particular, directs the Commissionto "grantappropriate, authorization. for the construction andoperation of each satellite terminal station. either tothe corporation (Comsat) or to one or moreauthorized carriers or to the corporation (Comsat)and one or more-of such carriers jointly, as wilt bestserve the public interest, convenience. andnecessity."," 24With regard to the unbundling of tariffs. the

Commission sought Comsat's comments on hoW it

NPRM, we recognized that AT&Toccupies a-unique position in theinternational arena because it is themajor owner of cable facilitides, theprimary source of international traffic,and is by far the greatest user ofinternational earth station and-spacesegment capacity. We also recognizedthat diversion of its traffic from existingstations could adversely impact on thepublic interest. We therefore requestedcomments addressing this potentiality.We also tentatively concluded that amoratorium on accepting applications asproposed by Comsat was unwarranted.

14. We tentatively concluded that itwould be ,n the public interest ,to acceptapplications for IBS and. television earthstations from any carrier and to processthese applications in a routine fashion.25

We also tentatively concluded thatapplications for multi-purpqse earthstations should be subject to a mr'erigorous review of economic, technical,and operational considerations. 26 Whilewe discussed certain authorizationcriteria relevant for multi-purposestations, we particularly requestedcomment on the possible relevancy of,such other factors as traffic and revenuediversion among stations and AT&T'sunique position in the internationalmarket. As to the future of ESOC, we

might proceed in this respect. Specifically werequested that: (a) Consat submit sample tariffswith accompanying explanation 6f'the methodologyemployed- (b) identify and explain all expenses andcosts wholly associated with space segment andearth segment services; and (c) dentify anddescribe costs of all activities co on to earthstation, space segment, and other services, withcosts to be apportioned reasonably among allservices. We also proposed; (a)The separation ofComsat's competitive earth station activities fromits monopoly space segment activities: (b) that allCosmat applications for new stations or foradditions to existing stations be made through aComsat subsidiary, and; (c) that Comsat transferany ownership interests in exist'ng lI TELSATstations from WSD to a separate'sub.Mliary andthat such poposed transfer be submiled to theCommission for review.

5Weproposed that applications for IDS andtelevision earth'stations would he' granted upon ashowing ofminimallegal-and finacfal,'qualificationw of the applicant 4ndtechnicalqualifications of the proposal. as required bysections 308 and 319 of the Communications Act of1934. In fact, due to, strong public interestconsiderations, we ganted applications to constructand operate IBS earth stations conditioned on theoutcome of this proceeding,.

We proposed to closely examine eachapplication for an independently owned mdlii-purpose station to determine, on a case-by-casebasis, whether its construction and operation wouldresult In technioal Inefficiencies and or economicharm to existing sstaions that might outweigh thepublic interest benefits otherwtse accruing from theproposed statiom We determined that with respectto IBS and television stations, spaceasegmnentefficiencq and trafficdiversion from multi-purposeto IBS and television stations are not significantissues.


proposed to permit, in the first instance,the ESOC joint owners to negotiateamong themselves the future of ESOC.We indicated that absent a unanimousagreement of the owners to retain,modify, or dissolve ESOC, anyindividual owner could submit aproposed plan to the Commission for ourconsideration. 27 Finally, we tentativelyconcluded that Comsat should continueto represent the United States atINTELSAT meetings with continuedgovernment monitoring of its role. Wealso favored greater camer/public inputinto INTELSAT policy, tariff, andprocurement decisions through theinstructional process and soughtadditional comments on this Issue.

E. Responsive Pleadings

15. In response to the NPRM allparties, to some extent, supported thedevelopment of a competitiveinternational earth station market andjts attentive lower costs of services andincreased use and viability of thesatellite system.28 Most of therespondents favored the classificationscheme proposed in the NPRM wluchseparated earth stations into threeclasses based upon prevalenttechnology: Television, IBS and multi-purpose.2 9 The scheme was to be

"We noted that the ultimate disposition ofESOCwould not be allowed to disrupt service to users orto unduly delay or hinder the institution ofindependent carrier ownership of new earthstations. NPRM at pars. 44.

u We note that Equatorial CommunicationsSystems (Equatorial) initially filed comments insupport of deregulation of international receive-onlyearth stations located in the United States n theEarth Station Ownership proceeding. Equatorialsubsequently filed a petition for rulemakingrequesting that we revise Part 25 of our Rules topermit U.S.-based receive-only satellite earthstations to receive signals from any INTELSATsatellite without being licensed or otherwiseindividually authorized by the Commission. SeePetition for Rulemaking of EquatorialCommunication Service, Rulemaking No. 4845(released August 16, 1984). Equatorial requests thatwe resolve this issue in the immediate proceedingas parties have had opportunity for comment on itspetition. We shall deny this request. We do notbelieve that the record is sufficiently complete forus to act on Equatonal's petition. Moreover,Equatorial's rulemaking petition has created aseparate proceeding in which we maycomprehensively eaminejts proposal.

191R1. ITT and TRT stated that the Commission'sclassification plan could, in the future, become toorestrictive on the scope of services to be offered bycompetitive facilities, i.e., the classifications maynot adequately reflect INTELSAT's service practicesin the near future, and might, as a result, foreclosethe most efficient use of independent facilities. IRIfurther stated that the plan imposes en undueburden of requinng repeated applications for thepurpose of incorporating new service techniques.IRI, comments at p. 17; TRT, comments at p. 3.

employed when addressing technical -and other issues raised by the parties aswell as in proposing applicationevaluation critena. A majority of therespondents favored the Commission'stwo-tiered application approach underwhich applications for television andLBS earth stations would be processedon a routine basis while applications forthe construction of multi-purpose earthstations would be subject to a morerigorous review.35 Some parties,principally AT&T, favored extendingexpedited processing to all types ofearth stations.3 1 As to the criteria thatshould govern the consideration of LBSand television applications,32 there wasgeneral agreement that these earthstation applications should be reviewedfor the minimal legal and financialqualifications of the applicant andtechnical qualifications of the proposal.As to multi-purpose applications, someparties suggested use of the IBS/television standards. However, mostparties, including NTIA and Comsat,agreed with our proposal to morerigorously review these applications.3Further, most parties addressing theissue of an applicant's dominant statusstated that Commssion review shouldtake due account of an applicant'smonopoly or dominant status 34 and thepotential for diversion of traffic fromexisting ESOC earth stations. Comsatargued that AT&T, as provider ofapproximately 90 percent of allinternational satellite traffic and asmajor owner and operator of cablefacilities, should be barred from owningand operating earth stations since sucha scheme would necessarily result in thedomination of both international cableand satellite facilities by AT&T.

"iT. the Networks, Equatorial, NTIA. HBO,Federal Express, and Comsat. Comsat would favorextending routine processing only to applicationsfor earth stations which would provide exclusivelyIBS or television service.

31AT&T IRI, RCA. TRT. and NTIA. RCA wouldfavor extending routine processing to applicationsfor multi-purpose earth stations by all carriersexcept for AT&T.

32AT&T argued that the Commission should notscrutinize applications for new multi-purpose earthstations In a manner disparate from that employedfor other classes of international earthstations inthat technological advancements in earth stationsand satellite technology, especially TDMA/DSI,makes efficiency concerns irrelevant. AT&T alsoclaimed that the INTELSAT charging policyprovides a satisfactory mechanism forcompensating inefficiencies.

"' While agreeing with the need for a morethorough evaluation of multi-purpose earth stationapplications, some parties stated that there weresufficient safeguards already in place via theINTELSAT Agreements, tariffs, and themarketplace, to ensure the continued overallefficiency in the near term of the INTELSAT systemand to dispel any concern of premature saturation.

31 Comsat. RCA. and ITT.

According to Comsat, there is no realcompetition in the international voicemarket and thus permitting AT&T todivert traffic to its own earth stationswould not be a natural and benignconsequence of marketollace forceo.31RCA, for the same reasons proffered byComsat, proposed a five-yearmoratorium on AT&T's ownership andoperation of earth stations.3a

16. With regard to the future of ESOC,the parties unanimously supported theCommission's proposal to permitnegotiations by the ESOC joint ownersto determine ESOC's future. Severalparties submitted proposed frameworksfor such negotiations.37 The parties were

3AT&T argued that the Commission shoulddisregard the impact of traffic diversion whenconsidering applications for multi-purpose earthstations (1) since AT&T's own economic interest InESOC will temper the massive sudden dlversion oftraffic from existing ESOC earth stations: (23 sincewhat diversion may occur will be offset by trafficgrowth In the system (a view supported by lIi,MCI. ASC, NTIA and Federal Express) and (3)because AT&T Is the major source of Internationalsatellite traffic, restrictions on its use of les costlyand more efficient earth stations will be detrimentalto a large number of customers, and thus, not be Inthe public Interest. In Its reply comments, AT&Tstated that it Is willing to become sole owner ofcertain mainland ESOC stations and Is prepared tonegotiate with the other owners for the purchase ofthose stations. Comsat, in its reply comments,argued that AT&T's assertion with regard to trafficdiversion does not provide an appropriate basis forthe promulgation of policy on this issue and thatAT&T has relied on overstated traffic forecasts,Comsat also argued that AT&T's scheme wouldresult In an AT&T-dominated system, that existingearth stations, built basically to accommodateAT&Ts traffic, could not remain financially viableon the basis of the remaining (non-AT&T) traffic.Comsat also rejected NTIA'a suggestions that theCommission disregard AT&T's Investment In othertelecommunications technologies when consideringmulti-purpose applications. Comsat averred thatAT&T control of both cable and satellite facilitieswould hamper Intermodal competition,

wAT&T argued that with any granting ofauthority to Comsat for the construction/operationof an earth station should be the concomitantrequirement that Comsat offer INTELSAT capacityon a full and partial transponder basis, based onequivalent voice channels and to offer suchcapacity In Its unbundled space segment tariff.AT&T, comments at page 1. Both RCA and Comsatrejected AT&T's proposal. In Its reply comments,RCA stated that this proposal would In practicalterms primarily benefit AT&T since AT&T Is theonly carrier with sufficient traffic volumes to takeadvantage of partial or full transponder capacity,RCA also claimed that granting this proposal wouldenable AT&T to extend its current MTS monopolyInto the now competitive international leasedchannel market. Comsat averred In Its replycomments that (1) the Issue waS not raised In theNPRM and, therefore, cannot be a proper subject fordiscussion and resolution In the forthcoming order,and (2) INTELSAT does not now offer such capacityfor international services and Is only consideringsuch an offer for IBS. Comsat concluded that theseis nothing In the record regarding the terms onwhich capacity might be available or theImplications of such an offering.

3'AT&T proposed that prior to the Commisslon'sfinal order In this docket, the joint owners moot to

Continued

Federal Register / VoL 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 50035

generally concerned with continuity ofefficient, high quality service atreasonable rates, and equitable access 3

to the existing ESOC stations. Therewas also a consensus of opinion that thedevelopment and approval of an ESOCtransition plan should not hinder ordelay the progress of the Commission inconsidering and granting applicationsfor independent earth stations. Allrespondents rejected Comsat's proposed"moratorium" on applications forconstruction of multi-purpose earth"stations, claiming it would beanticompetitive. ss

17 Several parties commented on theappropriate structural form for Comsat'sparticipation in the competitiveownership and operation of earthstations, e.g., whether Comsat's currentownership share of general purposeearth stations should be transferredfrom the WSD to a separate subsidiaryand whether Comsat's ownership ofnew earth stations should be in theWSD or separate subsidiary. Mostparties endorsed our proposal thatComsat's competitive earth stationactivities be separated from itsmonopoly space segment activities torinumize cross-subsidization between

identify and evaluate various proposals fordissolution of ESOC. including sale and exchange ofownership interests and joint ownership of somestations, and then prepare and submit to theComussion a proposal for its approval AT&T alsoidentified a series of specific items of concern. Theowners would implement the plan subsequent toComussion approval, at which time the transitionperiod, if needed, would begin. Comsat stated thatnegotiations should be authorized without imposingtime constraints on meetings during the pendency ofthis proceeding. After the termination of theproceeding. Comsat stated that the Commissionshould require prompt reporting of the discussions'status and evaluate such progress. Should noagreement be made, the Commission shouldprescribe a solution- Both Comsat and AT&T notedthat the owners met on May 29.1984. in an effort toestablish a framework for discussion and haveagreed to report to the Commission on the progressof their discussions.

=Section 21(c)[2) of the CommunicationsSatellite Act of 1962. 47 U.S.C. 721(c)(2) requires thatthe Comnnssion:

"insure that all present and future authorizedcarers shall have nondiscriminatory use of. andequitable access to, the communications satellitesystem and satellite terminal stations under lust andreasonable charges, classifications, practices.regulations, and other terms and conditions andregulate the manner in which available facilities ofthe system and stations are allocated among suchusers thereof"

3'Comsat initially urged a three-year transitionperiod to allow the marketplace to adjust to thechange in regulatory philosophy and stated thatalthough the Notices and other parties labeled itsproposal a "moratorium," Comsat merelycontemplated a transition period for the processingof applications. Comsat. in its comments to theNPR., stated that under a case-by-case analysis ofapplications for multi-purpose stations, theCommission could begin processing thoseapplications at the termination of this proceeding.See fn. 70. nfra.

the emerging competitive activity forearth station services and the monopolyprovision of space segment services.AT&T and RCA proposed a transitionalarrangement under which Comsat'sESOC earth station ownership could beretained in WSD until the dissolution ofESOC, while competitive (new) earth -

station investments would be through aseparate subsidiary. Most parties alsoproposed that we closely scrutinize anyinvestment transfers and tariff filings toensure that cross-subsidization does notoccur between earth station and spacesegment operations. 0 Comsat arguedthat the ownership and operations of itsmulti-purpose earth stations should bepermitted to remain in WSD. However,Comsat did not object to placing theownership and operation of lBS andtelevision earth stations in a separatesubsidiary providing non-monopolyservice. With reference to the separatesubsidiary proposal found in ourAuthorized User II proposal for end-to-end services, Comsat favored WSDbeing limited to providing multi-purposeearth station and space segmentservices and one separate subsidairyproviding end-to-end and LBS/televisionearth station services. Comsat arguedthat an arms-length separation betweenmanagement of earth station and spacesegment services would impede thecoordination and efficiency currentlyobtained through a single entity."

The parties generally agreed that a rSorou3investigation of Comsat's space segment ratesshould be made and that Com.at's sample tarifffailed to provide adequate assuranzs that (1)Comsat's allocation of costs for Its monopolyservices are accurate and reasonab!a and do notreflect cross-subsidization: (2) the cost allocationbetween the ground and space segments is accurateand reasonable- and (3) the rates are fatrly derivedfrom valid demand projections, are reasonab!e foreach use of its different services. and reasonablyreflect services justifiably chargeab!e to Comsat'smonopoly ratepayers. IT'T also submitted a lengthyset of questions for Commission Investigation.l TTreply comments at page Zo. (See comments of ITT.RCA. Hinchman. AT&T. IRLI MCIL) MCII called forthe immediate unbundling of rates even though anearth station policy has not yet been formulated.With regard to the manner by which to arrive at alawful tariff, MCII and WUI stated that theCommission should refrain from rate-avcgng, atleast prior to any rate filings by carriers. WUIsuggested that the Communications Satclite Actrestricts the Commission from prescribing rate-averaging prior to a rate filing while Hawaiianargued that the Act does not restrict the prescriptionof rate averaging prior to rate filing, and that theCommission should maintain a policy of rateaveraging for existing general purpoee earthstations in order to assure continucd viable rate:and services to lower traffic areas, such as thoPacific Ocean region. RI favored using theINTELSAT Utilization Charge (IUC) as a benchmar,from which tb derive a lawful tanffr aLming thatthe IUC represents Comsat's revenue requirement.in a per circuit basis, for its INTELSAT investmentexpenses and associated costs.

4" While recognizing that in some instancescompetitive activities should be carriLd out In a

18. All parties with the exception ofComsat supported the Commission'sproposal that should non-ESOC orComsat entities be authorized toconstruct and operate internationalearth stations, Comsat should unbundleits tariffs so as to enable carriers toobtain space segment capacity separatefrom earth statiojn capacity. In so doing.the parties have gone to-great lengths toadvise us of Comsat's tendency toexceed its allowable rate of return andthat it has rarely resisted priortemptations to overburden users of itsmonopoly services in order to supportits competitive ventures.

19. With regard to the issue of whatthe proper role of Comsat, as U.S.Signatory to INTELSAT. should be inany ownership arrangement, mostparties stated that Comsat shoudcontinue to represent U.S. interests inINTELSAT but that the Commissionshould adopt mechanisms for greatercarrier/operator and publicparticipation in the formulation of U.S.positions i INTELSAT. A variety ofmechanisms were proposed by therespondents which reflect varyingdegrees of carner/operator and publicinvolvement in both Comsat/INTELSATforums and the instructional process.There was general agreement that thereshould be significantly greater access toINTELSAT documents and meetings andgreater imput into INTELSAT planningand coordination functions. WhileComsat favors greater carrier mput.4 2 itstated that the instructional processshould not be altered pending thecompletion of an ongoing congressionalinquiry and the efforts of an inter-agency task force.

II. Discussion

A. Over'aei,'

20. The Commumcations Satellite Actof 1962 charges the Commission with theresponsibility of establishing an earthstation ownershup policy which best

ceparate subsidiary so that the WSD's competitiveventures do not profit at the expense of ratepayers,Comsat claimed that a separate subsidiaryrequirement is expensive, neces3itating aduplication of fetions and impedin.- the overallefficl zcy of the ternational statellite system.an:that traditional redatezy oversight would obviatethe need for such separation. Comsat furtherstatedthat a separate subsidiary might be warranted withrEccpect to WSD, ownership of lBS and telavisionearth stations in that intense competition will resultfrom the p-cbable deregulation In the near future.Finally. NTIA stated that a separate subsidiaryrcquirmnt was unnecessary in that strictercr'c-=,ting procedures would suffice to ensure thatcros:;s-bstdizatioa does not o=r.

4 Com- sat baa developed a program to Increasepublic ac-c- to information regarding INTELSATand its activities as well as Comsat's actions as US-Sgnatory discussed at para. 48. infra


serves the public interest. 43 The jointownership arrangement that weestablished in 1966, and which wasimplemented by the carriers in 1967,addressed the needs of a nascent -satellite telecommunications industry.We found that a joint ownership schemewould expedite the "establishment of aneffective and efficient global satellitecommunications system" and assist the"orderly development of acomprehensive complex of earthstations." 44 We envisioned theinvolvement of carriers other thanComsat in international earth stationmanagement and ownership and soughtto allow these carriers the opportunityto obtain experience in satellitecommunications and to provide themincentives to maximize their use ofsatellite technology.' 5 We havehowever, always recognized thedynamic nature of the satellite and earthstation technologies. We have witnessedthe development of larger, more reliableand efficient satellites, smaller earthstations and new services. We have alsowitnessed the transformation ofINTELSAT fiom an organization withfew members managed by Comsat to afinancially stable entity with its ownmanagement staff and over one hundredmembers. 4 In such a new environmentwe believe that a review of our existingearth station ownership policy is timely.

21. We conclude here that aliberalized earth station ownershippolicy which permits the constructionand operation of earth stations outsideof ESOC would benefit users byincreasing carrier and service optionsand creating competitive pressures onrates. We also conclude here that such apolicy is consistent with our INTELSATobligatibns and can generally beimplemented without adverse impact onservice quality or efficiency. Ineffectuation this policy, we will allowcompetition consistent with ourstatutory objectives for existing andnew earth stations, and will considerapplications from any carrier. We willaccept applications to provide IBS andtelevision services and process such

1347 U.S.C. 721(c)(7) provides that theCommission shall: "Crant appropriate authorizationfor the construction and operation of each satelliteterminal station, either to the Corporation (Comsat)and one or more authorized carers or to theCorporation and one or more such carriers jointly,as will best serve the public interest, convenience.and necessity."

"Second Report and Order, 5 FCC 2d at 817.45Second Report and Orders, 5 FCC 2d at 816,

818--20.16 INTELSAT has grown from 19 member

countries In 1964 to 109 members in 1984. and thenet Investment in its space segments has grownfrom $69 million in 1907 to $1.5 billion in 1984.

applications in a routine fashion. Wewill employ a more rigorous review, ona case-by-case basis, of applications formulti-purpose stations. We shallreallocate ESOC ownership shares inproportion to the joint owners' currentusage of the ESOC facilities and thenpermit the ESOC joint owners tonegotiate among themselves the futureof ESOC. WE shall require that Comsatfile cost-based tariffs for INTELSATspace segment usage through its -WorldSystems Division and file earth stationtariffs through a subsidiary acting as aninternational service carrier. We furthermandate: (a) That Comsat separate itscompetitive common carrier earthstation activities from its monopolycommon carrier space segmentactivities; (b) that all Comsatapplications fornew stations or formodifications to authorized stations be

"made through a Comsat subsidiary; and(c) that Comsat transfer any ownershipinterests in existing INTELSAT stationsfrom the WSD to a separate subsidiaryand that the mechanics of suchproposed transfer be submitted to theCommission for review. While we arecognizant of the need for a smoothtransition from one ownershiparrangement to another, we shall notimpose a moratorium period on anyapplication for the ownership andoperation of earth stations. We will alsonot impose any pre-filing restrictions onAT&T although we recognize that AT&Tapplications for multi-purpose earthstations may raise unique issues. Weconclude that Comsat should continue torepresent the United States atINTELSAT meetings with our continuedmonitoring of its role. Further, we findthat it is appropriate to facilitate greatercarrier, operator, and public input intothe instructional process and INTELSATdecisions. Finally, we conclude thatowners of international earth stationsmay attend the annual meetings of theOperational Representatives thataddress operating and coordinatingmatters that relate to space segment andearth stations.B. Legal Considerations

22. Titles II and III of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, and Titles I, II, and III of theCommunications Satellite Act of 1962, asamended, grant to-the Commission

- authority over international earthstations within the United States.Section 201(c)(7) of the CommunicationsSatellite Act directs the Commission to"grant appropriate authorization for theconstruction and operation of eacthinternational satellite terminal station,

either to the corporation (Comsat) or toone or more authorized carriers or to thecorporation (Comsat) and one more suchcarriers jointly, as will best serve thepublic interest, convenience, andnecessity." These statutory options andthe statutory history make it clear thatCongress expressed no preference forwhich ownership arrangement weshould permit when it enacted thissection and that the Commission wasgiven the discretion to determine theownership scheme which would bestserve the public interest. Inherent In thisgrant of authority are the twinresponsibilities of: (a) Using ourexpertise and discretion to establish aninitial earth station ownership policywhich served the public interest; and (b)modifying that policy as warranted bychanges in the facts and circumstancesunderlying the original formation of thepolicy. 47

C. Policy Considerations

23. A more flexible ownership schemewhich permits independent earth stationownership outside of ESOC as marketforces dictate and the public Interestrequires would foster innovation,establish more service and carrieralternatives for users, and create adownward pressure on earth stationcosts and rates. Thus, we wouldencourage the development of a marketwhere earth stations could be ownedwith Commission approval by ESOC, byindividual carriers, by Comsat or by anyComsat/carrier combination. Webelieve that Comsat's filing of a cost-based, unbundled tariff coupled with theopportunity for carriers to constructtheir own earth stations at locations oftheir choosing will foster theestablishment of efficient networks andresult in substantial savings for users.While we are aware of'the need for botha smooth transition and theconsideration of public interest factorswhen reviewing specific applications,the record in this proceedingdemonstrates that new forms ofownership for all types of earth stationswhich access the INTELSAT system willserve the public interest.

"As we have already noted In the NPRM, thosechanges would include advances In earth sallontechnology, the feasibility of competition In theprovision of earth station services and facilities, thuImpact of a new policy within INTELSAT, thequality and price of service to users, thedevelopment of Intramodal and Intermodalcompetition in the international marketplace.foreign policy and national security considerations,and interference, compatibility and connectivityrequirements.


24. Our experience has been that theintroduction of competition in theprovision of international services, or asegment of an international service,produces real benefits for users. In thelast several years we have permitted theinternational record carriers to provideinternational service from all points inthe United States (Gateways);8 we haveremoved restrictions on AT&T'sprovision of international recordservices (TAT-4 Revisited);' 9 and wehave authorized new entrants for theprovision of international record andvoice services (Western Umon,Graphnet, MCII, SBS, GTE Sprint, etc.).We have taken steps to assure thatcompetitive activities will not besubsidized by monopoly offerings(Comsat Structure) 50 and informationuseful to competitive entities in theUnited States will be quickly and fairlydisseminated [Information Flow).55

25. The central policy isiue addressedby the respondents was whether earthstation capacity can and should beprovided by any entity other than ESOC.Comsat has maintained throughout thisproceeding that the unrestrictedindependent ownership of U.S.international multi-purpose earthstations could hamper the efficient,reliable and cost-effective operation ofthe U.S. earih station network andadversely affect the optimum utilizationof the INTELSAT space segment.However, Comsat has stated that othercarriers' applications could beconsidered following a transition periodand be granted if they satisfy a strictpublic interest standard. Otherrespondents contended that a moreliberal ownership and operational planfor new and existing stations wouldbetter address the needs of internationalsatellite users without compromising theefficiency of the INTELSAT globalsystem. After a careful review of ourearth station ownership policy and theresponsive filings in this proceeding,with particular attention to questionsrelating to earth station and spacesegment efficiency, we conclude that arestrictive ownership policy is no longerwarranted, that substantial benefits tousers will flow from a more open andflexible earth station ownership policy,and that this new policy can beimplemented in such a way as to ensureearth station and space segmentefficiency. We more fully explain the

4"76 FCC 2d 115(160),a ffdsub norn. WesternUnion Telegraph Company v. FCC, 655 F. 2d 1126(D.C. Cir. 191).

4992 FCC zd 641 (19M).-'90 FCC 2d 1159 (1932) and 97 FCC 2d 145

(released April 30. 1984).sId.

technical considerations on which thispolicy conclusion is made in thefollowing section.D. Technical Considerations

26. For the purpose of addressingtechnical issues and formulatingapplication review criteria, we adoptedm the NPRNI a classification schemewhich divided earth stations into threeclasses: Multi-purpose, mS, andtelevision stations. While mostrespondents supported the use of thesecategories, some parties argued that theproposed classifications were toorestrictive, constrained competition, andwere inconsistent with prevailingprocompetitive international servicepolicies. We believe that these threeclasses of service are sufficiently broadto include both existing and futureservices. As will be emphasized in thesection dealing with application criteria,our basic policy thrust is that if an earthstation application for the provision of aparticular service or services does notraise significant legal, policy, economic,technical or other issues, we wouldexpect the staff to routinely process thatapplication, just as it has done with therecently filed BS and television earthstation applications. On the other hand.if significant issues are raised, then amore rigorous review would beappropriate.

27 The principal technical issueraised by the parties was whether apolicy encouraging competition in theprovision of U.S. earth station serviceswould have a significant adverse impacton the overall efficiency of theINTELSAT system. Comsat argued thatthe system's efficiency would decline asthe number of earth station antennasaccessing a particular satelliteincreased. Comsat contended that theunrestricted addition of U.S. multi-purpose earth station would causefragmentation of major traffic streamswhich in turn would require a greaternumber of circuits to transmit the samevolume of traffic. Comsat also arguedthat satellite capacity and design lifecould be adversely affected by aproliferation of small (Standard B) earthstations that require more powerfulsatellites or drain more power fromexisting satellites. Other parties,including AT&T. IRI, and RCA, averredthat technological advancements inearth station and satellite technologies.such as TD Al/DSI 5 2 make efficiency

2ITDMA and DSI are acronyms frr time divtaonmultiple access equipment and dlital spcedsinterpolation equipment. respectively. Uce orTDMA. rather than frequency divmon multipleaccess (FDMA). Increases the number of circuits aGiven satellito transponder can carry byapproximately 50-0O pcrccnL DSI equipment

concerns irrelevant and that theINTELSAT chargig policy alreadyprovides a satisfactory mechanism forcompensating mefficiencies.5 3

28. We conclude that with respect totelevision and IBS earth stationapplications the issue of technicalinefficiency is generally irrelevant."However, such meffimency concerns arereal and must be examined whenconsidering applications for multi-purpose earth stations which have in thepast utilized mostly Standard A andStandard C antennas. We believe,however, that some increase in thenumber of new multi-purpose U.S. earthstations operating under today's accessarrangements will not necessarily resultin a noticeable change in achievablesatellite efficiency from that obtainableunder our current omership policy.Nevertheless, efficiency factors such asthe type of modulation and multipleaccess used, the frequency band. theparticular satellite and transponderaccessed, the type of communucations,and the size of the antennas are relevantto our public interest finding and .ill beexamined on a case-by-case basis when

oprate in a f a.on similar to circuit multiplicationequipment uscd on cables and appoxmatelydoub!c thc number of circuiL used for saamatocp;lsem zr.ifcs.

3As re stated In the Nr2PL the Ineffident us- ofthe spzce e--"ant can arie from a number ofso5ru,. Ccrtaln modulation formats for multi-parpa. earth statons was- more ef l, ntly withone or tv, a earth itations access3 a trarsponderthan with multip!e certh station access that onemrlj&ht c4pct In a comp-atithve envronm=nL Further.a cimti% c environment may tend to cncouranZethe me of earth stationas maler than Standard A orStand2rd C stationa for multi-puspose servicev-i h..A in come oituations, do not achieve thecatellite cffidenies that could be achieved vith thelapr statoos. EITFLSAT does diL,- oura,,: overly

use of small stations for vofe-srade serviceby z- ctir_1 a apacc s -;ment surcharge for crcui stranmittcd from or rec-ived by thes statiors.Thed c o f inefidrncy that ml;ht be genrated bycr- carth stations In a competitive envirnmentwould dpnd upon cuch factors as the t*pe ofmodulaton and multipla access used ("-. FDMA vs.TDMA). th frct=7- band (ie.. 014 G.z vis 14/11CMs). the cc-an relo . the particular catclite (ie_Major Path v:Fpiary). the particular transpondervith its conc-tivty requirements (L.. fe vs.many conins), the type of communfcation Ci(e.anezlr vs. di&ital). and th2 slze of the antenna onbath the US. and forelgn ends (Le. Standard A.Standard B. Standard C. or others).

"With rcgard to IBS earth stations. L\ SATantlcpatcs a multi-earth station service and hisalrcady evaluated consIdratins of satelliteeficleicy. It has amvcd at space s& nt pzicesthat compensate It for the full cost ofspace -,_emntas-ociatcd vwth each ty pe of LES earth station. As tote'.-slon ervca earth stations. the numb oftc'c-i:eln channes which can be dnced from atransp:edar ts Ccrally Independent of the numberor sze of earth stations acceming the transponder.Ordinarily, two earth stations can acces the samztransponder, thus. the ocerational nature of thisccrvIce dacs not pose a sofiicant inefficancyIssuc.

50033 Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

considering applications to constructand operate multi-purpose earthstations.

29. We find that advancements inboth satellite and earth stationtechnology, such as the furtherdevelopment of multiplexing equipmentlike TDMA, .will enhance the efficiencyof multi-purpose earth stations and theINTELSAT system. Such advancementswill be considered in reviewingapplications. We also believe that thereexist additional safeguards within theINTELSAT organization and processlesto help assure continued efficiency ofthe INTELSAT system a.5 5 We emphasizethat our jurisdiction over this matter willcontinue and that we have the ability tore-examine how technical factors will beevaluated in the application process.

30. A second technical issue relates totechnical coordination of new earthstations with the INTELSAT system andits Signatories. At the present time,technical coordination is a five-stepprocess. First, an earth stationapplication is filed and its constructionand use is authorized. Second, thetechnical characteristics andspecifications are presented toINTELSAT by Comsat, the U.S.Signatory. Third, the earth station isbuilt and is tested. Fourth, INTELSATreviews the test results and, if theresults are satisfactory, approves theuse of the earth station with theINTELSAT system. Finally, the earthstation is coordinated [frequencies,antennas and transponders) with otherSignatories. We do not envision anysignificant modification of thisprocedure. We would expect eachownerjoperator to work with Comsat totransmit test results to INTELSAT andto coordinate frequencies, antennas andtransponder data with other owners.While the integration of earth stationand reference station 5 6 operations andtechnical coordination of U.S. earthstations into the INTELSAT system doesnot pose technical problems, there rmghtarise questions as to operationalcoordination, planning, and owners'responsibilities, The issue of operational

"'We note that INTELSAT can discourageoverally wide use of small earth stations or otherInefficient modes of operationby exacting spacesegment charges for circuits transmitted from orreceived by thesestations. Further. earth stationmust meet INTELSAT's technical performancestandards pnor to accessing the INTELSATsatellite. See INTELSAT Operating Agreement, Art.14(a); Pmocedures Governing Application. Approval,Verification. and Operation of Earth Stations in theINTELSAT System. INTELSAT Doc.BC-5-82 (Rev.2) (March 18.1931).

1 A "reference station" is a TDMA earth stationwithin a network ofTDMA earth stations that actsas a standard, or reference. for the timing of all ofthe stations' transmissions.

coordination is discussed at para. 39,infra.

31. We note that Comsat has recentlypublished and distributed its "DigitalExpress User's Guide" which describesthe process for activation and operationof Digital Express (IBS) earth stationsand includes references to informationon technical performance standards. Itappears that this publication will assistthe integration of IBS earth stations intothe INTELSAT system. The publicationstates that Comsat provides guidanceand assistance on activation andoperation of such stations and suchfollow-on services as operationalplanning, provision of space segmentcapacity, and maintenance of networkintegrity in collaboration withcorrespondent administrations.

E. Economic Considerations32. The economic issues addressed by

the respondents concern the costs andbenefits of independent ownership bothto the participants in the INTELSATsystem (both Signatories andinternational carriers) and to users ofthe INTELSAT system. Of centralconcern were the additional costs forforeign administrations (PTTs) andrevenue diversion. As to additionalcosts for the PTTs, Comsat has arguedthat the PTTs will be adversely affectedby our more flexible earth stationownership policy since foreign earthstations would require additionalequipment to operate with new U.S.stations.&5 Notwithstanding this claim,we note that the expenditure ofadditional funds and the interconnectionwith new entrants are decisions to bemade by the PITs. Thus, for theoperation of any new U.S. earth station,a willing foreign partner must exist.Foreign administrations, in order toincrease their revenues, may show agreater willingness to enter intooperating agreements with U.S. carrierswhich provide new services, havedistinct customer bases and own theirown earth stations. Further, newentrants and increased competition inthe United States should increasedemand for all INTELSAT services andthus increase revenues for bothINTELSAT and its members.58

1' Comsat claimed that an increase in costs to thePITs would result from their need to procureadditional equipment to operate with new U.S. earthstations, thus creating an economic disincentive forthese PTrs to enter into operating agreements withU.S. earth station operators.

1s Comsat also argued that the use of a greaternumber of circuits to carry the same amount oftraffic would acceleratesatellite saturationschedules and accelerate the purchase byINTELSAT of additional space segment (satellite)capacity. This additional capacity would bepartially (24%) funded by Comsat and would

33. The major economic considerationis the potential for traffic and revenuediversion from existing ESOC earthstations to new earth stations. 0

Because of the size of carnerinvestments and the nature of theoperations of the ESOC joint owners, weanticipate that the issue of revenuediversion would most likely arise underthe following scenario: ESOC continuesand AT&T files an application toconstruct and operate a new multi-purpose earth station with the intentionof diverting its traffic from an ESOCfacility to its new earth station, Theissue presented would be whetherrevenue diversion would harm Comsatto the extent that earth station or spacesegment services to the public would be,on balance, adversely affected, If theESOC co-owners successfully reach asettlement on the future of ESOC, wewould anticipate that somearrangements would be included tominimize any economic injury, mootingthe issue. However, because of the clearpotential for significant revenuediversions that such earth stations maypresent, we will defer to the applicationprocess the question of whether aparticular earth station and anticipatedtraffic diversion would impact Comsatso that overall service to the publicwould be adversely affected.

34. Comsat contended that someinternational carers, AT&T inparticular, are apt to divert a substantialamount of traffic from existing ESOCstations to new stations, resulting Insignificantly reduced revenues andhigher rates for the remaining carriers

Increase Comsat's space segment rate base. revenuorequirement and charges. In response to thisargument we must state that we doubt additionalspace segment capacity beyond that alreadyplanned by INTELSAT will have to be procured as aresult of our new ownership policy. First. IBS Ispaced in a manner which anticipates Inlfficlent useof the space segment. Second, television servicedoes not create Inefficiencies. Third, It Is probablethat the INTELSAT system will have excesscapacity at least for the next several years Fourth,even if additional space segment would have to beprocured, we cannot simply conclude that thisadded cost outweighs other savings to users broughtabout by ournew policy. In fact. we are quiteconfident that any increase in space segmentInvestment and charges will be offset by reductionsIn earth station rates and terrestnal hauls, Finally,INTELSAT could adopt a charging policy togenerate additional funds necesary forsupplemental satellite procurements.

s9 The NPRM solicited comments addressing theissues of: (a) What weight should be accordedpotential traffic and revenue diversion whenconsderng authorization applications: (b) whetherto treat such diversion as a natural and benignconsequence of the market mechanism: and (c)whether to balance the Interests of the currentproviders of earth station capacity with the interestsof consumers likely to benefit from more efficiententrants.


and users of these stations.60 Inresponse AT&T stated that: (a) Itsownership interest in existing earthstations and the dedicated connectingterrestrial facilities will temper massivediversion of traffid from existing ESOCstations; (b) any diversion that mayoccur will be offset by traffic growth inthe system; and (c) restrictions onAT&T's use of less costly and moreefficient earth stations will be harmfulto a large number of customers. Manypotential owners of new earth stationsstated that any traffic diversion wouldgenerally be offset by increases ininternational satellite traffic. Theseparties averred that existing procedures,for application approval, economic self-interest and a negotiated transition forESOC -would provide a sufficientsafeguard to ensure traffic diversiondoes not adversely affect users. 6 '

35. As we stated in the NPRM,62 theIRCs and AT&T are the ESOC memberswhich originate and terminate traffic.They provide end-to-end service to usersin contrast to Comsat which, atpresent, serves these carriers as acarrier's carrier. The IRCs collectivelygenerate approximately 10 percent ofthe international satellite traffic. Theyjointly own approximately the samepercent of the existing ESOC stations.Since satellite traffic handled by U.S.earth stations is estimated byINTELSAT to grow in the next severalyears at an annual rate ofapproximately 16 percent,6 we concludethat any diversion of traffic by one ormore IRCs (or new entrants such as IRI)to new stations is likely to be offset byoverall market growth, thus avoidingeconomic harm to AT&T, Comsat, otherESOC members or the public. For thesame reasons we can also conclude thatconstruction and operation by a Comsatsubsidiary of a new earth station willnot injure the IRCs, AT&T or the public.Furthermore, overall demand forsatellite services is likely to increase as

6 oWe again note that AT&T is the source ofapproximately 90 percent of internationaltelecommunications traffic. is the largest ownher ofunderseas cable, and owns the connectingterrestrial lines that link U.S. international earthstations and cables to major population centers.

es Most respondents argued that the Commissionshould at least consider revenue and trafficdiversion on a case-by-case basis when determiningwhether to authonrze new earth stations.Application criteria are discussed in greater detailwithin the context of the future market structure atpara. 49. znfra. Our discussion of the determinationof the public interest follows at pars. 37. znfra.

c2At para. 41.6The forecasted annual global growth rate

(percent) for INTELSAT traffic is estimated to growapproximately 14 percent. These figures are takenfrom the "INTELSAT Traffic Data Base ResultingFrom the 1984 Global Traffic Meeting." released byINTELSAT on August 13.19B4.

new services develop, new entrantsenter the market, terrestrial hauls areshortened and intramodal competitiondevelops.

36. We recogruze, however, that ifESOC continued in its present form andif AT&T were to divert a substantialpercentage of its traffic to a new facility,then Comsat would suffer a revenue lossand the joint ovmers, the IRCs andAT&T would suffer a rental paymentdecrease on their ESOC investments."Yet, if AT&T'"s current costs of obtainingearth station capacity exceed its totalcosts under an arrangement where itbuilds and operates one or more earthstation facilities, then independent ornon-ESOC ownership of earth stationsby AT&T could lead to a more efficientservice offering and lower rates to itsusers. We are cognizant that trafficdiversion may result from a policy ofindependent ownership of internationalearth stations and the competitiveprovision of international earth stationservices. We are also aware thatComsat Will suffer a loss of trafficshould it engage in overpricing ofservices.

37 We intend to evaluate specificcontentions of revenue diversion in theapplication process when a particularset of facts are before us. We shallprimarily took at the effect of diversionon service to the public rather than theeffect on the petitioning carrier. Thus,unless it can be demons.trated thattraffic diversion will significantly Impacta carrier's ability to provide service tothe public and that the public will, onbalance, be adversely affected by thisoccurrence, we do not intend to limit orbar AT&T's (or any other carer's) entryinto the earth station market. TheSupreme Court set the standardgoverming additional competitive entryInto a given market by mandating thatwe determine whether competition isreasonably feasible in those marketssought to be served and that additionalcompetition serves the public interest.PThe Court stated that the Commission,in determining whether additionalcompetition is in the public interest, "isnot required to make specific findings oftangible benefit but must at leastwarrant that competition would

" Because the IRCs' owvner-ship sham In ESOCis realatively small, we can conclude that any rentalpayment loss suffered by the IRCs due toindependent ownership aied operation of a multi-purpose earth station by AT&T will not bosubstantial will represent only a small percnt-aeof their total revenues, and will not adversely affecttheir operations or the type, quality or price orservices offered to the public.

% FCC v. RCA CommunicatiOr i. I. 10 US. E&(1953) (ICAc].

serve some beneficial purpose:' cl Thecommission, in i.ackay Rado andTelegraph Co., 28 FCC 231 (1960)(M'ackay). stated that the feasibility ofcompetition depends upon whetherthere is sufficient traffic to support theadditional competition and upon theeffect of the additional competition uponthe applicant as well as all othercarrers providing service to the public.In felocator Network of Amernca v. FCC,691 F. 2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Telocator)the circuit court reiterated the standardfor additional competitive entry:.

[Tihe Commission may lawfully allow, andIndeed encourage, entry of multiple carriersoffering overlapping services, flit hasrevier,'ed the characteristics of the particularcommunications field involved and rationallyconcludes that competition in that fieldpredictably would further the public interestm larger, more economical, and moreeffective service. Fssentially. the Commissionmust be able reasonably to forecast, first,that new entry will not so severely unpai theeconomic base of existing carrers that theIndustry would experience an incidence offailure so high as to impair provision ofservice to the public and. second. theinjection of new providers will probablyresult In better, cheap3r, or more innovativecommunications offerings. These forecastsmust have some ascertainable foundation mthe record; at the same time, however,conclusions on the future conduct oflicensees, the anticipated reaction ofinvestors, the ex-pected course oftechnological development and otherassumptions about the functioning oftomorrow's communications market areunavoidably exercises in predictiom For suchpro.noses, we can require only that theagency's decisional memoranda reveal that itidentified all relevant Issues, gave themthoughtful consideration duly attentive tocomments received, and formulated ajudgment which rationally accommodates thefacts capable of ascertainment and thepolicies slated for effectuation (footnotesomitted.?The District of Columbia Circuit Courtalso employed the RCAC standard inapproving authorization to constructearth station for Hawaiif-U.S. service.c3

The reasoning in this line of casesclearly indicates that the RCACstandard is applicable to the

SRC,4C 343 US. at 9&-V.7 Tl=ator. at 5M. See aro in the M1atter of

O',xcar Cosmmvucatieo Srvicea. 9z FCC Zd 41-1)2. (T-T--.

OHa:'afian Tecph7ne Co. v. FCC 569 F.2d E47(D.C. Cir. 19S). The Commismon has employed th-RCAC s!andard In appovin3 SES Internationalr rvlc [In th 2 ?,fatter of Satellit Btas2is Sygfem.91 FCC Zd &9 (15Z2)t lbs dirct provision oftelevisten seivicc by Comsat [In thebMatterofS,:!rlntentiaoletvork. 70 FCC ad 21V(I97al- and in settin8 aside both the TAT-4 policywhich Emited AT&r's Inte national serviceofferw2s and any other policy which limited theIRCs offeriu i [In thetMatterof &;crea7Comm.ttiorzs Shvzce. 92 FCC ad m4 (195211.


determination of additional competitiveentry into the international earth stationservices market.

38. On the issue of revenue diversion,we do not believe that the public wouldbe adversely affected if Comsat nolonger was the sole provider of earthstation services. As to the provision ofearth station services generally, otherentities appear eager to construct andoperate a variety of earth stations. Theprovision of earth station services bycarriers with customer bases eliminatesa middleman and may be the mostefficient way to provide service. Further,regardless of the ownership andoperation arrangement of internationalearth stations, all present and futureauthorized carriers are insured"nondiscriminatory use of, andequitable access to, the communicationssatellite system and satellite terminalstations. "pursuant to section201(c)(2) of the CommunicationsSatellite Act of 1962, as amended. 47U.S.C. 721(c)(2). As to the provision ofspace segment services, we donotbelieve that the independent ownershipof multi-purpose earth stations by AT&Twill adversely affect Comsat's ability toprovide space segment capacity. Wefirst note that AT&T's large investmentin ESOC, which we increase today, maytemper, any AT&T plan for the majordiversion of traffic from an ESOCfacility to a wholly owned AT&Tfacility. We also note the growth indemand for international satelliteservices and the development of newservices. Finally, the placement ofComsat's earth station investment m aseparate subsidiary will insulate itsearth station offerings from itsjurisdictional space segment serviceswhich we anticipate would remain aprofitable line of business.

39. Another area of concern is theintegration of the operations of U.S.earth stations into the INTELSATsystem and the obligation of the UnitedStates to install new earth stationequipment as scheduled by INTELSAT.We do not regard the issue ofintegration as technical since there is notechnical barrier to the ability of earthstation owners to coordinatefrequencies, antennas, and transpondersdata with the INTELSAT members.Integration does, however, pose theproblem of who should bear the costs ofoperational coordination (i.e., the costsof additional equipment or referencestations). For instance, as we noted inthe NPI R, 69 an issue may arise when

69 At pars. 38.

INTELSAT, with input from the UnitedStates, decides that certain traffic fromcertain countries should be handled byspecial modulation formats, such asTDMA. As an operational policy,INTELSAT does not decide which earthstations in a given country shouldchange their formats to meet theserequirements. It allows the country tomake'this decision. With competitivestations, disagreements among theowners may arise regarding who shouldincur the extra investment. We proposedin the NPRM to permit the station.owners to resolve integration matters'through negotiations. Subsequently, andonly if necessary, would we resolve thematter through our retained jurisdictionand conditioned authorizations. Wehere affirm that tentative conclusion.Thus, earth station owners will, in thefirst instance, have the opportunity toresolve integration issues themselves.However, in recognition of theimportance of these issues, we shallretain jurisdiction over U.S. earthstations and condition earth stationauthorizations, as necessary, to remedyany integration problem.

F The Future of ESOC and Other Issues40. ESOC: One of the central issues

raised by the transition to a newcompetitive earth station ownershippolicy is the appropriate disposition ofthe ESOC earth station investments. Wenoted in the NPRM that the owners mayopt to retain ESOC, to dissolve ESOC orto establish a "hybrid" ownershiparrangement. We reached no tentativeconclusion as to which arrangementwould be most efficient or best serve thepublic interest. All respondentsaddressing this issue supported ourproposal of permitting the joint ownersto negotiate among themselves thefuture of ESOC and then submit anagreement to the Commission for ourconsideration.1 0 We continue to believethat comprehensive negotiations amongthe joint owners are appropriate and wetherefore affirm our tentative conclusionto permit negotiations. The moredifficult question is what course ofaction would best serve the publicinterest if an agreement is not reached.We indicated in the NPRM that after anegotiating period of several months wewould consider individual proposals onthe disposition of the earth stations. Weproposed such a filing to emphasize tothe carriers the importance we attach toresolving tus issue and to convey to

70 We note that the joint owners have it fact

Initiated discussions subsequenit to the release of-the NPRM. From the pleadings, we can discern thatsome progress has been made in negotiating thedisposition of ESOC. See fn. 39, supra.

them a sense of urgency. Since thecarriers have already initiateddiscussions it is clear that they shareour concern and sense of urgency.Therefore, we need not establish anartificial deadline for the negotiations.We do, however, request the owners tofile periodic reports on the state ofnegotiations as they have done over thepast several months, If these reportsindicate that the negotiations havebroken down, we will solicit proposalsfor our consideration. We expect, ofcourse, that any arrangement would beconsistent with the antitrust laws and

,assure the continuance of efficient, highquality service without any disruption atreasonable rates and with equitableaccess to all earth stations.

41. ESOC Dispute: In resolving thislimited dispute, we required RCA andWUI to make whole their ESOC capitalcontribution accounts prior to requestingthat we act on their requests toreallocate ownership shares." Havingsatisfied that condition precedent, RCAand Wil requested, both in thisproceeding and a separate CommonCarer Bureau proceeding,72 that wereallocate ownership shares in ESOC tomore accurately reflect the currentusage of ESOC facilities by the jointowners. In their filings in this docketWUI and RCA indicated their belief thata reallocation of ownership shareswould facilitate the ESOCnegotiations."

7 1See pars. 10 and in. 10, supr.72RCA Request for Immediate Interim Relief, 1.8.

P-84-O0 (released August 17,1934). Se In. 17,supra.

7Hawalian stated that it had no objection toRCA's requested reallocation as long as It did notdelay the cuh'ent ESOC negotiations or prejudge theCommission's policy with regard to the eventualdissolution or rearrangement of ESOC. IT, whichtook no position with regard to the ESOC capitalcontribution dispute between RCA and Comsat,opposed RCA's proposal concerning reallocation ofownership shares in the Paumalu, Hawaii earthstation. ITT objected to RCA's proposal that bothRCA and ITT receive approximately the cameownership share even though RCA has three timesthe usage at this earth station. AT&T opposedRCA's request for reallocation, stating that: (alRCA's request Is. in effect, a late filed petition forreconsideration of the Commission's earlier ESOCDispute order (b) the Commission had alreadyruled on RCA's reallocation request and RCA thuswaived its right for appellate review of the ruling:(c) reallocation would violate the fundamental basisfor the establishment of ESOC as a voluntaryorganization: (dJ reallocation Is now Imprudent Inlight of the current negotiations to end the presentESOC joint ownership scheme: and (el RCA's claimthat it is overinvesting in ESOC facilities Is weaksince RCA receives through rental payments paidby AT&T and other non-ESOC carriers a return onthe capital which it Invests In ESOC, Further. AT&Targued that RCAs Investment In ESOC Is Includedin its rate base on which it earns Its authorized rateof return.

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 t Wednesday December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 50041

We shall today grant this request inthis proceeding for three reasons.7 4 First,our 1966 poliy decision and subsequentorders establish that we have assertedjurisdiction over the existing ownershiparrangement and the ownership shares.The ESOC Agreement specificallyacknowledges our power to reallocateshares by conditioning the ownership ofthe existing and additional earthstations "subject to the further order ofthe Commission."7 5 Second, we havealways recognized the dynamic natureof the satellite telecommunicationsindustry and state in our Second Reportand Order that the quotas prescribed byus are "subject to revision in the light ofexperience gained and will be expresslysubject to reexamination and possiblereadjustment on the basis of datasubmitted to the Commission." i!Reallocation is also consistent with ourearlier ESOC orders, that the allocationof ownership shares. "is one underwhich ownership is reasonably relatedto use."' 77 All parties to ESOC agree asto the disparity between the ownershipshares initially assigned by theCommission in 1966 based on carrierprojections and the joint owners' currentusage. Third, because the continuedexistence of ESOC, on one form oranother, is a possible outcome of thejoint owners' discussions, we believe itequitable to act on these reallocationrequests. We note, however, that thisreallocation is not intended to suggestour preference as to the futureownership and operation arrangement.We further note that the ESOCnegotiations are broad discussionsrelating to the future operations ofESOC as well as the disposition ofESOC investment shares. While thisreallocation cf shares may impact thebroadnegotiations, we do not believethat the effect will be significant orcreate any major Stumbling blocks.

42. The ownership shares which wenow adopt on the basis of actual use ofthe international earth stations are setout below under the "use" column:

4 As we stated in our Capital ContributionsDispute order, Mimeo. No. 34410, supira., petitionsfor reallocation of ESOC ownership shares wouldbe considered icr the Earth Station Ownershipproceeding; MoaO, sapra, par. 9. We haveincorporated the responsive pleadings in File No. I-S-P-84-008 into the Earth Station Ownership, docketand have, decided the reallocation issue in theimmediate proceeding on the basis of the publicrecord developed in both proceedings.

"Earth Station OwnershipAgreement,.March 23,1967, at psra. 1,.

76 Secend RieparIand Order SFCC 2d at 8l97 Second ftipvrt n OrdeA 5 FCC 2d at 817.

ReallocatedExisti oeship

St~e crde Owerhip shareStation an carrier h (percent)(rer based ory

(percent)j current

Contiguous United States:Comsat ..................................... 50.0 50.0RCA ....................... 10.5 1.4W UI ............................................. 4.0 , 1.1AT&T ......................................... . 35.5 47.5

Hawaii:Comsat ......... ............ 50.0 50.0RCA ............................................ 11.0 4.85WUI ............... .......... 3.0 1.9ITT ........................... 6.0 4.35Hawaiian ........................ ; ........... 30.0 38.9

Guam:Comsat ... .................. 500 50.0RCA ...................... 42.0 48.9W Ul ......................................... 8.0 1.1

Traffic shares are the number of circuits projected to bein use divided by 2, to reflect usage in terms of ownershipshares. We note that in authorizing the construction byESOC of a third east coast earth station we required theESOC menibers to enter into ownership avlotiations with alleligible international service carriers. In this case, TRT Tele-communications Corporation (TRT) had indicated a desire toacquire an ownership interest inESOC that was reasonablyrelated to Its use of the international eath station fatilitleaComsat, 90 FCC 2d 68 (1982), at 86. TRT ultimately decidednot to become an: ESOC member.

Usage ratios are as of June 30, 1984. See letter fromAllen E. Flower, ESOC Financial Representative, Comsat, toRobert E. Corn, MCII. dated August 30, 1984. Tte f#guresare from the- ESOC Financial; Statements, August, 1984.

Because there is no disagreement amongthe joint owners as to their respectivecurrent usage of each of the ESOCfacilities, we will require that alloperating licenses held by Comsat onbehalf of all ESOC members, or by allESOC members jointly, for each of therespective international earth stationsbe amended to reflect the above-statednew ownership interests.

43. Unbundling: The unbundling byComsat of space segment and earthstation charges is a necessary andlogical requirement to make competitionfeasible in the provision of earth stationfacilities. Because the WSD continues tobe the sole provider of INTELSAT spacesegment, Comsat would have both theincentive and ability to favor use of itsown earth stations if bundled rates werepermitte.s Comsat could accomplishthis by lowering costs which it allocatesto space segment for its own offeringsand bundling space segment and its ownearth station services into one rateelement. If this were done, we wouldhave great difficulty in assessingwhether these changes were reasonableand whether lengthy investigationscould be required. We shall thereforerequire that Comsat unbundle the earthstation and space segment componentsof the rate elements for all of itsofferings presently contained in'TariffNo. 8, 14 and 101 and refile separate

"'In most instances, Comsat presently operates asa carrier's carrier in that it Is the sole provider ofearth station and space segment service utilized byother international carriers in, the provision of theirend-to-end services. As to television offerings,Comsat can furnish its service directly to end-users.

cost-based rates. 0On a related matter,we reject AT&T's proposal that werequire Comsat to request at this timethe availability of full and partialtransponder capacity from INTELSATbased on equivalent voice channelsrequirement and to offer such capacityin its unbundled space segment tariff.8 'We agree with Comsat and ITT that thisissue is beyond the scope contemplatedby the NPRM and that there is aninsufficient record on which to basesuch a decision.

44. In response to our request in theNPRM, Comsat submitted sample tariffsand an explanation of the methodologyemployed to derive such rates. Mostrespondents found the submissionunacceptable and called upon theCommission to both investigate or_arrange an independent audit of spacesegment costs and direct Comsat to filefully supported tariff proposals, Theparties argued that Comsat failed toclearly identify and describe the costs ofall activities and failed to verify that: (a)Its total costs for its INTELSATEservices are accurate nd reasonableand do not reflect crosssubsidization;(b) its allocation of costs between spaceand ground segments is accurate andreasonable; and c), its rates are fairlyderived from valid demand projections,are just and reasonable for each of itsdifferent services and reasonably. reflect"used and useful" endeavors justifiablychargeable to Comset's monopoly'ratepayers.5 2 The purpose of receiving asample tariff from Comaet was to permitinterested parties ani the Commissionstaff the opportunity to-preview anunbundled tariff and to give Coursat apreliminary opportunity to. receivefeedback on such a filing. The attentionpaid to the sample filing indicates that itserved this purpose well However, asmerely a sample tariff, it cannot be thesubject of anyconclusions here. When

"Comsat provides its services under fiveseparate tariffs: Tariff No. 6-voice gradt servicefor NASA between Comst earth stations and shipmobile terminals; Tariff No, 14-hig speed, digitalservice for Advanced Research Project Agencybetween the Etam earth stationand overseaslocations Tariff No. 1S-television service betweencustomerpvovlded earth stations in the U.9 and .Mexico; Tariff No. i01-a general offering of voicegrade, television, audio, high speed data, digitaldata, point-to-alternate point, and internationalbusiness satellite services and Tariff No. 102-maritime services. The rates in Tariff Nos. 81, T4 and101 contain bundled rate elements for each servicebased on the costs of the INTELSAT space segmentand earth stations. Tariff No. 102 includes maritimeservices which contain bundled rate elements foreach service based on the costs of the INMARSATspace segment and earth stations. Tariff No. 18covers only space segment costs.

11 AT&T comments at page 18.s"See Reply Comments of IT, pp, 3-12, RCA,

Hinchman, and AT&T.

50042 Federal Register / Vol' 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

filing its tariff, we would expect Comsatto take into account the suggestions andconcerns raised by the parties in thecomments.

45. Moratorium: Comsat argued in its"wholesale/retail" combination earthstation proposal that.the Commissionshould adopt a three-year moratoriumon applications for the construction ofmulti-purpose earth stations in order toallow the marketplace to adjust to thenew ownership policy. 83 Under a delugeof responses unanimously attacking themoratorium as unwarranted andanticompetitive, Comsat restated itsposition as favoring a modest transitionperiod only, that under a case-by-caseanalysis of multi-purpose stations, theCommission could begin processingthose applications at the termination ofthis proceeding. We conclude that alengthy moratorium period isunwarranted and not in the publicinterest. We do not believe a formaltransition period for multi-purpose earthstation applications is necessary asthere is a built-in delay period m theapplication process as well as in theINTELSAT coordination and earthstation construction processes.Moreover, we do not expect to receivemany applications for multi-purposeearth stations while the ESOCdisposition negotiations are m progress.In addition, all parties to this proceedinghave been on notice since the issuanceof the NOI and NPRMthat we wereseriously contemplating the unimediateacceptance and processing of multi-purpose earth station applications uponthe release of this order. It cannot besaid, therefore, that any party is unfairlysurprised. We shall thus beginprocessing such applications."

46. INTELSATRepresentation: Withregard to the issue of INTELSATrepresentation, most respondents agreedthat Comsat should continue torepresent U.S. interests in INTELSATbut that we should adopt mechanismsfor greater public participation in theformulation of U.S. positions inINTELSAT. This issue concerns U.S.input into INTELSAT policy, tariff andprocurement decisions as distinct fromthe issues of earth station integration ortechnical coordination of U.S. earth

"Under this proposal, the first part of this periodwould Involve negotiations necessary for thedissolution of ESOC and the establishment of thecombination earth stations operations. The-secondpart would be a baseline period durng whichComsat would develop and offer a range of servicesto carriers only. Comsat proposed that theCommission completely forebear from acceptingapplications for multi-purpose and television earthstations at this time.

"'As we have noted earlier. IBS earth stationdppllcatlons have already been granted conditionedon this Report and Order. See fn. 19. supra.

stations with the INTELSAT system.Pursuant to the INTELSAT Agreements,Comsat is currently the U.S. Signatory toINTELSAT and represents the UnitedStates at INTELSAT meetings. Comsat'sactions within INTELSAT are subject toour instructional process by whichNTIA, the Department of State and theCommission develop U.S. positions onvarious issues. Under a competitivepolicy, different earth stations would beowned by different entities; these earthstations, however, would continue to beconsidered by INTELSAT as U.S.operated earth stations. Most partiesproposed various mechanisms by whichto increase carrier, operator and publicparticipation in INTELSAT meetings andto guarantee greater carrier and publicinput into the instructional process.Concern was also expressed thatinvesting carriers and interested partiesshould have tinely access to INTELSATdocuments in order to formulate andpresent meaningful comment to theCommission in its instructional function.

47 Comsat, the U.S. Signatory toINTELSAT under the INTELSATAgreement, is the only U.S. entityresponsible for investing in spacesegment. We believe that Comsat,through the instructional process, willcontinue to adequately represent U.S.interests. Notwithstanding thisconclusion, we believe that greatercarrer input on certain issues into theinstructional process would be highlybeneficial. The government agenciesresponsible for monitoring Comsat'srepresentational role at INTELSATmeetings and issuing instructions to theSignatory (NTIA, the Department of'State and-the Comimtission) haveinstituted an informational procedure bywhich to provide the public with anopportunity to comment on issues to beaddressed in INTELSAT meetings inorder to broaden the base of informationprior to the issuance of governmentinstructions to Comsat. Consistent withthe Commission's directives and criteriaconcerning the public dissemination ofINTELSAT-related documents andinformation established in the ComsatStructure proceeding, 5 the Commission

-Changes in the Corporate Structure andOperations of the Communications SatelliteCorporation, 90 FCC 2d 1159 (1982) (First StructureOrder). recon. denied. 93 FCC 2d 701 (1983]. Comsat,97 FCC 2d 145 [released April 20,1984] (SecondStructure Order). See also letter dated March 30.1984. from the Chief, Common Carer Bureau, toLawrence M. DeVore, Vice President and GeneralCounsel. World Systems Division. Comsat.regarding Comsat's implementation of theCommission's directives in its Comsat Structureorder on the public availability of information.technical data and patented inventions generatedby or on behalf of the INTELSAT and INMARSATorganizations.

now makes most INTELSAT dooumentsreceived by Comsat available for publicinspection and comment. The commentsare reviewed and considered to theextent that time allows and may, ifdeemed appropriate, be incorporatedinto specific instructions. If thisprocedure proves workable, It will becontinued for future INTELSATmeetings. If not, we will employwhatever means may be necessary tofind a workable procedure. Further, anyowner/operator of an internationalearth station will be able to attend theannual meetings of OperationalRepresentatives that address operatingand coordinating hnatters that relate tothe space segment and earth stations asintegral parts of the globalcommunications satellite system."°

These meetings have traditionally beonopen to all earth.station owners,whether they are Signatories or not.Comsat shall work with owners/operators of international earth stationsto arrange for their participation In ORmeetings.

48. We take special note that Comsathas taken a number of steps to increasethe public availability of informationregarding INTELSAT and its activitiesas well as Comsat's actions as U.S.Signatory. At the first of an ongoingseries of public meetings, held onAugust 2,1984, Comsat presented adetailed overview of INTELSAT'sstructure and activities including itsprocurement process, the mechanics ofits meetings, Comsat's documentdistribution program, and thegovernment instructional process.8"Comsat also presented a review ofissues currently before the INTELSATBoard of Governors.83 Comsat alsostated its intention to make availablethe agendas and documents forINTELSAT meetings in advance of thosemeetings in order to enable carriers andothers to review and comment on thematerial before the meetings. Comsat'ssecond public meeting on October 10,1984, was designed to acquaintindividuals wilh the INTELSAToperational planning process and withComsat's role in this process. Themeeting included a review of proceduresinstituted in the United States by

"See Operations Representatives Organzallonand Coordination Procedures, BG-29-ZE., October3. 1977.

"While Comsat has Indicated In Its loiter toChairman Fowler, August 9,1984, that similaroverview briefings will not be necessary on aregular basis, It has offered to hold them for anyinterested individuals or groups.

'Comsat stated Its Intention to hold such fatumsfor review and discussion on a quarterly basis, Insynchrony with the schedule of Board of Governors'meetings, and to place taped records of thesereview meetings in the public document room.


Comsat to insure that all U.S.operational requirements are identified,planned for, and satisfied in a timelyand coordinated fashion, and thecontinuity and quality of U.S. servicesusing INTELSAT is maintained. Comsatalso conducted two public workinggroup meetings on October 11, 1984, oneof which was designed for U.S.International Service Carriers and U.S.international earth station operators onthe preparation for the October 24,1984INTELSAT Operations Representatives'Conference. The other working groupmeeting was designed for operators andpotential operators of U.S. DigitalExpress (IBS] earth stations to reviewand discuss planning, implementation,operation, and coordination mattersaffecting earth stations for INTELSATEBS services. Finally, Comsat hasestablished an office of the WorldSystems Division Vice-President,International Operations, to handle m atimely and equitable manner, publicmqumes related to INTELSAT issues5 9

49. Appication Criteria: We concludewith respect to application criteria thatall relevant public interest factors shallcontinue to be considered under Parts 25and 63 of the Commission's Rules indeciding whether to authorize theconstruction and operation of new earthstations and determining the futureoperation of existing stations.9O We areaware, however, that the pertinentfactors can differ with respect todifferent classes of earth stations. As toapplications for IBS stations, the issuesof system efficiency and revenuediversion are not critical for ourconsideration. BS is a flexible, totallydigital mtegated service designed toaccommodate a full range of userapplications including private facsimile,data and teleconferencing. INTELSAThas planned the space segment capacityfor LBS, unlike its standard capacity, toenable a single transponder toaccommodate access by a large numberof earth stations. The IBS capacity isfurther designed to accommodate usernetworks through a variety ofconnectivity arrangements. Since the

Comsat has proposed that it wvill continue toprovide carners with the plans which INTELSATproposes for consideration by the meetings ofOperations Representatives. and continue to holdbriefings before and after these meetings to discussboth the proposed and agreed upon plans with thecarriers. We have concluded that any independentearth station owner may attend such meetings.However, the participants In the OR meetings may.at their discretion, continue to hold briefings amongthemselves before and after the OR meetings todiscuss any of the technical issues ansing from themeetings.

"See pars. 37. supr. for our discussion on thedetermination of the public interest in The 214application process.

multiple access concept is an integralpart of the EBS concept, we need notconsider the efficiency effect of multipleEBS earth stations on establishedINTELSAT services."' As to applicationsfor televislon earth stations, we again donot consider the issues of inefficiency orrevenue diversion to be critical forreview. Like lBS, television service is aspecialized offering distinct fromINTELSAT's general offering of spacesegment capacity. This service is aminor source of revenues for INTELSAT(4 percent) and is provided by a smallnumber of specific satellite transponderswhich can be accessed by only a limitednumber [ordinarily two) earth stationsper transponder at a given time. Sinceno greater number of earth stationswould access techically a particulartransponder even under a more liberalownership policy, and since revenuediversion would be an insubstantial partof Comsat's current revenues, we shallnot consider these factors in ourapplication authorization analy5ts. Weshall therefore process the applicationsfor both IBS and television servicestations on a routine basis withconsideration limited to legal(citizenship and character), financial(ability to meet the costs of constructionand operation), and technical (stationlocation, desired frequencies and typesof equipment to be used, hours andmode of operation, etc.) qualifications ofthe applicant as required by sections 303and 319 of the Commnumcations Act.Absent special problems, theCommission shall treat theseapplications as routine and will seek toexpeditiously process them. Upon grant,the applicant shall be issued a combinedRadio Station Construction Permit andLicense (FCC Form 456-P). While weshall limit the use of the facilitiesauthorized for the provision of lBS ortelevision services to these services,carriers may seek additionalauthorization if they desire to use thesefacilities as multi-purpose earth stations.

50. We shall continue to closelyscrutinize applications for multi-purposeearth stations as they raise morecomplex economic, technical andoperational issues and may affect thevariety, quality and price of servicesoffered to users. In determining whetherthe public interest would be served by a

"iWe reject Comsat's proposal for a stucturedframework to be Instituted by which theCommission could restrict the number of IBSstations In a particular market or gcographic areathat could otherwise inhibit cffic4cnt use of 13Scapacity to serve all areas of the Uraitd States. Webelieve that U.S. use of IBS capacity should bedetermined by the actual need for IBS scrvfce asdemonstrated by applications that we may receiveand not by some predetermined plan.

grant of a particular application, weshall analyze the impact of a grant onthe provision of earth station and spacesegment services. We shall proceed withthis analysis of how a proposed facilitywould affect service to the public bybalancing the possible benefits (e.g.,shorter terrestrial hauls, increased useroptions, lower charges to users, andincreased customer base for INTELSATservices) against the possible detriments(reduced technical efficiency, harmfulrevenue diversion, service deteriorationand higher changes to users] which aparticular application may present.Because we have adopted a case-by-case approach, a moratorium orpermanent bar on the ability of AT&T orany other entity to own and operate itsown international earth stations isunwarranted.

51. With regard to applications for allclasses of earth stations, we shallmonitor frequency coordination andengage in procedures to implement theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as may benecessary. Applicants shall file FCCForms 401 (Application for New orModified Common Carrier Radio StationConstruction Permit) and 430 (CommonCarrier and Satellite LicenseeQualification Report) m addition to asection 214 application under § 63.01 ofthe Comnumssions Rules. Uponmcceptance for filing, the applicationsshall be placed on 30 d3ys public noticepursuant to section 309 of the Act and§ 63.52 of the Rules. Further, section201(c)[2) of the CommunicationsSatellite Act requires authorized careersto have nondiscriminatory use of andequitable access to the communicationssatellite system and satellite earthstations owned by other camers.

52. Structure: As to the appropriateorganizational form for Comsat'sparticipation in the competitiveownership and operation of earthstations, we conclude that all ofComsat's earth station activities must beprovided through a common carrierentity separate from the parent WorldSystems Division. We reject Comsat'sagrument that earth station ownershipmust be within the World SystemsDivision rather than within acompetitive subsidiary in that as amatter of law, the parent is the"corporation" as referenced in section201(c)(7) of the CommunicationsSatellite AcL - We believe that the term

n Sectioa Z31 (c[7 of tha CommtnsSitelte Act drects the Conmn 33!n to grantapprepriate autho--zatton for th con=fruction andoperatlon o earth stations to the corporation(Comsat). to authc-zEd carriers). or to both Jointly.


"corporation" includes the subsidiariesof Comsat. This view is consistent withour determination in the Comsat Study,the First Comsat Structure order and theSecond Comsat Structure order thatmost activities other than the provisionof INTELSAT space segment capacityshould be performed outside of theWorld Systems Division.9 3 We rejectComsat's arguments that: (a) Therewould be overriding cost problemsresulting from this structural separation:(b) traditional regulatory oversightwould obviate the need for separation;(c) structural separation would sacrificeefficiency resulting from Comsat'smanagement of both earth stations andspace segment services; and (d) ifAuthorized Userllpolicy is reinstated,Comsat would have to form twoseparate subsidiaries, one for theprovision of end-to-end services and theother for basic transmission service. 94

53. As we emphasized m our ComsatStructure decisions, the structuralseparation of Comsat's jurisdictionalactivities from its nonjurisdictionalactivities will minimize cross-subsidization between competitive andmonopoly services. It will also insulateComsat's monopoly rate base, providefor separate accounting treatment forthe monopoly services, assure arms-length dealings between the competitivesubsidiary and the WSD, and helpprevent improper transfers ofinformation. Comsat has not filed withus data that would refute our finding ofthe need for a separate common carriersubsidiary. We also reject thetransitional proposal raised by AT&Tand RCA which would permit Comsat toretain its interest in multi-purpose earthstations in the WSD until ESOC's futureis determined. This approach would bereasonable if l9SOC were to bedissolved shortly. However, that is notnecessarily the case: The owners maydecide to continue ESOC. Thus, we findmoving all of Comsat's earth stationinvestment from the WSD to a separatesubsidiary to be the prudent solution.95

03See Comsat Study, 77 FCC Zd 564 (1980)Comsat, 90 FCC 2d 1159 (1982) (First StructureOrder) and Comsat, 97 FCC 2d 145 (released April20,1984). (Second Structure Order).

5 While recognizing that in some instancescompetitive activities sbould be cared out in aseparate subsidiary so that the corporation'scompetitive ventures do not profit at the expense ofratepayers, Comsat claimed that a separatesubsidiary requirement is expensive, necessitating aduplication of functions and impeding the overallefficiency of the organization.

Oi We find here only that implementation of ourEarth Station Ownership policy requires thatComsat place Its investment in earth stations into aseparate subsidiary. In Authorized User II. we areconsidering whether Comsat should also be allowedto offer end-to-end (retail) telecommunicationsservices and, if so, whether it should be required to

54. We therefore conclude that allComsat applications for new stations orfor modifications to authorized stations,be made through a Comsat commoncarriersubsidiary. Comsat shall alsotransfer any ownership interests inauthorized INTELSAT stations from itsWorld Systems Division, which providesmonopoly space services, to a separatecommon carrier subsidiary, which willprovide competitive earth segmentservices. Applications shall include adescription of all functions to betransferred to the subsidiary as well asa description of all functions to beretained by the World Systems Division.An application for such a transfer shallbe submitted to the Commission forreview prior to implementation.

III. Summary of Conclusions55. Flexibility in Authorization for

New Earth Stations. We conclude thatthe adoption of a more liberal earthstation ownership policy which dependsupon marketplace forces is consistentwith the Communications Act of 1934and the Communications Satellite Act of1962. We find that carrier owned andoperated earth stations are technically

- feasible, create no major economichurdles, will not greatly affect ourforeign partners m INTELSAT, and willresult in lower cost and technicallysuperior service to consumers. We alsofind that a smooth transition to thisenvironment can be achieved withoutjeopardizing service to users or carrierinvestments. We thus permit anyinternational carrier or group of carriersto apply for authority to construct andoperate such stations, whether IBS,television, or multi-purpose types. Tofacilitate this policy, Comsat shall berequired to file unbundled, cost-basedtariffs for INTELSAT space segment andearth segment usage. Consistent withour Comsat Structure orders, Comsatshall file space segment tariffs throughits World Systems Division and earthstation tariffs through a subsidiaryaqting as a common carrier. Finally, weconclude that a moratorium onaccepting applications is-not m thepublic interest.

56. Authorization Criteria for NewEarth Stations. We conclude thatrelevant technical, economic andoperational considerations shall beaddressed in our determination ofwhether to authorize a particular multi-purpose application. Pursuant to theRCA, Mackay, Telocator, and Hawaiian

offer such services through a separate subsidiary.We have not yet resolved either question. We shall

I therefore include Comsat's arguments on thedisadvantages of multiple subsidiaries in ourAuthorized User 1 policy.

line of cases, we shall evaluate on acase-by-case basg whether, amongother things, a particular proposal willserve the public interest. We shallbalance the benefits 6f reduced distanceto users, access to new satellites, lowercharges to users, and increasedcustomer base for INTELSAT servicesagainst the detriments of reducedtechnical efficiency and revenuediversion. We shall particularly look atthe overall impact on the provision ofearth station services and spacesegment capacity. Applications for IBSand television (video) earth stationsshall be processed in a streamlined,routine fashion, with considerationlimited to legal (citizenship andcharacter), financial (ability to meet thecosts of construction and operation),and technical (station location, desiredfrequencies and types of equipment tobe used, hours and mode of operation,etc.) qualifications of the applicant asrequired by sections 308 and 319 of theCommunications Act.

57 Flexibility in Determining theFuture of ESOC. We conclude thatequity.and the public interest demandsthat we reallocate ownership shares inESOC to accord with the joint owners'current usage of ESOC facilities.Subsequent to the release of this order,the joint owners-of the existinginternational earth stations. shall havethe opportunity to negotiate a resolutionof the future of ESOC. Any arrangementunanimously agreed upon by the jointowners shall be subject to Commissionreview.

IV Ordering Clauses

58. This Order is Issued to adopt andpromulgate our new policy with regardto the ownership and operation of U.S.international earth stations that operatewith the INTELSAT globalcommunications satellite system.

59. It is ordered that pursuant to ourauthority under sections 4 (i) and (J) and205 of the Communications Act of 1934and sections 201(c) (7), (9), and (11) ofthe Communications Satellite Act of1962, and § 1.423 of the Commission'sRules this order is issued.

60. Pursuant to section 605(b) of theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.'605(b), it is certified, that sections 603and 604 of the Act do not apply becauseJhis rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. See 5 U.S.C.603, 604, 605(b). We do not anticipatethat a substantial number of carrierswill enter the earth station market.Further, we do not believe that verymany of these entrants will be smallentities.


61. It is ordered. that the Secretaryshall cause a copy of this order to bepublished in the Federal Register andshall mail a copy of this order to theChief for Advocacy of the SmallBusiness Administration.

62. It is ordered, that the ESOC jointowner's ownership shares in ESOCfacilities shall be reallocated based oncurrent usage figures. All operatinglicenses held by Comsat on behalf of allESOC members, or by all ESOCmembers jointly, for each of theinternational earth stations shall beamended by January 18,1985 to reflectthe new ownership interests set forthbelow:

New

C~o ' .. ,at . .... cf..0.

Stati and carnar weci

cormzt S0.0RCA 1.4WU11 1.1AT&T 47.5

Hawar:Comsat 50.0RCA ,4.85WUI 1.9iT. 4.5

Hawaan 38.9Guam:

comat 59.0RCA 48.9M . . 1.1

63. It is ordered, that to effectuate theseparation by Comsat of its earth stationactivities from its space segmentactivities, Comsat shall transfer from theparent World Systems Division to asubsidiary all ownership interests inauthorized international earth stationsoperating with the INTELSAT globalsatellite system.

64. It is ordered, that on or beforeJanuary 18, 1985, the Comsat subsidiaryreferred to in paragraph 63 shall file anapplication under Section 214 of theCommunications Act for certification asa common carrier to provide earthstation services via the INTELSATglobal satellite system.9 6

65. It is ordered, that on or beforeJanuary 18, 1985, the Comsat WorldSystems Division shall file anapplication: (a] To modify itsauthorizations under section 214 of theAct to provide for the transfer of earthstation activities to the separate -common carrier subsidiary referred to inparagraph 63; and (b) to transfer to theseparate subsidiary all Title I radiolicenses issued to the World SystemsDivision on its own behalf or on behalfof the Earth Station Ownership

96 We note that these filing procedures maynecessitate our granting Comsat special temporaryauthority, pending finhl action on the requiredapplications.

Committee for the operation of satelliteearth stations in connection withservices of the INTELSAT globalsatellite system.

66. It is ordered, that Comsat shall file,in accordance with our rules, cost-basedtariffs for INTELSAT space segmentthrough the parent World SystemsDivision and file earth station tariffsthrough a separate subsidiary acting asa common carrier on February 1,1985, tobecome effective on 45 days notice afterfiling of tariffs.

67 It is ordered, that Comsat shall filethrough a separate common carriersubsidiary all applications for newinternational earth stations or formodifications to authorizedinternational earth stations.

68. It is ordered, that the request ofEquatorial Communications Systems forCommission revision, in this proceeding,of Part 25 of our Rules to permit U.S.-based receive-only satellite earthstations to receive signals from anyINTELSAT satellite without beinglicensed is denied.

69. It is ordered, that the motion ofRCA Global Communications, Inc. forleave to file late reply comments to aPublic Notice released in File No. I-S-P-84-006 (RCA Request for ImmediateInterim Relief) is granted.Federal Communications Commission.William 1. Tncanco,Secretar.[FR Doc. 84-33473 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am]BILLoNG CODE 6712-0"


Oversight of the Radio and TVBroadcast Rules

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUM'MARY: This Order amends broadcaststation regulations in 47 CFR Parts 73and 78 of the FCC rules. Amendmentsare made to delete regulations that areno longer necessary, correct inaccuraterule tests, contemporize certainrequirements and to execute editorialrevisions as needed for purposes ofclarity and ease of understanding.EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on December26,1984.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Steve Crane, Policy and Rules Division,Mass Media Bureau, (202) 632-5414.


List of Subjects47 CFR Port 73

Radio broadcasting, Televisionbroadcasting

47 CFR Part 78Cable television relay service.

Order

In the matter of oversight of the radio andTV broadcast rules.

Adopted: December 13,1934.Released: December 20, 1934.By the Chief. Mass Media Bureau.

1. In this Order, the Commissionfocuses its attention on the oversight ofits radio and TV broadcast rules.Modifications are made herein toupdate, delete, clarify or correctbroadcast regulations as described inthe following amendment summaries:

(a) Section 73.61. A1 directionalantenna field measurements, wasadopted in the Fourth Report and Orderin Docket 20317, the Radio OperatorLicensing Program. 46 FR 35450, July 8,1981. That proceeding eliminated thetesting and licensing program for FirstClass Radiotelephone operators.

In the Report and Order, theCommission recognized that there werea" . number of AM stations, usingdirectional antenna systems, that arenot required to make certain antennafield strength measurements or annualproofs of performance because theyemploy as duty operators only personsholding the First Class license' The textof the Order continues, "As there will nolonger be any First Class operatorrequirements, some modification of thisrule must be considered. "Until such arulemaking procedure is concluded.however, those stations will continue tobe exempt from the measurementrequirements."

The exemption to the requirements formeasurements was stated in Note 2to§ 73.61. This Note 2 has promptedmany queries from licensees andengineering consultants asking forclarification. In this Order, the Note isrewitten for purposes of clarity; andalso several inaccuracies in the rule willbe corrected, as follows:-Paragraph (b] states that antenna

proof measurements must be madeand analyzed pursuant to proceduresgiven in § 73.154 (Directional antennapartial and skeleton proof ofperformance filed strengthmeasurements). Missing is thereference to an equally importantprocedural regulation, § 73.186.Establishment of effective field at onemile. It is added to the rule hereto; and


-Paragraph (b)(2) cross referencesitself. It is corrected to state in theclosing sentence of (b)(2) " asrequired by paragraph (b)(1) of thissection"; and

-Paragraph (a)(1) is redesignatedparagraph (c). Its stated requirementsto have correctly functioning.equipment" for the requiredmeasurement procedures pertains toparagraph (b) as well as (a) and istherefore redesignated the finalparagraph (c), in the rule section. (Seeappendix item 1.)(b) Quite a few inquiries have been

received by the staff regardinginterpretation of the amendments to§ § 73.68 and 73.69 which were revised inthe Report and Order in BC Docket 82-537 ,1 regarding elimination of operatingand maintenance logs.

In § 73.68, Sampling systems forantenna monitors, paragraph (d)formerly provided that in the event theantenna monitoring sampling systembecame temporarily inoperative, astation could operate for up to "60 dayswithout further authority from the FCC"if certain technical operationaldeterminations were made (i.e., basecurrents, their ratios and deviationsfrom station authorization values) and iffield strength measurements were madeat least once every 7 days. Thesemeasurements and observations, ofcourse, formerly had to be entered in themaintenance log.

In revising the rule to eliminate themaintenance logging requirement, thefrequency of determining base currents,et al, wa's unintentionally overlooked.The decision to reduce the frequency ofobservation from "once each day' to "asoften as necessary to insure properdirectional antenna system operation"was, unfortunately, lost in the draftingof the revised rule. Further, therequirements to take field strengthmeasurements weekly during this out-of-service period of the sampling system.was inadvertently dropped. These time-frequency elements, mistakenly droppedfrom our rule as revised, have directlycaused the large numbers of questionsfrom our licensees and their technicaladvisors regarding the matter. The ruleis herein revised and corrected torestate the required frequency ofdetermination of base currents and theirratios and the making of field strengthmeasurements on a weekly schedule.(See appendix item 2.)

(c) In addition to § 73.68's aberrationsas described in paragraph (b) above, wealso find shortcomings in § 73.69,Antenna monitors, as revised.in the

'48 FR 3843. August 24.1983.

Report and Order in BC Docket 82-537 2In this rule, in paragraph [b), we-findthat stations whose antenna monitorsbecome defective may be operatedwithout them for up to 60 days withoutfurther FCC authority, pending theirrepair or replacement. As m § 73.68there are certain requirements to whichlicensees must adhere: base currentsand their ratios must be determined. Buthere again (as in § 73.68) the revised ruleis silent regarding frequency of thesedeterminations; and the taking of fieldstrength measurements, weekly, hasheedlessly beeii omitted m the final ruletext. Again, we take the direction that.relaxes the former rule and simply statethat base currents and their ratios, anddeviations of those ratios from thevalues in the station authorization willbe determined "as often as necessary toensure proper directional antennasystem operation." Further, we hereinreenter the mistalkenly eliminatedrequirement to take field strengthmeasurements at each monitoring pointonce each calendar week during theperiod the monitor is inoperative. (Seeappendix item 3.)

(d) FM allotments and assignmentsmust be separated from other allotmentsand assignments on the same channeland five adjacent channels by certainmimmum distances. The minimumdistance separation requirements arefound in § 73.207 Paragraph (b)(2)[ii) ofthis rule states "Under the Canada-United States FM Agreement, a shortspacing of up to 8 kilometers (5 miles) inthe direction of a related station may beconsidered acceptable depending on thecircumstances of each individual case."This text is derived from the oldWorking Arrangement of the Canada-United States FM BroadcastingAgreement of 1947 (paragraph f thereto).In the new Working Arrangement

.between the two countries, datedSeptember 7,1984, tlus 5 mile shortspacing consideration was eliminated. Itis therefore removed from § 73.207 sinceit is no longer applicable. Also, Table B."Minunum Distance SeparationRequirements," is revised to show thenew" agreements reached in the newWorking Arrangement. (See Appendixitem 4.)

(e) Section 73.675 Operation duringemergency was absorbed into a SubpartH (Part 73) rule applicable to allservices, AM, FM and TV, in the Orderadopted by the Comnumssion September22, 1978. 69 FCC 2d 979. The new rulewas numbered and titled § 73.1250Broadcasting emergency information.Failure to change cross references in the

lid.

EBS rules in Subpart G, Part 73 leavesthe old TV section number (§ 73.675which has been deleted) in § § 73.933and 73.936 instead of the correct crossreference to § 73.1250. Correction Ismade herein. (See appendix items 7 and8.)

(f] Section 73.681 sets forth thedefinitions for the FCC's TV technicalstandards. The definition of effectiveradiated power states, in part, that "thelicensed effective radiated power is'based on the average antenna powergain for each direction in the horizontalplane." However, this value is notspecifically requested 6n the applicationform, is not determined in mostapplications and is not used by theVideo Services Division engineeringstaff in their study of applications. Theeffective radiated power (ERP] In thehorizontal plane was previously used todetermine coverage contour distances,but in 1970 the Commission adopted thecurrent method of using the ERP at theappropriate depression angle to theradio horizon to determine contourdistances. 22 FCC 2d 354. Since then theERP in the horizontal plane has not beenused. The use of "average" (.r RMS)power has been virtually non existant,The staff is concerned primarily with themaximum power/height limitations setby the rules. Therefore, the definition ofEffective Radiated Power in § 73.681 Ismodified to so state. (See appendix item5.)

(g) Paragraph (b) of § 73.688,Indicating instruments, Is devotedentirely to a cross reference to § 73.089.The requirements of § 73.689 Operatingpower were, in past Commissionactions, dispersed into three other rulesections, which focus on the threeelements formerly contained in the rule,and the section was deleted. Theelements are determining operatingpower, now in § 73.663; and operatingpower tolerance and reduced poweroperation, which are not in § 73,1560.Paragraph (b) of § 73.688, serving nopurpose whatever, is removed herein, Inpast proceedings, § 73.68 has also beenrevised by removing paragraph (c) andparagraphs (e](1) and (2) and markingthem [Reserved]. With the removal ofparagraph (b) herein, along with theprior removal of paragraph (c), we willredesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) as (b)and (c); and redesignate paragraphs(e)(3) and (4) as (c)(1) and (2). (SeeAppendix item 6.)

(i) The Report and Order in GeneralDocket No. 83-322 modified (oreliminated] certain rules pertaining tolicensed radio operators. 49 FR 20658,May 16,1984. One of the rules amendedis §-73.1860, Transmitter duty operators,


The Order deleted reference to operator"permit" in the opening sentence ofparagraph (a) which formerly read,"Each AM, FM and TV broadcaststation must have at least one personholding a commercial radio operatorlicense 'or permit'. "The term"permit" was dropped because it issynonymous with license and deemedredundant. However, many of ourbroadcast licensees interpret its removalto mean the elimination of a type ofoperator's license-the "permit"-assuming it deletes the RestrictedRadiotelephone Operator Permit It doesnot. But since the change in the rule iscausing confusion, particularly in light ofuse of the term "permit" in thedesignation of the RestrictedRadiotelephone Operator Permit, wewiltreturn it to the text of paragraph (a)for clarity. (See Appendix item 9.)

(i] Another modification, much likethe one in paragraph (h] above, is madeherein to remove potential confusion:paragraph (a) of § 73.1870, Chiefoperators, fails to reference "permit"when it describes" a personholding a commercial radio operatorlicense. "The text in § 73.1870(a) isamended to add permit to the phrasepertaining to "radio operator license" orpermit; (See Appendix item 10.)

(j) The following FCC policies areadded to the policy listing in Subpart H,Part 73:

Policy statement regardingadvancement of minority ownership mbroadcasting. (§ 73.4140).

Public notice regarding incompleteand patently defective AM and FMconstruction permit applications.(§ 73.4015). (See Appendix items 11'and12.)

(k) The FCC Report citation in thepolicy listing, § 73.4097, EBS attentionsignal tests on automated programmingsystems, is incorrectly stated as 72 FCC2d 780. It is corrected to read 72 FCC 2d788. (See Appendix item 13.)

(1) In the-Report and Order in GeneralDocket No. 82-334, regarding spectrumutilization policy for fixed and mobilservices in the 947 MHz--40 GHz band,an inadvertent error was made inamending § 78.101. A "new paragraph(d)" was added. The rule sectioncontained two paragraphs prior to theaddition of "new (d)"; obviously,the new paragraph should be designated(c), and is so changed via this Order.(See Appendix item 14.)

2. No substantive changes are madeherein which impose additional burdensor remove provisions relied upon bylicensees or the public. We conclude, forthe reasons set forth above, that theserevisions will serve the public interest.

3. These amendments areimplemented by authority delegated bythe Commission to the Chief, MassMedia Bureau. Inasmuch as theseamendments impose no additionalburdens and raise no issue upon whichcomments would serve any usefulpurpose, prior notice of rulemaking,effective date provisions and publicprocedure thereon are unnecessarypursuant to the AdministrativeProcedure and Judicial Review Actprovisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

4. Since a general notice of proposedrulemaking is not required, theRegulatory Flexibility Act does notapply.

5. Therefore, it is ordered. Thatpursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r) and5(c)(1) of the Commumcations Act of1934, as amended, and § § 0.61 and 0283of the Commission's Rules, Parts 73 and78 of the FCC Rules and Regulations areamended as set forth mn the attachedAppendix, effective on the date ofpublication in the Federal Register.

6. For further information on thisOrder, contact Steve Crane, (202) 632-5414, Mass Media Bureau.(Secs. 4.303,48 stat, as amended. 10E 10,32;47 U.S.C. 154, 303).Federal Commumcations Commission.James C. Mcrnney,Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

PART 73-[AMENDED]

1. 47 CFR 73.61 is amended by revisingparagraphs (b) and (b)(2) and Note 2;and by revising paragraph (a)(1) andredesignating it paragraph (c).

§ 73.61 AM directional antenna fieldmeasurements.

(b) Partial and skeleton antenna proofof performance measurements must bemade and analyzed pursuant to theprocedures given in § §73.154 and 73.186according to the following schedule:

(2) For stations not having anapproved sampling system, a skeletonproof of performance measurement mustbe completed during each calendar yearthat a partial proof of performancemeasurement is not completed asrequired by paragraph (b)(1) of thissection.

(c) The station must have correctlyfunctioning field strength measuringequipment readily available to performthe measurements described inparagraphs (a) and (b) of tlus section.

Note 2.-Prior to the amendments in§ 73.93. AM operator requirements. (FourthReport and Order in the Radio OperatorLicensing Program effective 8/7/81.46 FR

334:0. July 8,1931). AM stations employingFirst Clas.i Radiotelephone OpErators, or AMstation rhich were not remotely controlledwhen using their directional antenna systems,were exempt from the requirements ofparagraph (b) of this saction. Thezee:impfions continue until such time as theneed for thesz! penodic antenna proofmeasurements for all stations usingdiricttonal antennas is addressed in a futurerule m3,kaig proceeding.

2.47 CFR 73.68 is amended by revisingparagraph (d) to read as follows:

§73.63 Samping systems for antenn3monitors.

(d) In the event that the antennamonitor sampling system is temporarilyout of service, the station may beoperated, pending completion of repairs,for a period not exceeding 60 dayswithout further authority from the FCC,if

(1) The base currents, their ratios, andthe deviations of those ratios, in percent.from the values specified in the stationauthorization are determined for eachradiation pattern used, as often asnecessary to ensure proper directionalantenna system operation and,

(2) Field strength measurements, ateach monitoring point specified in thestation's authorization, are read at leastonce each calendar week.

3.47 CFR 73.69 is amended by revisingparagraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 73.69 Antenna monitors.

(b) In the event an antenna monitorbecomes defective, the station may beoperated without the monitor pendingits repair or replacement for a period notmn excess of 60 days without furtherauthority from the FCC, if

(1) The base currents, their ratios, andthe deviations of those ratios, in percent.from the values specified in the stationauthorization are determined for eachradiation pattern used, as often asnecessary to ensure proper directionalantenna system operation and,

(2) Field strength measurements, ateach monitoring point specified in thestation's authorization, are read at leastonce each calendar week.

4.47 CFR 73.207 is amended byremoving paragraph [b)(2)(ii) andrevising Table B-Minimum DistanceSeparation Requirements in Kilometersto read as follows:

§ 73.207 Minimum distance separationbetween stations.


TABLE B.-MINMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS IN KILOMETERS

Co- Adjacent Channels I.F.Reation Channel

0 kHz 200 kHz 400 k-Iz 600 kiHz 10-610.8

A-A 132 85 45 3T aA-l ............. 180 113 62 54 18A-B....................206 132 76 69 16A-Cl ...... .. 239 164 98 9D 32A-C ................... 242 177 108 100 32el-B1 ...... .................... .... 197 131 70 57 24B1-B ... 223 149 84 71 24BI .. 258 181 108 92 40BI-C ................ .... 259 195 116 103 40B-8 ....................... 237 164 94 74 24

B- .1271' 195 115 95 40B-C ............. .. 274 209 125 106 40Cl-Cl ... ..... 292 217 134 101 48Cl-C ... 302 230 144 111 48C-C ................... 302 241 153 113 43

5.47 CFR 73.681 is amended byrevising the definition of EffectiveRadiated Power to read as follows:

§ 73.681 Definitions.

Effective radiatedpower. The productof the antenna input power and theantenna power gain. Tns productshould be expressed in kW and in dBabove 1 KW (dBk). (If specified for aparticular direction, effective radiatedpower is based on the antenna powergain in that direction only. The licensedeffective radiated power is based on themaximum antenna power gain. When astation is authorized to use a directionalantenna or an antenna beam tilt, thedirection of the maxunum effectiveradiated power will be specified.)Where circular or elliptical polarizationis employed, the term effective radiatedpower is applied separately to thehorizontally and vertically polarizedcomponents of radiation. For assignmentpurposes, only the effective radiatedpower authorized for the horizontallypolarized component will be considered.

6.47 CFR 73.688 is amended byremoving paragraph (b); removingparagraph (c) marked [Reserved]; andparagraphs (e)(1) and (2), both marked[Reserved]; and by redesignatingparagraphs (d) and (e) introductory text,and (e) (3) and (4) as (b) and (c)introductory text, Ind (c)(1) and (2) toread as follows:

§ 73.688 Indicating Instruments.• * * * *

(b) The function of each instrumentshall be clearly and permanently shownon the instrument itself or on the panelimmediately adjacent thereto.

(c) In the event that any one of theseindicating instruments becomesdefective, when no substitute whichconforms with the required

specifications is available, the stationmay be operated without the defectiveinstrument pending its repair orreplacement for a period not in excess of60 days without further authority of theFCC, provided that:

(1) If the defective instrument is thetransrmssion line meter used fordetermining the output power by thedirect method, the operating power shallbe determined or maintained by theIndirect method whenever possible orby using the operating parameters of thelast radio stage of the transmitter duringthe time the station is operated withoutthe transnussion line meter.

(2) If conditions beyond the control ofthe licensee prevent the restoration of'the meter to service within the aboveallowed period, informal request inaccordance with § 73.3549 may be filedwith the Engineer in Charge of the radiodistrict in which the station is locatedfor such additional time as may berequired to complete repairs of thedefective instrument.

7 47 CFR 73.933 is amended byrevising paragraph (b)(7) to read asfollows:

§ 73.933 Emergency Broadcast Systemoperation during a National levelemergency.

(b)*

(7) IV Broadcast stations shalldisplay an appropriate EBS slide andthen transmit all announcementsvisually and aurally in the mannerdescribed in § 73.1250(h).

B. 47 CFR 73.936 is amended byrevising paragraph (d)(3) toread asfollows:

§ 73.936 Emergency Broadcast Systemoperation during a State level emergency.

(d) •

(3) All licensees participating in theState level EBS shall discontinue normalprogramming and follow thetransmission procedures set forth In theappropriate EBS Checklist and StateEBS Operational Plan (§ 73.921) underthe State and Local Level Instructions.Stations which provide foreign languageprogramming may transmit emergencyannouncements in the foreign languageprior to broadcasting suchannouncements in English. TVbroadcast stations shall display andappropriate EBS slide and then transmitall announcements visually and aurallyin the manner described in § 73.1250(h).

9.47 CFR 73.1860 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read asfollows:

§ 73.1860 Transmitter duty operators.(a) Each AM, FM or TV broadcast

station must have at least one personholding a commercial radio operatorlicense or permit (any class, unlessotherwise otherswise endorsed) on dutym charge of the transmitter during allperiods of broadcast operation. Theoperator must be on duty at thetransmitter location, a remote controlpoint, an ATS monitor and alarm point,or a position where extension metersare installed under the provisions of§ 73.-1550.

10. 47 CFR 73.1870 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read asfollows:

§ 73.1870 Chief operators.

(a) The licensee of each AM, FM, orTV broadcast station must designate aperson holding a commercial radiooperator license or permit (any class,unless endorsed) to serve as thestation's chief operator. At times whenthe cluef operator is unavailable orunable to act (e.g., vacations, sickness),the licensee shall designate anotherlicensed operator as the acting chiefoperator on a temporary basis.

11. New 47 CFR 73.4015 is added toPart 73 to read as follows:

§ 73.4015 Applications for AM and FMconstruction permits, Incomplete ordefective.

See Public Notice. FCC 84--36, datedAugust 2,1984, 49 FR 4331. December 3.1984.


12.47 CFR 73.4140 is revised byadding new paragraph (c) to read asfollows:

§ 73.4140 Minority ownership; taxcertificates and distress sales.

(c) See Policy Statement, GeneralDocket 82-797, FCC 82-523, adoptedDecember 2,1982. 92 FCC 2d 849.

13.47 CFR 73.4097 is revised to readas follows:

§ 73.4097 EBS attention signal tests onautomated programming systems.

See Public Notice dated March 1,1979.72 FCC 2d 788;44 FR 17792, March 23,1979.

PART 78--[API.EDED]

§ 78.101 [Amended]14.47 CFR 78.101 Power limitations, is

amended by redesignating paragraph (d)as paragraph (c).

[FR Doc. 84-33454 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILU G coDE (712-0141

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

Refuge Specific Hunting Regulations,Correction

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This ocument corrects afinal rule on regulations governinghunting on national wildlife refuges thatappeared in the Federal Register ofWednesday, September 19, 1983 (49 FR36736). Corrections are made to theregulations for migratory game birdhunting at Lower Suwannee and LowerHatchie National Wildlife Refuges andfor big game hunting at Mark TwainNational Wildlife Refuge (NWR]. Toavoid confusion between the generalprovision prohibiting baiting on refugesand the Service's policy of permittinghunting on national wildlife refuges inAlaska in accordance with Stateregulations, § 32.2(h) is further clarified.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:James F. Gillett Chief, Division ofRefuge Management, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Washington, D.C.20240 (telephone 202-343-4311).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Themigratory-game bird hunting regulationsfor Lower Suwannee and Lower HatchieNWR and the big game huntingregulations for Mark Twain NWR were

incorrect as published in the final rule(49 FR 36736). These regulations arecorrected to read as they werepublished in the proposed rule (49 FR27334, July 3,1934).

The final rule on refuge specificregulations (49 FR 36736) was developedfor national wildlife refuges in the lower48 States, and the general provisonprohibiting baiting on refu s wasdeveloped to address problc-sassociated with this practice on refugesin the lower 48 States. As stated in thepreamble of the final rule (p3ge 30740),hunting on national wildlife refuges inAlaska is authorized in accordance withState regulations. Therefore. paragraph§32.2(h) is corrected to clarify thatbaiting on national wildlife refuges inAlaska is authorized in accordance withState regulations.

Accordingly, FR Doc 81-24631appearing at page 30730 in the issue ofSeptember 19, 1984, is corrected asfollows:

§32.2 [Corrected]1. On page 36740 in § 32.2(h), in the

second column, add the followingsentence to the paragraph: "(Baiting isauthorized in accordance with Stateregulations on national wildlife refugesin Alaska.)"

§32.12 [Corrected]2. On page 36742 in § 32.12(h)(2), third

column, third line, delete "moorhens,purple"

3. On page 36747 in § 32.12(Mk), thirdcolumn, third line, "ducks, geese andcoots" should read "migratory gamebirds"

§ 32.32 [Corrected]4. On page 36755 in § 32.32(n)(3), third

column, fifth line, "shotgun" should read"archery"

Dated- December 14.1934.J. Craig Potter,Acting Assistant SecretaryforFiKsh andWildlife and Parlx.[FR Doc. 84-33397 Filed 12-2--E4; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 4310-55-M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 645

[Docket No. 41156-4156]

Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), NOAA. Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NOAA issues this final ruleto implement the Fishery ManagementPlan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery ofPuerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands(FMP). The rule (1) establishes aminimum harvestable size limit (2)establishes harvest restrictions for eZ-bearing spiny lobsters; (3) prohibits thetaking of spiny lobsters by certain gearand methods; and (4) requiresdegradable panels on lobster traps. Theregulations are designed to preventoverfishing and increase production ofspiny lobsters.EFFECTWE DATE: January 1. 1935.AD!R.SSZS: The final regulatory impactreview/raglatory fle-ibility analysismay be obtained from Donald W.Geagan, Southeast Region. NationalManne Fisheries Service, 94E9 KogezrBoulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702.FOR FW-.T1HEf IN7Zi!-ATIOL' CC.4TACT.Don Ceagan, 813-92-3722.SUFFLEMEn'nRY I::FG iMA : TheAssistant Administrator for Fisheriesinitially approved the fisherymanagement plan for the Spiny LobsterFishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S.Virgin Islands on July 14.1932, under theauthority of the Magnuson FisheryConservation and Management Act(Magnuson Act). Proposed regulations toimplement the FMP, prepared by theCaribbean Fishery Management Council(Council), were published on September3,1932 (47 FR 3830]. Comments on theFMP and proposed rule were invitedthrough October 18,1932.

Because the preponderance of thespiny lobster landings come from watersunder the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico andthe U.S. Virgin Islands, promulgation ofthis final rule has been withheld pendingadoption of comparable regulations bythe two local governments. Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands haveadopted similar regulations allowingimplementation of this final rule. Theeffective date for this final rule isJanuary 1,1935. to coincide with theeffective date of Puerto Rico'sregulations. The U.S. Virgin Islandsimplemented compatible regulations onJune 1,1984. inside their territorialwaters.

The preamble to the proposedrulemaking contained a description ofthe spiny lobster fishery, the conditionof the stocks, the econonnc value oflandings, and fishing practices withinthe commercial and recreational sectors.Also discussed m detail were problemsin the fishery (i.e., increasing number ofsmaller lobsters in the landings and thedecreasing average size midicating a


trend towards overfishing, gearownership conflicts between fishermen,and the need for adequate statistics forbetter management). These discussionsare not repeated here.

In the proposed rulemaking, § 645.5--Recordkeeping and reportingrequirements were reserved. Thissection will be reserved in the final rule,pending determination as to whetherexisting data collection systems pan beexpanded to obtain sufficientmanagement information. If they cannot,a reporting system will be developedand implemented later.Comments and Responses

Comments on the proposedrulemaking were received from the U.S.Coast Guard and one Puerto Ricanfisherman.

Comment 1. The Coast Guardrecommended § 645.6--Vessel and gearidentification be changed to require thatthe official number and color code bedisplayed on an appropriate weatherdeck in addition to the port andstarboard sides of the hull to facilitateat-sea enforcement. Also, the CoastGuard recommended that the officialnumber be at least 18 inches high forvessels over 65 feet long, and 10 incheshigh for all other vessels over 25 feetlong. All numerals should be in blockArabic form and on contrastingbackground. The color code should bedisplayed in the form of a circle with adiameter at least the height of theofficial number.

Response: The wording in § 645.6 hasbeen changed in this final rule to includethe Coast Guard's recommendation.

Comment 2: The Coast Guardsuggested § 645.8-Facilitation ofenforcement be modified by changingthe wording in paragraph (d)-Signals toidentify Channel 16, VHF-FM radio asthe normal method of contact betweenthe Coast Guard and fishermen.

Response: This section has beenchanged to reflect the most recentlanguage as approved by the CoastGuard and published on March 15, 1984(49 FR 9736]. This standardized wordingapplies to all domestic fisheries.

Comment 3. One Puerto Rican,fisherman commented to the effect thatmale lobsters should be exempted fromthe size limitation since they do not"reproduce," and the prohibition of theirharvest would create an unnecessaryeconomic burden.

'Response: To take full advantage ofthe period of most rapid growth, a sizelimit of 3.5 inches carapace length (CL)is necessary. Harvesting male lobstersless than this size would reduce the totalmarket value and continue the problemof declining average size of lobsters in

the catch. At this time no data has beenfound that indicate the maturation sizeof males is different from that offemales, or determines the effects of sexratios on the total population. Therefore,this restriction is implemented asproposed.

Changes From the Proposed RuleThe final rule differs from the

proposed rule for the reasons discussedabove.

Section 645.1. This section has beenmodified to clarify the purpose of theFMP to manage the domestic spinylobster fishery.

Section 645.6(c). Provisions for thedisposition of unidentified or abandonedtraps have been included to facilitateenforcement of the regulations.

Section 645.8. This section has beenchanged to the most recent standardizedlanguage for facilitation of enforcementprocedures.

ClassificationThe Assistant Administrator

determined that the FMP is necessaryfor the conservation and management ofthe spiny lobster fishery of Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands and that it isconsistent with the Magnuson Act andother applicable law.

The Council prepared a finalenvironmental impact statement for thisFMP; notice of availability waspublished on August 19,1983 (48 FR37702).

The Administrator, NOAA,determined that this rule is not a "majorrule" requiring a regulatory impactanalysis under Executive Order 12291.Summary published at 47 FR 38948,September 3, 1982.

The Council prepared a finalregulatory flexibility analysis whichdescribes the effects this rule will haveon small entities. You may obtain a copyof this analysis from the address listedabove.

This rule contains collection ofinformation requirements for purposesof the Paperwork Reduction Act at§ 645.4-Permits and § 645.6--Vesseland gear identification. A request tocollect this information has beensubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget for approval. Most spinylobster vessel permits will be issued byPuerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islandsand it is anticipated that fewer than tenapplications will be submitted forFederal permits.

The Council determined that this ruledoes not directly affect the coastal zoneof any state with an approved coastalzone management program.

Part of the 30-day delay inimplementation required by the

Administrative Procedures Act iswaived so that the final rule can be inplace on January 1, 1985, to coincidewith the adoption of comparableregulations by Puerto Rico, If noregulation is in place for the FCZ, PuertoRico will experience difficulty inenforcing its new regulations.Furthermore, the adoption of the nowregulations by Puerto Rico has beenwidely publicized among fishermen.Therefore, delay in the implementationof corresponding Federal regulations fora full 30-day period would beimpracticable and not in the publicinterest.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 645Fish, Fisheries, Fishing.Dated: December 19, 1984.

Carmen J. Blondin,DeputyAssistantAdminhstratorforFsherleResource Management, National Marine

'Fisheries Service.For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Chapter VI of 50 CFR Isamended by adding a new Part 645 toread as follows:

PART 645-SPINY LOBSTER FISHERYOF PUERTO RICO AND THE U.S.VIRGIN ISLANDS

Subpart A-General ProvisionsSec.645.1 Purpose and scope.645.2 Definitions.645.3 Relation to other laws.645.4 Permits.645.5 Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. [Reserved]645.6 Vessel and gear Identification,645.7 Prohbitions.645.6 Facilitation of enforcement.645.9 Penalties.Subpart B-Management Measures645.20 Harvest limitations.645.21 Size limitations.645.22 Gear limitations645.23 Specifically authorized activities.

Authority: 16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.I

Subpart IA-General Provisions

§645.1 Purpose and scope.(a) The purpose of this part is to

implement the Fishery ManagementPlan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery ofPuerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islandsprepared by the Caribbean FisheryManagement Council under theMagnuson Act.

(b) This part regulates domesticfishing for spiny lobster within thatportion of the fishery conservation zone(FCZ) surrounding Puerto Rico and theU.S. Virgin Islands. For Puerto Rico theinner boundary of the FCZ is ninenautical miles from the baseline used to


measure the territorial sea; for the U.S.Virgin Islands it is three nautical miles.

§ 645.2 Definitions.In addition to the definitions in the

Magnuson Act, and unless the contextreqires otherwise, the terms used inthis part have the following meanings:

Authorized officer means(a) Any commissioned, warrant, or

petty officer of the United States CoastGuard;

(b) Any special agent of the NationalMarine Fisheries Service;

(c) Any officer designated by the headof any Federal or State agency which

Figure 1 Method of Measuring Carapace Lcngth

Fish means the spiny lobster,Panulirus argus.

Fishery conservation zone (FCZ)means that area adjacent to the UnitedStates -which, except where modified toaccommodate international boundaries,encompasses all waters from theseaward boundary of each of the coastalStates to a line on which each point is200 nautical miles from the baselinefrom which the territorial sea of theUnited States is measured.

Fishng means any activity, other thanscientific research conducted by ascientific research vessel, whichinvolves:

(a) The catching, taking, or harvestingof fish;

(b) The attempted catching, taking, orharvesting of fish;

(c) Any other activity which canreasonably be expected to result in thecatching, taking, or harvesting of fish; or

(d) Any operations at sea in supportof, or in preparation for, any activity

has entered into an agreement with theSecretary of Commerce and theCommandant of the U.S. Coast Guard toenforce the Magnuson Act; or

(d) Any U.S. Coast Guard personnelaccompanying and acting under thedirection of any person described inparagraph (a) of tis definition.

Berried lobster means an egg-bearinglobster.

Carapace length [CL) means a head-length measurement taken from theorbital notch inside the orbital spine, ina line parallel to the lateral rostralsulcus, to the posterior marmn of thecephalothorax (figure 1).

described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) ofthis definition.

Fishinggear means snares, nets, pots,traps, and use of hands.

Fishing vessel means any vessel, boat,ship or other craft which is used for,equipped to be used for, or of a typewhich is normally used for.

(a) Fishing; or(b) Aiding or assistin3 one or more

vessels at sea in the performance of anyactivity relating to fishing, including, butnot limited to. preparation, supply,storage, refrigeration. transportation, orprocessing.

Management area means that portionof the FCZ adjacent to the waters underthe jurisdiction of the U.S. Virgin Islandsand Puerto Rico.

Mognuson Act means the MagnusonFishery Conservation and ManagementAct, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

Official number means thedocumentation number issued by theU.S. Coast Guard, or the registration

number issued by a State or the U.S.Coast Guard for undocumented vessels.

Operator, with respect to any vessel,means the master or other individual onboard and in charge of that vessel.

Ocwner, with respect to any vessel,means:

(a) Any person who owns that vesselin whole or in part-

(b) Any charterer of the vessel.whether bareboat, time or voyage;

(c) Any person who acts m thecapacity of a charterer, including but notlimited to parties to a managementagreement, operating agreement, or anysimilar agreement that bestows controlover the destination, function oroperation of the vessel; or

(d) Any agent designated as such byany person described in paragraph (a),(b], or (c) of ths definition.

Person means any individual (whetheror not a citizen or national of the UnitedStates]. corporation, partnership,association, or other entity (whether ornot organized or existing under the lawsof any State), and any Federal State,local, or foreign government or anyentity of any such government.

RegionalDirector means the RegionalDirector, Southeast Region NationalMarine Fisheries Service, DuvalBuilding, 9450 Ko-er Boulevard. St.Petersburg, Florida 33702; telephone813-893-3141, or a designee.

Secretary means the Secretary ofCommerce or a designee.

Spmy lobster means Panulifru argus.State includes the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.U.S. fish processors means facilities

located within the United States for, andvessels of the United States used orequipped for, the processing of fish forcommercial use or consumption.

US.-harvestedfish means fish caught,taken. or harvested by vessels of theUnited States withm any fisheryregulated by a fishery management planor preliminary fishery management planimplemented under the Magnuson Act.

Vessel of the United States means:(a) Any vessel documented under the

laws of the United States;(b) Any vessel numbered in

accordance with the Federal Boat SafetyAct of 1971 and measuring less than fivenet tons; or

(c) Any vessel numbered under theFederal Boat Safety Act of 1971 andused exclusively for pleasure.

§ 645.3 Relation to other laws.(a) Persons affected by these

regulations should be aware that otherFederal and State statutes andregulations may apply to their activities.


(b) Certain responsibilities relating todata collection and enforcement may beperformed by authorized Statepersonnel under a cooperativeagreement entered into by the State, theU.S. Coast Guard, and the Secretary.

§ 645.4 Permits.(a) General. A vessel in the spiny

lobster fishery must possess a validfishing permit and color code issued bythe Regional Director, unless the vesselpossesses a valid fishing permit andcolor code issued by the Government ofPuerto Rico or the Government of theVirgin Islands.

(b) Application to the RegionalDirector. (1) An application for aFederal permit and color code must besubmitted to the Regional Director 45days prior to the date on which theapplicant desires receipt of the permitand color code.

(2) Each application must contain thefollowing information:

(i) The applicant's name, mailingaddress, and telephone number,

(ii) The name and length of the vessel;(iii) The vessel's official number, and

, (iv) The vessel's radio call sign.(c) Fees, No fee is required for a

permit or color code issued by theRegional Director under this part.§ 645.5 Recordkeeping and reportingrequirements. [Reserved]

§ 645.6 Vessel and gear Identification.(a) Vessel identification. Each fishing

vessel subject to this part must displayits official number and color code issuedwith the vessel's permit on the port andstarboard sides of the deckhouse or hull.In addition, each vessel over 25 feet longmust display its official number andcolor code on an appropriate weatherdeck. All official numbers and colorcodes must be displayed permanentlyand conspicuously so as to be readilyidentifiable from the air and water. Thenumber must contrast with thebackground and be in block Arabicnumerals at least 18 inches high forvessels over 65 feet long, at least 10inches high for vessels over 25 feet long,and at least 3 inches high for vessels 25feet long or smaller. The color coderepresentation mpst be in the form of acircle of a diameter not less than theheight of the numerals or, in the case ofa 3-inch high numerals, in the form of astrip not less than 3 inches high and 18inches long.

(b) Duties of operator. The operator ofeach fishing vessel subject to this partmust (1) Keep the markings displayingthe official number and color codeclearly legible and in good repair, and(2) Insure that no part of the vessel, itsrigging or its fishing gear obstructs the

view of the official number and colorcode from an enforcement vessel oraircraft.

(c) Ger identification. (1) All traps,pots, and buoys used in the spinylobster fishery must be marked andidentified as follows:

(i) Buoys affixed to traps and potsmust bear the number and color codespecified with the vessel's permit. Theidentification number must be legibleand at least 3 inches high on each buoy.

(ii) Traps and pots must bear thenumber specified with the vessel'spermit. The number must be legible andat least 3 inches high, or as high as thewidest available space if such space isless than 3 inches wide. As an

'alternative, the number may be stampedon a plate of non-corrosive metal orplastic and securely affixed to the trapor pot.

(2) Spiny lobster traps, pots, andbuoys fished in the FCZ will bepresumed to be the property of the mostrecently documented owner. Thispresumption will not apply with respectto spiny lobster traps which are lost orsold if the owner of such traps reports inwriting the loss or sale within 15 days tothe Regional Director, the Governmentof Puerto Rico, or the Government of theU.S. Virgin Islands, whichever entityissued the vessel's permit.

(3) Unmarked spiny lobster trapsdeployed in the FCZ are illegal and maybe disposed of in any appropriatemanner by the Secretary or theSecretary's designee (including anauthorized officer). Lines and buoys areconsidered part of the trap. If owners ofthe unmarked traps can be ascertained,those owners remain subject toappropriate civil penalties.

§ 645.7 Prohibitions.It is unlawful for anyperson to-(a) Falsify or fail to affix and maintain

gear and vessel markings as required by§ 645.6;

(b) Fail to comply immediately withenforcement and boarding proceduresspecified in § 645.8;

(c) Retain on board or possess on landany berried spiny lobster, as specified in§ 645.20(a)(1);

(d) Strip eggs from or otherwisemolest any berried spiny lobster asspecified in § 645.20(a)(2);

(e) Willfully tend, pull, open, orotherwise molest another person's trapsexcept as provided in §645.20(b);

(f) Possess in the FCZ any spinylobster with a carapace length less thanthe minimum size limit specified in§ 645.21(a) except as allowed in§ 645.21(b);

(g) Possess spiny lobster tailsseparated from the carapace before they

have been landed, as specified in

(h) Use traps without degradablepanels, or use prohibited gear ormethods, as specified in § 645.22;

(i) Possess, have custody or control of,ship, transport, offer for sale, sell,purchase, import, land or export anyspiny lobsters taken or retained inviolation of the Magnuson Act, this part,any permit issued under this part, or anyother regulation or permit issued underthe Magnuson Act;

(j) Refuse to permit an authorizedofficer to board a fishing vessel subjectto such person's control for purposes ofconducting any search or inspection Inconnection with the enforcement of theMagnusoh Act, this part, or any otherregulation or permit issued under theMagnuson Act;

(k) Forcibly assault, resist, oppose,impede, intimidate, threaten, or interferewith any authorized officer m theconduct of any search or inspectiondescribed in paragraph (j) of thissection;

(1) Resist a lawful arrest for any actprohibited by this part;

(in) Interfere with, delay, or prevent,by any means, the apprehension orarrest of another person, knowing thatsuch other person has committed anyact prohibited by this part;

(n) Transfer directly or indirectly, orattempt to so transfer, any U.S.-harvested spiny lobsters to any foreignfishing vessel, while such vessel Is in theFCZ, unless the foreign fishing vesselhas been issued'a permit under section204 of the Magnuson Act whichauthorizes the receipt by such vessel ofU.S.-harvested spiny lobsters; or

(o) Violate any other provision of thispart, the Magnuson Act, or afiyregulation or permit issued under theMagnuson Act.

§ 645.8 Facilitation of enforcemont.(a) General. The operator of, or any

other person aboard any fishing vesselsubject to this part must Immediatelycomply with instructions and signalsissued by an authorized officer to stopthe vessel and with instructions tofacilitate safe boarding and inspectionof the vessel, its gear, equipment, fishingrecord (where applicable) and catch forpurposes of enforcing the Magnuson Actand this part.

(b) Communications. (1) Upon beingapproached by a U.S. Coast Guardvessel or aircraft, or other vessel oraircraft with an authorized officeraboard, the operator of a fishing vesselmust be alert for communicationsconveying enforcement instructions.

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 19a4 / Rules and Regulations 50053

(2) If the size of the vessel and thewind, sea, and visibility conditionsallow, loudhailer is the preferredmethod for communicating betweenvessels. If use of a loudhailer is notpracticable, and for communicationswith an aircraft, VHF-FM of highfrequencyradiotelephone will beemployed. Hand signals, placards, orvoice may be employed by anauthorized officer and message blocksmay be dropped from an aircraft.

(3) If other communications are notpracticable, visual signals may betransmitted by flashing light directed atthe vessel signaled. Coast Guard unitswill normally use the flashing lightsignal "L" as a signal to stop.

(4] Failure of a vessel's operator tostop his vessel when directed to do soby an authorized officer usingloudhailer, radiotelephone, flashing lightsignal, or other means conetitutes primaface evidence of the offense of refusalto permit an authorized officer to board.

(5) The operator of a vessel who doesnot understand a signal from anenforcement unit and who is unable toobtain clarification by loudhailer orradiotelephone must consider the signalto be a command to stop the vesselinstantly.

(c) Boarding. The operator of a vesseldirected to stop must-

(1) Guard Channel 16, VHF-FM if soequipped; '

(2) Stop immediately and lay to ormaneuver in such a way as to allow theauthorized officer and his party to comeaboardi

(3] Except for those vessels withfreeboard of four feet or less, provide asafe ladder, if needed, for the authorizedofficer andhis piarty to come aboard;

(41 When necessary to facilitate theboarding or when requested by anauthorized officer, provide a manrope orsafety line, and illumination for theladder;, and

(5) Take such other actions asnecessary to facilitate boarding and toensure the safety of the authorizedofficer and the boarding party.

(d) Signals. The following signals.extracted from the International Code ofSignals, may be sent by flashing light byan enforcement unit when conditions donot allow communications by loudhaileror radiotelephone. Knowledge of these

signals by vessel operators is notrequired. However, knowledge of thesesignals and appropriate action by avessel operator may preclude thenecesssity of sending the signal L" andthe necessity for the vessel to stopinstantly.

(1) "AA" repeated .- 2 is the callto an unknown station. The opertor ofthe signaled vessel should respond byidentifying the vessel by radio-telephoneor by illuminating the vessel'sidentification.

(2) "RY-CY" (. ..-,- means "you should proceed atslow speed, a boat is coming to you."This signal is normally employed whenconditions allow an enforcementboarding without the necessity of thevessel being boarded coming to acomplete stop, or, in some cases,without retrieval of fishing gear whichmay be in the water.

(3) "SQ3" (... - - means"you should stop or heave to; I am goingto board you."

(4) "L' [.-..] means "you should stopyour vessel instantly."

§ 645.9 Penalties.Any person or fishing vessel found to

be in violation of this part is subject tothe civil and criminal penalty provisionsand forfeiture provisions of theMagnuson Act, and 15 CFR Part S04(Civil Procedures) and other applicablelaw.

Subpart B-Management Measures

§ 645.20 Harvest limitations.(a) Berried lobsters. (1) Berried spiny

lobsters must be returned to the waterunharmed. Berried lobsters may beretained in traps or pots as attractantsuntil the eggs are shed provided thetraps are returned to the water and notretained on the vessel or landed.

(2) Berried spiny lobsters may not bestripped, scraped, shaved, clipped, or inany other manner molested, in order toremove the eggs.

(b) Pulling traps. Traps may be pulled,tended, or opened only aboard theowner's vessel, unless the boat tendinganother person's traps has on boardwritten consent of the trap owner or the

' (.) means a short flash of light,2 (- means a Iong flash of" b,,h

owner is on board with his or herpermit. This restriction is not applicableto authorized officers.

§ 645.21 Size limitations.

(a) Spiny lobsters with a carapacelength of less than 3.5 inches (89millimeters) must be returnedimmediately to the water unharmed.

(b) Spiny lobsters with a carapacelength less than the 3.5-inch minimumsized limit may be used as "attractants"in traps or pots, but may not be retainedon the vessel or landed.

(c) Spiny lobsters must remain wholeprior to landing at shoreside. Tails maynot be separated from the carapacebefore the spiny lobsters have beenlanded.

§ C45.22 Gear limitations.

(a) Degradablepanel All traps or potsused for fishing in the FCZ must containon any vertical side or on the top anopening no smaller in diameter than thethroat or entrance of the trap or pot. Theopening may be covered either bydegradable netting made of any of thematerials listed below, or by a covermade of any material and fastened tothe fish trap or pot with any of thematerials listed below:

(1) Untreated fiber of biological oriinnot more than three millimeters(approximately %") maximum diameter;,this includes, but is not limited to tyrepalm, hemp, jute, cotton, wool or silk.

(2) Non-galvanized black iron wire notmore than ,, inch (approximately 1.59millimeters in diameter]; that is, 16gauge wire.

(b) Prohibited gear ormethods. Spinylobsters may not be taken with:

(1) Explosives, poisons, drugs or otherchemicals; or

(2] Spears, hooks, or similar devices.The possession of a speared, pierced, orpunctured spiny lobster is prima faceevidence of violation of this section.

§ 645.23 Specifically authorized actiities.

The Secretary may authorize, for theacquisition of information and data,activities that are othernse prohibitedby these regulations.[FR De. &1-33527 Filed 12-21-4; 8:45 amlMLING CODE 23510,-22-M

50054

Proposed Rules Federal Regeister

Vol. 49. No. 249

Wednesday, December 20, 1984

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains notices to the public of theproposed issuance of rules andregulations. The purpose of these noticesis to give interested persons anopportunity to participate in the rulemaking prior to the adoption of the finalrules.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

Changes in Property InsuranceRequirements for NRC LicensedNuclear Power Plants; Extension ofComment Period

AGENCY: Nluclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension ofcomment period.

SUMMARY: On November 8, 1984, (49 FR44645), the NRC published for public.comment a proposed rule amending itsregulations requiring licensees tomaintain substantial amounts of on-siteproperty insurance to assist in thedecontamination of their reactors. Thecomment period for this proposed rulewas to have expired on January 7,1985.The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) hasrequested a thirty-day extension of thecomment period. In view of theimportance of the proposed rule, theamount of time that the EE suggests is.required to provide meaningfulcomments on behalf of its members, andin view of the desirability of developinga final rule as soon as practicable, theNRC has decided to extend the commentperiod for an additional thirty days. Theextended comment period now expires6n February 6, 1985.DATES: The comment period has beenextended and now expires February 6,1985. Comments received after this datewill be considered if it is practical to doso but assurance of considerationcannot be given except as to commentsreceived before this date.ADDRESSES: Send written comments orsuggestions to the Secretary of theCommission, U.S. NuclearfRegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555,Attention: Docketing and ServiceBranch..Copies of comments receivedmay be examined at the NRC PublicDocument Room, 1717 H Street NW.,Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert S. Wood, of State Programs, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-9885.

Dated: at Washiogton. DC. this 19th day ofDecember, 1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Samuel J. Chilk,Secretary of the Commission.[FR Doc. 84-33514 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am)BILLiNG CODE 7590-e1-M -

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administratipn


[Airspace Docket No. 84-ANM-19]

Proposed Establishment of RestrictedArea; Guernsey, WY

In FR Doc. 84-29868 beginning on page45168, in the issue of Thursday,November 15,1984, make the followingcorrections:

1. On page 45168, in the third column,in the "summary" paragraph, fourth line,"R-70001A" should read "R-7001A"

2. On page 45169, in the third column,fourth line, "42*20'30' "should read642-20'00"

BILUNG CODE 1505-01-M

14 CFR Part 73

[Airspace Docket No. 84-ASO-221

Proposed Alteration of RestrictedArea, Fort Campbell, Ky.

Correction

In FR Doc. 84-29865 beginning on page45169 in the issue of Thursday,November 15, 1984, make the followingcorrection:

§73.37 [Corrected]On page 45170, in § 73.37, third

column, in "R-3702C', fourth line,"87°32'15"' should have read-87-34'15",0ILUNG CODE 1SM-01-

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOROffice of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement30 CFR Part 872Close of Comment Period on theProposed Apportionment Policy forDistributing the Secretgry's Share ofthe Abandoned Mine Land FundAGENCY: Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement,Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of close of commentperiod.

SUMMARY: During the summer of 1903,OSM issued the draft apportionmentpolicy for distributing the Secretary'sshare of the Abandoned Mine Land(AML) fund through 1992 and solicitedcomments from all concernedindividuals, States and Indian Tribes,Following receipt of the comments, OSMmade revisions to the proposedapportionment policy, and prepared apaper consisting of comments and OSMresponses. These documents wereissued in early 1984, along with a timeextension to allow for further reviewand comments. The extended commentperiod ended on November 23,1084, andOSM is now developing the finalapportionment policy which will bereleased in January 1985.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Phyllis Thompson, Chief, Division ofAbandoned Mine Land Reclamation,Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, 1951, Constitution Avenue,NW., Washington, DC. 20240, telephone(202) 343-7921.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background'II. Discussion of ActionIL. Procedural MattersL Background

Title IV of SMCRA of 1977, Pub. L. 95-87, 30 U.S.C. 1235 establishes anabandoned mine land reclamation(AMLR) program for the purposes ofreclaiming ana restoring lands andwater resources adversely affected bypast coal mining. Lands and watereligible for reclamation under theprogram are those that were mined oraffected by mining and abandoned orleft in an inadequate reclamation statusprior to August 3,1977, and for whichthere is no continuing reclamationresponsibility under State and Federallaw.

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

Each State having within its borderscoal mine lands eligible for reclamationunder Title IV of SMCRA may submit tothe Secretary of the Interior a Statereclamation grant application toimplement the provisions of theapproved State Reclamation Plan.Grants for reclamation, however, maybe issued only to States with anapproved Title V Regulatory Program foractive mine reclamation and anapproved Title IV Reclamation Program.

Revenues of the AMLR program aregenerated through reclamation feesimposed upon the production of coaland are deposited in the AML fundestablished by Title IV of SMCRA of1977, Pub: L 95-87, 30 U.S.C. 1231. A 50-percent share of the fees collected isallocated to the States or Indian Tribesfrom which they were derived to beused for the purposes of this title. Thesefunds are provided to eligible States/Tribes through reclamation grants. Theremaining 50-percent share, afterdeduction of administative costs, isallocated to the Secretary to carry outthe purposes of this title m eligible areasof the country. Under section 402(g) ofSMCRA, the geograpluc allocation offunds must reflect the area from whichthe revenues were derived as well as thenational program needs. The Secretaryhas the discretion of expending thebalance of the funds either directly inany State orby allocating them toapproved State programs.

It. Discussion of ActionThe OSM developed a policy for

distributing the balance of the Secrtary'sshare of the AML fund through 1992 tobe utilized in the critical problem areasnationwide. The draft distribution isbased 6n the National Abandoned MineLand (AML) Inventory, the best meansavailable to OSM for identifying thoseareas with the greatest need. TheStates/Tribes may add, amend andupdate any material in the inventory.Due to the history of mining in theEastern States as opposed to the morerecent mining in the West, this policyresults in a de facto transfer of fundsfrom West to East. Congress, however,was fully appraised of this possibilityprior to enactment of SMCRA andspecifically chose only to mandate that50 percent of the fund collected betransferred back to the States/Tribesfrom which they were derived.

Following receipt of all comments,OSM made slight revisions to the draftpolicy and prepared a "comment-and-response" paper. The package wassubmitted to all commenters in March1984 and the comment period wasextended to allow all interested partiesadditional time for review.

The purpose of this notice is to informthe States/Tribes and other concernedparties that the comment period on thedraft apportionment policy was closedeffective November 23,1934. The OSMis now developing the final policy whichwill be issued in January 1233.HI. Procedural MattersList of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 872

Administrative practice andprocedures, Coal mining, Surfacemining, Underground mining.

Dated. December 11. 19PA.William B. Schmidt,Assistant Director Program Operations andInspection. Qffice of Surfae Alinng.[FR Doc. 84-33478 Filed 12-24-84; 8:43 am]BILiNG CODE 4310-CS-M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[08-84-09]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;,Terrebonne Bayou, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: At the request of theLouisiana Department of Transportationand Development (LDOTD), the CoastGuard is considering a change to theregulation governing the operation of thelift span bridge over Terrebonne Bayou,mile 33.9, on LA 3087 (Prospect Street) atHouma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana,by requiring that at least four hoursadvance notice be given for an openingof the draw from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.and on signal from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Presently, the draw is required to openon signal from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. andon 12 hours advance notice from 9:00p.m. to 5:00 a.m. This proposal is beingmade because of the infrequent requestsfor opening the draw during theproposed four hours advance noticeperiod. This action should relieve thebridge owner of the burden of having aperson at the bridge to open the drawfrom 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., while stillproviding for the reasonable needs ofnavigation.

Additionally, this document proposesto correct the regulation governing theoperation of the bridge over TerrebonneBayou, on LA 24 at Presquille, Louisiana,to show that this bridge is located atmile 31.3 and that the draw need notopen for the passage of vessels. In therecodification of 33 CFR Part 117, by 49FR 17450 dated April 24, 1984, the bridge

was incorrectly listed as located at mile28.8 and on 24 hours advance notice foran opening.DA' Comments must be received on orbefore February 11, 1935.ADDRESS: Comments should be mailedto Commander (obr). Eighth CoastGuard District, 529 Camp Street, NewOrleans, Louisiana 70130. The commentsand other materials referenced in thisnotice will be available for inspectionand copying in Room 1115 at thisaddress. Normal office hours arebetween 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p., Mondaythrough Friday, except holidays.Comments may also be hand-deliveredto this address.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Perry F. Haynes, Chief, BridgeAdministration Branch, at the addressgiven above, telephone (504] 589-2955.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Interested persons are invited toparticipate in this proposed rulemakingby submitting written views, comments,data or arguments. Persons submittingcomments should include their namesand addresses, identify the bridge, andgive reasons for concurrence with or anyrecommended change in the proposalPersons desiring acknowledgment thattheir comments have bteen receivedshould enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Commander, Eighth Coast GuardDistrict. will evaluate allcommunications received and determinea course of final action on this proposal.The proposed regulation may bechanged in light of comments received.

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are PerryHaynes, project officer, and SteveCrawford, project attorney.

Discussion of Proposed RegulationVertical clearance of the bridge in the

closed position is 3.5 feet above highwater and 6.5 feet above low water.Navigation through the bridge consistsof commercial and pleasure vessels.Data submitted by the LDOTD showthat this traffic is infrequent during theproposed four hours advance noticeperiod, as noted below:

(1) In 1933, between 5:00 p.m. and 9:0a.m., there were 140 bridge openings-an average of 11.7 openings per monthor an average of one opening aboutevery three days. In 1982, for the sametime period, there were 142 bridgeopenings.

Considering the few openingsinvolved between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00a.m., the Coast Guard feels that thecurrent on site attendance at the bridge

50055

50056 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

is not warranted and adoption of thefour hours advance notice for anopening of the draw during that periodwill provide relief to the bridge owner,while still reasonably providing for theneeds of navigation. From 9:00 a.x. to5:00 p.m., the draw will continue to openon signal.

The advance notice for opening thedraw would be given by placing acollect call at any time to the LDOTDOffice at Houma (504] 851-0900 or theLDOTD District Office at Lafayette (318)233-7404.

The LDOTD recognizes that during theperiod from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., theremay be an unusual occasion to open thebridge on less than four hours notice fora bonafide emergency or to operate thebridge on demand for an isolated buttemporary surge in waterway traffic,and has committed to doing so if suchan event should occur.

Econormc Assessment and Certification

This proposed regulation isconsidered to be non-major underExecutive Order 12291 on FederalRegulation and nonsignificant under theDepartment of Transportation regulatorypolicies and procedures (44 FR 11034;February 26,.1979)...

The economic impact of this proposalis expected to be so minimal that a fullregulatory evaluation is unnecessary.The basis for this concluston is thatthere are few vessels that pass thisbridge during the proposed advancenotice period, as evidenced by the 1983and 1982 bridge opening statistics whichshow that the bridge averages oneopening about every three days. Thesevessels can reasonably give four hoursnotice for a bridge opening during thedesignated period by placing a collectcall to the bridge owner at any time.Mariners requiring the bridge openingsare mainly repeat users and schedulingtheir arrival at the bridge at theappointed time should involve little orno additional expense to them. Since theeconomic impact of this proposal isexpected to be minimal, the CoastGuard certifies that, if adopted, it willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities.


Bridges.

Proposed Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, theCoast Guard proposes to amend Part 117,of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations.by revising J 117.505 (a) and (b) to readas follows"

PART 117-DRAWBRIDGEOPERATION REGULATIONS

§ 117.505 Terrebonne Bayou.

(a) The draw of the S24 bridge, mile31.3 at Presquille, need not be openedfor the passage of vessels.

(b) The draw of the S3087 bridge, mile33.9 at Houma, shall open on signal;except that, from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. thedraw shall open on signal if at least fourhours notice is given.

(33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46(c)(5): 33 CFR 1.05-1(g)(3))

Dated: December 12,1984.W.H. Stewart,ReadAdmiral. U.S. Coast Guard.[FR Doc. 84-33434 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 4910-14-M .

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2

[General Docket Nos. 84-689 and 84-690]

Allocating Spectrum for, andEstablishing Other Rules and PoliciesPertaining to, a RadiodeterminationSatellite Service

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Order denying requests forpostponement of processing ofapplications and granting requests forclarification of certain matters.

SUMMARY: The Federal CommunicationsCommission has denied requests forindefinite postponements of theprocessing of the applications ofGeostar Corporation and otherapplications for radiodeterminationsatellite systems, has granted requestsfor clarification of certain mattersrelating to the processing of theseapplications, and has granted anextension of the filing date forapplications to be consideredconcurrently with Geostar's. This actionwas necessary due to several requeststo modify the application filing andprocessing procedures adopted by the.Commission in a Notice of ProposedRulemaking in the above-captionedproceeding. 49 FR 36512 (September 18,1984).ADDRESS: Federal CommunicationsCommission, 1919 M Street NW.,Washington,-D.C. 20554.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.Fern Jarmulnek, (202) 634-1682.



Radio.Order

In the matter of amendment of theCommission's Rules to allocate spectrum for.and to establish other Rules and Policlespertaining to. a Radiodetermination SatelliteService (Gen. Docket No. 84-89. RM-4420):in the matter of policies and procedures farthe licensing of Space and Earth Stations inthe Radiodetermination Satellite Service(Gen. Docket No. 84-690). in the matter of theapplications of Geostar Corp. for authority toconstruct, launch and operate space stationsin the Radiodetermination Satellite Service(File Nos. 2194-DSS-P/LA-83. 2192-DSS-.p/LA-83, 2193-DSS--P/LA-83, 2193-DSS-P/LA-83).

Adopted. December 12,1984.Released: December 13.1984.By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.

Introduction1. Before us for consideration are

several requests to modify theapplication filing and processingprocedures adopted in the above-captioned processing. Specifically, theNational Association of Broadcasters(NAB) filed a "Petition for PartialReconsideration" and a "CombinedRequest for Stay and Motion forExtension of Time," OmninetCorporation (Omninet) filed a "Petitionfor Postponement of Procedural Datesand for Clarification," and AnalyticalTechnology Laboratories, Inc.(Anulytical) filed a "Motion forExtension of Time." GeostarCorporation (Geostar) filed anopposition to these pleadingsi

2. On September 7, 1984, theCommission released a Notice ofProposedRulemaking. FCC 84-319(NPRM), proposing to allocatefrequencies for a radiodeterminationsatellite service and to establishassociated licensing policies andprocedures. To expedite initiation of thisnew service to the public, the

I In addition. Omninet filed "Comments" on thesepleadings. Mobile Satellite Corporation IMobllesat)filed "Comments in Support of Petition forPostponement of Procedural Dates aid forClarification" and a "Reply" to Geostur aOpposition. the Association of Maximum ServiceTelecasters (MST) filed "Comments on NAi'sRequqst for Stay and Motion for Extension ofTime and NAB filed a "Reply" to Geostar'sOpposition. The petitions and comments receivedregarding Geostar s application wltich addressissues raised in the auove pleadings ate Onintieta"Petition to Deny." Analytical's "Comments andPetition to Deny:" Mobilesal's "Comments on. andPetition to Dismiss and Deny. Applications ofCeostar Corporation," and the UtilitiesTelecommunications Council and CentralCommittee on Telecommunicatlons of the AmericanPetroleum Institute's tUTC/API's) "Joint Pelllon toDeny:"

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26. 1984 / Proposed Rules

Commission concurrently released apublic notice accepting for filing theabove-captioned applications of Geostarfor authority to construct, launch andoperate four space stations in theradiodetermination satellite service andinviting other radiodeterminationsatellite system proposals to beconsidered concurrently with Geostar's.FCC 84-320, Report No. DS-305. Because-the Geostar system design appeared tobe consistent with Commission policiessuch as multiple entry (it seemed toallow several independently operatingradiodeterminmation satellite systems tobe authorized in the spectrum), and nocounter proposals were advanced incomments on Geostar's initial petitionfor rulemaking to allocate frequenciesfor this service, Geostars design wasused as our initial baseline forradiodetermination satellite systemdesign and operation. Any applicantproposing a system design incompatiblewith Geostar's was reqired todemonstrate how multiple entry wouldbe- accomplished and how the proposeddesign would better serve the publicinterest. Although it did not believe itlikely, the Comnssion stated it waspossible that situations of mutualexclusivity could arise either becausemore applications would be receivedthan could be accommodated or becausean applicant would propose a systemincompatible with Geostar's. TheCommission proposed to establishappropriate procedures if this occurred.

3. Several parties request modificationand clarification of these procedures.Omninet and Mobilesat argue thatsupplemental information submitted by"Geostar on September 27,1984substantially changes the system designand is, in fact, incompatible withGeostar's earlier proposal. Analyticalalso argues that Geostar has madeextensive substantive changes to itsproposed system. These partiestherefore request clarification of the"baseline" system and filing proceduresfor applications to be consideredconcurrently with Geostar's. Omninetand Mobilesat also contend that theCommfssion was premature in acceptingGeostars proposal as the baselinesystem. Ommet further argues that useof a baseline constituted a rulepromulgated without public notice andcomment in violation of theAdministrative Procedure Act (APA).NAB, supported by MST and UTC/API,argues that acceptance and processingof applications in advance of final rulesestablishing radiodetermination serviceprejudges the frequency allocation

- rulemaking and violates the APA.Finally, Mobilesat argues that several

other issues concerning the licensing ofradiodetermination satellite systemsneed clarification before comments onthe frequency allocation rulemaking andother applications may be submitted.

4. For the reasons set forth below, wedismiss NAB's petition forreconsideration of the NPRM and denyall other requests for indefinitepostponements of the pracesmng ofGeostar's orother applications forradiodetermination satellite systems. Tothe extent necessary, we also grantrequests for clarification of certainmatters raised by the parties relating tothe processing of these applications.Finally, in light of the possible confusionthat might ha% e been caused by thependency of these filings, and tofacilitate the filing of simultaneousapplications for land mobile andradiodetermination satellite systemspursuant to the Notice of ProposedRulemakng in Gen. Docket 8--1234adopted November 21,1984, we also aregranting an extension of the filing datefor applications to be consideredconcurrently with Geostar's.

Discussion

i. Procedural Matters5. The Commission has wide

discretion to adopt whatever procedures"will best conduce to the properdispatch of business and to the ends ofjustice." 2 The decision in the NPRMfor radiodetermination satellite serviceto accept and process applicationssimultaneously with the frequencyallocation rulemakig was designed toenable radiodeterounation service to beprovided to the public as rapidly aspossible if the frequency allocationswere in fact adopted. In addition, theprocedure was intended to solicitproposals for this new service from allinterested parties so that a concreteframework for the establishment ofpolicies and conditions regarding thelicensing and operation ofradiodetermination systems would beestablished.3 Parallel rulemakng and

547 U.S.C. iSiti),An gAency5 brWll di Crtion infashioning procedures has been noted by t courts.See. e~FCC v.&*rrhrccr. 331 U.S, Z71 (I23.5j SErCv. Ch ne y. 332 U- 14 (1%17) and MCIrlAssorctotion of Bwredcotkr v. FCC 740F. d 2199(D.C. Cir. ISM4).

SNPIPR at para,. 30-31. In accepting orli,catu+concurrently with the frequency allocationrulemaking, we note that wa made noctrmnationas to whether the proposed aOcatifons aval =dd bemade. Rather, our Itent was to enableradiodeterminution service lo be qucidly ovatableto the public if our initial finding, based an thecomments received in response to GCeo ta's petitionfor rulemakig. that there was need for this servicewas confirmed in publie comment on the NT IL -,NPRMN at pscas. 2SIL

processing of applications has oftenbeen employed by the Commission andhas been affirmed by the courts. Forexample, the D.C. Circuit Court upheldthe Commission's decision to actconcurrently on rules gaverning theestablishment of Direct BroadcastSatellite (DBS) Service and anapplication for authority to constructand operate a DBS satellite.4 Thus, webelieve the Commission s decision toaccept and process applications forradiodetermination systems during theallocation rulemaung was a reasonableexercise of its discretion to fashionproccedures. and is consistent with pastCommission procedures affirmed by thecourts.*0 We therefore deny the requeststo postpone indefinitely the date bywuch applications for otherradiodetermination satellite systemsmust be filed.0

4 ',71s7&.stzh of5ild~-,r note 3 5tpmn Seear! Jctr wh Pq;:cf v. FCC 511 F. Zd 7e8 (D.C. Cr.19m37. v-her the Commion accepted applicatifonto c ztrut ani ourate co-muracatia : catellitesfor do=11e. usa wh le ch- pm-, an "op= enty"pV!icy for thn2n telhites in coacuzrrent rlemaking.In both cace. the Co nmosmn's decazozn to adoptralel procelure wo bused upon the public

interest in e -pditin- the intr ctib of the service.UTCAl att pt, to diatia:7h thz DESpTCZhnd 3 03 0-2 Irlotak-n pmt1IS that there theComm=-,aa bad L-oue d a no ti ce of prep ozed policystc'nent and rliinS3 cancernin the need forDS evizharesin the presntyprceedingIlium waV s no rimilaseOpportunity to comZmentontrzdto'ieicurnatim service. This i ;nores the- factthat Cucotara petition forrzcukiaki andopplications were put on public notice and theNUN htis:uci as a result offavaable comment vathe reed for railz anation cervius

11 N0a In aVetitan for PartisFeconsid.-atlon "

cp p stcd by I.IST ond rrCIAPL takes Lu,: vAithpzrallcl ym:= =l-. NANs petition. owaever. isn prp rzy filed and will ba dism ised. 7Th

Comilsions rles permit any intereted pemson topetition for re-we=l"ration ofa final action i a,ul ema knr3p resecedin ;. 7 CR L42. Th- issuiainceof an MPNI'.i dons not constitute final action., butmerey propsans+ an action and invites comments onthe ympv6o.L cr., AmerAent ofTeleywian

TaI~Autywr.62 FCC Zd 752 (19751.t~&Xiofcaioa ofFU IROeixst Stain Rutes 7a

FCC Zd 1232 (iO) whre the Commisson reisctcdmoota to reconsider the issuance of notices ofprepored niu UkigABrs caulenticm.that theNTP1A1 conotitutn a "fnt actino" bn-ause it vwasplaced on public notice is misplaced. In any event.a3 discussed above. acceptance and pocessng ofapplction, tvwile final rules are beana adopted fora piopascd service ta p missible. and in no wayprelu'J;ss the frequen7y alloation rulemkin,. asPeAlcnterde.

6 Ve at-o reject Mabiloat's assertion that certainolher lasu. Including multiple entry. pnorityevc-.3 for aersctiol radionaigation me.re-,onaul sbamng the nature of th perrazsbemarket and the extent to which the FederalAviation Adzrnistration and Coast Guard most beinvolved. mu t ba clarifmd before otherepplifntionscan ba filed or comments submitted on the NPRMThese ls=m are appmprtaely considered in therulemakit3.

50357


6. Because the only concrete proposalbefore us was Geostar's, no otherproposals had been advanced incomments on Geostar's rulemakingpetition, and Geostar's design appearedto be consistent with Commissionpolicies, including multiple entry," weused the Geostar system as our "initialbaseline" for radiodeterminationsatellite system design and operation 8

We believed that use of a specificapplication as the baseline wouldpromote efficiency of process." TheNPRM, however, specifically left openthe possibility that if the proposedfrequency allocation was made, the final

,regulations may require a designdifferent from Geostar's.10 Thus, theGeostar design was to serve only as apoint of reference for other applicants toconsider in submitting their ownproposals and comments on ourproposals m the NPRM. However, any,applicant proposing an inherentlyincompatible design was required toshow why that design was superior toGeostar's. This is the same showing thatmust be made in any rulemaking inwhich proposals substantially differentfrom those in the NPRM are submitted.Moreover, we emphasize that ourprimary focus was to implement ourproposal policy objective of multipleentry. To estalish the minimum techmcalstandards that might be necessary toimplement this policy, it was advisableto propose a specific system design inorder to facilitate focused comments. Inthis way, we sought to ensure anadequate record to establish anytechnical standards necessary toimplement multiple entry m theradiodetermination satellite service andgrant multiple applications forradiodetermination satellite systemssharing the same orbit and spectrumwithout the need for comparativehearings to select among competingapplicants.

7 Thus, contrary to the assertions ofOmniment and Mobilesat, ourdesignation of the Geostar proposal asthe baseline system for the purposes ofthis proceeding was not premature. Wehave neitherldecided that Geostar'sdesign will be the one ultimatelyadopted nor have we limited ourflexibility to choose among competingconcrete system designs. We furtherreject Omniment's unsupported

7See, e.g.. Satellite Orbital Spacing. 54 Rad, Reg.(P&F) 577 (1983), recon. FCC 84-487 (adoptedOctober 17,1984); Domestic CommunicotionsSatellite Facilities, 22 FCC 2d 80 (1970. 35 FCC 2d844, recon. 38 FCC 2d 665 (1972).

8 NPRM at para. 33.0 Id. at para. 41.10 Id. at pares. ,4.41.

argument that the use of Geostar'ssystem as an initial baseline constituteda "rule" that was improperlypromulgated without notice andcomment under the APA." " Non-bindingagency actions which are not"determinative of issues or rightsaddressed" do not constitute rules sincethey do not "foreclose alternativecourses of action or conclusively affectrights of private parties." 12 Here, use ofGeostar's design as an initial baselinehas not foreclosed other designs frombeing proposed or adopted, nor has itsignificantly affected the rights ofapplicants proposing competingsystems. Identification of Geostar'sdesign as tile initial baseline systemagainst which comments and counter-proposals should be based merelyfulfills our obligation to provide noticeof "the terms or substance of theproposed rule or a description of thesubjects and issues involved."3

8. Moreover, parties have beenprovided with a full opportunity tocomment on the proposed baselinesystem design, and to proposecompeting designs. Specifically,comments on the underlying NPRM mayaddress our proposed multiple entrypolicy, licensing policies and proceduresand the minimum basic design featuresof radiodetermination satellite systemsin these banks. Any commenterproposing a system design that is notcompatible with the baseline systemmay also propose policies andprocedures to allow us to choose amongthe competing technologies or proposetechnical or operational standards orother approaches to resolve theseincompatibilities. If competingapplications are then, in fact, filed,comments on the merits of the specificproposals and on the establishment ofpolicies and techical rules and criteriato govern the licensing of specificradiodetermmation satellite systems canbe submitted in response to the publicnotice accepting these applications forfiling. The merits of all proposals,whether or not compatible with thebaseline system, will therefore be fullyconsidered in this rulemaking

ii Section 2 of the APA defines a rule as an"agency statement of general or particularapplicability and future effect designed toimplement. interpret, or prescribe law or policy," 5U.S.C. 551(4).

12 See Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 702(D.C. Cir. 1980).

13 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). This approach Is consistentwith our approach in both Instructional TelevsionFixed Service, FCC 84-363 (released August 10.1984) and the DBS proceeding, note 3 supra. In thoseproceedings, we accepted and processedapplications prior to the adoption of final rules,while proposing "interim standards" for proposedsystems.

proceeding. Thus, we believe theprocedure established In the NPRM wasa reasonable exercise of theCommission's discretion to fashionprocedures promoting efficiency ofprocess, while providing all interestedparties with a full and fair opportunityto be heard.

ii. Baseline System DesignConsideration

9. Omninet and Mobilesat furtherargue that supplemental informationprovided by Geostar on September 27,1984 bhanges the "baseline" systemdesign and renders Geostar's reviseddesign incompatible with the "baseline"system. Specifically, Omniment arguesthat Geostar's initial proposal to userandom access TDM with slottedALOHA protocol and differential phaseshift keying has been replaced with aspread spectrum modulation.Concluding that a radiodeterminationsystem employing the "baseline"technology could not share the samefrequency band with the spreadspectrum design, Omninet urges us toclarify the "baseline" system.

10. To the extent that any confusionhas arisen in light of Geostar's latestsubmission, we would like to clarifyhere that we are proposing multipleentry as our basic requirement. In orderto provide a technical basis toimplement this policy, we furtherpropose random access TDMcompatibility as a system standard inthe bands being proposed forradiodetermination satellite service.Any applicant proposing random accessTDM operations will tentatively beconsidered compatible with the baselinedesign regardless of specific modulationcharacteristics, power levels or codingschemes. We recognize that with thisinitially wide range of transmissionparameters, unacceptable levels ofinterference may occur betweenradiodetermination systems operatingon a random access TDM basis. Thus,all applications must include a technicaldiscussion of any conditions orconstraints on other systems that mightbe necessary to assure thatunacceptable interference would notresult between its system and otherrandom access TDM systems. 4 Thistechnical analysis may be refined in thecourse of filing comments on the specifibsystem applications filed. Any applicantproposing a system design which is not

i4 For the purposes of addressing "lIsues relatingto compatibility with the proposed Coastar system"as required by our Publi'Notice, applicants shoulduse the most current technical parameters proposedfor the Geostar system.

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

random accessTDM must demonstratehow multiple entry would beaccomplished and how the proposeddesign is more efficient or better servesthe public interest than random accessTDM. The superiority of any particulardesign to permit multiple access to beaccomplished, along with any-necessaryelectromagnetic compatibility criteria orother technical rules reqired to ensurethat such multiple systems ran operateon a non-interference basis, Will bedetermined by rule.15 Once final rulesare adopted, all applicants will beprovided with the opportunity to amendtheir proposals to be fully compatiblewith the requirements established in therulemaking. Applications that are notamended to comply with the rules willbe dismissed.

11. With respect to Geostar'ssupplemental information, Geostarclaims that its spread spectrumtransmission is simply one way ofimplementing generic random accessTDM and continues to permit multipleentry with other random access TDMsystems.' 6 We do not have a sufficienttechnical record developed here toconclude whether Geostar's design stillcomports with the baseline standard.17

To aid us In this determination, andbecause of the confusion caused by thevarious Geostar technical submissions,we expect Geostar to provide anunambiguous technical description of itsproposed system operation and todiscuss how multiple entry would beaccommodated in view of the

I If different system design technologles areproposed which are inherently facmpaibleW. weproposa to establish policies =id procedures thatwill allow us to select among these competingsystem design proposals to implement ainultipleentry policy. The criteria that will be ued todetermine the superioift ofa given system designare Increased orbitfspectrum efficiency whileretaming multiple entry possibilities, economy andefficiency of service to users, and furtheradvancement of the public interest.

6lWe note that spread spectrum transmissionreduces transmit power levels and sharingdifficulties identified in the NPRML

17 We do not presently believe, however, thatGeostar's change to a spread spectrum transmissionconstitutes a major amendment requinng publicnotice under Section 309 of the CommunicationsAct. 47 US.C 309. Geostar's design appears tocontinue to permit multiple entry and to use randomaccess TDM in the user to central station direction.Although the modulation charactenstics or thecentral-station to user transmissions have beenaltered, modulation changes traditionally have notbeen considered to be major amendments when thepotential for interference has not been increased. Inthis case. the reduced power levels reduces thelikelihood of interference. Thus. no change isneeded to the September 7,1984 Public Noticeaccepting Geostar's application for filing. See. e_.United States Satellite Company v. FCC No. 83-1692 [D.C. Cir. July 24.1984). In any event.construction notice of the change has been givenand parties have been provided with sufficient timeto comment on Geastar's supplemental information.

clarification above."' Moreover.Geostar is expected to demonstrate whyits proposed system is superior torandom access TDM if, in fact, thataspect of its system has been altered.This information may be submitted nolater than the filing date for otherapplications to be consideredconcurrently with Geostar's.

iii. Filing Dates

12. In view of the fact that this order isintended to clarify any confusion theparties ught have had concerning theapplication filing procedures, rve believeit reasonable to provide applicantsadditional time to perfect theirapplications. Moreover, as discussed inthe Aotice of Proposcdfulemakng inGen. Docket No. 84-1234 concerningland mobile satellite systems adoptedNovember 21,1954, we will allow for thesimultaneous filing of land mobile andradiodetermination satellite systemapplications. Thus, proposals forradiodetcrmination systems to beconsidered concurrently with Geostafsmust be filed withm 60 days of therelease of the land mobile NPPRM. TheCommission will then Issue a publicnotice listing those applicationsappearing prima facia acceptable forfiling and setting time limits for the filingof comments or petitions on theapplications. As noted In the landmobile satellite service rulemaldngnotice. If review of the applications filedfor the proposed radiodetermination andland mobile services confirms our beliefthat the two sevices can be treatedseparately, we will continue to esrablishrules, policies and licensing proceduresfor these services in independentproceedings.

13. We do not believe, however, that afurther extension of time for commentson the underlying NPRM is warranted.In addition to addressing our proposedmultiple entry policy, licensingprocedures, and a basic system designas discussed in paragraph 8 supra,comments may address the proposedfrequency allocations and any othergeneral issues such as those mentionedin note 6, supra. Because it is notnecessary to review specificapplications before submitting thesecomments, comments on the NPRM willremain due on or before Dcember 17,1984 and reply comments on or beforeJanuary 17,1985.

ie If on the basis of this lnfom allon. wedetermine that Ceostar's system no lwezer cmportswith the baseline standard. we will place cetarsamended application on fublc Notice for commentalong with the other applications acceptatle forfiling,

Conclusion and Ordering Clauses

14. The parties' comments regardingprocedural issues are helpful, but werestate that our primary obligation is tomake available to consumers a rapidand efficient communications service.The Commission has crafted an orderlyand fair process to allow for, the promptimplementation of radiodeterminationservice to the public if. consistent withour initial finding, that the initialcomments demonstrated a need for sucha service, the proposed allocations aremade. These procedures ,ill enable usto proceed in the frequency allocationand licensing policy rulemaking and tolicense specific radiodetermiationsystems rith full knowledge of thepossible range of concrete proposedsystems. Aside from the modification tothe application filing date andclarifications given above, no argumentshave been presented to warrant adeparturefrom the basic rulemalking andapplication processing procedure for theradiodetermination satellite serviceestablished by the Comnussion in itsNPRM.

15. Accordingly, it is ordered that the"Petition for Partial Reconsideration"filed by the National Association ofBroadcasters is dismissed, and the'Tetition for Postponement ofProcedural Dates and for Clarification"filed by Omnmet Corporation, and the"Combined Request for Stay and Motionfor Extension of Time" filed by theNational Association of Broadcasters,and the "Motion for Extension of Time"filed by Analytical Technologies, Inc.are granted to the extent set forth hereinand are denied in all other respects.18. It s further ordered that the

pleading cycle in this proceeding isextended as stated above.Federal Communications Comission.Albert Halprin.Chief. Comon CarrerBureau.IFR Doc. 84-33455 Filed 12-24-84: &45 amjBILUNG CODE 6712-01-15

47 CFR Parts 2,73, and 90

[Gen. Docket No. 84-902; RM-39751

Amendment of the Commission'sRules To Allocate Additional ChannelsIn the Band 407-512 MHz for PublcSafety Services, Order Extendi[ng Timefor Filing Comments and ReplyCommentsAGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: extension ofcomment/reply comment penod.

I I II

50059


SUMMARY: This action extends for thirty-two (32) days the date for filingcomments to the Notice of ProposedRule Making to allocate additionalchannels in the band 470- 512 MHz forPublic Safety Service. This action istaken in response to a Petition filed bythe Consumer Electronics Group of theElectronics Industries Association. TheProposed Rule in this proceeding waspublished in the Federal Register ofNovember 21, 1984, 49 FR 45875.DATES: Comments in the above notedproceeding must be filed on or beforeJanuary 22,1985 and Reply Commentsmust be filed on or before February 7,1985.ADDRESS: Federal CommunicationsCommission, 1919 M Street NW.,Washington, D.C. 20554.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Marjorie S. Reed, Office of Science andTechnology, (202) 632-7067SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OrderExtending Time for Comments

In the matter of amendment of Parts 2, 73,and 90 of the commission's rules andregulations to allocate additional channels inthe band 470-512 MHz for public safetyservices; Gen. Docket 84-902, RM-3975.

Adopted: December 14,1984.Released: December 17,1984.By the Chief Scientist.

1. On October 11, 1984, theCommission released a Notice ofProposed Rule Making, GEN. Docket 84,-902, 49 FR 45875 (1984), proposing tomake frequencies available for publicsafety use in the Los Angeles Countyarea from television Channel 19 (500-506MHz). Comments were to be filed on orbefore December 20,1984, and replycomments on or before January 4,1985.

2. The Consumer Electronics Group ofthe Electronics Industries Association(EIA/CEG) has timely filed a Petition foran Extension of the Comment Date inthe above-captioned proceeding. In thisPetition EIA/CEG request that thecomment date be extended for at leastsixty (60) days after the Los AngelesCounty Sheriff's Department (theSheriff) files a report on the results oftests concerning the feasibility of usingthe proposed frequencies. EIA/CEGargues that this report is critical to thisproceeding and that it should bereviewed as part of the commentprocess rather than the reply process.

3. To date the Sheriff has not filed hisfull report, although this report isexpected by December 20, 1984.However, on December 7,1984, theSheriff filed a Motion to Modify Noticeof Proposed Rule Making seeking toenlarge the issues in this proceeding.This includes a statement of preliminary

test results. The Sheriff has also timelyfiled a Motion to Continue CommentDates pending Commission action on hisMotion to Modify.

4. It appears that the Commissionwould benefit from analysis of theSheriff's completed report bycommenters during the comment stageof this proceeding. Accordingly,pursuant to § 0.241(d) of theCommission's Rules, it is ordered thatcomments be filed on or before January22, 1985, and reply comments on orbefore February 7,1985. We assume theSheriff will file a complete report onresults of its testing on or beforeDecember 20, 1984.

5. It is further ordered that the Petitionfor an Extension of Comment Date filedby the Consumer Electronics Group ofthe Electronics Industry Association isgranted in part as set forth above andotherwise denied. The Sheriff's Motionto modify and related Motion tocontinue Comment Dates are deferredpending further consideration.Robert S. Powers,Chief Scientist.[FR Doc. 84-33453 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILNG CODE 6712-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 652

[Docket.No. 41270-4170]

Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean QuahogFisheries

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), NOAA, Commerce.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: NOAA issues a proposed ruleto implement Amendment 5 to theAltantic Surf Clam and Ocean QuahogFisheries (FMP). The revisions withinthis amendment are necessary to allow(1) a mechanism for adjustments to theminimum size limit for surf clams, (2) arevision of the method of inspecting surfclams for compliance, (3) a requirementthat surf clam cages be tagged, and (4) apresumption that surf clams landed onan authorized fishing day were caught inthe Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ)and are subject to the Federal minimumsize limit. The intended effect of thisrule is to-reduce the mortality ratecaused by discarding undersized clams,resulting in greater short- and long-termyield from the resource and to facilitateenforcement of the minimum size limit.

DATE: Comments on the proposed rulemust be received on or before February8, 1985.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposedrule, Amendment 5, or supportingdocuments should be sent to RichardSchaefer, Acting Regional Director,National Marine Fisheries Service,Northeast Regional Office, 14 ElmStreet, Gloucester, MA 01930-3799, Markthe outside of the envelope "Commentson Surf Clam and Ocean QuahogAmendment 5."

Copies of the amended FMP, theenvironmental assessment, and the draftregulatory impact review/initialregulatory flexibility anal, sis areavailable from John C. Bryson,Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic FisheryManagement Council, Room 2115,Federal Building, 300 South New Street,Dover, DE 19901.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Richard G. Seamans, 617-281-3600, ext.262.


Background

Amendment 5 was prepared by theMid-Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil (Council) in consultation withthe New England Fishery ManagementCouncil. A notice of availability for theproposed amendment was published inthe Federal Register on December 3,1984 (49 FR 47278). Amendment 5revises management measures for surfclams.

The regulations implementing the FMPcontain at § 652.25 provisions thatinclude a minimum size limit for surfclams of 5/2 inches, allow fishermen toreserve from inspection 10 percent of thefull cages of surf clams aboard a vessel,and provide for a tolerance of no morethan 240 undersized surf clams in anysingle inspected cage. This results in acombined tolerance of about 19 percentfor sublegal surf clams.

When the minimum size limit wasdeveloped, the Council tried to balanceconflicting goals of the industry. The 5%.inch size was considered optimum interms of product value, althoughmaximum yield per recruit for surf clamsoccurs at a smaller size ofapproximately 4 / inches. Surf clamsoccur in bed which are generally mixedin size, so that even the most carefulfishermen catch some small clams. Thetolerance in the implementingregulations was therefore considerednecessary to minimize discarding wheresmall clams have been harvesteddespite efforts to harvest legal sizedclams. Discards are considered wasteful

Federal R]gister / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

since it is estimated that about 50percent of the discarded clams die.

The size distribution of surf clams,combined with the fixed minimum sizelimit, has at times resulted in discardrates-of up to 50 percent of the clamsharvested, when fishermen cull theircatches to ensure that their harvests arelegal sized.

The FMP currently states: "No personshall harvest or possess surf clamssmaller than 5.5" in length" Amendment5 changes that provision to read: "Thereis a surf clam nummum size limit. Afterconsultation with the Council andopportunity for public comment, theRegional Director shall adjust, byincrements no less than 0.25", the surfclam mnumum size limit to a value lessthan 5.5" as necessary, so that discardson average do not exceed 30% of the tripcatch. In no event shall the size limit beless than 4.75" When data indicate theclams have grown sufficiently, the limitwould be increased, ultimately reachingthe 5.5' limit. There is a tolerance of 240undersized clams per cage but no morethan 50 clams per cage under 4.75 Ifany cage is in violation of the size limit,the entire load is in violation. Inadjusting the size limit the RegionalDirector shall consider current stockassessments, catch reports, and otherrelevant information concerning the sizedistribution of the surf clam resource.No person shall harvest or possess surf6lams smaller than the mnnumu sizelimit." This means that, at any timewhen the size limit is to be changed, theRegional Director and the Council mayselect any of the following values (5 ,5 , 5, or 4 inches); i.e., the changecould be A, , or - inch at any onetime.

Amendment 5 adds the requirementthat all surf clam cages must be taggedbefore leaving the vessel with tags to besupplied by the Regional Director, andthat tags may not be reroved untilcages are emptied at the processingplant Vessel operators in both the NewEngland and Mid-Atlantic Areas will berequired to attach tags to each cage ofclams before landing, and to make anote of the tag numbers m theirlogbooks. Processors will be required tonote the tag numbers m their logbooksand, immediately after the cage isemptied, to remove and discard the tags.Tagging is intended to improveenforcement of the size limit, therebydecreasing violations and the resultantlanding of large numbers of small clam .

Amendment 5 adds the provision thatall surf clams landed on an "authorizedFCZ fishing day" are assumed to havebeen caught in the FCZ and are subjectto the Federal size limit. This measure,which is enforceable at dockside, will

improve the enforcement of the FMP. Adefinition of "authorized FCZ fishingday" is added to § 652.2.

ClassificationSection 304(a)[1)(C)[ii) of the

Magnuson Act, as amended by Pub. L97-453, requires the Secretary ofCommerce (Secretary) to publishregulations proposed by a Councilwithin 30 days of receipt of the FMP andproposed regulations. The Secretary hasnot yet determined that the n, IP theserules would implement is consistentwith the national standards, otherprovisions of the Magnuson Act, andother applicable law. The Secretary, inmaking that determination, will takeinto account the information, views, andcomments received during the commentperiod.

The Council prepared anenvironmental assessment (EA) for thisamendment which analyzes theconsequences of this action. TheAssistant Adminstrator concluded thatthere will be no significant impact onthe human environment. A copy of theEA is available from the Council at theaddress listed above.

The NOAA Administrator determinedthat this proposed rule is not a "majorrule" requirmg a regulatory impactanalysis under Executive Order 12291.This determination is based on the draftregulatory impact review (DRIR)prepared by the Council whichdemonstrates positive net short-termand long-term economic benefits to thefishery under the proposed managementmeasures. The amendment should nothave an artnual effect of $100 million ormore, since the value of the total fisheryhas never exceeded $27 million. The neteffect will be an adjustable size limitthat will make it easier for fishermen toland surf clams that meet the size limitwith minimal discarding. It will also beeasier to obtain convictions of thosewho violate the size limit. Industry costsshould decrease by eliminating the needto discard large numbers of small clams,and by minmizing violation problemsassociated with catching and notdiscarding undersized clams. Costs forthe Federal Government should balance,with administrative costs increasingslightly and enforcement costsdecreasing. Costs to consumers, State orlocal government agencies, andgeographic regions should not beaffected; nor should there be adverseeffects on U.S.-based enterprisescompeting with foreign-basedenterprises. A copy of this review maybe obtained from the Council at theaddress listed above.

This proposed rule is exempt from theprocedures of Executive Order 12291

under section 8[a)(2) of that order.Deadlines imposed under the MagnusonAct. as amended by Pub. L 97-453,require the Secretary to publish thisproposed rule 31 days after its receipt.The proposed rule is being reported tothe Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget with anexplanation of why it is not possible tofollow review procedures of the order.

The Council prepared an initialregulatory flexibility analysis as part ofthe regulatory impact review winchconcludes that this proposed rule. ifadopted, would not have a significanteffect on small entities. Both large andsmall businesses are affected by thecurrent size limit problem, and willbenefit by the solution contained in theamendment. The impacts of theamendment do not favor largebusinesses over small businesses,except to the extent that the smallerprocessors and the independent vesselsthat work with them may be moredependent on larger surf clams than arethe large, vertically intergratedprocessors that also use smaller surfclams and ocean quahos. An impactcould occur with a decrease in the sizelimit to the lowest allowed size of 41inches. A copy of the regulatoryflexibility analysis may be obtainedfrom the Council at the address listedabove.

The existing rule contains collectionof information requirements previouslyapproved by the Office of Managementand Budget (0MB) under Controlnumbers 048-0013. -0010. -0097, and -0114. Because sections proposed in thisrule contain a collection of informationsubject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,this collection has been submitted toOMB for approval. Comnlents should bedirected to the desk Officer for NOAA,Office of information and RegulatoryAffairs, OMB.

The Council determined that this rulewill affect the State's coastal zone andwill be implemented in a manner that isconsistent to the maximum extentpracticable with the approved coastalzone management (CZM) programs ofMaine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York.New Jersey, Pennsylvama, Delaware,and Maryland. On 7 August 1934, letterswere sent to all of the States listedabove stating that the Councilconcluded that Amendment 5 isconsistent to the maximum extentpracticable vith th State s CZM programas understood by the Council. Marylandand Rhode Island have 5.5" surf clamminimum size limits, Massachusetts hasa 5" munumn size limit, and New Yorkhas a 4" minimum size limit. The letters

5005"1


to those States recommended that Stateminimum size limits be revised to matchthe proposed size limit to facilitateenforcement while also noting that theFCZ catch presumption is intended tominimize the impact of thesedifferences. Maine, Massachusetts,Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,Delaware and Maryland responded, andagreed with the consistencydetermination. Maryland also respondedthat it will change its size limit to-conform with this amendment.


Admimstrative practice andprocedure, Fish, Fisheries, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 19,1984.Carmen 1. Blondin,DeputyAssistantAdminisiratorforFisheresResource Management, National MarneFisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, 50 CFR Part 652 is proposedto be amended as follows:

PART 652--AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 652reads as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1601 at seq.

2. The Table of Contents is amendedby redesignating § § 652.7 through 652.10as § § 652.8 through 652.11 and by addinga new entry § 652.7 "CageIdentification."

3. In § 652.2, the definition"Authorized FCZ fishing day" is addedin alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 652.2 Definitions.* * * * *

Authorized FQZ fishing day means aday assigned by the Regional Directorunder § 652.22 to a vessel owner oroperator on which harvest of surf clamspursuant to the plan is allowed, exceptas limited by substitution orcancellation of the authorized day, or bylimitations on fishing time pursuant tothese regulations.

4. In § 652.5, paragraph (a)(1) isamended by revising paragraphs (i,) and(vi) and by adding-a new paragraph(vii), and paragraph (b)(1) is amendedby revising paragraphs (xi) and (xii) andby adding a new paragraph (xiii] to readas follows:

§ 652.5 Recordkeepng ana reportingrequirements.

(a)(1) * * *(v) Price per bushel, by species;(vi) Meat yield per bushel, by species;

and

(vii) Tag numbers from cagespurchased, by vessel.* * * * *

(b)(1J ***(xi) Price per bushel;(xii] Buyer, and(xiii) Tag numbers from cages used.

§§ 652.7 through 652.10 [Redesignated as§§ 652.8 through 652.111

5. Sections 652.7 through 652.10 areredesignated as §§ 652.8 through 652.11and a new § 652.7 is added to read asfollows:

§ 652.7 Cage Identification(a) Tagging. Vessel operators must tag

all surf clam cages that contain clamsbefore off-loading them with colorcoded, serially numbered tags providedannually by the Regional Director underparagraph (b) of this section. Tags mustnot be removed until cages are emptiedat the processing plant, at which timethe processor must promptly removeand discard them.

(b] Acquisition and return of tags. (1)An initial supply of tags will be issuedto each individual vessel by theRegional Director prior to the beginningof each fishing year. The number of tagsissued will be based on the previousyear's landings.

(2) Additional tags may be obtained, ifrequired, upon written request to theRegional Director.

(3) Tags will expire at the end of thefishing year for whch they were issued.Unused tags must be returned to theRegional Director at the end ofthefishing year.

(c) Specifications. Changes inspecifications of the tagging programwill be made by the Regional Director inconsultation with the Council.

(d) Use of tags. (1) Tags are nottransferrable among vessels.

(2) Alteration, theft, destruction,transfer, or other misuse of tags is aviolation of these regulations.

(3) Any cage of surf clams found incommerce without a tag is in violation ofthese regulations.

(4) Processors must promptly removeand discard a tag after a cage isemptied.

(e) Presumption. Cages with colorednumbered tags matching those issued toa vessel will be presumed to have beentaken by that vessel.

6. In redesignated § 652.8, paragraph(h) is amended by adding a newparagraph (3), paragraph (j) isredesignated as (k), and a newparagraph (j) is added to read asfollows:

§ 652.8 Prohibitions.* * * * *

(h) ***(3) Any-surf clam cage tags issued

under § 652.7(b).

(j) No persqn may use surf clam cagetags issued under § 652.7(b) in a mannerinconsistent with the terms of § 652,7(d).* * * * *

7 In § 652.22 paragraph (a)(2) isamended by revising sentences 3 and 4,and paragraph (I) is amended byredesignating the existing text asparagraph (1) and by adding a newparagraph (2) to read as follows:

§ 652.22 Effort restrictions.(a) * * *(2) Hours. * The vessel owner or

operator must send the RegionalDirector written notice of the owner oroperator's selection or cancellation ofallowable surf clam fishing period forthat vessel. All selections orcancellations must be provided to theRegional Director no less than 15 daysprior to the intended effectivedate. * * ** * * * *

(1O Presumption. * *

(2) All surf clams landed on anauthorized FCZ fishing day are assumedto have been caught in the FCZ and aresubject to the Federal size limit.

8. Section 652.25 is revised to read asfollows:

§ 652.25 Size restrictions.(a) Minimum length. A minimum size

limit for surf clam of 5 / inches in lengthis imposed with the followingexceptions:

(1) Size limit selections. The RegionalDirector will select the size limit, afterconsultation with the Council andopportunity for public comment, fromamong the following values: 51/2, 54, 5,and 4 inches. The selection of the sizelimit will be made to reduce the ambuntof discards of surf clams so that they donot exceed 30 percent:on average, oftrip catches. The Regional Director willmonitor current stock assessments,catch reports, and other relevantinformation concerning the sizedistribution of the surf clam resource todetermine if any adjustment in the sizelimit is appropriate. The Secretary willpublish notice of any adjustments in theFederal Register.

(2) Tolerance. (i] When the minimumsize limit is greater than 4 inches, asmany as 240 surf clams in any full cagemay be less than the legal minimumsize, but not more than 50 clams In anyfull cage may be less than 4% inches.

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 I Proposed Rules 50063

(ii) When the minimum size limit is4% inches, no more than 50 clams in anyfull cage may be less than 4% inches.

(Iii) If any inspected cage is found tobe in violation of paragraphs (2)(i)-[ii) ofthis section, all cages in possession willbe deemed in violation of the size limit.

(b) Measurement Length is measuredat the longest dimension of the surfclam.

[FR Doc. 84-33526 Filed 12-20-84; 5:07 pm)Bi UNG CODE 3510-22-M

5006

Notices Federal Register

Vol. 49, No. 249

Wednesday, December 28, 1084

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains documents other than rules orproposed rules that are applicable to thepublic. Notices of hearings andinvestigations, committee meetings, agencydecisions and rulings, delegations ofauthority, filing of petitions andapplications and agency statements oforganization and functions are examplesof documents appearing in this section.

DEPARTLEt4T OF COMMERCE

Minority Business DevelopmentAgency

Minority Business DevelopmentCenter Program; Grant Application

AGENCY: Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency, Commerce.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Minority BusmemsDevelopment Agency (MBDA)announces that it is solicitingcompetitive applications under itsMinority Business Development Center(MBDC) Program to operate an MBDCfor a 3 year period, subject to availablefunds. The cost of performance for thefirst 11 months it estimated at $413,417for the project performance of May 1,1985 to March 31, 1986. The MBDC willoperate in the Baltimore, Md.Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).The first year cost for the MBDC willconsist of $351,404 in Federal funds anda minimum of $62,013 in non-Federalfunds (which can be a combination ofcash, in-kind contribution and fees forservices).

The funding instrument for the MBDCwill be a cooperative agreement andcompetition is open to individuals,nonprofit and for-profit organizations,local and state governments, AmericanIndian tribes and educationalinstitutions.

The MBDC will provide managementand technical assistance to eligibleclients for the establishment andoperation of businesses. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this, MBDA supports MBDCprograms that can: coordinate andbroker public and private sectorresources on behalf of minorityindividuals and firms; offer them a fullrange of management and technical

assistance; and serve as a conduit ofinformation and assistance regardingminority business.

Applications will be judged on theexperience and capability of the firmand its staff in addressing the needs ofminority business individuals andorganizations; the resources available tothe firm in providing managetnent andtechnical assistance; the firm's proposedapproach to performing the workrequirements included in theapplication; and the firm's estimatedcost for providing such assistance. It isadvisable that applicants have anexisting office in the geographic regionfor which they are applying.

The MBDC will operate for a 3 yearperiod with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations todetermine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continue funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA, based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds,and Agency priorities.DATE: Closing date: The closing date forapplications is January 18, 1985.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore January 18, 1985.ADDRESS: Washington Regional Office,Minority Business Development Agency,U.S. Department of Commerce,Washington, D.C. 20230, 202-377-8280.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Sthnley W. Tate, Regional Director,Washington Regional Office.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application kitsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.800 Minority Business Development(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance))

Dated: December 17,1984.Stanley W. Tate,Regional Director, Washington RegionalOffice.[FR Doc. 84-33423 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 351%-21-A

Minority Business DevelopmentCenter Program; Grant Applications

AGENCY: Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency, CommerceACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency (MBDA)announces that it is soliciting

competitive applications under itsMinority Business Development Center(MBDC) Program to operate an MBDCfor a 3 year period, subject to availablefunds. The cost of performance for thefirst 11 months is estimated at $705,833for the project performance of May 1,1985 to March 31,1986. The MBDC willoperate in the Philadelphia, Pa.Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA].The first year cost for the MBDC willconsist of $599,958 in Federal funds anda minimum of $105,875 in non-Federalfunds (which can be a combination ofcash, in-kind contribution and fees forservices).


The MBDC will provide managementand technical assistance to eligibleclients for the establishment andoperation of businesses. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this, MBDA supports MBDCprograms that can: coordinate andbroker public and private sectorresources on behalf of minorityindividuals and firms: offer them a fullrange bf management and technicalassistance; and serve as a conduit ofinformation and assistance regardingminority business.

Applications will be judged on theexperience and capability of the firmand its staff in addressing the needs ofminority business individuals andorganizations; the resources available tothe firm in providing management andtechnical assistance; the firm's proposedapproach to performing the workrequirements included in theapplication; and the firm's estimatedcost for providing such assistance. It isadvisable that applicants have anexisting office in the geographic regionfor which they are applying.

The MBDC will operate for a 3 yearperiod with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations todetermine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continue funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA, based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds,and Agency priorities.

t I I

Federal Regiter / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26. 1984 1 Notices

DATe: Closing date: The closing date forapplications is January 18,1985.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore January 18,1985.ADDRESS: Washington Regional Office.Minority Business Development Agency,U.S. Department of Commerce,Washington, D.C. 20230, 202-377--8280.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Stanley W. Tate, Regional DirectorWashington Regional Office.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATICN:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application kitsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.801 Minority Business Development(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance))

Dated: December 17, 1934.Stanley W. Tate,Regional Director, Washington ,egtonalOffice.[FR Doc. 84-33424 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am)BILNG CODE 3510-21-M

Minority Business DevelopmentCenters Program; Grant Applications

AGENCY: Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency; Commerce.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency (MBDA)announces that it is solicitingcompetitive application under itsMinority Business Development Center(MBDC) Program to operate an MBDCfor a 3 year period, subject to availablefunds. The cost of performance for thefirst 15 months it estimated at $343,750for the project performance of April 1,1985 to June 30.1986. The MBDC willoperate in the Pittsburgh, Pa.Metropolitan Statistical Area (ISA).The first year cost for the MBDC willconsist of $292,188 in Federal funds anda minimum of $51,562 in non-Federalfunds (which can be a combination ofcash, mn-kind contribution and fees forservices).


The MBDC will provide managementand technical assistance to eligible

.clients for the establishment andoperation of businesses. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority-businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this.MBDAsupports MBDCprograms that can: coordinate and

broker public and private sectorresources on behalf of minorityindividuals and firms; offer them a fullrange of management and tcchmcalassistance; and serve as a conduit ofinformation and assistance regardingminority business.


The MBDC will operate for a 3 yearperiod with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations todetermine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continue funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA, based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds,and Agency priorities.DATE: Closing date: The closing date forapplications is January 18,1985.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore January 13, 1985.ADDRESS: Washington Regional Office,Minority Business Development Agency.U.S. Department of Commerce,Washington, D.C. 20230, 202-377-8280.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Stanley W. Tate, Regional Director,Washington Regional Office.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application kitsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.800 Minority Business Development(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance))

Dated: December 17,1934.Stanley IV. Tate.Regional Director Washimgton RlcyonalOffice.[FR Doc. 84-33425 Filed 12-24-48:45 amlBILLING CODE 3510-21-N

Minority Business DevelopmentCenter (MBDC), Solicitation ofCompetitive Applications

AGENCY: Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency, Commerce.ACTION. Notice.

SUMMARY: The Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency (MBDA)announces that it is solicitingcompetitive applications under its

Minority Business Development Center(MBDO) Program to operate and MBDCfor a 3 year period, subject to availablefunds. The cost of performance for thefirst 11 months is estimated at S705,833for the project performance of May 1.1935 to March 31, 1936. The MBDC willoperate in the Washington. D.C.Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA.The first year cost for the MBDC villconsist of $399,958 in Federal funds anda rmmum of $105,875 in non-Federalfunds (which can be a combination ofcash, in-kind contribution and fees forservices).

The funding instrument for the MBDCw-ill be a cooperative agreement andcompetition Is open to individuals,nonprofit and for-profit organization,local and state governments. AmericanIndian tribes and educationalinstitutions.

The ?MIBDC vill provide managementand technical assistance to eligibleclients for the establishment andoperation of businesses. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this, MBDA supports MBDCprograms that cam coordinate andbroker public and private sectorresources on behalf of minorityindividuals and firms; offer them a fullrange of management and technicalassistance; and serve as a conduit ofinforma lion and assistance regardingminority business.

Applications rill be judged on theexperience and capability of the firmand its staff in addressing the needs ofminority business individuals andorganizations; the resources available tothe firm in providing management andtechnical assistance: the firm's proposedapproach to performing the workrequirements included in theapplication; and the firnm's estimatedcost for providing such assistance. It isadvisable that applicants have anexisting office in the geographic regionfor which they are applying.

The MBDC will operate for a 3 yearperiod with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations todetermine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continue funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA. based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds-and agency priorities.DATE Closing date: The closing date forapplications is January 18.1935.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore January 18,1985.ADDRESS Vashington Regional Office.Minority Business Development Agency.

.... I i' -- i II

50065

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

U.S. DeparTment of Commerce,Washington, D.C. 20230, 202-377-8280.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.Stanley W. Tate, Regional Director,Washington Regional Office.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application kitsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.800 Minority Business Development(Catalne of Federal Domestic Assistance))

Dated- December 17,1984.Stanley W. TateRegwnal Director, Washington RegionalOffice.[FR Doc. 84-33426 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-21-M

Minority Business DevelopmentCenter Program; Grant Applications


SUMMARY: The Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency (MBDA)announces that it is solicitingapplications under its Minority BusinessDevelopment Center (MBDC) Program tooperate a MBDC for a 3-year period,subject to available funds. The cost ofperformance for the first 12 months isestimated at $187,000 for the projectperformance period of April 1, 1985 toMarch 31,1986. The MBDC will operatein the Seattle Metropolitan StatisticalArea (MSA). The first year cost for theMBDC will consist of $158,950 m Federalfunds and a minimum of $28,050 in non-Federal funds (which can be acombination of cash, in-kindcontribution and fees for services].

The I.D. Number for this project willbe 10-10-85001-01.

The funding instrument for the MBDCwill be a cooperative agreement andcompetition is open to individualM,nonprofit and for-profit organization,.local and state governments, AmericanIndian tribes and educationalinstitutions.

The MBDC will provide managementand technical assistance to eligibleclients for the establishment andoperation of businesses. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this, MBDA supports MBDCprograms that can: coordinate andbroker public and private sectorresources on behalf of minorityindividuals and firms; offer them a fullrange of management and technicalassistance; and serve as a conduit of

information and assistance regardingminority business.

Applications will be judged on theexperience and capability of the firmand its staff in addressing the needs ofminority business individuals andorganizations; the resources available tothe firm in providing management andtechnical assistance; the firm's proposedapproach to performing the workrequirements included in theapplication; and the firm's estimatedcost for providing such assistance. It isadvisable that applicants have anexisting office in the geographic region.for which they are applying.

The MBDC will operate for a three (3)year period with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations todetermine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continued funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds,and Agency priorities.

A pre-application conference to assistall interested applicants will be held atthe following address and time:Minority Business De ,elopment Agency,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 450Golden Gate Avenue, Room 13216C,San Francisco, California 94102

January 11, 1985 at 10:00 a.m.

Proposals Are To Be Mailed to theFollowing Address

Minority Business Development Agency,U.S. Department of Commerce, SanFrancisco Regional Office, 450 GoldenGate Avenue, Box 36114, SanFrancisco, California 94102, 415/556-6734.

DATE: Closing date: The closing date forapplications is January 24,1985.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore 5:00 p.m.-January 24,1985.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'Dr. Xavier Mena, Regioral Director, SanFrancisco Regional Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application kitsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.800 Minority Business Development(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance))Xavier Mena,Regional Director, San Francisco RegionalOffice.December 19, 1984.[FR Doc. 84-33438 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-21-M

Minority Business DevelopmentCenters Programs; Grant Applications

AGENCY" Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency; Commerce,ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency (MBDA)announces that it is solicitingapplications under its Minority BusinessDevelopment Center (MBDC) Program tooperate a MBDC for a 3 year period,subject to available funds, The cost ofperformance for the first 12 months Isestimated at $275,000 for the projectperformance period of April 1, 1985 toMarch 31,1986. The MBDC will operatein the Sacramento MetropolitanStatistical Area (MSA). The first yearcost for the MBDC will consist of$233,750 in Federal funds and aminimum of $41,250 in non-Federalfunds (which can be a combination ofcash, in-kind contribution and fees forservices).


The funding instrument for the MBDCwill be a cooperative agreement andcompetition is open to individuals,nonprofit and for-profit organization,local and state governments, AmericanIndian tribes and educationalinstitutions.

The MBDC will provide managementand technical assistance to eligibleclients for the establishment andoperation of businesses. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this, MBDA supports MBDCprograms that can: coordinate andbroker public and private sectorresources on behalf of minorityindividuals and firms; offer them a fullrange of management and technicalassistance; and serve as a conduit ofinformation and assistance regardingminority business,

Applications will be judged on theexperience and capability of the firmand its staff in addressing the needs ofminority business individuals andorganizations; the resources available tothe firm in providing management andtechnical assistance; the firm's proposedapproach to performing the workrequirements included in theapplication and the firm's estimatedcost for providing such assistance. It Isadvisable that applicants have anexisting office in the geographic regionfor which they are applying.

The MBDC will operate for a three (3)year period with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations to

50066

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday December 26, 1984 / Notices

determine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continued funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds,and Agency priorities.

A pre-application conference to assistall interested applicants will be held atthe following address and time:Minority Business Development Agency.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 450Golden Gate Avenue, Room 13216C,San Francisco, Californma 94102

January 11, 1985 at 10:00 A.M.

Proposals Are To Be Mailed to theFollowing Address:Minority Business Development Agency.

U.S. Department of Commerce, SanFrancisco Regional Office, 450 GoldenGate Avenue, Box 36114, SanFrancisco, California 94102,415/558-6734.

DATE: Closing Date: The closing date forapplications is January 24,1985.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore 5:00 pm-January 24,1985.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Dr. Xavier Mena, Regional Director, SanFrancisco Regional Office.SUPPLEMENTARY iNFORMATION:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application kitsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.800 Mmority Business Development(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance))Xavier Mena,Regional Director; San Francisco RegionalOffice.December 19,1984.[FR Doc. 84-33439 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-21-M

Minority Business DevelopmentCenters Program; Grants Application


SUMMARY: The Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency (MBDA]announces that it is solicitingapplications under its Minority BusinessDevelopment Center (MBDC) Program tooperate a MBDC for a 3 year period,subject to available funds. The cost ofperformance for the first 12 months isestimated at $187,000 for the projectperformance period of April 1,1985 toMarch 31,1986. The MBDC will operatein the Stockton Metropolitan StatisticalArea (MSA). The first year cost for theMBDC will consist of $158.950. in Federalfunds and a m mum of $28.050 in non-Federal funds (which can be a

combination of cash, in-kindcontribution and fees for services.


The funding instrument for the MBDCwill be a cooperative agreement andcompetition is open to individuals,nonprofit and for-profit organization.local and state governments. AmericanIndian tribes and educationalinstitutions.

The MBDC will provide managementand technical assistance to eligibleclients for the establishment andoperation of business. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this, MBDA supports MBDCprograms that can: coordinate andbroker public and private sectorresources on behalf of minorityindividuals and firms; offer them a fullrange of management and technicalassistance; and serve as a conduit ofinformation and issistance regardingminority business.


The MBDC will operate for a three (3)year period with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations todetermine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continued funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds.and Agency priorities.

A pre-application conference to assistall interested applicants will be held atthe following address and time:Minority Business Development Agency,

U.S. Department-of Commerce, 450Golden Gate Avenue, Room 13216C.San Francisco. California 94102

January 11, 1985 at 10:00 A.M.

Proposals Are To Be Mailed to theFollowing AddressMinority Business Development Agency.

U.S. Department of Commerce. SanFrancisco Regional Office. 450 GoldenGate Avenue, Box 36114. SanFrancisco. California 94102, 415(550-6734.

DATE: Closing date: The closing date forapplications is January 24.1935.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore 5:00 pm-January 24,1935.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT".

Dr. Xavier Mena. Regional Director, SanFrancisco Reglonal Office.SUPPLEMENTAR Y I :FOnMATION:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application Idtsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.00 Minority Business Development(Catalo3 of Federal Damestic AsmstanceJ)Xavier Mena,

Re71aonal Director, San Francisco RegionalOfficeD2cember 19.1934.[FR Doc. 84-33440 Filed 12-24-84; 8-45 aml13LWNG CODE 3510-21-U

Minority Business DevelopmentCenters Program; Grants Applications

AGENCY: Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency. Commerce.ACION: Notice.

suMMARY: The Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency [MBDA)announces that it is solicitingapplications under its Minority BusinessDevelopment Center (MBDC] Program tooperate a MBDC for a 3 year period,subject to available funds. The cost ofperformance for the first 12 months isestimated at $187,000 for the projectperformance period of April 1.1935 toMarch 31.1986. The MBDC will operatein the Santa Barbara MetropolitanStatistical Area (MSA]. The first yearcost for the MBDC will consist of$158,930 in Federal funds and amununum of $28,050 in non-Federalfunds (which can be a combination ofcash. in-kind contribution and fees forservices).

The LD. Number for this project willbe 09-10-83013-01.

The funding instrument for the MBDCwill be a cooperative agreement andcompetition is open to individuals,nonprofit and for-profit organization,local and state governments, AmericanIndian tribes and educationalinstitutions.

The MBDC will provide managementand technical assistance to eligibleclients for the establishment andoperation of businesses. The MBDCprogram is designed to assist thoseminority businesses that have thehighest potential for success. In order toaccomplish this, MBDA supports MBDCprograms that can: coordinate andbroker public and pnvate sectorresources on behalf of minority

i50067

m

I

50068 Federal Register / V

individuals and firms; offer them a fullrange of management and technicalassistance; and serve as a conduit ofinformation and assistance regardingminority business.

Applications will be judged on theexperience and capability of the firmand its staff in addressing the needs ofminority business individuals andorganizations; the resources available tothe firm in providing management andtechnical assistance; the finn's proposedapproach to performing the workrequirements included in theapplication; and the firm's estimatedcost for providing such assistance. It isadvisable that applicants have anexisting office in the geographic regionfor which they are applying.

The MBDC will operate for a three (3)year period with periodic reviewsculminating in annual evaluations todetermine if funding for the projectshould continue. Continued funding willbe at the discretion of MBDA based onsuch factors as the MBDC's satisfactoryperformance, the availability of funds,and Agency priorities.

A pre-application conference to assistall interested applicants will be held atthe following address and time:Minority Business Development Agency,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 450Golden Gate Avenue, Room 13216C,San Francisco, California 94102

January 11, 1985 at 10:00 a.m.

Proposals Are To Be Mailed to theFollowing Address:

Minority Business Development Agency,U.S. Department of Commerce, SanFrancisco Regional Office, 450 GoldenGate Avenue, Box 36114, SanFrancisco, California 94102,415/556-6734.

DATr-: Closing date: The closing date forapplications is January 24, 1985.Applications must be postmarked on orbefore 5:00 p.m.-January 24,1985.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.-Dr. Xavier Mena, Regional Directbr, San

Francisco Regional Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Questions concerning the precedinginformation, copies of application kitsand applicable regulations can beobtained at the above address.(11.800 Minority Business Development(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance)]Xavier Mena,Regional Director, Son Francisco RegionalOffice.December 19, 1984.FR Doc. 84-33441 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-21-M

ol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

National Technical InformationService

Intent to Grant Exclusive PatentLicense; Oncogene Science, Inc.

The National Technical InformailonService (NTIS), U.S. Department ofCommerce, intends to grant to OncogeneScience, Inc. having a place of businessat Mineola, New York, an exclusiveright to practice the invention embodiedin U.S. Patent Application SN 6-571,911,"Deoxyribonucleic Acid MoleculesUseful as Probes for DetectingDeleterious Genes Incorporated inotChromosomal DNA." The patent rightsin this invention have been assigned tothe United States of America, asrepresented by the Secretary ofCommerce.

The proposed exclusive license willbe royalty-bearing and will comply withthe terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209and 41 CFR 101-4.1. The proposedlicense may be granted unless, withinsixty days from the date of thispublished Notice, NTIS receives writtenevidence and argument whichestablishes that the grant of theproposed license would not serve thepublic interest.

Inquiries, comment ancl othermaterials relating to the proposedlicense must be submitted to the Officeof Federal Patent Licensing, NTIS, Box1423, Spnngfield, VA 22151.Douglas J. Campion,Office of Federal Patent Licensing, U.S.Department of Commerce, National TechnicalInformation Service.[FR Doc. 84--33472 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am)BILLING CODE 3510-04-M

COMMITTEE FOR THEIMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILEAGREEMENTS

Requesting Public Comment onBilateral Textile Consultations With theGovernment of Hong Kong To ReviewTrade In Category 359 pt (infants'Sets)

December 19, 1984.On December.3, 1984 the Government

of the United States requestedconsultations with the Government ofHong Kong with respect to Category 359pt. (infants' sets in TSUSA numbers383.0350, 383.0855, 383.3060 and383.5075). This request was made on thebasis of the agreement of June 23, 1982,as amended, between the Governmentsof the United States and Hong Kongrelating to trade in cotton, wool andman-made fiber textiles and textileproducts.

The purpose of this notice Is to advisethe public that, if no solution Is agreedupon in consulations between the twogovernments, the Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreementsmay request the Government of HongKong to limit exports in Category 359 pt.(infants' sets), produced ormanufactured in Hong Kong andexported to the United States during1984. The Government of the UnitedStates reserves the right to controlimports in this category at theestablished limit.

Anyone wishing to comment orprovide data or information regardingthe treatment of this category under theagreement, or on any other aspectthereof, or to comment on domesticproduction or availability of textileproducts included in this category, Isinvited to submit such comments orinformation in ten copies to Mr. WalterC. Lenahan, Chairman, Committee forthe Implementation of TextileAgreements, International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce, Washington, D.C. 20230,Consultations will be held December 20-21, 1984. Any comments or informationsubmitted in response to this notice willbe available for public inspection in theOffice of Textile and Apparel, Room3100, U.S. Department of Commerce,14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, D.C., and may be obtainedupon written request.

Further comment may be invitedregarding particular comments orinformation received from the publicwhich the Committee for theImplementation of Textile Agreementsconsiders appropriate for furtherconsideration.

The solicitation of commentsregarding any aspect of the agreementor the implementation thereof Is not awaiver in any respect of the exemptioncontained in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) relatingto matters which constitute "a foreignaffairs function of the United States."Walter C. Lenahan,Chairman, Committee for the Implementotionof Textile Agreements.[FR Doc. 84-33353 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am)BILLING CODE 3510-DR-M

Increasing the Import Limit for CertainMan-Made Fiber Textiles FromRomania

December 19, 1984.The Chairman of the Committee for

the Implementation of TextileAgreements (CITA), under the authoritycontained in E.O. 11651 of March 3, 1972,as amended, has issued the directive


published below to the Commissioner ofCustoms to be effective on December 26,1984. For further information contactEve Anderson, International TradeSpecialist, Office of Textiles andApparel, U.S. Department of Commerce(202] 377-4212.

Background

Under the terms of the Bilateral Wooland Man-Made Fiber Textile Agreementof September 3 and November 3,1980,as amended, between the Governmentsof the United States'and the SocialistRepublic of Romania and at the requestof the Government of the SocialistRepublic of Romama, the limitestablished for Category 604 is beingincreased by 7 percent swing to2,712,250 pounds for goods produced ormanufactured in Romama and exportedduring the twelve-month period whichbegan on January 1, 1984. To account forthe increase being applied to Category604, the limit for Category 638/639 willbe reduced to 3,246,730 square yardsequivalent.

A description of the textile categoriesm terms of T.S.U.S.A. numbers waspublished in the Federal RegisteronDecember 13, 1982 (47 FR 55709), asamended on April 7,1983 (48 FR 15175],May 3,.1983 (48 FR 19924), December 14,1983 (48 FR 55607), December 30, 1983(48 FR 57584), April 4, 1984 (49 FR13397), June 28,1984 (49 FR 26622), July16, 1984 (49 FR 28754), and November 9,1984 (49 FR 44782).Walter C. Lenahan, -Charman, Committee for the Implementationof Textile Agreements.December 19,1984.Committee for the Implementation of TextileAgreementsCommissioner of Customs,Department of the Treasury, Washington,

D.C.Dear Mr. Commissioner On December 19,

1933. the Chairman, Committee for theImplementation of Agreements, directed youto prohibit entry of certain wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced ormanufactured m Romania, and exportedduring 1984, in excess of designated restraintlimits. The Chairman further advised you thatthese limits are subject to adjustment

The term "adjustment" refers to thoseprovisions of the Bilateral Wool and Man-MadeFiber Textile Agreement of September 3 andNovember 3, 19. as amended, between theGovernments of the United States and the SocialistRepublic of Romania, which provides, in part. that:[1) Specific limits may be increased for carryoverand carryforward up to 11 percent of the applicablecategory limit-, (2] consultations may be held toadjust levels of restraint for categories not subjectto specific limits; and (3) administrativearrangements or adjustments or may be made toresolve minor problems arising in theImplementation of the agreement.

Effective on December -0. 1934, paragraph1 of the directive of December 19. 19'3 ishereby further amended to include anadjusted limit of 2,71=0 pounds2 for man-made fiber textiles in Categori 01, producedor manufactured in Romania and e ,porledduring the twelve-month period whtch be'anon January 1. 1904.

The Committee for the Implementatin ofTextile Agreements has determined that thisaction falls withm the foreign affairsexception to the rulemalang provoions of 5U.S.C. 553.

Sincerely,Walter C. Lenahan,Chazrman, Commilleefort hemplernEntotionof Textile AgrEements.[FR Doc. 84-33354 Filed 12.-24 -4: 845 am)EIWNG cODE s510-D,-M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers, Department ofthe Army

Intent To Prepare; Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement (DEIS) for theProposed Expansion of Moss Landing,CA, Harbor

AGENCY. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,San Francisco District, DOE.ACTION: Notice of intent to pfcpara aDraft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)/Feasibility Report.

SUMMARY: 1. Moss Landing Harbor is onthe California Coast approximately 100miles south of San Francisco. Theproposed federal project would be aone-thousand foot southerly extensionof the existing federal channel Into theOld Salinas River. The channelextension would allow the MossLanding Harbor District to construct 150to 180 new berths for commercial fishingvessels.

2. The alternatives considered are: (a)New channel in the Old Salinas Riverwith a new access road constructed onfill at the southern terminus of the newchannel. Culverts and tidegates wouldallow full tidal action in the areaupstream from the new crossing. (b)Same as "a" above but with a low levelbridge instead of a roadway on fill. (c)Same as "a" and "b" but no newcrossing. An existing crossingapproximately 4,000 feet south of thenew channel would be utilized.Alternatives "a". "b", and "c" wouldrequire removal of the existingSandholdt Bridge. (d) New channel inMoro Coho Slough, which is just to theeast of the Old Salinas River. Thisalternative would require relocation of amajor pipeline, elevation or relocation of

2 The limit has not been adjusted to rellect anyimports exported after December 31.IS3.

the access road into Moss LandingHarbor, and removal of existing berths.Depths of 10,12, and 14 feet (meanlower low water datum) will beevaluated for each of the channelalternatives. (e) No action.

3. Significant issues to be analyzed indepth in the DEIS/Feasibility Reportinclude impact on wetlands, waterquality, conformance with the coastalplan, and selection of a disposal site forthe dredged material removed for thechannel deepening.

4. Conducted concurrently with theNFEPA process will be environmentalreview and consultation as required bysections 401 and 404 of the Clean WaterAct. as amended (33 U.S.C. 1341 and1344); section 307(c) of the Coastal ZoneManagement Act of 1972, as amended(16 U.S.C. 1456(c)); the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973, as amended (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the Fish andWildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 651et ceq.); the National HistoricPreservation Act of 19, as amended(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); and any otherstatutes or regulations as may berequired.

5. All affected federal, state and localagencies, and other interested privateorzganzations and parties are invited toparticipate in the scoping process. Ascoping meeting, open to all. will be heldearly m 1935. Notification of the timeand location of that meeting will beprovided to all affected agencies and tothe public as soon as the date isestablished.

6. It is estimated that the DEIS!Feasibility Report will be released to thepublic in June 1985.

7 Questions regarding the scopingprocess or preparation of the report maybe referred to Barney Option, PlanFormulation Branch. San FranciscoDistrict, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,211 Main Street. San Francisco.California 94105-1905. The telephonenumber is (415) 974-0376 FTS 454-0376).

Dated: December 17,1934.Andrew M. P rkn, Jr., LTC, CE.Dftct En3mcer.[FR Doc. CI-33417 Filed 12-24-84; &45 am]a.n;3 ccoi 3ii0-*3-U

Department of the Navy

Naval Research Advisory Committee;Closed Meeting

pursuant to the provisions of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (5U.S.C. app.), notice is hereby given thatthe Naval Research AdvisoryCommittee wrill meet on January 15-10,1985, at the Atlantic Undersea Test and

50059


Evaluation Center, Andros Island,Bahamas and the West Palm Beach,Florida Detachment. The first sessionwill commence at 7:30 a.m. andterminate at 5:00 p.m. on January 15. Thesecond and final session will commenceat 8:00 a.m. and teminate at 12:30 p.m. onJanuary 16. All sessions of the meetingwill be closed to the public.

The purpose of the meeting is to orientthe Committee members with variousundersea testing being conducted by theDepartment of the Navy in the AtlanticOcean and discuss the status of ongoingNRAC studies and new topics to beundertaken. These matters constituteclassified information that is specificallyauthorized under criteria established byExecutive order to be kept secret m theinterest of national defense and are infact properly classified pursuant to suchExecutive order. The classified andnonclassified matters to be discussedare so inextricably intertwined as topreclude opening any portion of themeeting. Accordingly, the Secretary ofthe Navy has determined in writing thatthe public interest requires that allsessions of the meeting be closed to thepublic because they will be concernedwith matters listed in section 552b(c)(1]of title 5, United States Code.

For further information concerningthis meeting contact: Commander M.B.Kelley, U.S. Navy, Office of NavyResearch (Code 100N), 800 North QuincyStreet, Arlington, VA 22217-5000,Telephone number (202] 696-4870.

Dated: December 20,1984.William F. Roos, Jr.,Lieutenant.]AGC, U.S. Naval Reserve.Federal Register Liason Officer.[FR Doc. 84-33436 File 12-24-84; 8:45 amlBILNfG CODE 381-.AE-M

Naval Research Advisory Committee;Closed Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (5U.S.C. app.), notice is hereby given thatthe Naval Ocean Systems CenterReview Team of the Naval ResearchAdvisory Committee Panel onLaboratory Oversight will meet onJanuary 10-11, 1985, at the Naval OceanSystems Center, San Diego, California.The first session Will commence at 8:00a.m. and terminate at 5:15 p.m. onJanuary 10. The second and final sessionwill commence at 8:00 a.m. andterminate at 5:00 p.m. on January 11. Allaessions of the meeting will be closed tothe public.

The purpose of the meeting is toexamine the scientific, technical andengineering health of NOSC. The entiremeeting will consist of classified

information that is specificallyauthorized under criteria established by,Executive order to be kept secret in theinterest of national defense and is infact properly classified pursuant to suchExecutive order. The classified and -nonclassified matters to be discussedare so inextricably intertwined as topreclude opening any portion of themeeting. Accordingly, the Secretary ofthe Navy has determined in writing thatthe public interest requires that all"sessions of the meeting be closed to thepublic because they will be concernedwith matters listed in section 522(c](1) oftitle 5, United States Code.

For further information concerningthis meeting contact: Commander M.B.Kelley, U.S. Navy, Office of NavalResearch (Code 10ON), 800 North QuincyStreet, Arlington, VA 22217-5000,Telephone number (202) 696-4870. -

Dated: December 20,1984.William F. Roos, Jr.,Lieutenant.JAGC, U.S. Naval Reserve,Federal RegsterLiason Officer.[FR Doc. 84-33435 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3810-AE-M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Postsecondary Education

Business and International EducationProgram; Application Notice for NewAwards for Fiscal Year 1985

Applications are invited for newawards under the Business andInternational Education Program.

Authority for this program iscontained in sections 611, 612, and 613of Part B of Title VI of the HigherEducation Act (HEA) of 1965, asamended.(20 U.S.C. 1130-1130b)

The Secretary is authorized to makematching grants under this program toqualified institutions of highereducation.

The purposes of the awards are asfollowar

(1) To increase and promote theNation's capacity for internationalunderstanding and economic enterprise'through the provision of suitableinternational education and training forbusiness personnel in various stages ofprofessional development

(2) To promote institutional andnoninstitutional educational andtraining activities that will contribute tothe ability of United States business toprosper in an international economy.

Closing date for transmittal ofapplications: An application for a grant

award must be mailed or hand deliveredby March 5, 1985.

Applications delivered by mail: Anapplication sent by mail must beaddressed to the U.S. Department ofEducation, Application Control Center,Attention: 84.153 (Business andInternational Education Program). 400Maryland Ave., SW., Washington, D.C.20202.

An applicant must show proof ofmailing consisting of one of thefollowing:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Servicepostmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the dateof mailing stamped by the U.S. PostalService.

(3] A dated shipping label, invoice, orreceipt from a commercial carrier.

4] Any other proof of mailingacceptable to the U.S. Secretary ofEducation.

If an application is sent through theU.S. Postal Service, the Secretary doesnot accept either of the following asproof of mailing: (1) A private meteredpostmark, or (2) a mail receipt that Is notdated by the U.S. Postal Service. Anapplicant should note that the U.S.Postal Service does not uniformlyprovide a dated postmark. Before relyingon this method, an applicant shouldcheck with its local post office.

An applicant is encouraged to useregistered or at least first class mail.Each late applicant will be notified thatits application will not be considered.

Applications delivered by hand: Anapplication that is hand delivered mustbe taken to the U.S. Department ofEducation, Application Control Center,Room 5673. Regional Office Building 3,7th and D Streets, SW., Washington,D.C.

The Application Control Center willaccept a hand delivered applicationbetween 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.(Washington, D.C. time) daily, exceptSaturdays, Sundays, and Federalholidays.

An application that is hand deliveredwill not be accepted after 4:30 p.m. onthe closing date.

Program information Under theBusiness and International EducationProgram, the Secretary is authorized tomake grants to institutions of highereducation to pay up to 50 percent of thecost of projects designed to promotelinkages between institutions andAmerican businesses engaged ininternational economic activities.

The purpose of each grant is both toenhance the international academicprograms of Institutions of highereducation and to provide appropriateservices to the business community to

50070

Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

enable it to expand its capacity toengage in commerce abroad.

Under Title VI, section 612(b) of theHEA, eligible activities which theSecretary may support include, but arenot limited to, the following:

(1) Innovation and improvement ininternational education curricula toserve the needs of the businesscommunity, including development ofnew programs for nontraditional,midcareer, or part-time students.

(2) Development of programs toinform the public of increasinginternational economic interdependenceand the role of American businesswithin the international economicsystem.

(3) Internationalization of curricula atthe jumor and community college level,and at undergraduate and graduateschools of business.

(4) Development of area studiesprograms and interdisciplinaryinternational programs.

(5) Establishment of export educationprograms through cooperativearrangements with regional and worldtrade centers and councils, and withbilateral and multilateral tradeassociations.

(6) Research for and development ofspecialized teaching materials, includinglanguage materials, and facilitiesappropriate to business-orientedstudents.

(7) Establishment of student andfaculty fellowships and internships fortraimng and education in internationalbusiness activities.

(8) Development of opportunities forjunior business and other professionalschool faculty to acquire or strengtheninternational business activities.

(9) Development of research programson issues of common interest toinstitutions of higher education andprivate sector organizations andassociations engaged in or promotinginternational economic activity.

Title VI, section 612(c) of the BEArequires that an institutional granteeenter into an agreement with a businessenterprise, trade orgamzation, orassociation engaged in internationaleconomic activity, or a combination orconsortium of such enterprises,organizations, or associations, for thepurpose of establishing, developing,improving, or expanding activitieseligible for assistance under thisprogram. Section 612(c) further requireseach institutional application for a grantto be accompanied by a copy of such anagreement.

Because of the planning time requiredto develop and implement curriculadesigned to both enhance theinternational academic programs of

institutions of higher education and toprovide appropriate services to thebusiness community to enable it toexpand its capacity to engage incommerce abroad, the Secretary ofEducation is accepting applications fornew projects of up to two years'duration. Further, the Secretary stronglyencourages applicants to select thoseauthorized activities which are mostuseful in developing, enhancing, orpromoting excellence in export tradeprograms.

Available funds: The Department ofEducation 1985 Appropriation Act, Pub.L. 98-619, appropriated S26,550,000 forInternational Education and ForeignLanguage Studies. Of this total,$2,200,000 has been allocated to theBusiness and International EducationProgram. It is anticipated that about 40new awards will be made in FY 1935.The average grant would beapproximately $55,000 per year, withawards ranging from $15,000 to $120,000per year. These estimates are providedfor planning purposes and do not bindthe Department of Education to aspecific number of grants or to theamount of any grant, unless that amountis otherwise specified by statute orregulations.

Application farms: Application formsand program information packages areexpected to be ready for mailing byJanuary 8, 1985. They may be obtainedby writing to Susanna C. Easton,International Studies Branch, Center forInternational Education, U.S.Department of Education, (Room 3916,Regional Office Building 3). 400Maryland Avenue, SW., WashingtonD.C. 20202.

Applications must be prepared andsubmitted in accordance with theregulations, instructions, and formsincluded in the program informationpackage. The Secretary suqests that thenarrative portion of an application notexceed 20 pages in length. The Secretaryfurther urges that an applicant notsubmit information that is not requested.

The program information package isintended to aid applicants in applyingfor assistance under this competition.Nothing in the program informationpackage is intended to impose anypaperwork, application content,reporting, or grantee performancerequirement beyond those specificallyimposed under the statute andregulations governing the competition.The program forms are approved underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.(Approved by the Office of Managementand Budget under Control Number 1840-0068).

Applicable regulations: Regulationsapplicable to this program include thefollowing:

(a) Regulations governing the Businessand International Education Program. 34CFR Part 661, published in the FederalRegister on June12 1934.

(49 FR 24362-24354)(b) Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR]. 34CFR Parts 74, 75, 77. and 78.

Further information: For furtherinformation, contact Susanna C. Easton.International Studies Branch, Center forInternational Education. U.S.Department of Education. (Room 3916,Regional Office Building 31, 400Maryland Avenue, SWV., Washington,D.C. 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-2794.[zo U.S.c. 129-1139b}

(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceNumben .4.153-Business and InternationalEducation Program)

Dated: December 19,1934.Gary L JonesActing S cretary of Education.[FR Doc. &4-33469 Filed 12-24-84:8:45 am]EMWNG COO 40 .- O1-M

Availability of the 1984-85 NationalDefense and Direct Student LoanPrograms Directory of DesignatedLow-income Schools for TeacherCancellation Benefits

AGENCY. Department of Education.AcnON: Notice of availability of the1934-85 N'ational Dafense and DirectStudent Loan Pmrams Directory ofDesignated Low-Income Schools forTeacher Cancellation Benefits.

SUMMARY: Institutions and borrowersparticipating in the National Defenseand Direct Student Loan (NDSL]Programs and other interested personsare advised that they may obtaininformation regarding the 1934-65National Defense and Direct StudentLoon Program Directory of DesignatedLo,-Income Schools for TeacherCancellation Benefits (Directory). Undereach program. borrowers may receivecancellation for full-time teaching in aschool having a high concentration ofstudents from low-income families. TheSecretary has designated the schools forthe 1984-85 academic year and they arelisted in the DirectoryDATE: The Directory is available on orbefore December 26. 1934.ADDRESS: Information concermngspecific schools listed m the Directozymay be obtained from7Ronald IV. Allen.Campus-Based Programs-Branch,Division of Program Operations. Officeof Student Financial Assistance, U.S.

50071


Department of Education. 400 MarylandAvenue, SW. [Room 4613, ROB-3]Washington, D.C. 20202, Telephone [202)245-9640.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Directories are available in: (1) Each ofthe participating institutions of highereducation, (2) each of the fifty-seven (57)State and Trust Territory Departmentsof Education, (3) each of the majorbilling services, and (4) each of the ten(10) regional offices of the U.S.Department 0f Education (see Appendixto this notice for the addresses of theregional offices).SUPPLEM~1ENTARY INFORMATION: Theprocedures for selecting schools forcancellation benefits are described inthe NDSL program regulations (34 CFR674.53, 675.54]. The Secretary hasdetermined that for the 1984-85academic year, full-time teaching in theschools set forth in the Directoryqualifies for cancellation.

The Secretary is providing theDirectory to each institutionparticipating in the National Defenseand Direct Student Loan Programs.Borrowers and other interested partiesmay check with their lending institution,the appropriate State Department ofEducation, regional offices of theDepartment of Education, or the Officeof Student Financial Assistance of theDepartment of Education concerning theidentity of qualifying schools for the1984-85 academic year.

The Office of Student FinancialAssistance will retain, on a permanentbasis, copies of past, current, and futureDirectories.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceNumber 4.037; National Defense/DirectStudent Loan Cancellations)

Dated: December 19, 1984.-Edward M. Elmendorf,Assistant Secretary forPostsecondaryEducation.Appendix to Notice of Availability of 1984-85National Defense and Direct Student LoanPrograms Directory of Designated LowIncome Schools for Teacher CancellationBenefits

U.S. Department of Education RegionalOfficesMr. Thomas 1. O'Hare, Deputy Regional

Administrator, Region I: OSFA/ED-T&DSection, 1. W. McCormack Federal Building,Post Office and Court House, Room 510,Boston, Massachusetts 02109, (617) 223-6895. FTS: 223-6895

Sister Bernadine Hayes, Training andTechnical Assistance Specialists, Region IhOSFA/ED, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,New York 10278, (212) 264--4426. FTS: 264-4426

Mr. Harry Sweeney, Chief, Training andTechnical Assistance Unit, Region lI-OSFA/ED P.O. Box 13716 (3535 Market

Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104,(2151 596-0143. FTS: 596-0143

Ms. Judith Brantley, Assistant RegionalAdministrator for Training andDissemination, Re-oon 1V- OSFA/ED, 101Marietta Tower, Tird Floor, Atlanta,Georgia 30323, (4041 221-4171. FTS: 242-4171

Mr. Morris Osburn, Assistant RegionalAdministrator for Training andDissemination, Region V: OSFA/ED, 300South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois60606, (312) 353-8102. FTS: 353-8103

Mr. Lyndon Lee, Assistant RegionalAdministrator for Training andDissenunation, Region VI: OSFA/ED, 1200Main Tower Building. Room 1645, Dallas.Texas 75202, (214) 767-3569. FTS: 729-3569

Mr. Jerry W. Craft, Chief, TechnicalAssistance and Training Branch, RegionVII: OSFA/ED, 324 East lith Street, 18thFloor, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. (816)374-3136. FTS: 758-3136

Mr. Paul Tone, Training and DisseminationOfficer, Region VII: OSFA/ED, 1961 StoutStreets, 3rd Floor, FOB. Denver, Colorado80294, (303) 844-3676. FTS: 564-3676

Mr. Robert Dressel, Assistant RegionalAdminxstrakor for Training andDissemination, Region IX: OSFA/ED, P.OBox 337, San Francisco, California 94101,(415) 556-0137. FTS: 556-0137

Ms. Tammy Doherty, Chief, TechnicalAssistance and Training Branch, Region X:OSFA/ED, Third and Broad Avenue, MailStop 102, 2901 Third Avenue, Seattle,Washington 98121, (206) 442-4027. FTS'399-4027

[FR Doc. 84--33470 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILUINQ CODE 400-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles;Availability of the 1985 Gas MileageGuide

The Department of Energy (DOE)hereby gives notice of the availability ofthe 1985 Gas Mileage Guide. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)has issued regulations on Fuel Economy,Testing, Labelling and InformationDisclosure Procedures andRequirements (40 CFR Part 600) which,among other things, containrequirements for dealers of 1981 andlater model year automobiles and lighttrucks to have copies of a booklet, theGas Mileage Guide, available and ondisplay m their showrooms and to keepan adequate stock on hand to meetpublic demand. In the booklet,prospective purchasers will be able tofind the fuel economies of the vanousmodel velucles certified as of August 31,1984 for sale in the United States. DOEis required by section 506(b)(1) of theMotor Vehicle Information and CostSavings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), asadded by section 301 of the EnergyPolicy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.

6201 et seq.), to publish and distributethis booklet. Section 606.405-77 of theEPA regulations states that dealers willbe expected to make these bookletsavailable as soon as they are receivedby them, but in no case later than 15working days after notification is givenof booklet availability. The publicationtoday of this notice constitutes suchnotification.

The 1985 Mileage Guide is availablefor display and distribution by dealersin their showrooms. Any dealer who hasnot already received Guides from DOEor requires additional copies shouldrequest copies in writing to thefollowing address, specifying thequantity desired for the 49-State and/or,the California version:

Write: Fuel Economy Distribution,Technical Information Center,Department of Energy, P.O. Box 02, OakRidge, Tennessee 37830.

Issued in Washington, D.C., November 21,1984.Pat Collins,Acting Asststant Secretary, Conservation andRenewableEnergy.[FR Doc. 84-33457 Filed 12-24-8-; 8:45 am)aBiU cooE Fso-oI-u

Energy Information Administration

Request for Comments on theIndustrial Energy ConservatlonProgram Reporting Forms, CE-189P,C, and S

AGENCY: Energy InformationAdministration, DOE.'ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: As part of its continuingeffort to reduce paperwork andrespondent burden, the Department ofEnergy (DOE), through its EnergyInformation Adminstration (EIA3conducts a consultation program toprovide the general public with anopportunity to comment on proposedand continuing reporting forms. Thisprogram helps ensure that requesteddata can be provided in the desiredformat, reporting burden is minimized,reporting forms are clearly understood,and the impact of collectionrequirements on respondents can beproperly assessed.

At this time. EIA requests commentson the Industrial Energy ConservationProgram Reporting forms. The forms aredescribed in the SupplementaryInformation Section of this Notice.Interested persons are asked to reviewthe form and its instructions and provide

I I I

- 58072


comments to the information contactdescribed below.EFFECTIVE DATE: Written commentsmust be submitted on or before 30 daysfrom the date of publication in theFederal Register.ADDRESS: Comments should be sent toTyler E. Williams, Jr., Integrated EnergySystem Branch, Division of ImprovedEnergy Productivity, Conservation andRenewable Energy, Room 5G-063, 1000Indpedence Avenue, SW., Washington,D.C. 20585.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Edna Jones, Integrated Energy SystemsBranch, Division of Improved EnergyProductivity. Conservation andRenewable Energy, Room 5G-063, 1000Indpendence Avenue, SW. Washington.D.C. 20585. (202) 252-2455.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background.II. Comment Procedures.I. Background

DOE issued regulations n 10 CFR Part445 (45 FR 10194, February 14,1980]which set forth the requirements ofDOE's Industrial Energy ConservationProgram, as established by Part E ofTitle III of the Energy Policy andConservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L. 94--163], as amended by the NationalEnergy Conservation Policy Act(NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619). Theseregulations, in part, require certainindustrial corporations to file reports onenergy consumption and conservationand, if appropriate, recovered materialsutilization directly with DOE or, ifexempted, with sponsors of DOE-approved adequate reporting programs.

Forms CE-189P, CE-189C, and CE-189S were unplemented for thecollection of plant, corporate, andsponsor data, respectively, on industrialenergy efficiency and utilization ofenergy-savings recovered materialsunder DO.s Industrial EnergyConservation Program. These forms arefor (11 Plant reporting to corporationsrequired to report under the program(identified corporations): (2), aggregatedcorporate reporting by identifiedcorporations to DOE or DOE-approvedthird-party sponsors; and (3) third-partysponsor reporting to DOE. These formshave remained unchanged sincereception, with the most recent Office ofManagement and Budget approval toexpire in March 1985.H. Comment Procedures

EIA invites the public to providecomments on the forms within 30 daysof the date of publication of this notice.The following general guideliens are

provided to assist in the preparation ofresponses.

As a potential data providerA. Are the instructions and definitions

clear and sufficient? If not, whichinstructions require clarification?

B. Can the data be submitted using thedefinitions included in the instructions?

C. Can the data be submitted inaccordance with the reponse timespecified in the instructions?

D. How many hours, including timefor computation. preparation. andadministrative review, will it take yourfirm to complete and submit the forms-including time to design and implementADP processing programs?

E. What is the estimated cost ofcompleting these forms, including directand indirect costs associated with thedata collections? Direct costs shouldinclude all costs, such as administrativecosts, directly attributable to providingthis information.

F. How can the forms be improved?G. Do you know of other Federal.

State, or local agencies that collectsimilar data?

As a potential data userrA. Can your company analysis use

data at the levels of detail indicated onthe forms?

B. For what purposes would you usethese data? (Be specific)

C. How could the forms be imporvedmeet you specified data needs?

D. Are there alternative sources ofdata and do you now use them? Whatare their deficiencies?

EIA is also interested in receivingcomments from persons as to theirviews on the need for the collection ofthis information at all.

Comments submitted in repsonse tothis Notice will be included in therequest for Office of Management andBudget approval of this data collectionand will become a matter of publicrecord.Issued in Washington. D.C. December 19.1984.Yvonne M. Bishop,Director. Statistical Standard-. Eiwr.yInformation Adnuistration.[FR Doc. 84-33422 Filed 12-24-PA: &45 am]BILUNG CODE 6450.0-M

[Proposed Form EIA-7471

Petroleum Facility OperatorIdentification Survey

AGENCY: Energy InformationAdministration, DOE.ACTION: Request for comment onproposed Form EIA-747. "PetroleumFacility Operator Identification Survey"

SUMMARY. The Energy InformationAdministration (EIA) of the Departmentof Energy (DOE] is proposing Form EIA-747 to facilitate update of the statisticalsurvey frames of its monthly petroleumsupply data reporting system.

Form EIA-747 will be filed bypotential new respondents to EIA'smonthly surveys. Respondents to FormEIA-747 will include firms that are notpresently reporting petroleum supplydata to the EIA but which are engagedin the operation of oil wells. crude oiland petroleum product bulk storageterminals, pipelines, tankers and barges.petroleum refineries, and natural gasprocessing plants.

The Form EIA-747 will seekinformation that will enable the EIA todetermine whether each potential newrespondent uncovered through literatureresearch qualifies as an eligiblerespondent to any of six separatestatistical data surveys conducted bythe EIA each month.DATES. Written comments must bereceived by the EIA on or beforeJanuary 25,1885.ADDRESSES: Comments should b sentto Mr. Herbert L Franklin at the addresslistedbelouw.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.To obtain additional information orcopies of the proposed Form EIA-747.contact: Herbert Franklin. Office of Oiland Gas. Energy InformationAdministration. Department of Energy.MS: 21-058.1000 Independence Avenue,SW., Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-5199.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

L BackroundI. Current InformationIlL. Request for CommentsL Background

In order to fulfill its responsibilitiesunder the Federal EnergyAdministration Act of 1974 (Pub. L 93-275). and the Department of EnergyOrganization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), theDepartment of Energy (DOE] is obligedto publish, and otherwise makeavailable to the public, high-qualitystatistical data that reflects nationalpetroleum supply activity as accuratelyas possible. To meet this obligation. aswell as internal DOE requirements thatare dependent on accurate data, the EIAhas developed statistical surveys thatencompass each significant primarypetroleum supply activity in the U.S.Each survey is linked to a frame whichidentifies all known petroleum supplyentities of significance to the survey.

Because the petroleum industry is avery dynamic economic sector, new

50073


firms are continually emerging as oldfirms are discontinuing operations.Consequently, a constant effort isnecessary to maintain survey framesthat can provide a basis for high-qualitynational level statistics.

Information obtained fromrespondents to Form EIA-747 will beused to determine whether therespective EIA-747 respondents shouldbe added to pertinent EIA surveyframes.

II. Current Action

The Form EIA-747, "PetroleumFacility Operator Identification Survey",is designed to collect information aboutpotential respondents to ongoing EIApetroleum supply data surveys. It is animportant tool to be used to assurecompleteness of EIA monthly datasurveys. The form is comprised of thefollowing five schedules, each of whichis aimed at a specific segment of U.S.petroleum supply activity. Respondentswill be asked to complete only theschedule(s) which relate(s) to theirparticular type of petroleum suppliesactivity(ies).Schedule A-Terminal Operator

Identification Survey (will be used toupdate survey frames of the FormsEIA-81I and EIA-813)

Schedule B-Pipeline OperatorIdentification Survey (will be used toupdate survey frames of the FormsEIA-812 and EIA-813)

Schedule C-Tanker and BargeOperator Identification Survey (willbe used to update survey frames ofthe Form EIA-817

Schedule D-Oil Well OperatorIdentification Survey (will be used toupdate survey frames of the FormEIA-813)

Schedule E-Processing FacilityOperator Identification Survey (willbe used to update survey frames ofthe Forms EIA-810 and EIA-816).A copy of Form EIA-747 is reproduced

following this notice.

III. Request for Comments

EIA invites the public to comment onthe new form within 30 days of thepublication of this notice. The followinggeneral guidelines are provided to assistin the preparatioh of responses (as apotential respondent):

A. Are the instructions and definitionsclear and sufficient?

B. Can the data be submitted using thedefinitions included in the instructions?

C. Can the data be submitted withinthe response time specified in theinstructions?

D. How may hours, including time forpreparation and administrative review,

will your firm require to complete andsubmit a form?

E. What is the estimated cost ofcompleting this form, including thedirect and indirect costs associated withthe data collection? Direct costs shouldinclude all costs, such as administrativecosts, directly attributable to providingthis information.

F How can the form be improved?G. Do you know of other Federal,

State, or local agencies that collectsimilar data? If you do, specify theagency and the means of collection.

H. Would your company collect andorganize the data required in theproposed form if the form were notrequired?

EIA is also interested in receivingcomments from other persons regardingtheir views on the need for thecollection of this information.

Comments submitted in response tothis notice will be included in therequest for Office of Management and'Budget approval of this data collectionand will become a matter of publicrecord.

Issued in Washington, D.C. December 19,'1984.Yvonne-M. Bishop,Director, Statistical Standards, EnergyInformation Admninstration.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


[Form Approved OMB No.-(Expires7-31-85)Petroleum Facility OperatorIdentification Survey

Form EIA-747

GENERAL INFORMATION

I. Purpose

Form EIA-747 is a one time surveydesigned to obtain information onoperators of petroleum supply facilities.The information will aid in determiningwhether such operators are eligiblerespondents to Energy InformationAdministration monthly data surveys.

II. Who Must Submit

Every firm that receives Form EIA-747must fill out pertinent schedules andsubmit them to the Department ofEnergy (DOE).

III. When to Submit

Submit this form within fourteen daysof receipt.

IV Where to Submit

Send the completed form to: U.S.Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, MailStation: BG-094 Forrestal. Washington.D.C. 20585.

If you have any questions concerningthis survey, please contact Mr. HerbertL. Franklin at (202) 252-5199.

V Sanctions

Response to this survey is required bythe Federal Energy Administration Actof 1974 as amended (Pub. L. 93-275).Failure to respond may result in criminalfines, civil penalties, and other sanctionsas provided by law.

VI. Provisons for Confidentiality ofInformation

Information on this form is collectedfor respondent identification purposes,and will not be published by the DOE inindividually identifiable form. However,upon receipt of a request forindividually identifiable information, theDOE will follow the procedures listedbelow:

1. The information contained in thisform will be kept confidential to the'extent that it satisfies the criteria setforth in the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) exemption for trade secrets andconfidential commercial informationand DOE regulations implementing theFOIA, and is prohibited from publicrelease by the Trade Secrets Act, 18U.S.C. 1905.

Upon receipt of a request fordisclosure of this information tinder theFOIA, the DOE shall, in accordancewith the procedures and criteriaprovided in 10 CFR 1004.11, make a finaldetermination whether the informationis exempt from disclosure. To assist usin this determination, respondentsshould demonstrate to the DOE thattheir information constitutes tradesecrets or commercial or financialinformation whose release would belikely to cause substantial harm to theircompany's competitive position. A letteraccompanying the submission thatexplains (on an element-by-elementbasis, if possible) the reasons why theinformation would be likely to cause therespondent substantial competitiveharm if released to the public would aidin this determination. A newjustification does not need to beprovided each time information issubmitted on the form, if the companyhas previously submitted a justificationfor that information and the justificationhas not changed.

2. Requests from other Federalagencies for information from this formshall be evaluated in accordance withthe DOE Policy on the Disclosure ofIndividually Identifiable EnergyInformation in the Possession of Ilia EIA145 FR 59812 (1980)1. Respondents shouldbe aware that the information is alsosubject to release to State agencies for

I50074

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26, 1984 / Notices

limited purposes and when the State canassure protection of the informationfrom any further release.

3. Except as otherwise provided bylaw, theinformation will also be madeavailable in response to an order of aCourt of competent jurisdiction, or uponwritten request, to the Congress, anyCommittee of Congress, the GeneralAccounting Office, or otherCongressional agencies authorized bylaw to receive such information

INSTRUCTIONS

Item and Instruction

All-Refer to the form. Questions areself-explanatory. If more space isrequired for your answer to a specificitem, continue on an attached sheeLU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYEnergy Information Admmstration[Form Approved OMB No. [Expzres 7-31-85))

Terminal Operator Identification'Survey

This report is mandatory under Pub. L93-275. Failure to comply may result incrminal fines, civil penalties and othersanctions as provided by law. For theprovisions concerning theconfidentiality of information submittedon this form, see Section VI of theinstructions.

la. Does your firm or any parent orsubsidiary of your firm operate storagefacilities with total capacity in excess of1,000 barrels dedicated to crude oilstorage in the 50 states or the District ofColumbia?-Yes .. Answer lb- No Skip to 3

lb. Does your firm or any other firmpresently report the stocks held at thesestorage facilities on the EIA-813 survey"Monthly Crude Oil Report"? (Mark "X"in the appropriate space]-All operated facilities are reported

for by own firm.-All operated facilities are reported

for by another firm(s) (Provide thename and address of the reportingfirm(s) and its relation to your firmm the space provided below).

-- Some operated facilities arereported for by own firm (Indicatein the space provided below whichfacilities are reported for, by typeand location. Also provide a list ofany facilities (by type and location)for which data are not reported].

-S ome operated facilities arereported for by another firm(s)Indicate in the space providedbelow which facilities are reportedfor by type alid location, and

provide the name and address ofthe reporting firm. Also provide alist of any facilities, by type andlocation, for which data are notreported).

-Data are not reported for operatedfacilities.

2a. Enter the volume of total crude oilstocks held at terminal facilitiesoperated by your firm on January 31.1984.

barrels2b. Enter the volume of total crude oil

storage capacity at facilities operated byyour firm on January 31,1984.

barrels3a. DEFINITION.Bulk terminals means a facility which

is primarily used for storage and/ormarketing of petroleum products(excluding storage facilities required byend-users of these products), and which(1) hap a total bulk storage capacity of50,000 barrels or more, or (2) receives itspetroleum products by tanker, barge orpipeline, regardless of terminal size.Bulk terminal facilities associated withproduct pipelines are included.

Does your firm or a parent orsubsidiary of your firm operate any bulkterminals in the 50 states, the District ofColumbia, Puerto Rico, or the VirginIslands according to the abovedefinition of "bulk terminar'?- Yes Answer3b- No .SIap to 5

3b Does your firm or any other flrmpresently report the stocks held in theseterminals on the EIA-811 survey,"Monthly Bulk Terminal Report!'? (Mark"" in the appropriate box).-All operated facilities are reportedfor by own firm.

-All operated facilities are reportedfor by another firm(s) (Provide thename and address of the reportingfirm(s) in the space providedbelow).

-- Some operated facilities arereported for by own firm (Indicatein the space provided below whichfacilities are reported, by type andlocation. Also provide a list of anyfacilities (by type and location) forwhich data are not reported).

-- Some operated facilities arereported for by another fim(s)(Indicate in the space providedbelow which facilities are reportedfor, by type and location, andprovide the name and address ofthe reporting firm(s). Also provide alist of any facilities, by 4pe andlocation, for which data are notreported).

--- No operated facilities are reported.

4. Enter the volume of total petroleumproduct storage capacity at bulktermnal facilities operated by your firmon January 31,1934.

barrels5a. Does your firm conduct any kind

of blending operation at, or inconjunction with, bulk terminals?- Yes Answer 5b- No Skip to 6

5b. What type of blending operationsdoes your firm perform?- On-site blending.- In-transit blending.-Remote blending at retail site.- Other. (Elaborate in the space

provided below).

6. Complete Name of Your Firm

7. Complete Address of Your Firm

8. Name of Contact Person forAdditional Information about Your Firm

9. Telephone No. (Include area code]

If you would be filing any requiredEIA reports for related firms, or ifarelated firm may be filing for you.answer 10, 11. or 12 below, asapplicable. Otherwise, skip tocertification and signature blocks.

10. If your firm is the parent of otherfirms operating crude oil or petroleumproduct pipelines, provide the names,addresses, and telephone numbers ofthese subsidiaries. Indicate if the parentfirm (P) or subsidiary firm (S] would fileany required reports. Indicate if thesubsidiary operates crude oil (C) orpetroleum products (P] storage facilities.

£1r c 11 ___ C

(4)

11. I your firm is a subsidiary company

and vould not be filing any required

reports for itself, provide the name,address, and telephone number of the

50075


parent company that would file requiredreports.NameTelephone No. (Include area code)Address

12. If your firm would be reporting forany other company holdings, providetheir names, address, and telephonenumbers.

Telephone No.Firm name Address (include area

code)

(1)

(2)

(3)

CERTIFICATION: I certify that theinformation provided herein andappended hereto is true and accurate tothe best of my knowledge.

Typed or Printed Name of Person Filling OutFormTitleSignatureDate (Month, Date, Year)

Title 18, U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crimefor any person knowingly and willinglyto make to any Agency or Department ofthe United States any false, fictitious orfraudulent statements as to any matterwithin its jurisdiction.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Form Approved OMB No.- (Expireg 7-31-85

Pipeline Operator Identification Survey

This report is mandatory under Pub. L93-275. Failure to comply may result incriminal fines, civil penalties, and othersanctions as provided by law. For theprovision concerning the confidentialityof information submitted on this formsee Section VI of the instructions.

1, Does your firm or a parent orsubsidiary of your firm operate apipeline or pipelines moving crude oiland/or petroleum products (includingNGLs) in the 50 states and the District ofColumbia? (Mark "X" in the appropriatespace)-Yes, crude oil Pipeline(s) only

(Answer 2, then skijl to 5 andanswer all pertinent questions). o

- Yes, petroleum products pipeline(s)only (Skip to 3 and answer allpertinent questions).

-- Yes, both crude oil and petroleumproducts pipeline(s) (Answer 2 andall other pertinent questions).

-No (Skip to 5 and answer allpertinent questions).

2. Does your firm or any other firmpresently report the crude oil stocksheld in the operated pipeline(s), workingtanks, tank farms, and terminals on theEIA-813 survey "Monthly Crude OilReport"? (Mark "X" in the appropriatespace)- All operated facilities are reported

for by our firm.-All operated facilities are reported

for by another firm(s) (Provide thename and address of the reportingfirm(s) and its relation to your firmin the space provided below).

-Same operated facilities arereported for by own firm (Indicatein the space-provided below whichfacilities are reported for, by typeand location. Also provide a list ofany facilities (by type and location)for which data are not reported).

-Some operated facilities arereported for by another firm(s)(Indicate in the space providedbelow which facilities are reportedfor, by type and location, andprovide the name and address ofthe reporting firm(s). Also provide alist of any facilities, by type andlocation, for which data are'notreported).

- Data are not reported for operatedfacilities.

3. Does your firm or any other firmpresently report the petroleum productsstocks held in the operated productspipeline(s) and its (their) working tankson the EIA-812 survey: "MonthlyProduct Pipeline Report" (Mark "X" inthe appropriate space)- Reported by own firm.- Reported by another firm (Provide

the name and'address of thereporting firm and its relation toyour firm in the space providedbelow).


4a. DEFINITIONBulk terminal means a facility which

is primarily used for storage and/ormarketing of petroleum products(excluding storage facilities required byend-users of these products), and which(1) has a total bulk storage capacity of50,000 barrels or more, or (2) receives itspetroleum products by tanker, barge orpipeline, regardless of terminal size.Bulk terminal facilities associated withproduct pipelines are included.

Does your firm or a parent orsubsidiary of your firm operate any bulkterminals in the 50 states, the District ofColumbia, Puerto Rico, or the VirginIslands according the above definitionof "bulk terminal"?

- Yes Answer 4b- No Skip to 5.

4b. Does your firm or any oilier firmpresently report the stocks held in theseterminals on the EIA-811 survey,"Monthly Bulk Terminal Report"? (Mark"X" in the appropriate space)

- All operated facilities are reportedby own firm.

- All operated facilities are reportedfor by another firm(s) (Provide thename and address of the rqportingfirm in the space provided below).

- Some operated facilities arereported by own firm (Indicate Inthe space provided below whichfacilities are reported for, by typeand location. Also provide a list ofany facilities (by type and location)for which data are not reported].

-Some operated facilities arereported by another firm(s)(Indicate in the space providedbelow which facilities are reportedfor, by type and location, andprovide the name and address ofthe reporting firm. Also provide alist of any facilities, by type andlocation, for which data are notreported).


4c. Enter the volume of totalpetroleum product storage capacity atbulk terminal facilities operated by yourfirm on January 31, 1984.

barrels



7 Name of Contact Person forAdditional Information about Your Firm

8. Telephone No. (Include area code)

If you would be filing any requiredEIA reports for related firms, or if arelated firm may be filing for you,answer 9,10, or 11 below, as applicable.Otherwise, skip to certification andsignature blocks.

9. If your firm is the parent of otherfirms operating crude oil or petroleumproduct pipelines, provide the names,addresses, and telephone numbers ofthese subsidiaries. Indicate if the parentfirm (P) or subsidiary firm (S) would fileany required reports. Indicate if thesubsidiary operates crude oil (C] orpetroleum products (P) storage facilities.

50076


10. If your firm is a subsidiarycompany and would not be filing anyrequired reports for itself, provide thename, address, and telephone number ofthe parent company that would filerequired reports.NameTelephone No. (Include area code)Address

It-If your firm would be reporting for,any other company holdings, providetheir names, address, and telephonenumbers.

T:eponte No.Firm name Address (cdude ea

code)

(2)

(3)


Typed orPrmted Name of Person Filling OutFormTitleSignatureDate (Month, Date, Year)

Title 18, U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crimefor any person knowingly and willinglyto make to any Agency or Department ofthe United States any false, fictitious orfraudulent statements as to any matterwithin its jurisdiction.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYEnergy Information Administration

[Form Approved OMB No. - FExpires7-31-85)Tanker and Barge OperatorIdentification Survey

This report is mandatory under Pub. L93-275: Failure to comply may result incriminal fines, civil penalties, and othersanctions as provided by law. For theprovisions concerning the

confidentiality of information submittedon this form see Section VI of theinstructions.

1. Does your firm or any parent orsubsidiary firm have custody of crudeoil or petroleum products (includingNGLs) transported domestically,transported from the U.S. to the PanamaCanal Zone, or dorestically-orgmnatingpetroleum transported from the PanamaCanal Zone to the U.S. by tanker orbarge? (Custody of crude oil orpetroleum products is considered to restwith the firm owning the tanker orbarge, except in the case of a charteredor leased vessel operated by the lessee.in which case the lessee is considered tohave custody. For example, in the caseof a bareboat charter or lease, the lesseewould be considered to have custody ofthe petroleum.)-Yes Answer 2- No Skip to 3

2. Does your firm or any other firmpresently report any movements ofcrude oil and petroleum products on theEIA-817 survey "Monthly Tanker andBarge Movement Report"? (Mark "X" inthe appropriate space)- Not reported.- Reported by own firm.- Reported by own firm.- Reported by another firm (Provide

the name of the firm and its relationto your firm in the space providedbelow).

3. Does (do) and firm(s) currentlyoperate tankers or tank barges leased orchartered from your firm that aresuitable for moving crude oil orpetroleum products?- Yes (Provide the names and

addresscs of such firms in the spacebelow).

-No

Firm am.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)




7 Telephone No. (Include area code)

f you would be filing any requiredEIA reports for related firms, or ifarelated firm may be filing for you,answer 8. 9. or I0 below, as applicable.Otherwise. skip to certification andsignature blocks.

8. If your firm is the parent of otherfirms operating crude oil or petroleumproduct pipelines, provide the names,addresses, and telephone numbers ofthese subsidiaries. Indicate if the parentfirm (P) or subsidiary firm (S) would fileany required reports. Indicate if thesubsidiary operates crude oil CC] orpetroleum products (P] storage facilities.

Tce-

oizr Vao wrr Typ~e C

(? crS)ccdl)_____

(4)

9. If your firm is a subsidiary companyand would not be filing any requiredreports for itself, provide the name,address, and telephone number of theparent company that would file requiredreports.NameTehephonm No. (In-Jude area code]Address


Teies, ecer nF-- r--~ Ae&r =a. cc~4)

CERTIFICATION: I certify that theinrormation provided herein andappended hereto is true and accurate tothe best of my knowledge.

Typed or Printed Name of Person Filling OutFormTitle

50077


SignatureDate (Month, Date, Year)

Title 18, U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crimefor any person knowingly and willinglyto make to any Agency or Department ofthe United States any false, fictitious orfraudulent statements as to any matterwithin its jurisdiction.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYEnergy Information Admimstration[Form Approved OMB No. - Expires7-31-851

Crude Oil Well Operator's StorageIdentification Survey

This report is mandatory under Pub. L.93-275. Failure to comply may result incriminal fines, civil penalties, and othersanctions as provided by law. For theprovisions concerning theconfidentiality of information submittedon this form see Section VI of theinstructions.

1. Does your firm or any parent orsubsidiary of your firm operate crude oilstorage facilities with total capacity inexcess of 1,000 barrels in the 50 states orthe District of Columbia.- Yes Answer 2a- No Skip to 3

2a. Does your firm or any other firmpresently report the stocks held at thesestorage facilities on the EIA-813 survey"Monthly Crude Oil Report"? (Mark "X"in the appropriate space)- All operated facilities are reported

for by own firm.- All operated facilities are reported

for by another form(s) (Provide thename and address of the reportingfirm(s) and its relation to your firmin the space provided below).

-Some operated facilities arereported for by own firm (Indicatein the space provided below whichfacilities are reported for, by typeand location. Also provide a list ofany facilities (by type and location)for which data are not reported).

-Some operated facilities arereported for by another firm(s)(Indicate in space provided belowwhich facilities are reported for, bytype and location, and provide thename and address of the reportingfirm(s). Also provide a list of anyfacilities, by type and location, forwhich data are not reported.


2b. Enter crude oil stock levels held atfacilities operated by your firm onJanuary 31, 1984.

barrels(lease stocks)

barrels(pipeline/tank farm stocks)

2c. Enter the total capacity of crude oilstorage at facilities operated by yourfirm on January 31, 1984.

barrels





If you would be filling any requiredEIA reports for related firms, or if arelated firm may be filing for you,answer 7, 8, or 9 below, as applicable.Otherwise, skip to certification andsignature blocks.

7 If your firm is the parent of otherfirms operating crude oil or petroleumproduct pipelines, provide the names,addresses, and telephone numbers ofthese subsidiaries. Indicate if the parentfirm (P) or subsidiary firm (S) would fileany required reports. Indicate if thesubsidiary operates crude oil (C) orpetroleum products (P) storage facilities.

Tele- TTpephone Who

Sub- No. will sotr-sidiay dress (in- report? agename clude (P or facility

area 5) (c orcode) P)

(3)

(4)

(5)

8. If your firm is a subsidiary companyand would not be filing any requiredreports for itself, provide the name,address, and telephone number of theparent company that would file requiredreports.NameTelephone No. (Include area code)Address


Telephone No.Firm name Address (include area

code)

(2)

(2)

Telephone NoFirm name Address (include area

code)

(3)


Typed or Printed name of Person Filling OutFormTitleSignatureDate (Month, Date, Year)

Title 18, U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crimefor any person knowingly and willinglyto make to any Agency or Department ofthe United States any false, fictitious, orfraudulent statements as to any matterwithin its jurisdiction.

U.S; Department of EnergyEnergy Information Administration[Form Approved OMB No. Expires 7-31-85]Processing Facility OperatorIdentification Survey

This report is mandatory under Pub, L.93-275. FailurZ to comply may result Incriminal fines, civil penalties, and othersanctions as provided by law. For theprovisions concerning theconfidentiality of information submittedon this form see Section VI of theinstructions.

Ia. Does your firm or any parent orsubsidiary of your firm operatepetroleum refining facilities and/orpetroleum blending plants located in the50 States, the District of Columbia,Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,Hawaiian Foreign Trade Zone, and

.Guam?-'Yies Answer lb- No Skip to 2

lb Does your firm or any firmpresently report data on the petroleumsupply operations taking place at theseprocessing facilities on the EIA-810survey "Monthly Refining Report"?(Mark "X' in the appropriate space)- All operated facilities are reported

for by own firm.- All operated facilities are reported

for by another firm(s) (Provide thename and address of the reportingfirm(s) and its relation to your firmin the space provided below).

-Some operated facilities arereported for by own firm (Indicatein the space provided below whichfacilities are reported for, by typeand location. Also provide a list ofany facilities (by type and location]for which data are not reported).

In=.=' II I I r , -- -50078

Federal Register I VoL 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

--- Some operated facilities arereported for by another firm[s)1Indicate in the space providedbelow which facilities are reportedfor, by type andlocation. andprovide the name and address ofthe reporting firm(s). Also provide alist of any facilities, by type andlocation, for which data are notreported).


2a. Does your firm or a parent orsubsidiary of your firm operate facilitiesthat extract liquid hydrocarbons from anatural gas stream (natural gasprocessing plant) andlor separate aliqmd hydrocarbon stream into itscomponent products (fractionation) thatis located m the S0 States, District ofColumbia, Puerto Rico, the VirginIslands, Hawaiian Foreign Trade Zone,and Guam?- Yes Answer 2b-No . Skip to 3

2b Does your firm or any firmpresently report data on the extractionor separation activities taking place atthese facilities on the EIA-86 survey"Monthly Natural Gas Iiquids Report"?(Mark X" m the appropnate space)-All operated facilities arq reported

for by own firm.-All operated facilities are reported

for by another firm(s) (Provide thename and address of the reportingfirm in the space provided below).

--- Some operated facilities arereported for by own firm [Indicatein the space provided below whichfacilities are reported for, by typeand location. Also provide-a list ofany facilities {by type and location)for which data are not reported).

-- Some operated facilities arereported for by another firm(s)[Indicate in the space providedbelow which facilities are reportedfor, by type and location, andprovide the name and address ofthe reporting firm. Also provide alist of any facilities, by type andlocation, for which data are notreported).




5. Name of Contact Person forAdditional Information About Your Firm


If you would be filing anyrequiredEIA reports for related firms, or if arelated firm may be filing for you.answer 7. 8, or 9 below, as applicable.Otherwise, slop to certification andsignature block.

7. If your frm is the parent of otherfirms operating crude oil or petroleumproduct pipelines, provide the names.addresses, and telephone numbers ofthese subsidiaries. Indicate if the parentfirn (P) or subsidiary firm (S) would fileany required reports. Indicate if thesubsidiary operates crude oil (C) orpetroleum products (P) storage facilites.

US Wh-o TrSub- -1V N *. w 1i sr

name cude (P Lw.4Y

code)

(3)

(4)

8. If your firm is a subsidiary companyand would not be filing any requiredreports for itself provide the name.address, and telephone number of theparent company that would file requiredreports.NameTelephone No. [Include area code)Address


Fim r.wm Ad*em te

C"O

(2)

(3) 1_ _ _ _ _


Typed or Pnnted Name of Person Filling OutFormTitleSignatureDate VMonth. Date. Year)

Title 18, U.S.C. 1001 makes it a crimefor any person knowingly and willinglyto make to any Agency orDepartmnent ofthe United States any false, fictitious, orfraudulent statements as to any matterwithin its junsdiction.

[FR Dm &:-33421 Filead IZ-24--8; Q4S am]Sti.WG CODE 6450.01-U

Federal Energy Regulatory

CommLsslon

[Docket No. CP82-542-010]

ANR Pipeline Co4 Petition To Amend

December ig. 1934.Take notice that on December 11,

1984, ANR Pipeline Company(Petitioner), 500 Renaissance Center,Detroit. Nichigan 48243, filed in DocketNo. CP82-542-01O a petition to amendthe order issued October 31, 1984, inDocket No. CP82--542-009 pursuant tosection 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act so asto authorize the extension of the term ofsaid order from January 31.1985, toOctober 31, 1985, all as more fully setforth in the p tition to amend which ison file with the Commission and open topublic inspection.

Petitioner states that by the order ofOctober 31, 1934. the Commissionextended, by three months, the shorterterm which it had authorized in theCommission order dated August 211984. Petitioner states that it began salesunder Rate Schedule DF-1 in October194 and thus has had two months ofexperience. October and N'ovember1984. Petitioner states that it has filed itsreport of operations of October 193- andwould file its report for November 1934in the near future. It is stated that theOctobar report shows thatRateSchedule DF-1 sales were 809,733 dtequivalent of gas in that month. It mstated that those sales could not havebeen made under Petitioner's "regular"rate schedules so that the existence ofRate Schedule DF-1 was vital to thedistributors vhich needed to utilize it. Itis further stated that thos_ sales resultedm credits toAccountNo. 191-fr thebenefit of all of Petitioner's customers-of $433,5.03 in October alone-

Petitioner asserts that the substantialdirect credit for customers is in additionto the reduction in take or pay carryingcosts which were produced by thosesales: Each dt sold saved carrying costson a dt of take or pay prepayments. It isasserted that this carrying cost saving isabout 60 cents per dt or almost another$500,000 of cuotomerbenefit for Octoberalone. It is further asserted that becauseof the take or pay "tracking" provision

50079


in Petitioner's currently effective ratesettlement the benefit of that lesseramount of carrying costs is fully andpromptly realized by all of Petitioner'scustomers.

Petitioner states that during the periodNovember 1, 1982, through April 30,1983, when Petitioner was permitted tooperate pursuant to temporary authorityunder a version of Rate Schedule DF-1,Petitioner made sales of 13,600,000 Mcfof gas. It is asserted that those were alsosales which would not have been madehad Petitioner been unable to offer thediscount rate allowed to its ctistomers.Petitioner states that this was alsoattested to by the study of the marketsby Petitioner and its distributorcustomers and by the affidavits of theend users.

Petitioner states that it is motivated tobe sure that no end user would receive adiscount rate if that user wouldpurchase gas which the distributor buysfrom Petitioner under its other rateschedules because Petitioner losesmargin which it needs to cover its fixedcosts. However, it is stated, when thesale would not be made i'n the absenceof a discount rate then retaining suchsale under the standards of RateSchedule DF-1 helps the distributor (bycontributing its own margin) and helpsall distributors and consumers served byPetitioner (by absorbing fixed costs ofPetitioner which would not otherwise beabsorbed reducing Petitioner's take orpay carrying costs, and by assistingPetitioner in its make-up of take or payprepayments so none would be-forfeited). Thus, it is argued, it isimportant that Rate Schedule DF-1remain in effect.

It is asserted that even thoughPetitioner was required to utilize a "single fixed rate to make the sales notedabove under Rate Schedule DF-1 in thesix-month 1982-83 temporary period,substantial sales of gas were madewhich would not otherwise have beenmade, substantial margin dollars werecredited to Account No. 191, and thetake or pay situation was greatly helped.It is stated that when that temporaryperiod expired one of Petitioner'scustomers-Michigan Consolidated GasCompany (Mich Con)-stepped in andmade sales at somewhat above itsvariable cost of gas from Petitioner toother customers of Petitioner for "DF-1type end users" It is stated that thosesales began about May 1, 1983, andamounted to over 25,000,000 Mcf in theyear ending April 30, 1984 that suchsales continued to September 30, 1984,and that Petitioner's DF-1 sales resumedin October. Therefore, it is asserted that

the need for a Rate Schedule DF-1 typeof discount rate continues to exist to asignificant degree. Petitioner states thatthe commitment of Mich Con to sell suchgas to Petitioner's other customers hasexpired and Mich Con has ceased suchsales. Accordingly, it is asserted thatextension of Petitioner's authorization tomake sales under Rate Schedule DF-1beyond January 31,1985, is the only waythat Petitioner's customers can continueto receive the service they need. It isstated such service has the effect ofreducing costs to all consumers servedby Petitioner's gas by retaining as gasconsumers those end users which wouldonly buy gas if Rate Schedule DF-1 isavailable.

Petitioner states that the order ofAugust 21, 1984, describes benefits ofRate Schedule DF-1 sales and that orderappropriately authorized service underthat rate schedule. It is further statedthat the reasons why such service wasauthorized also apply to extension of theservice beyond January 31,1985,including:

(1) Gas sales would be reclaimed fromother fuels for Petitioner and itscustomers, and sales which otherwisebe lost would be retained.

(2) The margin realized on the salesby Petitioner, over its variable costscaused by the sales, would reduce thegas costs of all Petitioner's customersand the consumers they serve byabsorbing fixed costs of Petitionerwhich such customers and consumerswould otherwise pay.

(3) At the distribution company level,Petitioner's customers would similarlyderive margins which can serve to offsettheir fixed costs which consumerswould otherwise pay.

(4) The costs of Petitioner, itsdistributors;-, and all consumers would bereduced by decreasing take or payprepayments, and/or allowing fastermakeup, both of which would reducecarrying costs which Petitioners nowtracks or otherwise recovers pursuant tosettlement. Greater sales also helpnegate the possibility of loss throughfailure to be able to make-upprepayments and through damagesbecause of undertakes. Petitioner statesit still has significant balance of take orpay prepayments outstanding and woulduntil the late 1980's at least.

(5) No customers of Petitioner, orconsumers served by such customers,can be hurt because only sales whichwould not otherwise be made areeligible for Rate Schedule DF-1.

Petitioner asserts that it is extremelyimportant that its customers be able toinform their large volume customers

who would buy gas under Rate ScheduleDF-1, or not at all, that the rate schedulewould be available to those who qualifyfor a reasonably extended period oftime. It is stated that approvals for twomonths and three months are simply tooshort to confer maximum benefits to allcustomers and there is no valid reasonfor continuing such short termapprovals.

Petitioner states it has soughtapproval through October 31, 1985-fora period of nine months-because it isaware that authorization of "specialmarketing programs" by theCommission expires at that date, andthe Commission has been, apparently,keeping the termination of various"marketing" programs equivalent,

Petitioner states it has been andcontinues to be engaged in efforts toreduce its own costs and its cost of gas,It is stated that negotiations withproducers continue and have been most'effective where higher levels of takescan be used to secure reduced rates.Thus, Petitioner states it needs to beable to maximize sales to the greatestextent possible, for that reason, as wellas to achieve the other goals describedabove. However, Petitioner states itsauthorized commodity charge is not lowenough to compete against other fuels Inall instances. Thus, it is asserted, RateSchedule DF-1 is essential, ifPetitioner's customers are to avoid theextra carrying costs, and gain the creditsto Account No. 191 and other benefitswhich DF-1 sales produce. It is alsostated that it is vital that end users notbe driven to other fuels, and thus be lostby the gas market, possibly for anextended period. Therefore, Petitionerrequests approval of service beextended to October 31, 1985.

Any person desiring to be heard or tomake any protest with reference to saidpetition to amend should on or beforeJanuary 8, 1985, file with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission,Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion tointervene or a protest in accordancewith the requirements of theCommission's Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.Z11]and the Regulations under the NaturalGas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protestsfiled with the Commission will beconsidered by it in determining theappropriate action to be taken but willnot serve to make the protestantsparties to the proceeding. Any personwishing to become a party to aproceeding or to participate as a party inany hearing therein must file a motion to

I I I I I I I ' I

50080

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 1 Notices

intervene in accordance with theCommission's Rules.Kenneth F. Plumb.Secretary.[FR Doc.33406 Filed 12-24-84:8:45 am]BILUMG CODE 717-041-M

[Docket No. ER80-344-000; ER81-538-000]

Carolina Power and Light Co.;Termination

December 18, 1984.Take notice that on December 7-1984.

Carolina Power and Light Company(CP&L) submitted for filing a request fortermination of Docket No. ER80-344-000and ER81-538-000.

CP&L states that he issues of spentnuclear fuel costs and tax normalizationhave been resolved and do not requireany additional refunds by the companyand that no additional issues related tothe settlement in these dockets remain.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 825North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,D.C. 20426. in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,385.214). All such motions or protestsshould be filed on or before January 3,1985. Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a petition tointervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33407 Filed 12-24-84; &45 am]BILLlNG CODE 6717-01--

[Project No.7671-0021

County of Davie, NC; Surrender ofPreliminary Permit

December 18, 1984.Take notice that the County of Davie,

North Carolina, Permittee for theproposed Cooleemee Dam Project No.7671, requested by letter datedNovember 15,1984, that its preliminarypermit be terminated. The preliminarypermit was issued on July 24.1984. andwould have expired on December 31,1985. The project would have beenlocated on the Yadkin River in DavieCounty. North Carolina.

The Permittee filed the request onNovember 16. 1984. and the preliminarypermit for Project No. 7671 shall remain

in effect through the thirtieth day afterissuance of this notice unless that day isa Saturday, Sunday or holiday asdescribed in 18 CFR 385.2007. in whichcase the permit shall remain in effectthrough the first business day followingthat day. New applications involvingthis project site, the extent provided forunder 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed on thenext business day.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secralory[FR Doc. 84-33408 Filed 12-24-84: &AS ailBILLING CODE M717-M

[Docket No. ER85-173-000l

Gulf States Utilities Co; Filing

December 1B. 1984.The filing Company submits the

following:Take notice that on December 10,

1984, Gulf States Utilities Company("Gulf States") tendered for filing aPower Interconnection Agreementbetween it and the City of Lafayette.Louisiana. Gulf States indicates that theAgreement provides for services at theparties' standard rates and terms forsuch services.

According to Gulf States, a copy ofthe filing was served upon the PubliDUtility Commission of Texas. theLouisiana Public Service Commission.and the City of Lafayette. Louisiana.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission. 825North Capitol Street, NE., Washington.D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 305.211,385.214). All such motions or protestsshould be filed on or before January 3,1985. Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretory.[FR Doc. 8-32403 Filed 12-24-34: 15 amlBILLING CODE 6717-01-"

[Docket No. CP85-134-0001

Ozark Gas Transmission System;Application

December19.1984.Take notice that on November 28,

1984. Ozark Gas Transmission System

(Ozark). First City Center. 1700 PacificAvenue. Dallas, Texas 75201. filed inDocket No. CP85-134-000 an applicationpursuant to section 7 of the Natural GasAct and Subpart F of Part 157 of theCommssion's Regulations for a blanketcertificate of public convenience andnecessity authorizing the constructionand abandonment of facilities and thetransportation of gas, all as more fullyset forth in the application which is onfile with the Commis.lon and opentopublic inspection.

Ozark states the requestedauthorization would enable Ozark toreceive natural gas which would bepurchased by Ozark's shippers fromproducers or similar sellers andtransported by Ozark for such shippers,to transport gas on an interruptible basisfor third parties and to construct andabandon facilities. Ozark also indicatesit does not seek authorization to makeany sales or to provide storage servicepursuant to §§ 157.,10 and 157213.respectively. of the Comnussion'sRegulations. Ozark also indicates itwould negotiate individualtransportation charges but in no casewould those charges be less than thecommodity rate contained in the then-effective Sheet Number 5 of Ozark sFERC Gas Tariff Original Vol.me No. I.

Any person de.rning to be heard or tomake any p:otest with reference to saidapplication should on or before January8.1985. file vith the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission. Washington.D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or aprotest in cccodance with therequirements of the Commission's Rulesof Practice arl Procedure (18 CFR385.214 or 385211) and the Regulationsunder the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR157.10). All protests filed with theCoinmassion vill be considered by it indetermining the appropriate action to betaken but Lill not serve to make theprotcstants parties to the proceeding-Any person wishing to become a partyto a proceeding or to participate as aparty in any hearinl therein must file amotion to intervene in accordance withthe Commisston's Rules.

Take further notice that. pursuant tothe authority contained in and subject tothe jurisdiction conferred upon theFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionby secticns 7 and 15 of the Natural GasAct and the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure, a hearing w'llbe held without further notice before theCommission or its designee on thisapplication if no motion to intervene isfiled within the time required herein, ifthe Commission on its own review of thematter finds that a grant of thecertificate and permission and approval

50081


for the proposed abandonment arerequired by the public convenience andnecessity. If a motion for leave tointervene is timely filed, or if theCommission on its own motion believesthat a formal hearing is required, furthernotice of such hearing will be dulygiven.

Under the procedure herein providedfor, unless otherwise advised, it will beunnecessary for Ozark to appear or berepresented at the hearing.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33410 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket No. EL85-15-000]

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire;Petition for Declaratory Order

December 18,1984.Take notice that on December 11,

1984, the Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire (PSNH) submitted forfiling a petition for a declaratory orderpursuant to Rule 207 of theCommission's Rules of Practice andProcedure.

PSNH requests that the Commissionissue an order declaring that theproposed September 30, 1986termination of service proposed by Exterand Hampton Electric Company andConcord Electric Company is unjust,unreasonable and contrary to the publicinterest.

PSNH further requests that theproposal be declared a nullity and that anew date for termination be establishedconsistent with sections 1 and 2 of thecontract and, sections 205 and 206 of theFederal Power Act.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 825North Capitol Sstreet, NE., Washington,D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,385.214). All such motions or protestsshould be filed on or before January 14.1985. Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing to-become a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.

Kenneth F. Plumb,Searetary.

[FR Doc. 84-33411 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket No. CP84-429-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.,Informal Settlement Conference

December 18,1984.Take notice that on January 3, 1985, at

10:00 a.m., an informal settlementconference will be convened.in theabove-captioned matters. Theconference will be held at the offices ofthe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 825 North Capitol Street,NE, Washington, D.C. 20426.

All interested parties and CommissionStaff are invited to attend; however,attendance at the conference will notconfer party status. Any person wishingto become a party to these proceedingsmust file a Motion to Intervene inaccordance with Rule 214 of theCommission's Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.214).

For further information contactDemetrios G. Pulas, Jr., Office of theGeneral Counsel, Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 825 NorthCapitol Street, NE, Washington, D.C.20426, (202) 357-8274.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33412 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket No. GT85-5-001]

ANR Pipeline Co., Proposed Changesin FERC Gas Tariff

December 19,1984.Take notice on December 11, 1984,

ANR Pipeline Company ("ANR")tendered for filing Substitute OriginalSheet No. 1, Original Sheet Nos. 43through 45 and a tariff sheet reservingSheet Nos. 46 through 53 for future useto its F.E.R.C. Gas Tariff, OriginalVolume No. 1.

ANR states that on November 21,1984, ANR filed with the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission ("Commission")Original Sheet Nos. 1 through 115 to itsF.E.R.C. Gas Tariff, Original Volume No.1 to be effective November 1, 1984. Thesole purpose of the said filing was toreflect ANR's new corporate name inlieu of its former name, MichiganWisconsin Pipe Line Company, asapproved by the Commission's NoticeRedesignation issued May 16, 1984 atDocket No. G-669-000 et al.

ANR further states that the November21,1984 filing did not include RateSchedule AIC-1 for inclusion in thetariff because ANR had establishedrepresentative levels of short-termtransportation revenues in Docket No.RP82-80 et al., approved by theCommission on January 10, 1984, and

therefore is not eligible to retain anAdditional Incentive Charge (AIC).However, the Commission Staff advisedANR that Rate Schedule AIC-1 shouldbe included in ANR's Original VolumeNo. 1 F.E.R.C. Gas Tariff and ANR nowrecognizes its omission by this filing.

ANR further states that copies of thisfiling were served upon its jurisdictioncustomers and interested statecommissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petitionto intervene or to protest with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,825 North Capitol, NE., Washington.D.C. 20426, in acdordance with Rule 211or Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385,211.385.214). All such petitions or protestsshould be filed on or before December26, 1984. Protests will be considered bythe Commission in determining theappropriate action to be taken but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing tobecome a party to the proceeding mustfile a petition to intervene. Copies of thisfiling are on file with the Commissionand are available for public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-334-83 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket No. RP85-46-000I

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.,Proposed Changes In FERC Gas Tariff

December 19,1984.Take notice that Columbia Gas

Transmission Corporation (Columbia)on December 10, 1984 tendered for filingThird Revised Sheet No. 65 to theGeneral Terms and Conditions of itsFERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No,1.

Columbia states that the foregoingtariff sheet is being filed pursuant toOrdering Paragraph (C) of theCommission's Opinion No. 226 in DocketNo. RP84-85-000, which requires thatthe collections of the GR1 Funding Unitbe, remitted to GR1 within fifteen days ofthe receipt thereof. The subject tariffprovision previously provided for suchremittance to take place within 30 daysof receipt by Columbia. In addition,Columbia proposes a further revision tothis tariff sheet to include theapplicability of the GRI Funding Unit toRate Schedules TS-1 and TS-2.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, UnionCenter Plaza Building, 825 North Capitol

50082


Street, NE. Washington, D.C. 20426, maccordance with Rules 211 and 214 ofthe Commission's Rules of Practice andProcedure. All such motions of protestsshould be filed on or before December26,1984. Protests will be considered bythe Commission in determimng theappropriate action to be taken, but villnot'serve to make protestants parties tothe proceedings. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of Columbia's filingare on file with the Comumision and areavailable for public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secret y.[FR Doc. 84-33484 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket No.SA85-9-000l

D.R. Lauck Oil Co., Inc. Petition forAdjustment

December 20,1984.On December ID, 1984, D.R. Lauck Oil

Company, Inc., filed with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission apetition for an adjustment under Rule1103 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and ProcedureI to exempt itsJulian No. 1 Well, Edwards County,Kansas, from the provisions of§ 271.805(b) of the Commissionsregulations. 2 Lauck asserts that absentan adjustment, it may be required tomake substantial refunds to NorthernNatural Gas Company with would resultin severe econmic consequences to it.Additionally, states Lauck, unless it ispermitted to charge a section 108,Natural Gas Policy Act, stripper well gasprice, the well will have to be pluggedand abandoned.

The procedures applicable to theconduct of this adjustment proceedingare found in Subpart K of theCommission's Rules of Practice andProcedure.

Any person desiring to participate mthis adjustment proceeding must file amotion to intervene in accordance withthe provisions of such Subpart K. Allmotions to intervene must be filedwithin 15 days after publication of thisnotice in the Federal Register.Kenneth F. PlumbSecretary.[FR Doc.64-33485 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717-01-M

I 18 CFR 3851103.218CFR275sfb)

[Docket No. SA85-10-000]

D.R. Lauck Oil Co., Inc.; Petition forAdjustment

December 20,1984.

On December 10, 1984, D. R. Lauck OilCompany, Inc., filed with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission apetition for an adjustment under Rule1103 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure' to exempt itsSmith D Well, Edwards Ccunty. Kansas,from the provisions of § 271.805[b] of theComnission's regulations.2 Lauckasserts that absent an adjustment, itmay be required to make substantialrefunds to Northern Natural GasCompany which would result vi severeeconomic consequences to it.Additionally, states Lauck, unless it ispermitted to charge a section 108,Natural Gas Policy Act, stripper welil gasprice, the well will have to be plukgedand abandoned.

The procedures applicable to theconduct of this adjustment proceedingare found in Subpart K of theCommissions Rules of Practice andProcedure.

Any person desiring to participate inthis adjustment proceeding must file amotion to intervene m accordance withthe provisions of such Subpart K. Allmotions to intervene must be filedwithin 15 days after publication of thisnotice in the Federal Register.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.

[FR Doc. 84-33485 Filed 12-24-M: 8:45 am]BILLING CODE $737-01-M

IDocket No. RP85-47-000]

East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., TariffFiling

December 19,1984.Take notice that on December 11.

1984, East Tennessee Natural GasCompany (East Tennessee) tendered forfiling the following tariffsheets toOriginal Volume No. I to its FERC GasTariff, to be effective January 10, 1C5:Substitute Tenth Revised Sheet No. 4First Revised Sheet No. 119Second Revised Sheet Nos. 121 and 124Third Revised Sheet No. 122

East Tennessee states that that thepurpose of the revised tariff sheets is torevise East Tennessee's rates underRate Schedule AOS, and its PGA clause.to remove demand costs from the AOSrate.

'18 crF ss.io3.I is CF71R;is)m

East Tennessee states that copies ofthe filing have been mailed to all of itsjurisdictional customers and affectedstate regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petitionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission. 825North Capital Street, NE., Washington,DC. 204,6, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure. All suchpetitions or protests should be filed onor before December 26,1934. Protestswill be considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken. but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any persons wishing to become a partymust file a petition to intervene. Copiesof thi. fing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,

Scretary.[FR Dac. 84-33487 Fild 1.-Z4-84; 8:45 am]Ba"MNG cDE 6717-01-M

[Docket No. ECSS-6-000]

Gulf States Utilities Co4 Filing

December2l1.24

The filing Company submits thefollowing:

Take notice that on December 12,1984, Gulf States Utilities Company(Gulf States or GSU) filed anApplication seeking an order pursuantto section 303 of the Federal Power Actauthorizing the sale of certaintransmission facilities by Gulf States toCajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.(CEPCO) and pursuant to a PowerInterconnection Agreement between theparties on file at this Commission.

Any person desirmng to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 825North Capitol Street. NE. WashIngton,D.C. 20426. in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 38.211,385.214]. All such motions or protestsshould be filed on or before January 17,1934. Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken.but villnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion toIntervene. Copies of this filing are on fiLe

5003

- Federal Register / -Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

with the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33488 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Project No. 7951-001]

Idaho Natural Energy, Inc., Surrenderof Preliminary Permit

December 21, 1984.Take notice that Idaho Natural

Energy, Inc., Permittee for South ForkClearwater River Project No. 7951, hasrequested that its Preliminary Permit beterminated. The Preliminary Permit wasissued on July 9, 1984, and would haveexpired on June 30, 1986. The projectwould have been located on South ForkClearwater River, near Golden, withinthe Nez Perce National Forest, in IdahoCounty, Idaho.

The Permittee filed the request onDecember 7,1984, and the preliminarypermit for Project No. 7951 shall remainin effect through the thirtieth day afterissuance of this notice unless that day isa Saturday, Sunday or holiday asdescribed in 18 CFR 385.2007, in whichcase the permit shall remain in effectthrough the first business day followingthat day. New applications involvingthis project site, to the extent providedfor under 18 CFR Part 4. may be fied onthe next business day.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33489 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am)BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


James W. Roberts; Surrender ofPreliminary Permit

December 21,1984.Take notice that James W. Roberts,

Permittee for the proposed Mill BrookProject No. 8248, requested by letterdated November 8,1984, that hispreliminary permit be terminated.Permittee has been unable to obtain thenecessary easements to develop theproject. The preliminary permit wasissued September 11, 1984, and wouldhave expired on February 28, 1986. Theproject would have been located on MillBrook in Essex County, Vermont.

The preliminary permit for Project No.8248 shall remain in effect through thethirtieth day after issuance of this noticeunless that day is a Saturday, Sunday orholiday as described in 18 CFR 385.2007,in which case the permit shall remain ineffect through the first business dayfollowing that day. New applications

involving this project site, to the extentprovided for under 18 CFR Part 4, maybe filed on the next business day.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary,[FR Doc. 84-33490 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILuNG CODE 6717-01-M


Mount Hood Hydro; Surrender ofPreliminary Permit

December 21,1984.Take notice that Mount Hood Hydro,

Permittee for Diver's CreekHydroelectric Project No. 7924, hasrequested that its Preliminary Permit beterminated. The Preliminary Permit wasissued on June 7,1984, and would haveexpired on November 30, 1985. Theproject would have been located onDiver's Creek, near Parkdale, within theMount Hood National Forest, in HoodRiver County, Oregon.

The Permittee filed the request onDecember 3, 1984, and the preliminarypermit for Project No. 7924 shall remainin effect through the thirtieth day afterissuance of this notice unless that day isa Saturday, Sunday or holiday asdescribed in 18 CFR 385.2007, in whichcase the permit shall remain in effectthrough the first business day followingthat day. New applications involvingthis project site, to the extent providedfor under 18 CFR Part 4, may be filed onthe next business day.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33491 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket No. ER85-180-000]

Portland General Electric Co., Filing

December 20,1984.Take notice that on December 10,1984,

Portland General Electric Company(POE) tendered for filing a Peak Sale-Energy Exchange agreement and rateschedule under which POE has agreed tosupply City of Seattle, City LightDepartment (Seattle), at Seattle'srequest, 100 megawatts of firm peakingcapacity not to exceed 8,400 megawatthours during any seven-day period. Theterm of the agreement is from December1, 1984 to February 28, 1985. Seattle shallpay PGE $600,000 in installments of$200,000 per month for firm peakingcapacity plus an amount equal to $1.10times each kilowatt of capacityscheduled. Energy delivered to Seattleshall be returned within seven days andSeattle shall be obligated to schedulesych returns at a time within seven days

of delivery when PGE's decrementulcost savings equal or exceed PGE'sincremental cost for the energydelivered. POE will deliver at PGE'sinterconnection points with BonnevillePower Administration.

PGE requests an effective date ofDecember 1, 1984, and thereforerequests waiver of the Commission'snotice requirements.

Copies of the filing were served uponCity of Seattle.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 825North Capitol Street, NE, Washington,D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 FR 385.211,385.214). All such motions or protestsshould be filed on or before January 4,1985. Protests will be consiaered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. any person wishing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.Kenneth F Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33492 Filed 12-2444: 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket No. RP85-50-000]

Texas Gas Pipe Line Corp., Filing

December 19,1984.Take notice that on December 14,

1984, Texas Gas Pipe Line Corporation(Texas Gas) tendered for filing anupdated Thirteenth Revised Sheet No.4a to its FERC Gas Tariff, SecondRevised Volume No. 1 in accordancewith the Director's letter (Office ofPipeline and Producer Regulation) datedNovember 20,1984. Texas Gas statesthatthe revised sheet separately statespurchased gas costs from other charges.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petitionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 825North Capitol Street, NE, Washington,D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Riles ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,385.214). All such petitions or protestsshould be filed on or before December'26,1984. Protests will be considered bythe Commission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing to

50084

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26, 1984 / Notices

become a party must file a petition tointervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33493 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]erUJNG CODE 6717-01-M

[Docket Nos. RP85-48-000]

Trunkline Gas Co., Change in Tariff

December 19, 1984.Take notice that Trunkline Gas

Company (Trunkline), on December 10,1984 tendered for filing the foll5wingproposed change m its FERC Gas Tariff,Original Volume No. 1, to be effectiveJanuary 1,1985:Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 5-ASecond Revised Sheet No. 9-ETwelfth Revised Sheet No. 9-F

Trunkline states that this filing isbeing made pursuant to OrderingParagraph (A) of the Commission'sOrder Dismissing Complaints issuedNovember 7,1984 in Docket Nos. RP84-56-000 and RP84-69-000 which requiresTrunkline Gas Company (Trunkline) tofile new tariff sheets in Compliance with§ 154.111 of the CommissionsRegulations separately stating allpurchased gas costs.

Trunldine's currently effective SheetNo. 3-A (First Substitute Forty-SixthRevised Sheet No. 3-A) statespurchased gas costs separately fromother charges as required by 18 CFR154.111(a](3)(i)(A. Since Trunidine'scurrently effective tariff sheet No. 3-Aalready identifies the gas costcomponent in each affected rateschedule, a revised tariff sheet is notrequired. This tariff sheet reflectsTrunkline's PGA filing in Docket No.TA84-2-30-003 (PGA 84-2a) which wasmade effective September 1, 1984,subject to conditions, by CommissionOrder dated November 21, 1984.

Further, Trunkline states that thisfiling herein is without prejudice to itscourt review of Order Nos. 380 and 380-A in Docket No. RM83-71 which ispending before the United States Courtof Appeals for the District of Columbiain No. 84-1434.

Copies of the filing were served on theCompany's jurisdictional customers andapplicable state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a petitionto intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 825North Capitol Street, NE, Washington,D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214). All such petitions orprotests should be filed on or beforeDecember 26, 1984. Protests will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a petition to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33494 Filed 12-24-84; 845 am]BILNG CODE 6717-01-


Tucson Electric Power Co., Filing

December 20,1934.The filing Company submits the

following:

Take notice that on December 11.1984. Tucson Electric Power Company(Tucson) tendered for filing"Amendment No. 2 to theInterconnection Agreement betweenSan Diego Gas & Electric Company andTucson." The primary purpose of thisAmendment No. 2 is to set forth thepresent understanding of the partiesconcerning the delivery of emergencyfirm system power by Tucson to SanDiego Gas & Electric Company at thePalo Verde 500 kV switchyard for aperiod of time as may be requested bySan Diego running through and includingDecember 31,1984.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 825North Capitol Street, NE. Washington.D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211.385.214). All such motions or protestswill be considered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Any person wishing to become a partymust file a motion to intervene. Copiesof this filing are on file with theCommission and are available for publicinspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretary.[FR Doc. 84-33495 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 amlBILNG CODE 6717-01-1

(Docket No. ID-2144-003]

William S. Lee; Application

December 20, 1934The filing Company submits the

following:Take notice that on December 11,

1984, William S. Lee filed an applicationpursuant to section 305(b) of the FederalPower Act to hold the followingpositions:Chairman of the Board of Directors and

ChiefExecutive Officer, Duke PowerCompany

Director. Morgan Guaranty TrustCompany of New York

Director, J.P. Morgan & Co., IncorporatedAny person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission. 825North Capitol Street, NE, Washington,D.C. 20426. in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Comnumssion's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CER 385.211,385.214). All such motions or protestsshould be filed on or before January 7,1985. Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person vshing tobecome a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb.S&cretary.1FR Doc. 84-33496 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING COOE 6717-01-M


Yankee Atomic Electric Co.; Filing

December 20.1934.Take notice that on December 11,

1984, Yankee Atomic Electric Company(Yankee Atomic tendered for filinginformation and materials requested bythe Commission in a letter datedOctober 23,1984.

Any person desiring to be heard or toprotest said filing should file a motion tointervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission. 825North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,D.C. 20426. in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,3M5.214). All such motions or protestsshould be filed on or before January 4.19835. Protests will be considered by theCommission in determinin theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing to

I -- --

50035


become a party must file a motion tointervene. Copies of this filing are on filewith the Commission and are availablefor public inspection.Kenneth F. Plumb,Secretory.[FR Doec. 84-33497 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 amjBILUNG CODE 6717-01-M

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Implementation of Special RefundProcedures

AGENCY: Office of Hearings andAppeals, DOE.ACTION: Notice of implementation ofspecial refund procedures.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings andAppeals of the Department of Energyhas adopted the appropriate proceduresto be followed in refunding$29,381,630.53 in consent order funds tomembers of the public. This money isbeing held in escrow following thesettlement of enforcement proceedingsbrought by the Economic RegulatoryAdministration of the Department ofEnergy involving the 15 natural gas.processing firms set forth below. TheDOE indicated that refund claims withrespect to these funds may now be filed.DATE AND ADDRESS: Applications forrefund must be filed within 90 days ofpublication of this notice in the FederalRegister and should be addressed to theOffice of Hearings and Appeals,Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW..Washington, D.C. 20585. All commentsshould conspicuously display areference to case numbers HEF-0266, et(1.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COINTACT:Virginia A. Lipton, Assistant Director,Office of Hearings and Appeals,Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252-2400.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION* Inaccordance with § 205.282(b) of theprocedural regulations of theDepartment of Energy. 10 CFR205.282(b), notice is hereby given of theissuance of the Decision and Order setout below. The Decision and Orderrelates to consent orders entered into bythe DOE and the 15 natural gasprocessing firms set out in the Appendixbelow.

The Decision and Order sets forth theprocedures and standards that the DOEhas formulated to distribute the contentsof escrow accounts funded by thesenatural gas processing firms pursuant tothe consent orders. The DOE has

decided that Applications for Refundshould be accepted from firms andindividuals that were direct or indirectpurchasers of natural gas liquids [NGLs)and natural gas liquid products (NGLPs)sold by any of the- 15 named firms duringthe relevant consent orderperiod setforth in the Appendix. This Decision andOrder provides that m order to receive aportion of the settlement funds, apurchaser must furnish the DOE withevidence that it was injured by theallegedly unlawful prices for NGLs orNGLPs charged by the relevant gasprocessing firm. This evidence shouldinclude specific documentationconcerning the date, place, price, andvolume of product purchased, indicatewhether the increased costs wereabsorbed by the claimant or passedthrough to other purchasers, and statethe extent of any injury alleged to havebeen suffered. However,, the Decisionindicates that no separate, detailedshowing of injury will be reqired ofend-users of the relevant product, or offirms which file refund claimsamounting to $5,000 or less. Accordingto the Decision and Order, the amountof the refund will generally be a pro ratashare of the funds made available by therelevant natural gas processing firm,plus a pro rata share of any interestaccrued on those funds. The DOEfurther indicated that it would determineat a future date the proper disposition ofany funds remaining after allmeritorious claims of purchasers havebeen paid.

Applications for refund must be filedwithin 90 days of publication of thisnotice in the Federal Register, andshould be sent to the address set forth atthe beginning of this notice. Refundapplicants should file two copies of theirsubmission- All applications received inthis proceeding will be available forpublic inspection between the hours of1:00 to 5:00 p.m..Monday throughFriday, except federal holidays, in thePublic Docket Room of the Office ofHearings andAppeals, located in Room1E-234, 1000 Independence Avenue,SW., Washington, D.C. 20585.

Dated: December 11, 1984.George B. Breznay,Director, Office of Hearings andAppeals.December 11,1984.

Decision and Order of the Department ofEnergy

Special RefundProcedures

Names of Cases: Peoples EnergyCorporation, et a.

Date of Filing: October 13, 1983.Case Numbers: HEF-0266. et al.Under the procedural regulations of

the Department of Energy, the Economic

Regulatory Administration (ERA) mayrequest that the Office of Hearings andAppeals formulate and implementspecial procedures to make refunds, Inorder to remedy the effects of allegedviolations of the DOE regulations. See 10CFR Part 205, Subpart V

In accordance with these regulatoryprovisions, the ERA filed Petitions forthe Implementation of Special RefundProceedings in connection with consentorders entered into with the 15 naturalgas processing firms set forth in theexhibits to the Appendix to thisDecision. Audits of the records of thosefirms revealed possible pricingviolations with respect to their sales ofnatural gas liquids (NGLs) and naturalgas liquid products (NGLPs) during theperiods indicated in the exhibits. I Inorder to settle all claims. and disputeswith the DOE regarding their sales ofNGLs and NGLPs during their respectiveaudit periods, the firms entered intoconsent orders. The amount of fundsmade available by those firms that issubject to distribution in this proceedingis $29,381,630.53.Jurisdiction andAuthority to FashionRefundProcedures

The procedural regulations of the DOEset forth general guidelines by which theOffice of Hearings and Appeals mayformulate and implement a plan ofdistribution for funds received as aresult of an enforcement proceeding, 10CFR Part 205, Subpart V The Subpart Vprocess maybe used in situations wherethe DOE is unable to readily identifypersons who may have been injured as aresult of alleged regulatory violationsresolved by a DOE consent order orremedial orderorwhere the DOE isunable to readily ascertain the amountof each person's injuries. For a moredetailed discussion of Subpart V and theauthority of the Office of Hearings andAppeals to fashion procedures todistribute refunds obtained as part ofsettlement agreements, see Office ofEnforcement, 9 DOE 82,553 (1982:Office of Enforcement. 9 DOE 82.508(1981); Office of Enforcement. 8 DOE82,597 (1981).

On May 23, 1984, the Office ofHearings and Appeals issued aProposed Decision and Order in whichwe tentatively concluded that theimplementation of Subpart Vproceedings was appropriate with

INGLPs Include propane. butane, elutne andnatural gasoline. In some instances a gas plantoperator may have sold small quantilies of olherproducts, such as condensate.Those volunies ariindicated in the exhibits to the attached Appendix.We will also consider Applications for Refund filedby purchasers orthese others products.

50086


respect to the 15 consent order firmsreferred to in the exhibits to theAppendix to this Decision. PeoplesEneigy Corp., No. HEF-0266 (May 23,1984) (proposed decision). We foundthat there was a considerable degree ofdifficulty in locating most of the personswho were injured by the allegedovercharges. We have received nocomments challenging our authority tofashion special refund procedures withrespect to the funds provided by the 15consent order firms. Accordingly, theERA Petitions will be granted.

ProposedRefundProceduresIn the May 23 Proposed Decision we

stated that in so far as possible theavailable funds should be distributed todirect or indirect purchasers of productsold by the 15 consent order firms. Wetentatively determined that successfulrefund applicants would generally beentitled to a pro rata share of the refundpool. We indicated that we wouldmultiply the number of gallons ofproduct purchased by a successfulapplicant by a factor using the totalamount of the consent order fundprovided by the individual gas plantoperator as the numerator and using thetotal sales in gallons of all productscovered by the relevant consent order asthe denominator (the volumetricamount).

We further indicated that allsuccessful applicants must establishthat they have experienced someeconomic harm as a result of the allegedovercharges. j-owever, we suggested inthe Proposed Order that a separate,detailed showing of injury would not benecessary with respect to applicantswho were ultimate consumers of therelevant product. We stated that theseapplicants would be required todemonstrate that they purchased aspecific volume of product sold by anamed gas plant operator during therelevant time period. We also statedthat a detailed showing of injury wouldnot be necessary for reseller applicantsclaiming refunds based on relativelysmall purchases of product, i.e., lessthan 600,000 gallons per year. We havesuccessfully utilized a small claimthreshold of this type in many othercases. E.g., Office of Enforcement, 10DOE T 85,056 (1983]; Office ofEnforcement, 8 DOE E 82,597 (1981). Itsuse is basep on our concern that the costto the applicant in preparing andsubmitting information demonstratinginjury not be out of proportion to thebenefit obtained.

We sent a copy of our Proposed Orderto each purchaser identified in ERAaudit files whose address we were ableto ascertain. We informed these

purchasers that they could requestadjustments in the refund mechanism.We further published a notice in theFederal Register announcing that wewere seeking comments regarding theproposed refund mechanism. 49 FR23228 (June 5,1984]. We provided a 30day period in which comments could besubmitted. That period has now elapsed.

The purpose of this Decision is toaddress the comments receivedregarding the May 23 Proposed Orderand to establish procedures to be usedfor filing and processing claims in thefirst stage of the refund process relatingto the consent order firms listed in theAppendix. The Decision sets forth theinformation that a purchaser mustsubmit in order to establish eligibilityfor a portion of the available funds.

Analysis of Comments and Adjustmentsto Refund Plan

We have received comments fromWarren Oil Company (Warren) and E.T. Small d/b/a Delta Propane Companyand Small's Propane Company (Small)regarding our proposed refundmechanism. Further, several states filedcomments regarding the May 23Proposed Order.2

In its comments, Warren asks that wemake several modifications m theproposed refund mechanism. First, thefirm claims that it will be difficult forrefund applicants to provide specificinformation concerning the date, price,purchase volumes, gas plant locations.and extent of injury experienced.Instead, Warren asserts that we shouldcalculate refunds due based oninformation contained in DOE auditfiles. We agree that it may well bedifficult for applicants to establish fromwhich gas plant particular NGLpurchases originated. In this regard, thepurpose of listing gas plants in ourProposed Order was to aid potentialapplicants in determining whether theymay have made purchases from aconsent order firm. Accordingly, anapplicant that satisfactorily explainswhy it is unable to determine the sourceof the product it purchased from aconsent order firm will not be expectedto adhere to this requirement.

However, we will adhere to ouroriginal determination that refundapplicants shall provide documentationcorroborating volumes, and dates ofpurchases. Most larger firms, such as

2The states which fited comments orp DreLware.Iowa. Louisana. North Dakoa, Kansun, WestVirgna. Rhode Island. New York. North Cjrohna,Arkansas and Texas. Further. Mr. Paul i n ofRaleigh. North Carolina filed comment- reMin'he Proposed Order. Mr. Mognlrtc.n did not indicatethat he was a purchaser oran:y product invold inthis proceeding.

Warren. a subsidiary of Gulf OilCorporation. have sophisticated dataretrieval systems. Further. since wehave no independent volume dataconcerning sales by these consent orderfirms, this type of information will becrucial to our reaching a determinationwith respect to a refund application. Itwill conclusively establish that anapplicant was in the chain ofdistribution of covered products sold byone of these consent order firms.Without this confirmation, we will haveno basis for granting an applicant anyrefund whatsoever.

Moreover., we fail to see how anapplicant could develop volume datawithout at the same time retrievinginformation regarding dates ofpurchases. Nevertheless, we may bewilling to accept an applicant'scertification that it purchased a specificvolume of product. even if it is unable tosubstantiate this claim with dates ofpurchases. In this case, an applicantshall submit a convincing explanation ofwhy it is unable to retrieve date ofpurchase information. Further, as wediscuss below, information regardingprices paid by the applicant for NGLs orNGLPs will. with certain exceptions, benecessary in connection with a showingof injury. In sum. if an applicant is ableto retrieve volume data, but unable todevelop date of purchase information, itshall explain why it is able to developone type of information but not theother.

Warren also suggests that in istancesin which a consent order fund, whendivided by the number of identifiedpurchasers. is $25,00 or less, the fundshould automatically be distributed on aproportionate volumetric basis to thosepurchasers, unless challenged by anapplicant. We do not find such a systemto be practical. As we indicated above.In no instance in this proceeding havewe been able to ascertain independentlyinformation regarding purchase volumesof individual purchasers. Therefore, wewould have no basis for any reasonableproportionate division of the availablefunds, as suggested by Warren. Further,as discussed below, a separate, detailedshowing of injury will be required mmost instances. In view of theseconsiderations, we must reject thisWarren suggestion.

Warren also claims that a purchasershould not be required to developvolume information if it was the onlypurchaser identified with respect to aparticular consent order firm. Accordingto Warren, in this situation there wouldbe no need to apportion refunds amongapplicants. We must also reject thissuggestion, since there may well be

50087


other unidentified purchasers of thatconsent order firm which are entitled tarefunds. There is no basis for presumingthat all purchases were made by a.single, identified firm. Moreover, even inthe event that no purchaser other thar asingle, identified purchaser applied forrefunds with respect to a particularconsent order, we do not believe itwould be equitable to automaticallygrant that purchaser a refund in the totalamount of the consent order fund- Cf.National Helium Corp./EarmlandIndustries, 11 DOE 85,257 (1984). Suchan approach could very well providethat single applicant with a windfall.Warren's suggestion is therefore notreasonable or practicable.

In the May 23 Proposed Decision andOrder, we found that applicants thatwere refiners or resellers of NGLs orNGLPs would be required todemonstrate that they experiencedinjury as a result of the allegedovercharges. We wish to set forth morespecific information as to what type ofdata will be required for the injuryshowing. We have decided to generallyadopt the approach used in several priorSubpart V proceedings involving-consent order funds related to NGLs.National Helium Corp./FarmlandIndustries, Inc., 11 DOE 185,257 (1984);Aluminum Co. of America/Tenneco OilCo., 11 DOE 85,253 (1984); Palo PintoOil & Gas/Gulf Oil Corp. 10 DOE

85,049 (1983]. In these cases we used athree-step competitive disadvantageanalysis, in which we first examinedwhether the applicant was chargedprices by the consent order firm whichwere above price& paid by theapplicant's competitors. If so, weinferred that the applicant was at acompetitive disadvantage with respectto those purchases and was thereforeinjured. In order to enable us to performthis type of analysis, refund applicantsin the present proceedings shouldsubmit quarterly prices and purchaselocations for the entire period for eachproduct for which a refund is claimed. Inaddition, as we stated in our ProposedOrder, refund applicants will beexpected to demonstrate that theymaintained a bank of unrecovered costs,in order to establish that the allegedovercharges were not subsequentlyrecovered through price increases.

As we stated above, in our ProposedOrder, we suggested that a separate,detailed showing of injury would not berequired of refund applicants who wereultimate customers of the productinvolved. However, crude oil refinersthat purchased NGLs or NGLPsconsumed as fuel or as raw material in arefining process will not be considered

as "consumers" for this purpose. Rather,the exception for the requirement of aseparate, detailed showing of injury forend-users or ultimate customers will belimited to those whose businessoperations were unrelated to thepetroleum industry and whos priceswere therefore not subject to the DOEregulatory scheme- The fuel costs of thisgroup are only one, indistinguishablecomponent of their prices for goods andservices. Further, this group wasgenerally not subject to price controlsduring the consent order periods.Therefore, an analysis of the impact ofthe increased cost of petroleum productson the final prices of non-petroleumproducts and services would be beyondthe scope of a refund proceeding.Marion Corp., 12 DOE 85,014 (1984);Ada Resources, Inc./Rapid TransitLines, Inc. 11 DOE .85,047 (1983]. Onthe other hand, a refund applicant thatwas subject to the DOE regulatoryprogram will be required to provide adetailed demonstration of injury withrespect to the purchase of NGLs andNGLPs of which it was an end-user,with the exception for small claimsdiscussed below.

As indicated above, we alsosuggested in our Proposed Order that aseparate, detailed showing of injurywould not be necessary for any firmclaiming a refund based on purchases of50,000 gallons of NGLs or any singleNGLP per month or based on averageannual purchases of up to 600,000gallons of NGLs or any single NGLPThe State of Texas and New York filedcomments objecting to our decision toestablish this threshold level, belowwhich a separate, detailed showing ofinjury would not be required.

In its comments Texas contends thatthe Office of Hearings and Appeals hasno authority to adopt-the threshold levelbelow which no separate, detailedshowing of injury wilI be required. Inthis regard, Texas states that this"presumption of injury" is not the typeof presumption permitted pursuant to 10CFR 205.282(e). Texas contends that thepresumptions referred to in that Sectionare permitted only after an applicanthas successfully proven, injury. Texasasserts that the presumptions which thatSection permits involve only theestablishment of "standards andprocedures to be employed in order thatthe amount of refund may beascertained * * * "but not theestablishment of injury. We cannotagree with Texas' analysis. Section205.282(e) is as follows:

In establishing standards and proceduresfor implementing refund distributions, theOffice of Hearings and Appeals shall take

into account the desirability of distributingthe refunds m an efficient. effective andequitable manner andresolving to themaximum extent practicable all outstandingclaims. In order to do so, the standards forevaluation ofindividual claims may be basedupon appropriate presumptions.

Contrary to Texas' assertion, the Officeof Hearings and Appeals is not limitedin its use of presumptions to theestablishment of standards andprocedures regarding the amount of therefund. See Office of Enforcement, 10DOE 85,056 (1983). There is no basisfor the State's claim that presumptionsmay not be used in connection with theestablishment of injury. Rather, asexplicitly stated in § 205.282(e), in orderta effect refunds in the most efficientmannerpossible, "the standards forevaluation of individual claims may bebased upon appropriate presumptions."This is precisely the goal of thethreshold level presumption of injury,Further, based on our considerableexperience in evaluating refundapplications, we remain convinced thatthe threshold presumption itselfsignificantly promotes that goal.

In its comments the State-of New Yorkalso objects to the threshold approach.The State contends that most of theidentified customers are large firms withsophisticated accounting capabilitiesthat should have no difficulty retrievingthe information necessary to establishinjury. New York further asserts thatsmaller firms should be dealt with on anindividual basis. It suggests that thethreshold approach is unwarrantedbecause it might provide windfallrefunds. We are-not persuaded by thisposition. Even though larger firms mayhave more sophisticated data retrievalcapabilities, there may nevertheless beconsiderable expenses involved ingathering appropriate data. As thoseexpenses approach the value of therefund claimed, all firms, including largeones, will be discouraged from applyingfor refunds. We find that establishing areasonable threshold refund levelshould provide adequate incentive forfirms to apply for relatively smallrefunds, minimize data retrievalburdens, especially for smdller firms.and promote efficient consideration ofthese types of applications by the Officeof Hearings and Appeals.5

3 Similar objections have been raised by Mr.Mogensen. It is his belief that records exist whichwould permit all claimants to demonstrate Injuryand that no threshold presumption is warranted, Itmay be true that in some cases such records exist'.However. a possible lack of records is not the solereason that we have adopted the thresholdpresumption. As we stated. when small refunds areinvolved, the cost of retneving such recordsmay

Centmnued

50088

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26, 1984 / Notices

On the other hand, Warren claimsthat the threshold level established inthe Proposed Order should bereevaluated, because it is too low.Warren states that in some instancesthe maximum refund under thepresumption of injury method could leadto only a de minmus reimbursement.For example, the firm points out that themaximum threshold-type refund fromthe Consolidated Gas Supply Companyconsent order fund would amount toonly approximately $190. See Exhibit 13.There is considerable merit to thisposition.

As we stated above, and in ourProposed Order, we established thethreshold approach in order to facilitatethe refund process for firms claimingrelatively small refunds. We believe thatin such cases, a complex refund processmight discourage such firms fromapplying for refunds, because theamount of the refund they could expectto receive might be less than the cost ofpreparing a complex and detailedsubmission supporting their claims ofinjury. Thus, the benefits of the refundwould be outweighed by the cost ofpreparing the application. Theseconsiderations are present with respectto the instant cases. As Warren pointsout, it appears that using the volumetricthreshold, as described in the ProposedOrder, may not enable us to besteffectuate our goal of facilitatingdisbursements to applicants applying forrelatively small refunds. Consequently,we have decided that an adjustment inthat approach is warranted. We havedetermined that it would best promotethe above-stated goal and achieveconsistency of treatment in thisproceeding to base the threshold levelfor a detailed demonstration of injury ona dollar amount, rather than on avolumetric amount. In Marion Corp.. 12DOE 85,014 (1984), and Texas Oil and'Gas Corp., 12 DOE 85,069 (1984) weadopted this approach and established athreshold level of $5,000. We find that inthe instant cases, our goals of providingadequate incentives for firms to applyfor smaller refunds and of promotingeffecient consideration of thoseapplications will be more readily

exceed the value of the potential refund. Pursuant to§ 205.282[e). in establishing standards andprocedures for effecting refunds, the Office ofHeanngs and Appeals shall take into account thedesirabilitv of distributing refunds in an efficientand effective manner. The use of thp thresholdapproach permits the Office of Heanngs andAppeals to consider these smaller claims morequickly, and thus use its limited resources moreefficiently. Warren Oil Co.. 12 DOE 85.110 1984).Mr. Mogensen has not suggested any other measure,,hich will equally facilitate the efficient processingof applications and expedite disbursement of refundmonies.

achieved if we adopt the thresholdapproach taken in these two cases.Therefore, applicants who are claiminga refund of $5,000 or less from any singleconsent order fund will not be requiredto provide a separate, detailed showingthat they were injured by the allegedovercharges. They must, of course, stillprovide detailed documentationregarding purchase volumes and datesof purchase.

Warren also claims that we shouldnot require a detailed showing of injuryin instances in which the size of therelevant consent order fund is arelatively small fraction of the allegedovercharges. The firm claims that insuch cases it is likely that thepurchasers suffered injury "at least tothe extent of the consent order fund."We see absolutely no basis for Warren'sconclusion. The proportion that theconsent order fund bears to theovercharges alleged in audit filedocuments simply bears no logicalrelationship to whether a purchaser wasable to escape injury by passing throughany alleged overcharges.

As an additional matter, E.T. Small,the owner of Small's Propane Companyand Delta Propane Company, has filedcomments regarding the MAPCOconsent order. See Exhibit 6. Under theterms of that consent order, Thermogas.a MAPCO subsidiary, was to makerefunds of $22,500,000 to its propanecustomers through price reductions.Small states that although it purchasedpropane during the consent order periodfrom Thermogas, Thermogas has refusedto sell any propane to it at reducedprices pursuant to the terms of theconsent order. Small asks that it beconsidered eligible to apply for refundsin this proceeding, and also requeststhat it be permitted to establish allegedovercharges at a level greater than thevolumetric level.

We will consider Small's refundapplication and similar applications ofother Thermogas customers in thisproceeding. We make no judgment.however, as to the validity of Small'sclaim regarding the failure of Thermogasto comply with the terms of the consentorder. This type of inquiry would bebeyond the scope of a refundproceeding. Small should refer this claimto the DOE Office of Special Counsel forpossible investigation.

With regard to Small's request that itbe permitted to establish an allegedovercharge at a level other than thevolumetric level, it has been ourconsistent position that refundapplicants are not limited to a refundbased on the presumption thatovercharges and alleged overcharges

were distributed on a pro rata basis overall gallons of covered products sold, i.e.volumetncally, in instances in whichthere is a reasonable basis forestablishing alleged overcharges at agreater level. Eg.. Fennzoil Co.lGutf OilCorp.. 12 DOE U 85,057 (1984]; StandardOil Co. (Indiana) /Army &,Azr ForceExchange Service. 12 DOE S 85,015(1984). Accordingly, Small and otherThermogas customers may submitinformation establishing allegedovercharges in an amount greater thanthe volumetric level. These applicantswill. of course, be required to establishinjury in accordance with the principlesdiscussed above.

We will also establish a mmnimumamount of 815 for first stage refundclaims. We have found through ourexperience in prior refund cases that thecost of processing claims in whichrefunds of less than $15 are soughtoutweighs the modest benefits ofrestitution in those situations. See e.g.,Uban Oil Co.. 9 DOE 82,541 at 85,225(1982). See also 10 CFR 205.286(b].Successful applicants will also receive apro rata portion of any interest accruedon the relevant consent order fund.

Application for RefundProcedures

After having considered all thecomments received concerning the first-stage procedures tentatively adopted inour May 23 Proposed Decision. we haveconcluded that applications for refundsshould now be accepted from partiesthat purchased petroleum products soldto them either directly or indirectly byany named consent order firm during therelevant consent order period.Applications must be filed within 90days after publicaton of this Decisionand Order in the Federal Register. See10 CFR 205.286. An application must bein writing, stgned by the applicant. andspecify the name and case number ofte consent order firm to which itpertains.

All applications for refund must befiled in duplicate. A copy of eachapplication will be available for publicinspection in the Public Docket Room ofthe Office of Heanngs and Appeals.Room 1E-234, 1000 IndependenceAvenue. SW.. Washington. D.C. Anyapplicant that believes that itsapplication contains confidentialinformation must so indicate on the firstpage of its application and submit twoadditional copies of its application fromwhich the information which theapplicant claims is confidential has beendeleted. together with a statementspecif ing why any such information isprivileged or confidential. Eachapplication must indicate whether the

50089


applicant or any person acting on itsinstructions has filed or intends tofileany other application or claim ofwhatever nature regarding the mattersat issue in the underlying enforcementproceeding. Each application must alsoinclude the following statement: I swear(or affirm) that the informationsubmitted is true and accurate to thebest of my knowledge and belief. See 10CFR 205.283(c); 18 U.S.C 1001. Inaddition, the applicant should furnish uswith the name, title and telephonenumber of a person who may becontacted-by the OHA for additionalinformation concerning the application.All applications should be sent to"Office of Hearings and Appeals,Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.20585. All applications for refundreceived within the time limit specifiedwill be processed pursuant to 10 CFR205.284 and the procedures set forth inthis Decision and Order.

Claimants applying for refundsfrommore than one consent order fundinvolved in this proceeding shall submita separate application for each fundfrom which they are requesting a refund.In order to assist applicants inestablishing eligibility for a portion ofthe consent order funds, the followingsubjects should be covered in eachapplication:

A. Each applicant should provide dataestablishing the volumes of product thatit purchased which were sold by anamed consent order firm. The applicantshould also indicate dates of purchasesand gas plant from which the productoriginated. However, if this latter data isunavailable, the applicant shall explainwhy it is unable to retrieve thisinformation. If the product was notpurchased directly from a consent orderfirm the applicant should state themanner in which it determined that theproduct originated from a consent orderfirm.

B. Each applicant should specify howit used the products-e.g., whether itwas a reseller, a refiner using theproducts in its own operations, or anultimate consumer.

C. If the applicant is a reseller orrefiner thatwishes to claim a refund inexcess of $5,000 from a single consentorder fund, it must also:

(il State whether it maintained banksof unrecouped product cost increasesfrom the date of the alleged violationuntil the product was decontrolled, andif so, furnish OHA with quarterly bankcalculations;

(ii] Provide sufficient corporateinformation to identify the parentcorporation, the corporation selling orprocessing the product, and thecorporation actually purchasing the

product, and describe their corporaterelationship-

(iii) State whether it or any of itsaffiliates filed any other applications forrefund in which it has referred to itsbanks to demonstrate injury, and

(iv) Submit evidence of the quarterlyprices it paid dunng.the applicableperiods for the products forwhich itisclaiming a refund and locations of suchpurchases.

D. The applicant should reportwhether it is or has been involved as aparty in any DOE or private section 210enforcement actions. If these actionshave terminated, the applicant shouldfurnish a copy of any final order issuedin the matter. If the action is, ongoing,the applicant should briefly describe theaction and its current status. Of course,the-applicant is under a continuingobligation to keep the OHA informed ofany change in status during thependency of its applicationfor refund.See 10 CFR 205.9Cd).Second Stage Refund Procedures

As a final matter, in the ProposedOrder we stated that we would considerat a future date the appropriatedisposition of any fuids remaining afterrefunds to all successful purchasershave been effected. The states that filedcomments regarding the Proposed Orderhave suggested methods for distributingany funds remaining after refunds toidentifiable purchasers have beencompleted.These comments generallyadvocate that state governments, ratherthan the United States Treasury, are theappropriate recipients of these funds.We have in several refund proceedingsadopted just such an approach. E.g.,Beiridge Oil Co., 1-1 DOE 1 85,197 (1983]:Polo Pinto Oi& Gas, 11 DOE 85,034(1983). However, it is the DOE's position-currently that legislative guidanceshould be sought from the Congress onthe question of ultimate disposition ofsecond-stage consent order funds,provided the impact of the allegedovercharges was national rather thanlocal or regional in scope. In any case, itwould be premature at this time to reacha determination regardingdisbursementof second stage refund monies, since wecannot foresee the size of the poolavailable for refund after all meritoriousrefund claims of purchasers have beensatisfied. Consequently, we will notadopt the states' suggestion at this time.

It is therefore ordered that:(1) Applications for refunds from the

funds remitted to the Department ofEnergy by the consent order firms listedin the Appendix to this Decision andOrder may now- be filed.

(2] All applications must be filed nGlater than 90 days after publication of

this Decision and Order in the Federal"Register.

Dated: December 11. 1984.George B. Breznay,Director, Office of Hearings andAppeals.

Decision and Order Peoples EnergyCorporation

AppendxCase NamesFirm and Case ITo.Peoples Energy Corporation; HEF-0260Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company.

Inc.; HEF-0256Mesa Petroleum. Company; HEF-0259Hunt Petroleum Corporation HEF.-0254Arapaho Petroleum, Inc.: HEF-0231MAPCO, Inc.; HEF-0258Texas Pacific Oil Company. Inc.. HEF-0276Hamilton Brothers Petroleum Corporation:

HEF-0249Mountain Fuel Supply Company: HEF-0203Grimes Gasoline Company. Otha H. Grimes,

et at., and Otha H. Crimes.ln.I HEF-0247Hunt Industries: HEF-0253Eagle Petroleum Company and Regal

Petroleum Corporation: HEF-0243Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation: HEF-

0238Belridge Oil Company: HEF-0234The Parade Company: HEF--0493.

Index to ExhibitsExhibit and Firm1-Peoples Energy Corporation2-Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company.

Inc.3-Mesa Petroleum Company4-Hunt Petroleum Corporation5--Arapaho Petroleum. Inc.6-MAPCO, Inc.7-Texas Pacific Oil Company. Inc,8-Hamilton Brothers Petroleum Corporation9-Mountain Fuel Supply Company10-Grimes Gasoline Company. Otha H.

Gnmes.et al., and Otha H. Grimes. Inc.11-Hunt Industries1--Eagle Petroleum Company and Regal

Petroleum Corporation13-Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation14-Belndge Oil Company15-The Parade Company

Exhibit 1

Name of Consent Order Firm: PeoplesEnergy Corporation.

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA: 733VO2006OHA: HEF-0266

Consent OrderPeriod: September 1,1973-October 31. 1980.

Consent Order Fund: $750,000.Names of Plants:

1. Plant No.1612. Plant No. 16Z3. Enid Plant4. Ames Plant5. East Edmond Plant

Alleged Overcharges by Plant:

50090

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26. 1984 1 Notices

Plant Nos. 161 and 162 .............. $1468.049.71Enid Plant .................................... 176,091.57Ames Plant .................................. 506.383.63East Edmond Plant .................... 260,304.24

Total ...................................... 2,410.829.15

Gallons Sold by Plant:

Plant Nos. 161 and 162 .............. 136,498,254Enid Plant .................................... 11.005,678Ames Plant ................................. 22,090,390East Edmond Plant .................... 8.514.000

Total ...................................... 178.108,322

Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.004211.Identified Purchaser. Phillips

Petroleum Company.

Exhibit 2

Name of Consent Order Firm: Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company, Inc.

Consent Order Case Numbers:

ERA: 730V01216OHA: HEF-0256

Consent Order Period: September 1.1973-Decembr 31,1979.

Consent Order Fund: $12,901,418.53.Names of Plants:

1. Scott City Plant2. Sunflower Helium Plant3. Yenter Plant4. Tyrone Plant5. Myrtle Springs Plant6. Hobart Ranch Plant7. Flat Top Plant8. Casper Plant

Alleged Overchi.rges by Plant:

Scott City/SunflowerHelium ................................. $9,246,891.32

Yenter .................................... 262,738.82Tyrone ....................................... 7,880.216.68Hobart Ranch ............................ 619,000.44Flat Top .................................... 801,578.12Casper ......................................... 4,347,308.29Western Gas ............................ "754,070.51

Total .................................... 23.911,804.18

Western Gas Corporation is a subsidiary nvohed inpurchase and resale of NGLs.

Gallons Sold:

Annual Sales Estimate ............ 114.117.777Consent Order Period Esti-

m ate ......................................... 722.365.528

Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.017860.Identified Purchasers:

1. California Liqmd Gas Corp.2. Mobil Oil Corporation3. Eastern Petroleum Company4. Western Gas Corporation5. Union Oil Company6. Cities Service Oil Company7. Koch Oil Company8. Little America Refining Co.

Exhibit 3

Name of Consent Order Firm: MesaPetroleum Company.

Consent Order Case Numbers"ERA: 740V01248OHA. HEF-0259

Consent Order Period: September 1.1973-July 31,1979.

Consent Order Fund: $3,000,000.Names and Locations of Plants and

Percentage of Ownership:

1. Ulysses Gas Plant Ulysses. KS; 10-02. Hobart Ranch Plant Hemphill County, TX.

9-20?-3. Sea Robin Plant Frath, LA. 1.014%4. Seiling Plant Dewey County. OK: 2X.90375. Putnam-Oswego Plant Dewey County. OK.

.38%6. Toca Gas Plant Plaquemines Parish. LA.

.03%7. Mooreland Plant. (OK); .ii00or8. Mineola Plant, (KS)9. Cameron Plant. Cameron Parish. LA10. Denton Gas Plant. (NM)11. Patrick Draw Plant. (WY)12. Hartzog Draw Plant, (WVY)13. Sterling Plant. (TX]

Alleged Overcharges by Plant:

Ulysses ... .... ... .S&331.488.0Hobart Ranch-_....... 5.472.Z9Sea Robin ........................... 1.840.70Seing ... .......... 69,385.3Cameron........................... 28,493.72

Total.... ... 30..0..

Gallons Sold:

Annual Sales Estimate ............Consent Order Period Esti-

mate ....... .......................

48.32' .- 18

287.607.940


1. Koch Industries2. Getty Oil Company3. Champlin Oil Company4. Dorchester Gas Company

Exhibit 4

Name of Consent Order Firm: HuntPetroleum Corporation.

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA: 710V03007OHA: HEF-0254

Consent Order Period. September 1.1973-July 31,1975.

Consent Order Fund: S160.000.Names and Locations of Plants and

Percentage of Ownership:1. Kinder Plant Allen Parish. LA 105-2. Grand Chenter Plant: .075-L3. Calumet Plant. Calumet, LA4. Fairway Plant; .09391541

Alleged Overcharges: $299,828.Gallons Sold: 8,390,034.

Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.02n454.Identified Purchasers:

1. Wanda Petroleum Company. P.O. Box53120. Houston. TX 77032

2. Placid Refining. Inc.. 1600 First NationalBank Bld,.. Dallas, TX 75202

3. Texas Petroleum4. South Hampton

Exhibit 5

Name of Consent Order Firm:Arapaho Petroleum. Inc.


ERA: 710V03119ORA: HEF-0231"

Consent Order Period: September 1,1973-January 28.1981.

Consent Order Fund. $199,000.Name and Location of Plant: Seminole

Plant. Seminole County, OK.Alleged Overcharges:

Propane $166,16.45Butane 85,852.40Natural Gasoline 183,294.63lso-Butane 32,698.79

Total 469,03.27

Gallons Sold:*

Propane. 5,839,112Butane 3,260,337Natural Gasoline 4,727057

Total 13,826.506

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.014393.Identified Purchaser. Warren

Petroleum Company, 1350 S. BoulderAvenue, Tulsa, OK 74102.

Comments: *The Arapaho audit filethat we examined did not set forth thenumber of gallons of iso-butane sold bythe fum, although the file did allegeovercharges with respect to this product.

Exhibit 6

Name of Consent Order FirmMAPCO, Inc.


ERA: 749VO1246OHA: HEF-O233

Consent Order Period: September 1.1973-October 31.1980.

Consent Order Fund: $9,000,000*Names of Plants:

1. Westpan Plant2. Tyrone Plant3. Altonah Plant4, S.W.Davis Plant5. Conway Plant

Alleged Overcharges:

Propane $41,992,603.80Butane. 5,509,842.76Natural Gasoline - 18.444.634.06

50091


Mixed Stream ..................... 3,609,374.50

Total .................................... 69,556,460.12

Gallons Sold

Consent Annualorder period sales

estimate estimate

Propane ...... 2,626945,906 425,991,232Butane ................. 641,696,180. 104,058,834Natural

Gasoline ......... 858,341,318 139,190,478Mixed Stream.... 872,423,666, 141,474,102

Total ................ 4,999,407,070 810,714,646

Per Gallon Refund Amount: .001800.Identified Purchasers:

1. Koch Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 2256,Wichita, KS 67201

2. Williams Energy Company3. Northern Gas Products Company4. National Coop. Refining Assoc.5. Northwest Refining Company6. Skelly Oil Company

Comments: *Beginning on the first dayof the first month after the effective dateof the Consent Order and continuinguntil such refund was completed, thefirm agreed to make refunds in theamount of $22,500,000 through pricereductions to the purchasers of propanefrom Thermogas, Inc., a wholly-owned.subsidiary of MAPCO, Inc. Accordingly,of the total consent order fund of$31,500,000, MAPCO, Inc. refunded only$9,000,000 directly to the DOE and it isthis $9,000,000 that is subject to thepresent refund proceeding.

Exhibit 7

Name of Consent Order Firm: TexasPacific Oil Company, Inc.


ERA. 740V01403OHA: HEF-0276

Consent Order Period: September 1,1973-August 31, 1980.

Consent Order Fund: $72,500.Names and Locations of Plants:

1. Lacassane Plant, Cameron, LA2. Adena Plant, Morgan, CO3. Dover Hennessey Plant, Kingfisher. OK4. Enville Plant, Love, OK5. Hamlin Plant, Fisher. TX6. La Verne Plant, Harper, OK7 Mooreland Plant, Woodward, OK8. O'Keene Plant, Blaine, OK9. South Fullerton Plant, Andrews. TX10. Star Lacy Plant, Blaine, OK11. Wellman Plant, Terry & Gaines, TX12. Lake Como Plant (location unknownl


Propane ......................................... $450.183,76Butane ............................................ 184,208.34Natural Gasoline ..................... . 186,456.73

Butane In M ix ................................. 15Cf.73Natural Gasoline In Mix ............ - 168.17Butane-Natural Gasoline Inm

Mix ....................... 14,578.11

Total .......................................... 835,736.84

Gasoline Sold:

Consentorder

pernodestimate

Annualsales

estimate

Propane ... a.n.... 14,362,920 2,398,139Butane ........................... 8,517,384 1,419,567Natural Gasoline.__ 5,861,808 976,963Butane-Natural

Gasoline Mix-..- 8,064 1,338

Total ...................... 28,750,176 4,796,007

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.002522.

Identified Purchasers: Unidentified.

Exhibit 8

Name of Consent Order Firm:Hamilton Brothers Petroleum Corp.


.ERA: 710V03026OHA: HEF-0249

Consent Order Period. September 1,1973-March 31,1975.

Consent Order Fund: $320,000.Names and Locations of Plants:

1- Calumet Plant, Patterson, LA2. Sea Robin Plant3. Patterson II Plant


Propane ............................................ $349,349.61Butane ............................................... 269,696.58Natural Gasoline .................. 280,087.22

Total ........... .......... ..... . 89,133.41

Gallons Sold:

Propane .................................. $3,836,786Butane ......... ......... 2,404,797Natural Gasoline ...................... 2,375,662

Total .................................. 8,617,245

Per Gallon Refund Amount. $.037136.Identified Purchasers:

1. Wanda Petroleum Company. P.O. Box53120, Houston, TX 77052

2. International'Petroleum Trading Co.

Exhibit 9Name of Consent Order Firm:

Mountain Fuel Supply Company.Consent Order Case Numbers"

'ERA: 710V03003

OHA: HEF-0263

Consent Order Period: November 1,1975-anuary 28,1981,

Consent Order Fund: $1,200,000.Name and Location of Plant: Brady

Plant, Sweetwater County, WY.Alleged Overcharges:

Propane ............... ... 1,174,945.0Butane ......................................... 2,341.644.41

Total ...................................... .3,516,590,39

Gallons Sold:

Propane ................... $13,153,206Butane ....................................... 22.017,003

total ...................... 35,770,329

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.033547.Identified Purchasers:

1. I.T. Enterprise, Tulsa, OK2. Cowboy Oil Co., Box-L Pocatello, ID 832013. PetrolaneInc.,, Houston, TX4. Huntsman Chemical & Oil Corp.,

Englewood, CO

Exhibit 1o

Name of Consent Order Firm:Grimes Gasoline Company,Otha H. Grimes. et o., and.Otha H. Grimes, Inc.

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA: 710V03005OHA: HEF-0247

Consent Order Period: September 1,,1973-December 31, 1978.

Consent Order Fund: $316,000.Names and Locations of Plants and

Percentage of Ownership:I- Okemah Plant, Offuskee County. OK; 100%2. North Dora Plant. Nolen County, OK. 75%


Propane ....................................... $710,955.11Butane ........................................... 270,373.98Natural Gasoline ...................... 495,570.12

Total .................... 1,476.899,21

Gallons Sold:

Propane ........................................ 25.135,970Butane .................... 1..2.3..202Natural Gasoline ........................ 10,929,271

Total . ............... 54,320,529


] I50092


1. Sun Company. Inc.. 1608 Walnut Street.Philadelphia. PA 19103

2. Sid Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co..3100 Fort Worth Nat'l Bank Bldg.. FortWorth, TX 76102

3. Cosden Oil Company4. Burmah L P Gas Company5. W. N. Carter

Exhibit 11

Name of Consent Order Firm: HuntIndustries


ERA: 710V03006OHA: HEF-0253

Consent Order Period: September 1,1973-July 31,1975.

Consent Order Fund: $70,000.Names and Locations of Plants and

Percentage of Ownership:

1. North Tioga Plant, Burke County, ND2. Calumet Plant, Calumet, LA3. Zoller Plant, Refugio County. TX: 48.3943%


Propane .......................................... S54,040.68Butane ............................................. 4,970.36Natural Gasoline ............................ 53.107.23Condensate ..................................... 4,297.71

Total ........................................ 116,415.98

Gallon Sold:

Propane ....................................... 6,200,505Butane ......................................... 4,536.904Natural Gasoline ....................... 3.607,890Condensate ............. 97.490

Total ........ ............................. 14.442.789

Per Gallon Refund Amount: 5.004847Identified Purchasers:

1. Amoco Oil Company, 200 East RandolphDrive. Chicago. IL 60601

2. Wanda Petroleum Company. P.O. Box53120. Houston. TX 77052

3. Tenneco Oil Company. P.O. Box 2511.Houston. TX 77001

4. Texas Petro Gas Company5. Solar Gas, Inc.

Exhibt 12

Name of Consent Order Firm: EaglePetroleum Company and RegalPetroleum Corporation.


ERA: 710V03025OHA: HEF-0243

Consent Order Period: September 1.1973-January 28,1981.

Consent Order Fund: $119,500.Name and Locations of Plants and

Percentage of Ownership: KMA Plant.Wichita County, TX; 100%.


Propane/Butane Mix ...................Natural Gasoline ..........................

Total .... .... ...........

S139,7u3210q;5

Gallons Sold:

Propane/Butane Mix .................... 3 81,q37Butane/Natural Gasoline Mix-... 3.5:6.393Natural Gasoline..................... 4.103,407

Total . ... ..... ... 11,.93

Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.010385,Identified Purchasers:

1. Warren Petroleum Company. 13Z0 SBoulder Avenue. Tulsa. OK 74102

2. TLOK Marketing Corporation. 630 LBIFreeway. Suite 1. Dallas. TX 75240

3. Cosden Oil and Chemical Co.Exhibit 13

Name of Consent Order Firm:Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation.- Consent Order Case Numbers:

ERA: 342V00353OHA: HEF-0238

Consent Order Period: September 1.1973-July 31,1976.

Consent Order Fund: $28.212"Names and Locations of Plants and

-Percentage of Ownership: HastingsPlant, Hastings. WV; 100%.


Propane ................................. S .23. 7521Butane .... ..................... 1,873.627.89Natural Gasoline ...................... 975,151.10Propane-Butane Mix ............... 103.819.12

Total ................................... 9,193.173.32

GallonrSold: 251,074,000.Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.000112.Identified Purchasers:

1. Agway. Inc.2. American Propane Company3. Blue Flame Gas Company4. Braxton Oil Company5. Commonwealth Propane6. Country Gas7. H. H. Cupp8. C. M. Dining9. Gas. Inc. (Petrolane)10. General LP Gas11. Home Gas12. D. & D. Gas (Kelgas)13. Lewiston Bottled Gas Company14. LP. Gas Company15. Maine Gas & Appliances16. Northern Propane Gas Company17. Parco Distributor18. Pargas. Inc.19. Pyrofax Gas Corporation20. Quaker State21. Robinson LP Gas22. Steinhauser Bottled Gas23. Stevens Gas Service (Ashland)24. Suburban Propane25. Southern States Co-op.

2. UgI f (Ameri.as27. Union Texas Petroleum2 UliloJas21. Wanda Petroleum Corporation30. Wanstreet Supply31. Daugherty Propane (Buckeye)32, Sterling Chemical Company

Comments: *The consent orderentered into by Consolidated GasSupply Corporation and the DOErequired the firm to refund S5,025.000 toits customers by reducing its salesprices to amounts less than its maximumlawful selling price. Consolidatedrefunded a total of S4.996.788 to itscustomers through this price reduction.Accordingly. of the total consent orderfund of S5.025.000, Consolidatedrefunded only $28,212 directly to theDOE and it is this $28,212 that is sublectto the present refund proceeding.

Exhibit 14

Nane of Consent Order Firm: BelndgeOil Company.


ERA: 940V00121OHA: IIEF-0234

Consent Order Period: August 19,1973-July 31,1975.

Consent Order Fund: S225,000*Name of Plant: Belndge Gasoline

Plant.Alleged Overcharges: $437,243.03.Gallons Sold:

Propane 3,633.374Iso-Butane -330,358

Natural Gasoline 5.732638

Total -- 9,716.420

Per Gallon Refund Amount: 5.023157Identified Purchasers:

1. Coast Ga,. Inc.Standard Oil Co. of California. 55 MarketStreet. 39th FL. S3n Francisco. CA 94105.

Comments: *In addition to thisamount, a direct payment of $12,914.25was made by Belndge Oil Company toBelndge Farms on or before June 30,1979, for the express purpose ofrefunding amounts which Belndgebelieved it had overcharged.

Exhibit 15

Nane of Consent Order Firm: TheParade Company.

Consent Order Case Numbers;

ERA, 733VO203301 IA. HEF-0493

Consent Order Period: February 1.1975-January 28.1981.

Consent Order Fund: $1,000,000.Names and Locations of Plants and

Percentage of Ownership: Giles GasPlant. Rusk County. TX. 100% .

50093

Federal. Register I Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984- [Notices


Propane .......................................... $146,335.92Butane/Pentane Mix .................. 1,570,129.33

Total ................... .. - 1.716,465.25

Gallons Sold:

Consentorderperiod

estimate

Annualsales

estimate

Propane .................... 79,200,000 13,200,000,Butane/Pentane

Mix ............. 34,800,000 5,800,000 r

Total .................. 114,00Y,000 19,000,000


1. Wanda Petroleum Company2. Morgan Petroleum Company3. Aero Energy, Inc.4. Exxon Company, U.S.A.5. Gulf States Oil Company

[FR Doc. 84-33414 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 amlBILWNG CODE 6450-01-M

Implementation of Special RefundProcedures

AGENCY: Office of Hearings andAppeals, DOE.ACTION: Notice of implemenation ofspecial refund procedures andsolicitation of comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings andAppeals of the Department of Energysolicits comments concerning theappropriate procedures to be followed inrefunding $16,520,152.24 m consent orderfunds to members of the public. Thismoney is being held in escrow followingthe settlement of enforcementproceedings brought by the EconomicRegulatory Administration of theDepartment of Energy involving the 26firms named below. The businessoperations of these firms includedproduction of crude oil, processing ofnatural gas, and resale of coveredpetroleum products.DATE AND ADDRESS: Comments must befiled within 30 days of publication ofthis notice in the Federal Register andshould be addressed to the Office ofHearings and Appeals, Department ofEnergy, 1000 Independence Avenue,.S.W., Washington, D.C. 20508. Allcomments should conspicuously displaya reference to case numbers HEF-0221,et alFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Virginia A. Lipton, Assistant Director,Office of Hearings and Appeals,. 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20585 [202) 25Z-2400.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In,

accordance with § 205.282(b) of theprocedural regulations of theDepartment of Energy, 10 CFR205.282(b), notice is hereby given of theissuance of the Proposed Decision and.Order set out below.The ProposedDecision and Order relates to: consentorders entered into by the DOE and the26 firms set out in the Appendix below.

The Proposed Decision and Order setsforth the procedures and. standards thatthe DOE has tentatively formulated to.distribute the contents of escrowaccounts funded by these firms pursuantto the consent orders. The DOEhastentatively decided that Applications forRefund should be accepted.from firmsand individuals that purchased coveredproducts from any of the 26 named firmsduring the relevant consent order periodset forth fn the Appendix. The ProposedDecision and Order provides that inorder to receive a portion of thesettlement funds, a purchaser mustfurnish the DOE with evidence that itwas injured by the allegedly unlawfulprices for covered products charged bythe relevant consent order firm. Thisevidence should include specificdocumentation concerning the. date,place, price, and volume of productpurchased, indicate whether theincreased costs were absorbed by theclaimant or passed through to otherpurchasers, and state the extent of anyinjury alleged to have been suffered.However, the Proposed Decisionindicates that no separate, detailedshowing of injury will be required of endusers of the relevant product, or of firmswhich file refund claims in amou nts of$5,000 or less from any single consentorder fund. According to the ProposedDecision and Order, the amount of therefund will generally be apro. rata shareof the fund made available by theconsent order firm.

Until a final Decision and Orderisissued, no claims for refund can beaccepted. Applications for Refundtherefore should not be filed at this time.Appropraite public notice, includingnotice published in the Federal Register,will be given when the submission ofclaims is authorized. The deadline forfiling such claims will be no less than.9days from publication of such notice inthe Federal Register.

Any member of the public may submitwritten comments regarding theproposed refund procedures.Commenting parties should submit two,copies of their comments. Commentsshould be submitted within 30 days ofpublication of this notice in the Federal

Register, and should be sent, to theaddress set forth at the beginning of thisnotice. All comments received ih thisproceeding will be available for publicinspection between the hours of 1:00 to5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,except federal holidays, in the PublicDocket Room of the Office of Hearingsand Appeals, located in Room IE-234,1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20585.

Dated: December 17 1984.George B. Breznay,Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Proposed Decision and Order, of thoDepartment of Energy

Special Refund ProceduresDecember 17, 1984.

Names of Cases: Seminole Refining,Inc., et al.

Date of Filing: October 13.1983.Case Numbers: HEF-0221 et al.Under the procedural regulations of

the Department of Energy, the EconomicRegulatory Administration (ERA) mayrequest that the Office of Hearings andAppeals formulate and. implementspecial procedures to make refunds, Inorder to remedy the effects orallegedviolations of the DOE regulations. See 10CFR Part 205, Subpart V.

In accordance with these regulatoryprovisions, the ERA filed a Petition forthe Implementation of Special RefundProceedings in connection with consentorders entered into with the 26 firms setforth in the exhibits to the Appendix tothis Proposed Decision. An atidit of therecords of those firms revealed possiblepricing violations with respect to theirsales of natural gas liquids (NGLs],natural gas liquid products (NGLPs),crude oil and refined petroleum productsduring the periods indicated in theexhibits.i In order to settle all claimsand disputes with the DOE regardingtheir sales of these products during theirrespective audit periods, the firmsentered into consent orders. Theexhibits to the Appendix indicate theamount of money provided to the DOEby each firm. The total amount of fundsmade available by those firms that issubject to distribution in this proceedingis $16,520,152.24.I. Jurisdiction and Authority to FashionRefund Procedures

The procedural regulations of the DOEset forth general guidelines by which theOffice of Hearings, and. Appeals may

NGLPs include propane, bulane.elhane andnatural gasoline. In somemstances a gas plantoperator may have sold small' quuntliles orotherproducts. such as condensate.

I | I , , ,I I I

50094


formulate and implement a plan ofdistribution for funds received as aresult of an enforcement proceeding. 10CFR Part 205, Subpart V The Subpart Vprocess may be used in situations wherethe DOE is unable to readily identifypersons who may have been injured as aresult of alleged regulatory violationsresolved by a DOE consent order orremedial order or where the DOE isunable to readily ascertain the amountof ea6h person's injuiies. For a moredetailed discussion of Subpart V and theauthority of the Office of Hearings andAppeals to fashion procedures todistribute refunds obtained as part ofsettlement agreements, See Office ofEnforcement, 9 DOE 82,553 (1982);Office of Enforcement, 9 DOE 82,508(1981); Office of Enforcement, 8 DOE

82.597 (1981).After reviewing the records developed

in the instant cases, we have concludedthat a Subpart V proceeding is anappropriate mechanism for distributingthe available funds, because there is asignificant degree of difficulty inidentifying and locating the persons whowere injured by the alleged overcharges.Further, as a result of decontrol ofpetroleum products, price rollbacks areno longer an effective means ofrefunding money to purchasers whowere overcharged in the past. See Exec.Order No. 12287, 46 FR 9909 (January 30,1981).I. Proposed Refund Procedures

In sofar as possible the $16,520.152.24in consent order funds should bedistributed to direct and indirectcustomers of the consent order firmsnamed in the exhibits.

As shown in the exhibits to theAppendix, the operations of the 26consent order firms involved in thisproceeding included producing andselling crude oil and condensate, as wellas refining, reselling and retailing ofpetroleum products, NGLs and NGLPs.Therefore, it is likely that customers ofthese firms, and thus the potentialrefund applicants in this proceeding,will themselves be engaged in a varietyof business operations. For example.potential refund applicants might berefiners, resellers, retailers, end-usersengaged in businesses unrelated to thepetroleum industry, or ultimateconsumers that purchased petroleumproducts for personal use. In view of thewide variety of potential refundclaimants from which we may expect toreceive applications in this proceeding.we are unable to describe at this timethe precise showing that each type ofapplicant will be expected to make.However, some general principles areset forth below.

As an initial matter, we wish todiscuss the proper approach inconsidering refund applications filed bpurchasers of crude oil and condensate.In A. Johnson & Co., 12 DOE 1 85.102(1984) (Johnson); Office of Enforcement.9 DOE 82, 521 (1982) (Alek); andOffice of Enforcement, 9 DOE 82,553(1982) (Adams). we discussed in detailthe considerations involved inevaluation of refund claims involvingcrude oil purchases. Further. under DOEregulations, condensate was generallytreated as crude oil. 10 CFR 212.31.Accordingly, refund applications basedon claims of crude oil or condensatepurchases will be considered based onthe standards enunciated in the Johnson.Alkek and Adams cases. In this regard.any person who filed a refundapplication in theJohnson. Adams. orAlkek proceedings that is pending as ofthe date of this determination, andwhich is based on claims of injuryexperienced as a result of participationin the Entitlements Program. will bedeemed to have filed a similarapplication in this proceeding. Johnson.12 DOE at 88,302. Thus, these claimantsneed not file this type of application inthe present proceeding. This approachwill simplify and expedite ourconsideration of these entitlementsclaims.

We shall next consider the standardsand procedures to be applied toapplications filed in connection withother products covered by the relevantconsent orders.

A. Calculation of Allocable SharesWe must first determine the proper

method for allocating the consent orderfunds provided by each firm amongrefund applicants. With respect toapplications based on claims of allegedovercharges, it may be difficult forclaimants to measure precisely theextent of an alleged overcharge. In thosecases in which an applicant is unable toreasonably quantify the amount bywhich it was allegedly overcharged, wehave decided to generally follow avolumetric approach to determine theallocable share to which it will beentitled. Office of Special Counsel. 9DOE 82.545 (1982). Such an approachwill permit a claimant to be eligible toreceive a pro rata share of the individualconsent order fund made available bythe relevant consent order firm listed inthe Appendix. We propose that therefund pool made available by eachconsent order firm therefore be dividedas follows. We will multiply the numberof gallons of product purchased by aqualified applicant by a factor using thetotal amount of the fund provided by therelevant consent order firm as th

numerator and using the relevant totalsales in gallons of all products coveredby the relevant consent order as thedenominator. Successful claimants willalso receive a pro rata share of anyinterest accrued on the consent orderfunds made available by the relevantconsent order firm. This volumetricapproach will enable us to arrive at anappropriate allocable share for mostindividual refund applicants.

It is also possible that somepurchasers of the consent order firmsmay wish to file a refund applicationbased on claims of allegedviaolations ofthe DOE's allocation regulations. ratherthan on claims of alleged overcharges.In this type of application. a claimantmight allege. for example. that a consentorder firm failed to supply it with theamount of allocated product to whichthe clainant was entitled underDOEregulations. In order to evaluate thistype of claim, and determine whether anapplicant expenenced injury, wepropose to refer to standards such asthose set forth m OKCCorp./Town &County Marknets. Ina. 12 DOE 85.094(1984). and Aztex Energy Co.. 12 DOE83.116 (1984).

B. Proofof injury.

In order to be eligible to receive all ora portion of its allocable share, anapplicant claiming alleged overchargeswill generally be required to establishthat it was injured as a result of itspurchases from the consent order firm.

While there are a variety of ways inwhich a showing of injury may be made.applicants that are resellers or refinerswill generally be expected to show notonly that they had banks of unrecoveredcosts, but also to provide evidence thatthey did not pass through to their owncustomers the additional costsassociated with the alleged overchargesby showing. for example. that due tomarket conditions they could not passthrought the additional costs. Office ofEnforcement. 10 DOE 85.056 (1933):Office ofEnforcement. 10 DOE 85.029(1932): Office of Enforcement. 9 DOE82.503 (931).

We believe that a detailed showtng ofinjury should not be necessary forapplicants that are ultimate consumers.However, with respect to consumerclaimants, the opportunity to make thislcss.detailed showing will be limited tothose applicants that purchased productfor their own personal use and to thosewhose business operations were notsubject to DOE regulation. It is evidentthat applicants that purchased productfor their own use would have had noopportunity to pass through additionalcosts associated with alleged

50095

Federal Register I VoL 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

overcharges. With respect to applicantsthat were consumers of covered productin connection with a business whichwas not subject to DOE regalation, wehave indicated on several occasions thatit would be beyond the scope of aSubpart V proceeding to analyze theimpact of increased costs of petroleumnproducts on the final prices of thesetypes of businesses.E.g., Texas' OilGas Corp., 12 DOE 1 85,069 (1984].Therefore, these types of consumerapplicants need only demonstrate thatthey purchased a specific quantity ofproduct that was sold by one or more ofthe 26 identified consent order firmsduring the relevant time period-

On the other hand, refund applicantswhose business operations were subjectto thel DOE regulatory program andwhich purchased petroleum productsconsumed as fuel or as raw material willnot be considered as consumers forpurposes of the shdwnng of injury. Sincewe are better able to analyze the impactof increased costs of petroleum productson their operations, these applicants willbe expected: to establish injury inaccordance with the principles we haveproposed in this Decision.

Further, a separate, detailed, showingof injury may be complicated andburdensome for firms, such as refinersand resellers, which purchasedrelatively small amounts of coveredproduct, and which are therefore,claiming smaller refunds. For example,such firms may have limited accountingand data-retrieval capabilities and maytherefore be unable to produce therecords necessary to prove the existenceof banks of unrecovered costs, or thatthey did not pass on the allegedovercharges to their own customers.Further, with respect to smaller refundclaims, we believe that the costsincident to applications setting forth adetailed demonstration of injury mayoutweigh the benefits which nught beobtained' by receiving this additional,detailed data. For example, the high costof retrieving detailed datademonstrating injury might totally deterfirms from filing smaller refund claims.Moreover, the small claims procedurepermits. the Office of Hearings, andAppeals to use its own resources moreefficiently. Peoples, Energy Corp., 12.DOE 1 No HEF-0266 (December11, 1984). Therefore, we propose thatany applicant claiming a refund. of$5,000 or less from any single consentorder firm identified in, the exhibits tothe Appendix need not make a separate:detailed showing of injury in order to beeligible to receive a refund. Such anapplicant will only be required to submitproof of the amount of product

purchased during the consent orderperiod.

A number of the audit files developedwith respect to the consent order firmsinvolved in this proceeding specificallyidentified customers of those firms.Where possible, these identifiedcustomers will be served with copies ofthis Proposed Decision and Order.

Refund applications should not befiled until issuance of a final Decisionand Order establishing procedures inthis matter. Applicants will be asked toprovide all relevant informationnecessary to establish a claim. includingspecific documentation concerning thedate, place, price, andvolume of productpurchased, the retention of increasedcosts, and the extent of any injuryalleged. Detailed procedures for filingapplications willbe provided in. the finalDecision and Order. Before disbursingany of the funds received as a result ofthe consent orders set out below,, weintend ta publicize the distributionprocess in the Federal Register and toprovide an opportunity for any affectedparty to file a. claim. Commentsregarding the tentative distributionprocess set forth in this Pioposed Ordershould be filed with the Office ofHearings andAppeals within 30 days ofpublication of this Proposed Order in theFederal Register. We will consider at afuture date the appropriate dispositionof any funds remaining after allsuccessful claims of purchasers havebeen paid.

It is therefore ordered that:The refund amounts remitted to the

Department of Energy by. the consentorder firms set forth in the exhibits tothe attached Appendix will bedistributed in, accordance with theforegoing decision.

Proposed Decision and Order. SeminoleRefining, Inc.

Appendix

Case NamesFirm and Case No.Seminole Refining, Inc.; HEF-0221Roberts. Oil Company, Inc4 HEF -0167Intemorth, Inc.; HEF-0255Swifty, Oil Company; rnc.HEF-0175Lakeside Refining Company and Crystal'

Refining Company HEF-0214Sanesco Oil Company; HEF-170,Truckstops Corporation of America; HEE-

0183Warrior Asphalt Company of Alabama, Inc.

HEF-0226.Franks Petroreum, Inc.LHEF-0208Northwest Pipeline Corporation; HEF-0264Kansas-Nebraska Natbral Gas Co., Inc.. HEF-

0257Rookwood' Oil Terminals. Inc.; HEF-0168Schroeder Oil Company; HEF-017T

Speedway Petroleum Company, Inc. IlE-0173

JOC OilInu.n:HEF-0176A. Tarricone, Inc., HEF-0177R.V Whitmer Thermogas Co.., HEF-0178Ropet Incorporated, HEF-0169Tippins Oil and Gas Co., Inc.; HEF-018Danel ].Turco dibta Turco's 129 Exxon, and

Turco's Shell- HEF-0184U.S. Oil Company, Inc.: HEF-0185United Petroleum. Inc., HEF-B187Little America Refining Company; HEF-O215Witco Chemical Corporation; -EF-0227Aminoil U.S.A., Inc.;-HEF-0229Stinnes Interoil Inc., HEF-0174

Index to EXhibits

Exhibit and'Firm1-Semifnole, Refining., Inc.2-Roberts Oil Company; Inc.3-Internorth; Inc.4-Swifty Oil Company, Inc.5-Lakeside Refining Company and.Crystal

Refining Company6-Sanesco Oil Company7-Truckstops Corporation of America8-Wamor Asphalt Company of Alabama,

Inc.9-Franks Petroleum, Inc.10--Northwest Pipeline Corporation'l1-Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co., Inc.12-Rookwood Oil Terminals, Inc.13-Schroeder Oil Company"14-Speedway Petroleum Company, Inc.15-JOC Oil, Inc..16-A.Tarricone, Ina17-R.V. Whitmer Thermogas Co.18-Ropet Incorporated19--Tippins Oil and Gas Co., Inc.20-Daniel J. Turcoid/b/a Turco's 129,Exxon,

and Turco's Shell21-U.S. Oil Company, Inc.22-Uhited Petroleum, Inc.23--Little America Refining Company24-Witco Chemical Corporation25--Aminoil U.S.A., Inc.26-Stinneslnteroil, Inc.

Exhibit 1

Name of Consent Order Firm:Seminole Refining, Inc., St. Marksi FL.

Type of Operation- Refiner of coveredproducts.


ERA: 411S00023:N00Sg011;N00S90131OHA:HEF-0221

Consent OrderPeriod: December 1,1973-August 13, 1980.

Consent Order Fund: $1,900,000*.Alleged Overcharges:

No. 2 Fuel Oil ........ .... .25g.3[.3.O.No. 5 Fuel O . . 166,752A9Jet Fuel .................................. 212,552.75Tractor Fuel1.........................10,192.34P-g Oil ..... ...................... 14,093.00

Subtotal........................ 071,953.58

Entitlements Program .................. 1,330,00.0aTotal ................. 2'.001.953.58

50096

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26,. 1934 / Notices

Gallons Sold:

No. 2 Fuel Oil. .................. 26,817.951No. 5 Fuel O . 31.198.961JIt Fuel ......................................... 27.699.880Tractor Fuel_................ 1.748.415P-9 Oil ........... 3586.168

Total 91.049,355.

Per Gallon Refund Amount; $.006260.Identified Purchasers:No. ZFue! OiI(Resellers/End-Users:

1. Couch Construction2. McKenzie Construction3. Oxford Construction4. Milwhite Company5. Coleman Evans6. Wright Construction7. Southern Terminal8. Three Country Petroleum9. Autry Petroleum10. Big Bend11. Dixie Oil12. Couch Asphalt13. W. J. Holland14. Summer Construction15. Waverly Minerals16. Industrial Service17. Colonial Oil18. Haugabook Oil19. Murphy Oil20. Clyde Smith21. Tallahassee Memorial22. St. Joe Paper23. Temko Oil24. Geophysical Services25. Frank Lawhom26. Manor Timber27. Williams Services28. Mileage Oil29. O'Neal Construction Co.30. Georgia Medicaid31. E. W. Patterson32. Sullivan33. Griffin Farms34. A. 1. Singletary35. Baily & Whitaker36. Turner Oil Co.

No. 5 Fuel Oil (Resellers/Ehd-Users):1. Columbia Paving2. Dowes Silica3. Englehard Minerals4. Graceville Oil5. Oil Dri6. Rocky Creek Mineral7. Hammons Asphialt8. Moody Construction9. Florida A & M10. Cape Rendering11. Southeastern Asphalt12. Flint River Mills

.13. Americus Wood14. Henry Country Line15. Baxter Asphalt16. Amoco Oil Company17. Sing Oil Company18. Jasper Laundry19. White Construction20. National Line Service21. Houdaille D-W22. Dotham Oil Mill

Jet Fuel (Resellers/End-Users}:

1. Moody Air Force Base2. Grumman3. Michael Avun

Tractor Fuel (Resellers]:

1. R. P. Williams2. Union 763. Waldron4. Piclins5. T. J. Campbell6. M. C. Sullivan7. Moms Adams

P-9 Oil (End-Userm):1. Sanford Chemicals2. Vulcan Asphalt3. McCrannie Bros.

Comments:*Of the total Seminole consent order

fund, $1,330,000 was related to the firm'salleged crude oil pricing violations. In A.Johnson & Co., 12 DOE U 85,102 (1984).we provided that applications for refundfrom the Seminole fund filed inconnection with alleged crude oil pricingviolations, would be considered basedon the procedures set forth in Office ofEnforcement, 9 DOE 82,521 (1982) andOffice of Enforcement. 9 DOE 82,553(1982). Therefore, the standardsenunciated in the presented ProposedOrder are applicable only to Seminole'ssales of the refined products listed in theexhibit. Accordingly, the per gallon(volumetric refund amount set forth inthis exhibit is based only on allegedovercharges related to refined product-.

Exhibit z

Name of Consent Order Firm: RobertsOil Company. Inc., Albuquerque. NM87108.

Type of Operation: Reseller/retailersof refined petroleum products.

Consent Order Case Numbers:.ERA: 400 H 00215 (RE* 673Hc0321n)OHA: HEF-0167

Consent Order Period: April 1.1979-August 31.1979.

Copsent Order Fund: $14,393.72.Alleged Overcharges: S37678.21.Gallons sold: Gasoline (Regular,

Unleaded and Premium).Per Gallon refund amount: S.001759.Identified Purchasers:

1. Clark Oil Co.. 10701 Menaul, N.E.,Albuquerque. NM 87111-

2. Simon Gonzales. 544 Main Street. N.W..Albuquerque, NM 87112

3. Art Wallace. 3901 Coors, S.W.,Albuquerque, NM 87112

4. Ever Ready Oil Co., 10i Anderson, S.E.Albuquerque. NM 6-"112

5. Octopus, East Central, S.F. Albs-uerque.NM 87109

0. State Oil Co.. Raton. NM 877407. Felix Baca. Los Lunas. NM 0-(37M38. Bill Upchurch, Albuquerque. NM 571129. Horizon Oil Co.


Intemorth, In.. Omaha. NE.Type of Operation: Producer of

condensate.Consent Order Case Numbers:

ERA: 73,V07rX9OHA: HEF-025S

Consent Order Period: September .1973-January 28.1931.

Consent Order Fund: $1,500,000.Alleged Overcharges: Condensate

$2,919,329.73Gallons Sold:

Condeate 177,331.774 23_,97.92

Identified Purchasers:1. Apco Oil Corporation. Oldahoma City. OK.2. Pe nman Corporation. P.O. Box 1183.

Houston. TX 77013. Koch Industries. Inc.. P.O. Box 2238.

Wichita. KS 67014. Diamond Shamrock Corporation, P.O Box

631. Amarillo, TX 791735. Dorchester Gas Corporation. 5735 Pinetand

Drive. P.O. Box 31049. Dallas, TX 752316. Tesoro Patroleum Corporation. 870 Tesoro

Drive. San Antomo. TX 782aa7. Petro Sands. Inc.. Enid. OK8. Gceral Petroleum, Inc. Hobbs. N249. S=unmit Gas Comp3ny. Houat-.' TX

Comments:I Of the 3.3275A15.% m total alleged

overcharges, Internorth, Inc. refundedS301,250.68 and $54,835.52 directly toApco Oil Corporation and DiamondShamrock Corporation. respectively, forthe express purpase of refundingamounts which the firm had allegedlyovercharged. Accordingly, the amountavailable for distribution in thisproceeding is S=,919,329.73. As indicatedin the above determination, refundsinvolving condensate sales will beconsidered based on the standardsenunciated inALek, Adans, andJohnson.

Exhibit 4Name of Consent Order Finn: Svwffty

Oil Company. Inc.. Seymour, IN 47274.Type of Operation: Resellertretailer of

motor gasoline.Consent Order Case Numbers:

ERAN: 5-39H0337OHA: HEF-0175

Consent Order Period: August!. 19'9-April 30,1980.

Consent Order Fund: S55,0O.Locations of Gasoline Stations Oned

and/or Operated by Sv,ifty OilCompany, Inc.:'1. Service Station No. 4. Fort Wayne, M

50097


2. Serviice Station No. 5, Shelbyville. IN3. Service Station No. 10, Henderson, KY4. Service Station No. 11, Charlestown. IN5. Service Station No. 16, Madison, IN6. Service Station No. 18, North Vernon. IN7. Service Station No. 19, Dayton, OH8. Service Station No. 20, Covington, KY9. Service Station No. 21, Columbus. IN10. Service Station No. 22, Louisville, KY11. Service-Station No. 25, Fern Creek, KY12. Service Station No. 26. Fairfield, OH13. Service Station No. 27, Richmond, IN14. Service Station No. 31, Owensboro, KY15. Service Station No. 34, Nashville, TN16. Service Station No. 37 Chattanooga, TN17 Service Station No. 39, Carrollton, KY18. Service Station No. 40, Bedford, IN19. Service Station No. 41, Chillicothe, OH20. Service Station No. 42, Columbus, OH21. Service Station No. 44, Bloomington. IN22. Service Station No. 45, Dayton, OH23. Service Station No. 49, Columbus, OH'24. Service Station No. 101, Manon, OH25. Service Station No. 102, Greenfield. IN26. Service Station No. 103, Greensburg, IN27 Service Station No. 104, Columbus. OH28. Service Station No. 105, Lapaz, IN29. Service Station No. ill, Clarksville, IN30. Service Station No. 113, Roanoke. VA31. Service Station No. 116, Huntsville, AL32. Service Station No. 117, Tuscalooga. AL33. Service Station No. 123, Seymour. IN34. Service Station No. 124, Lawrence. IN35. Service Station No. 127 Lexington, KY36. Service Station No. 130, Delphi, IN


Regular Gasoline ............................ $283,540.87Unleaded Gasoline ........................ 248,558.24Gasohol .................... 50,681.57

Total .......................................... 582,780.68

Gallons Sold:

ConsentOrderperiod

estimate

*30,,000

Annualsales

estimate

40,000,000

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.002166.Identified Purchasers:Resellers-Retailers and/or

Retailers " *

1. Consumer's Petroleum. 610 MagaxineStreet. Box 23309, Nashville. TN 37202

2. Orbit Oil Company, 1420 West 25th Street.Cleveland, TN 37311

3. R. W. Wogaman Oil Compnay, 71 NorthMain Street, West Alexandria, OH 45381

4. Wayne Burton, Driftwood Auto Center,Edinburg, IN

5. Excel Products, 3601 Hobson Road, Suite110. Ft. Wayne, IN 46815

6. Gene Carey c/o Dowds Sunoco,Scottsburg. IN

7 Mid-State Oils, Inc., Post Office Box 379.Shelbyville, TN 37160

8. Rocket Oil Co., Inc.. 1150 South MainStreet, Madisonville. KY 42431

9. Little Champ Oil Company, Post Office Box823, Columbus. IN 47201

10. Southern Pantry. Inc., 925 South MemorialDrive, Prattyville, AL 36067

11. Hume Oil & Gas Company, Post OfficeBox 397, Henderson, KY 42420

12. Yeager Petroleum. Inc., 1-74 & State Road267. Brownsburg, IN 46112

13. Harry E. Crocker, d/b/a/ MarklandStation, Clarksville, TN 37040

Comments:*During the consent order period,

Swifty Oil Company, Inc. owned and/oroperated 36 retail outlets in six states(Indiana, Ohio, Tepnessee, Alabama,Kentucky and Virginia). The salesthrough these outlets comprised 98.5% ofthe sales volume of the firm.

**All sales, other than those madethrough the retail outlets, representeddirect shipments from Swifty's suppliersto Swifty's customers (reseller-retailersand/or retailers).


Lakeside Refining Company and CrystalRefining Company, Smithfield, MI.

Type of Operation: Refiner of coveredproducts.


ERA: 540S00276OHA: HEF-0214

Consent Order Period: August 19,1973-January 27, 1981.

Consent Order Fund: $200,000*Alleged Overcharges: Entitlements

Program: $200,000.Comments:*The Lakeside/Crystal consent order

required refunds totaling $675,000. Thefirms agreed to make direct refunds of$475,000 through credit memoranda and/or cash payments over a period of threeyears to eleven identified purchasers ofrefined petroleum products. The firmsrefunded $200,000 directly to the DOE, infull settlement of DOE's challenges tothe amount of Lakeside/Crystal'spurchases and sales of crude oilentitlements. It is this $200,000 that issubject to the present refund proceeding.

-Since the alleged violations involve theDOE Crude Oil Entitlements Program,refund claims in connection with thisfund will be evaluated based on thestandards set forth in Alkek, Adams andJohnson.

Exhibit 6

Name of Consent Order Firm: SanescoOil Company, Escondido, CA 92025.

Type of Operation: Reseller/retailer ofrefined petroleum products.

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA: 930H00306OHA: HEF-0170

Consent Order Period: April 1, 1979-June 30, 1979.

Consent Order Fund: $51,703.77

Location of Gasoline Stations:Company-Operated Stations:

1. 6839 Imperial Avenue. San Diego, CA 921142. 3911 University Avenue, San Diego, CA

921053. 3010 Market Street, San Diego, CA 921024. 5415 South Woodruff, Lakewood, CA 907145. 8510 East Rosecrams, Paramount, CA 907236. 3396 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, CA

90807

Dealer-Operated Stations:1. 719 Second Street. El Cajon, CA 920202.1202 South Main Street, Fallbrook, CA

920283. 555 West Grand Avenue, Escondido, CA4.470 N. Escondido Boulevard, Escondido,

CA5. 303 S. Escondido Boulevard. Escoudldo, CA6.1116 West Mission Avenue, Escondldo, CA7.710 First Street. Encinitas, CA8. 880 Elm Street, Carlsbad, CA9. 2440 East Anaheim, Long Beach, CA10. 2340 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long

Beach, CA11. 3631 Santa Fe, Long Beach, CA12. 12462 Poway Road, Poway, CA13. 2413 Pacific Coast Highway, Lomita, CA14.1943 South Hill Street, Oceanside, CA15. 2207 West 190th Street, Torrance, CA10. 235 South 47th Street, San Diego, CA17 535 North Santa Fe, Vista, CA18. 730 South Santa Fe, Vista, CA19. 27406 Valley Center Road, Valley Conlar,

CAAlleged Overcharges: Motor Gasoline:

$111,458.96.Gallons Sold:

Consentorderperiodestiate

Motor Gasoline ........... 3.775,000

Annualsales

estimatt.

15.100,000


1. Union Oil Co. of California, P.O. Box 7600,Los Angeles, CA 90051

2. Shell Oil Company, P.O. Box 2403, 1 ShellPlaza, Houston, TX 77001

3. Mobile Oil Corporation, 3225 GallowsRoad, Fairfax, VA 22037

4. Atlantic Richfield Company, 515 SouthFlower Street, P.O. Box 2079-T.A. LosAngeles, CA 90071

5. Mohawk Petroleum Corporation. P.O, Box1476, Bakersfield, CA 93302


Truckstops Corporation of America,Nashville, TN.

Type of Operation: Retailer of refinedpetroleum products.

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA: 430K00031OHA: HEF-0183

Consent Order Period: November 1,1973-June 30, 1976.

- I I II

50698

Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 19-4 f Notices,

Consent Order Fund: $486,430.Alleged Overcharges: $3,509,834.89.Gallons Sold:* 388,360,692.Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.001252.Indentified Purchasers: Unidentified.Comments:*The specific products sold by

Truckstops were not identified in theaudit files we were able to examne.However, we believe it is likely that theproducts sold by the firm were motorgasoline and diesel fuel.

Exhibit 8

Name of Consent Order Firm: WariorAsphalt Company of Alabama, Inc.,Tuscaloosa, AL.



ERA: 420S00193OHA: HEF-0226

Consent Order Period: August 19,1973-June 30, 1976.

Consent Order Fund: $404,287*Location of Refinery:Tuscaloosa, AL.Alleged Overcharges:

Diesel .................. ......... ....... . 503Other Covered Products ..... 210,000

Total .. ................. 935,503

Gallons Sold:Average Runs. to Stiflls: ZOOCBPDConsent Order Period Estimate-57,120,00

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.007077Indentified Purchasers:

1. Alabama Feed Mills2.AL Oil of Etowah, Inc.3. AL. Oil of Sheffield, Inc.4. Allied Products Co.5. Armstrong Oil Co.6. Barns Oil Co.7. Ballew & Roberts Const. Co.8. Belcher Oil Co.9- Chilton County10, Cowart Oil Company11. Druid Hills Oil Co.12. Drummond Coal Co.13. G&W Asphalt Co.14. Guthne Oil Co.15. Hager Oil Co.16. Hicks Oil Co.17. J&J Oil Co.18. Kuykendall & Powell19. Lambert Materials Co.20. Larkin Oil Co.21. McCord Oil Co. -22. National Refining Co.23. Osteen Oil Co.24. Philrich. Inc.25. Raines Lumber Co.26. Rhodes & Mcleod.27. Ross Neely Express28. Rutland Oil Co.29. Sentell Oil Co.30. SL of AL. Inst. for Deaf31. Stroup Oil Company32. Sumter County

33. Taylor Oil Company34. Charles Tenerson35. Thompson & Swain36. Vaughn Oil Co.37. Williams Bros. Oil Co.38. Windham Distrib.39. Wright Truck Lines4. Wyatt Oil Co.

Comments:*Warrior agreed to make direct

refunds of S26,713 by cash or creditmemoranda to 16 end-users and it alsoagreed to pay a civil penalty of S25,000to settle any and all other oth-r ciiilliability relating to the period coveredby this consent order. Accordingly, ofthe total consent order fund of S43o.,the firm refunded directly to the DOEthe amount of $404,287 It is thi S404,237that is subject to the present refundproceeding.

Exhibit 9Name of Consent Order Fim: Franks

Petroleum, Inc.. Shreveport, LA.Type of Operation: Reseller of refined

petroleum products.Consent Order Case Numbers:

ERA: 641S00421OHA: HEF-0203

Consent Order Period: January 1.1973-January 27.1981.

Consent Order Fun& S135.000.Names of Plants:

1. Kerr-McGee PlantClaiborne Plant


Propane ............................. SIGA9.43Butane . ... .................. -,167.01LPremium Gasoline ......................- 1z91z&3Regular Gasoline_..... 4Aa12. 9Gas Oil- elm4Diesel ................................. 03.324Condensate . _.................... .67

Total ................. ....... C G47 3

Gallons Sold:

Propane ....... . .Butane ........... ..Premium Gasoline-....Regular Gasoline_ -Kerosene ............................Gas l............... ...Diesel ..........

1Z447'.1513,51PC2Z3

3.2M.444257 23..374742.100

947.343703.970474,71

63.0M4.106


1. Aeropress2. Kerr-McGee Corporation. Kerr.MA.Ur'

Center. Oklahoma City. OK 731233. Tesoro Petroleum Corporation. fT03Tescro

Drive. San Antonio. TX 78204. Wanda Petroleum Co.. P.O. Box 531Z0.

Houston. TX 77032

5. Hercules Petroleum Co.6. Aero Energ-•7. Claiborne Gasoline Company

Exhibit 10

Name of Consent OrderFirm:Northwest Pipeline Corporation. SaltLake City. UT.

Type of OperatiomGas plant operator.Producer of condenalte

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA.71003015OHA: HEF-4G_4

Consent Order Period: Febmuary 1,1974-January 28.1981.

Consent Order Fund: S1,500,00.Locations of Gas Psants Operated by

Consent Order Firm:1. Ignacioa. CO2. Opal. WY

Alleged Condensate Overcharges:S768.855.35*

Gallons Sold: 6,021.763.Per Gallon Refund Amount:

S.121415"Identified Purchasem:

I. Delgado Oil Co.2. Amoco Oil Company. 200 East Randolph

Drive. Chicago. IL 60501

Comments:'As we suggested in our

determination, refund claims filed inconnection with condensate sales willbe considered pursuant to the standardsset forth m thelJhuzson. AA'e; andAdams cases. In the Fresent case. therefund amount available for applicantsthat were condensate purchasers isS765,65.35. Accordingly. of theS1.500,000 consent order fund.S731.134.65 will be available forapplibants whose refund claims arebased on purchases of NGLs.

*"This volumatnc amountwas,derived by dividing the portion of thefunds allocated to NGLs $731.134.65. bythe number of gallons of NGLs sold.6.021,763.

Exhibit 11

Name of Consent Order Firm= Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas CoIne..Hastings. NE E3. 01

Typa of Operation: Producer ofcondensale*.

Consent Order Case Numbrs:.ERA: 730V01244OltA; HEF-0257

Consen! Order Period: September 1.1973-September 30.1979.

Consent Order Fund: S406.57.25.Alleged Overcharges by Installation:

50033

Federal R6gister / Vol., 49, No. 249 /Vedhesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

Sabine Street Drip e18307 ............. $462.35Drip Tank ""849 .............. 4,562.27Danville Drip #19455 ...................... 17,441.17Tyrone Gas Plant ............................. 14,567.42R. Lacy Estate -'04437 ..................... 369,545.04

Total ............................................ 406,578.25

Condensate Barrels Sold: 218,571.Identified Purchasers:

1. Scurlock2. Perman Corporation, P.O. Box 1183.

Houston, TX 77001

Comments:*Refund claims will be considered

based on the standards enunciated inJohnson, Alkek and Adams.

Exhibit 12Nane of Consent Order Firm:

Rookwood Oil Terminals, Inc.,Cincinnati,'OH.

Type of Operation: Reseller of refinedpetroleum products.


Consent Order Period: November 1,1973-April 30, 1974.

Consent Order Fund: $156,862.75.Alleged Overcharges: $628,128.29.Gallons Sold:

Consent order ,Annual salesperiod estimate estimate

150,000,000 300,000,000

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.001045.Identified Purchasers: Unidentified.Comments: Rookwood Oil Terminals,

Inc. (ROT) is a reseller of petroleumproducts, including gasoline, No. 2 fueloil, No. 2 diesel fuel and kerosene. ROToperates terminal facilities on the-OhioRiver in Cincinnati, Ohio. They alsohave three wholly-owned subsidiariesas follows:

1. Oil Transit Inc.-This subsidiaryaccounts for the largest volume of salesof any part of ROT. The firm's salesterritory is 12 midwestern and southernstates.

2. Houston Oil Company-Thissubsidiary normally makes salesdirectory from one of five ARCOTerminal sites in North Carolina, SouthCarolina and Georgia.

3. Oil Transit of Colorado, Inc.-Thissubsidiary operates in Colorado andWyoming. The principal productinvolved is gasoline.


Schroeder Oil Company Carroll, IA51901.



Consent Order Period: May 1, 1979-July 31, 1979.

Consent Order-Fund: $16,351.40.Alleged Overcharges: Motor Gasoline:

Gallons Sold:

Motor Gasoline .............

12. Ogunquit13. Chelmsford14. Clinton15. Office16. Hyannis '117 Towsend18. Winchendon19. Hyannis #220. Kittery #2

Service station operated on aconsignment basis:

Consent Annuald soles 1. Athol, Massachusetts

estimate estoimte Alleged Overcharges: Motor Gasoline:1.450,000 5,800,000 $107,632.29.

Gallons Sold:Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.011276.Identified Purchases:

1. Al's Comer2. Baker Petroleum3. Ball Oil4. Booth Oil5. Bushy John's6. Cal Bliss Enterprises7 Dedham Oil8. Don's DX9. Doonan Oil Company10. Eberle B1rothers11. Elite Ltd12. Greteman Oil13. Halbur Oil Company14. Hunt Oil Company15. Kelly Oil Company16. Koren Garage17. Manning Oil Company18. Reise Mobil Service19. Tjaden Oil Company20. Tractor Service Company21. Westside Oil Company22. Casey's General Store23. Robo Car Wash24. Vail

Exhibit 14

Name of Consent Order Firm:Speedway Petroleum Company, Inc.,Fitchburg, MA.

Type of Operation: Reseller/retailer ofmotor gasoline.


Consent Order Period:'April 1, 1979-April 30,1980.

Consent Order Fund: $50,000.Names and Locations of Service

Stations:Twenty company-operated retail

outlets located in Maine, NewHampshire and Massachusetts:

1. York2. Kings Comor3. Kingston4. Buzzard Bay5. Baker6. Rochester7 Taunton8. Bass River9. No. Adams10. Keene11. Portsmouth

Consent order Anual salca,period , itniestimate I estimate

Motor Gasoline ......... 13,000,000 12,000,000



Exhibit 15

Name of Consent Order Firm: JOG Oil,Inc., New York, NY.



Consent Order Period: November 1,1973-June 30, 1974.

Consent Order Fund: $313,069'Alleged Overcharges:

No. 2 Heating Oil .................. $810,052No. 6 Fuel Oil ................. 338,08

Total .................... 948,120

Gallons Sold:

No. 2 Heating Oil ............................. 5,529,720No. 6 Fuel Oil .................................... 29,987,070

Total ............................................ 35,510,790


1. Kaiser Trading Co.2. Commonwealth of Virginia3. Queens Petroleum4. Patchogue Oil Terminal5. New England Electric6. Howard Fuel Co.7 Amerada Hess Corporation, 1185 Avenue

of the Americas, New York, NY 100308. Getty Oil Company, P.O. Box 1650, Tulsa,

OK 741029. Tenneco Oil Company, P.O. Box 2511,

Houston. TX 77001

Comments:*Beginning on the 15th day following

the effective date of the Consent Orderand continuing on the basis of 24 equal

'50100


monthly installments, the firm agreed tomake refunds in the amount of $294,739to an end-user customer,Commonwealth of Virginia.Accordingly, of the total consent orderfund of $607,808, JOC Oil, Inc. refundedonly $313,069 directly to the DOE and itis this $313,069 that is subject to thepresent refund proceeding.

Exhibit 16

Name of Consent Order Firm: A.Tamcone, Inc., Yonkers, NY 10710.

Type of Operation: Reseller/retailer ofNo. 2 heating oil.


ERA: NoneOHA: HEF-0177

Consent Order Period: November 1,1973-December 31,1974.

Consent Order-Fund: $365,354*Alleged Overcharges: No. 2 Heating

Oil: $1,126,287Gallons Sold:

Consent order AnnalI sokape-nod esintestimate

No. 2 Heating Oil.. 36,166,666 31,000,000

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $:010101.Identified Purchasers: Tenneco Oil

Company, P.O. Box 2511, Houston, TX77001.

Comments:*Beginning on August 1, 1979 and

continuing until August 1,1983, the firmagreed to refund or issue creditmemoranda to seven classes ofpurchasers of No. 2 heating oil for theexpress purpose of refunding $34,646which the firm had allegedly

-overcharged. Accordingly, of-the totalconsent order fund of $400,000, A.Tarrcone, Inc. refunded only S365,354directly to the DOE and it is this$365,354 that is subject to the presentproceeding.

Exhibit 17

Name of Consent Order Firm: R. VWhitmer Thermogas Co., Wauseon, OH.

Type of Operation: Reseller/retailer ofpropane.

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA: 530E00176OHA: HEF--0178

Consent Order Period: November 1,1973-January 28,1981.

Consent Order Fund: $60,000.Alleged Overcharges: Propane:

$79,844.05.Gallons Sold:

Propane ............ 5,68.093 G9.048


1. M. Altman2.J .Batdorf3. E. Bates4. Donald Belman5. M. Callendar6. Camp Palmer7. C. Canfield8. C. Carr9. H. Cass10. D. Colon11. A. Creager12. R. Daugherty13. R. Deleon14. C. Dennis15. H. Dennis16. C. Diaz17. R. Demnger18. W. Dunn19. L Durbin20. E. Gerdeman21. F. Grabanczyk22. I. Green23. J. Grim24. L Gunn25. F. Haupright26. C. Haven27. Health Food Stand28. M. Henry29. R. Hildneth30. C. Hile31. N. Humbert32. A. Hutchinson33. E. Miller34. C. Mock35. D. Parchen36. H. Pfund37. Pike School38. B. Rieneke39. R. Roth40. Dr. Rupp41. W. Sager42. B. Shaffer43. G. Smith44. R. Stunnard45. A. Swanz46. G. Taylor47. M. T. Tipton48. United Telephone

Exhibit 18

Name of Consent Order Firm: RopetIncorporated, Corapolis, PA 15103.



ERA: 340H00262OHA: HEF-0169

Consent Order Period: November 1.1973-April 30. 1974.

Consent Order Fund: S99.02.5Alleged Overcharge

Piopane - .S 60.000No. 2 Oil- - -- 255,012Motor Gasoline - _ 89.452

Total - - 405.474

Gallons Sold:

C-sr! c'der An:.- :iszka

9,504.828 19.069.656

Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.010418.Identified Purchasers:End Users:

1. Plumbers Equipment2. Allied Chemical3. US. Steel4. Russel Burdsall5. A & S Railroad(. PPG Industries7. Wheelin- Pittsburg

Utflity Firm:

Duquesne light Company

Comments:* The firm agreed to make refunds in

the amount of S105,858 to seven end-users shown above. In the event thatreasonable efforts by the consentingfirm did not result in payments to thoseend-user customers, the amount owed tothe customers was to be paid to theDOE. Accordingly, of the total consentorder fund of $204,883, RopetIncorporated refunded only $99,025directly to the DOE and it is this S99,025that is subject to the present refundproceeding.

Exhibit 19

Name of Consent Order Firm: TippinsOil and Gas Co., Inc., Richmond, MO.

Type of Operation: Reseller/retailer ofmotor gasoline.

Consent Order Case Numbers:ERA: 710H02502O IA: HEF-11

Consent Order Period: March 1,1979--December 31,1979.

Consent Order Fund: $12,000.Alleged Ov.ercharges: Motor Gasoline:

$90.948.82.Gallons Sold:

Motor Gasoline- 7.359.4Za 8.767.655

Per Gallon Refund Amount: S.031632Identified Purchasers: Unidentified.

50101


Exhibit 20Name of Consent Decree Firm: Daniel

J. Turco d/b/a Turco's 129 Exxon, Route129, Billerica, MA; and Turco's Shell,Nashua Road, North Billerica. MA.

Type of Operation: Retailer of motorgasoline.

Consent Decree Case Numbers:Civil Action No.. 80-1311-NOHA: HEF-0184

Consent Decree Period: August 1,1979-January 27, 1981.

Consent Decree Fund: $510.46(Includes Interest of $54.69).

Alleged Overcharges: Motor Gasoline:$455.77

Gallons Sold:

Co, =na order Annualsalesperiod , ,lmtestimate

Motor Gasoline: ........ 1,749,505 1.171,687



Exhibit 21

Name of Consent Order Firm: U.S. OilCompany, Inc., Combined Locks, WI54113.

Type of Operation: Reseller/retailedof refined petroleum products.


Consent Order Period: March 1,1979-August 31, 1979.

Consent Order Fund: $50,776.89.Alleged Overcharges:

Regular Gasoline ........................... $63,246.32Unleaded Gasoline .......................... 188,658.69Premium Gasoline ............ 3,730.15

Total .......................... 255,635.16

Gallons Sold:

Motor Gasoline .........

Consent order Annual salesperiod etmtestimte imate

35,000,000 70,000,000

Per Gallon Refund Amount: $.001450.Identified Purchasers; Unidentified.

Exhibit 22

Name of Consent Order Firm: UnitedPetroleum, Inc., Tampa, FL 33610,



Consent Order Period: October 1.1979-December 31,1979.

Consent Order Fund: $22,375.Alleged Overcharges: No. 4 Oil:

$87,681.Gallons Sold:

Consent order Annual salesperiod estirnnteestimate

No. 4 Oil ..................... 1,152,997 4,611,987


1. St. Catharine's Church2. Chandler Engineering3. ARC Builders4. ADCO Chemicals5. Wakefern Foods6. Rollins Termipl7 Addressograph8. Sheridan Gardens9. Julyet Gardens10. EDC11. Swan Cleaners12. Ever Ready Label13. Lampert Dairy Farms14. Estate of Krininger15. Robert Schwarz16.' Walnut Assoc.17 Mary Seidman18. G. Moskowitz19. Hunt Ltd.20. Davanne Realty21. First Raritan Gardens22. Ivory Dry Cleaners23. Plymouth Invest24. G & F Holding25. Red Hill Assoc.26. Diplomat Assoc.27 Parker Wholesale Florist28. Apex Rendezvous29. Greenfield Gardens

Exhibit 23Name of Consent Order Firm: Little

America Refining Company, Salt LakeCity, UT 84131.



ERA: 830S0012OHA: HEF-0215

Consent Order Period: August 19,1973-January 27, 1981.

Consent Order Fund: $2,175,000.Alleged Overcharges:

No. 2 Oils ....................................... $1,949,524Aviation Fuels ............................. 66,382Motor Gasoline ............................. 5,140,012General Refinery Products ......... 46,212

Total ................. 7,202,130

Gallons Sold:

Consent order Annuol salesperiodestimate estimate

647.976,631 86.772,900


Identified Purchasers:1. Al Park Dist. Inc., P.O. Box 720, Elko, NV

898012. A & A Oil Co.. Box 1325, Cheyenne, WY

820013. Aire Flow Heating, P.O. Box 15508, Stilt

Lake City, UT 841154. American Linen Supply, 33 East 0th South,

Salt Lake City. UT 841115. Arrow Service, Box 425, Upton, WY 027306. Atlas Electric Co.. 4995 S. 3rd W., Murray,

UT 841077. Automotive Safety 2095 S. 9th B., Salt Lake

City, UT 841088. Auto-Tron. Box 860, La Junta, CO 810509. Bangerter, J. C., 1265 N. Main Street

Bountiful, UT 8401010. Bate, R. H., 88 West Main, American Fork,

UT 8400311. Beehive Clothing, 1605 Bennett Road, Stilt

Lake City, UT 8410412. Bennett Leasing, P.O. Box 126, Salt Lake

City, UT 8411013. Big 8 Full Tire Serv., 1820 Aultman, Ely,

NV 8930114. Big Vens Service, 345 No. Main,

Clearfield, UT 8401515. Beal Service Stations, Interstate 80, Brule,

NE 6912716. Big D Oil Co., P.O. Box 1378, Rapid City,

SD 5770117. Birch Construction, Lyman, WY 8293718. Blaze Oil Co., P.O. Box 2571, Casper, WY

8260119. Blue & White Transport, 914 Royal Blvd.,

Boise, ID 8370620. Boise Cascade. 205 N. 3rd W., P.O. Box

1530 Salt Lake City, UT 8410321. Bosen Distributing, Preston, ID 8320322. Brice, Cliff, 300 Moffat Ave., Pueblo, CO

8100323. Bronco Oil Co., Box 1592. Jackson, WY

8300124. Brown Floral Co.. 5th So. a 10th West,

Salt Lake City, UT 8410425. Buehner Block Co.. 2800 S. West Temple,

Salt Lake City, UT 8411526. Burton Oil Co., 7709 Redwood Rd., West

Jordan, UT 8408427. Cache Valley Dairy, Logan, UT 8432128. Calder Bros.. P.O. Box 1903. Prove, UT

8460129. Century Petroleum, Box 6192 Cherry Cr.

Sta.. Denver, CO 8020530. Chipman Oil Co., P.O. Box 1303, Salt Lake

City, UT 8411031. Collier Motors. Mel, 655 S. Wolcott,

Casper, WY 8260132. Colorado Petro. Prods., 4080 Globovllle

Rd.. Denver. CO 8021633. Continental Baking Co., Box 108, Ogden,

UT 8440234. Consolidated Frtwys. P.O. Box 3197,

Portland OR 9720835. Contractors Supply, Box 550, Newcastle,

WY 8270136. Cook Construction Co., P.O. Box 10140

Salt Lake City, UT 8411637 Cottonwood Mortuary, 4670 Highland

Drive, Stilt Lake City, UT 84A11738. Crown Stations c/o Ed Wright 2384

Camino Way. Salt Lake City, UT 8412139. Crude Company, The P.O. Box 1908,

Casper, WY 82602

I I

50102


40. Cy Car Wash. 2839 Cy Ave. Casper, WY82601

41. D & G. Hay Springs. NE 6934742. Davis Bros. Service, 358 6th Ave.,

Midvale, UT 8414743. Delta Fire Sprinkler 1507 Pioneer Rd., Salt

Lake City, UT 8410444. Desert Oil Co., P.O. Box 1259, Rock

Springs, WY 8290145. Detlefsen Oil Co., P.O. Box 728, North

Platte, NE 6910146. Diesel Service, 4235 So. 50 West, Salt

Lake City, UT 8410747. Direct-Sales Inc., 9251 E. 104th Ave.,.

Henderson, CO 8064048. Dixon Bros., P.O. Drawer 8, Newcastle,

WY 8270149. Eager Beaver co Don Bentz, 701 W.

Collins Dr., Casper, WY 8260150. Eaton Metal Products, 844 Chestnut St.,

Salt Lake City, UT 8410451. Economy Builders, 3232 So. 4th East, Salt

Lake City, UT 8411552. Eldredges Pioneer Ser., 3925 Riverdale

Road So., Ogden, UT 8440153. Evans Supply Co., P.O. Box 16005, Salt

Lake City. UT8411654. Fearless Farris Whlse., P.O. Box 7627,

Boise, ID 8370755. Fire Engineering, 3389 S. 700 West, Salt

Lake City, UT 8411956. Flash Oil Co., 775 Carondelet, St. Louis,

MO 6310557. Food Machinery Corp.. Bo.' 872, Garden

River, WY 8293558. Forrest Concrete Pump. 1630 Beck St., Salt

Lake City, UT 8411659. Fox Valley Leather. 633 IV. Center St.. No.

Salt Lake, UT 84o5460. Fulkerson Oil Co., P.O. Box 808, Gillette,

WY 8271661. Fur Breeders Co-op, 8400 S. Main,

Midvale, UT 8404762. Gearys Conoco, Coalville. UT 8401763. Gem Grocery & Meat, 702 Third Ave., Salt

Lake City, UT 8410364. Gordon Refining Co., Box 118, Denver, CO

8020165. Grandmas Tires, 49 E. 9th South, Salt Lake

City, UT 8411166. Greer Oil Co., Heber City, UT 8403267. Haddocks Inc., 1704 Elk St., Rock Springs,

WY 8290168. Hall Process Co., AMF Box 43, Salt Lake

City, UT 8410169. Hansen Service Inc., c/o L Ray Hansen,

206 North 200 West, Salt Lake City, UT84103

70. Harmony Floors, 2245 So. Redwood Rd.,Salt Lake City, UT 84119

71. Harpel Oil Co., Box 16588 Stockyard,Denver, CO 80216

72. Harrington & Co., P.O. Box 25723, SaltLake City, LIT 84125

73. Highland Petroleum, 1601 S. Federal Blvd.,Denver, CO 80219

74. Hill Oil Co., 2380 S. Hancock Exprswy..Colorado Springs, CO 80910

75. Holdings Litter Amer. Cheyenne, Box1529, Cheyenne, WY 82001

76. Horman, Charles Const., 1760 S. State St.,Salt Lake City, UT 84115

77. Horman Const. Co.. 1760 S. State St.. SaltLake City, UT 84115

78. Huber & Rowland Const., P.O. Box 16001,Salt Lake City. UT 84116

79. Imperial Wholsale Spl., P.O. Box 2503.Salt Lake City, UT 84125

80. Industrial Communicatn. 1171 South WestTemple. Salt Lake City. UT C4101

81. Intermtn. Spec. Const. Co. 3075 SuuthMain, Salt Lake City, UT C4113

82. Intermountain Farmers. P.O. Box _71G3Salt Lake City. UT 84125

83. Jansco, Div. of Scott Oil Co. Inc., P.O. Box842. North Platte, NE £9101

84. Johnson, Marcus Plumb., 222 E. 402!)South, Salt Lake City, UT 84107

85. Johnson Scrvice, Laketown, UT 203386. Johnstons Fuel Lines, Box 10o, Newcastle,

WY 8270187. K & M Specialities, 105 Chicago St., Salt

Lake City. UT 8411088. Kairab Industries, Attn: Debbie Larimer

P.O. Box 20506, Phoenix. AZ 8303089. Keil, Martin, 6092 S. 170 West, Murray,

UT 8410790. Kirby Co., P.O. Box 15426. Salt Lake City,

UT 8411591. Klems Tn.Cove, 1030 S. 700 West. Salt

Lake City, UT 8410492. L & M Sales, Box 445 Cheyenne, WY 8200193. LAC Oil c/o Charles Chesarek Drawer

428, Evansville, IVY 8263094. Larson Oil Co., P.O. Box 123, Brule, NE

6912795. Leatham Bros., P.O. Box 1&026, Salt Lake

City. UT 8411696. Lemco Corp., 5201 S. 3rd West, Salt Lake

City, UT 8410797. Leonard Paving, 737 So. loth, Douglas.

WY 8263398. Leonard Paving, Box 8 9, Douglas, WY

8263399. Little America Flagstaff. P.O. Box 870,

Flagstaff, AZ EGO0110. Little America Salt Lake. P.O. Box 203,

Salt Lake City. UT 84111101. Little Ameri~a West. P.O. Box 1. Little

America, WY 82929102. Lockhart Gas & Milk. c/o S. Dan

Lockhart, 1292 N. Redwood Rd.. Salt LakeCity, LIT 84116

103. Lyman County, Box 93, Kennebec. SD57544

104. Lynch Oil Co., P.O. Box 790, Burley, ID83318

105. MacKay & Sons, A. 1.. 3435 W. 9,30 South,Salt Lake City, UT 84104

106. Mac Oil Inc., 5655 Gray St., Ar% ada. CO80002

107. Mansco Inc.. P.O. Box 116, Laramie, IY82070

103. Marshall, A. W., 437 N. 500 West, P.O.Box 16127, Salt Lake City. UT 84110

109. McGanin & Moberly. Box 1120,Worland. WY 82401

110. McGarvin.Moberly Construction Co..P.O. Box 1160, Worland. WY 82401

Ill. Metro Oil Products Inc.. 2021 N.Redwood Rd.. Salt Lake City. UT 4116

112. Metropolitan Laundry. 2233 S. 5th East.Salt Lake City. UT 84100

113. Miles Bay Sen ice. P.O. Box 528 Fleming,CO 80728

,114. Milford Store, Ete. 61. Box 20. LanderWY 82520

115. Miller Bros. Co., Inc.. I yrum. UT 84319116. Minit Market. 2314 lighland Dr. Salt

Lake City, UT 84103117. Morgan Co, 493 Branw.ell. Green River.

IWY 82935

110. Morton Salt Co. Saltaire Plant. AMFBEox22054. AMF Salt Lake City. UT 84122

119. Moyle Petroleum Co. Box 2860. RapidCity, SD 57701

120. Murray Laundry. 4200 S. State St.Murray, UT 84107

121. Nebraska Pub. P.T. D~sL. Box 241.Scottsbluff. NE 69351

122. Neuman Transit Co.. Inc.. P.O. Box 33.Ravlins. WY 82301

123. Nichols. Art. 1655 Mill Creek Way. SaltLake City. UT 8410

124. Nielson & Sons C, Box 20326. Billings.MT 591G4

125. Noble, Glen. P.O. Box 294. PleasantGrove, UT 992

126. Northwest Motor Welding. 5300 West020 South. West Jordan. UT 9494

127. 0 K Servie. Payson. Ur 84551128. Oil City S2rvice. P.O. Bqx 1017 Price. UT

84501129. Okland Construction Co. P.O. Box 15448.

Salt Lake City, UT 84115130. Ora Lee Milk & Gas. 2933 ,. 3500 S-Jluh

Salt Lake City, UT 84119131. P & B Oil Co. Div. Bailely Enterprises

P.O. Box 1326 Riverton. WY 82501132. P & C Petroleum Inc..Box 837. North

Platte. NE 69101133. P T .Bulk Commodities Div.- 701 Center

St. N. Salt Lahe. UT 84054134. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co- 1855 So. 2nd

West. Salt Lake City. UT 84115133. Paraco. a Division ofrM .x Nielsen &

Sons Co. 2525 W. Main. Suite 203 Rap:dCity. SD 57701

130. Pearce Equipment Co- 1M Beck S! SaltLake City, UT 84118

137. Peerless Laundry. 1184 . 21st South. SaltLake City. UT 84105

138. Pester Colorado Corp. P.O. Box 16900.Des Moines. IA 5030

139. Peteo. 7627 Dahlia Commerce City. CO0,337

140. Pioneer Petroleum Inc. 1025 East 334th.South. Salt Lake City. UT .4106

141. Pitchers Inc. 435 So. Main. Smithfield.UT C4335

142. Pitts, Bob, P.O. Bax 1733. Greeley. CO8331

143. Plains Inc. Box 215. Wauneta. NE 62045144. Premium Oil Co. 2005 South 300 West.

Salt lake City. UT 84115145. Rapps Inc. 811 S. Maim. Brighton. CO

F31001146. Ray & Tobys Service. 11993 So. 1700

West. Riverton. LIT 84055147. Raymond Int'l Builders. P.O. Bax 73.

Shaw~nee Mission. KS 66201148. Redwood Self Service. 1332 Devonshire

Dr. Salt Lake City. UT 84103149. Rio Vista Oil Ltd.. 803 East South

Temple. Salt Lake City. UT 84102.150. Richins, John. Echo Junction. UT 84024151. Rissler & McMurray Co- P.O. Box 2499.

Casper. WY 82"602132. Rogers Ford Co- P.O Box 149W. Douglas.

WY 8203153. Rolands Service. P.O. Box 5. Paradise.

UT 84323154. Safewav S!ores Inc.. P.O. Box 1630. Sailt

Lake City. UT 84110135. St. Theresa Catholic. c/o Evelyn

Sanchez. 1934 IV. 7525 S. West Jordan. UT04024

50103

I Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

156. SElt Lake Sanitation, P.O. Box 1231, SaltLake City, UT 84110

157 Salt Lake Suburban Sanitary DitricL3844 S. 11th East, Salt Lake City, UT 84108

158. Sav-O-Mat, Box 9006, Denver, CO 80209159. Scholl Oil & Trans., P.O. Box 148.

Holyoke, CO B0734160. Self Service, c/o Tony Herman, P.O. Box

665, Broomfield, CO 80020161. Seven Up Bottling Co., 959 South 800

West. Salt Lake City. UT 84104162. Shoppers Service, P.O. Box 26828, Salt

Lake City, UT 84125163. Silco Oil Co., P.O. Box 16528, Denver, CO

80216164. Skyline Self Service, 1332 Devonshire

Dr., Salt Lake City, UT 84108165. Smart, Ivan, 3725 E. Little. Cottonwood,

Sandy, UT 84070166. Smartline Dairy, Smart Bros., 8000 S.

1000 East, Sandy, UT 84070167 Smiths Independent, 499 East 27th South,

Salt Lake City, UT 84115168. Solo Oil Co., P.O. Box 2853, Casper, WY

82602169. Space Oil Co., 105 S. Cherokee St,

Denver, CO 80223170. Specialty Supply Co., 1358 Indiana Ave.,

Salt Lake City, UT 84104171. Spruce Oil Co., P.O. Box 5558 TA,

Denver, CO 80217172. Star Service &Petro., 800 No. Skinker

Blvd., St Louis, MO 63130173. Sterling Gas & Oil, P.O. Box 989, Sterling,

CO 80751174. Sugar House Park Auth., 1330 E. 21st

South, Salt Lake City, UT 84100175. Super G Oil Co., P.O. Box 2860, Rapid

City, SD 57701176. Taggart Service, Morgan, UT 84050177. Taylor & Bullock, P.O. Box 315, Mountain

View, WY 82939178. Telum Inc., P.O. Box 449, Provo, LIT 84601179. Terrace Garage, P.O. Box 2213, Salt Lake

City, UT 84110180. Towne Pump Stations. 2892 Highland Dr.,

Salt Lake City. UT 84106181, Transcon, 101 Continental Blvd., El

Segundo, CA 90245182. Triangle Oil Co.. 598 W. 2600 South,

Bountiful, LIT 84010183. Triangle Refining Co., P.O. Box 3367,

Houston, TX 77001184. Triple CTruckmg, c/o Roy Cassity, 777

E. 4500 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84107185. Tn Valley Dist., E. Highway 40, Heber

City, UT 84032180. Utah, State of, State Office Building, Salt

Lake City, UT 84114187 Utah Package Express. 961 S. 1820 South,

Salt Lake City, UT 84104188. Utah Valley Transit, P.O. Box 1905,

Provo, UT 84601.189. Ute Cab Co., 267 West 3rd South, Salt

Lake City, UT 84101190. Valley Feed & Coal, 197 West 39th South,

Salt Lake City, UT 84107191. Valley Oil Co., Inc., P.O. Box 229,

Springfield, UT 84663192. Valley Service, Box 148, La Barge, WY

83123193. Victor Land and Livestock, Snowville,

UT 84336194. Ward Transport, Box 735. Pueblo. CO

80202195. Warner Ford, 47 West 6th South. Salt

Luke City, UT 84101

198. Wasatch Land, 3401 Highland Dr., SaltLake City, UT 84106

197. Watson, less, Transfer, 230 S 4th West,Salt Lake City, UT 84101

198. Welling Ford Sales, P.O. Box 700.Evanston, WY 82930

199. Western Engineenriqg Co., Box 350,Harlan, IA 51537

200. Western General Diary, P.O. Box 307,Midvale, UT 84047

201. Western Sports Center, 8925 S. 255 WestSandy, UT 84070

202. Western Self-ServicV, 1223 No. State St.,Orem, UT 84057

203. Western States Petro., P.O. Box 2488,Ogden, UT 84404 '

204. Westminster College. 1840 South 13thEast, Salt Lake City. UT 84106

205. Wilcox Oil Company, P.O. Box 487, RockSprings, WY 82901

206. Wiles Oil Co., 50 East Fort Union Blvd.,Midvale, Ut 84047

207 Wilford C. Wood Furs, 3697 S. OrchardDr., Bountiful, UT 84010

208. Williams Oil Company, P.O. Box 1687,Salt Lake City, UT 84110

209. Wirthlins Market, 812 E. 2nd South, SaltLake City, UT 84107

210. Wright Engineering Co., 4205 S. Main St.,Salt Lake City, UT 84107

211. Wright, Lester, Teckla Rt.. Box 2408,Gillette; WY 82716

212. Yellow Freight Lines, Box 7270, ShawneeMission, KS 66207

Exhibit 24

Name of Consent Order Firm: WitcoChemical Corporation, New York, NY.



ERA: 240S00054OHA: HEF-0227

Consent Order Period: August 19,1973-January 28,1981.

Consent Order Fund: $4,500,000.Alleged Overcharges $22,200,000.Gallons Sold:

Consent order Annual salespeniod estimate estimate

1,752,000,977 234,616,803


1. Parts & Equipment, TampaFL2. Beam Oil Co., Atlanta. GA3. Thom Oil Distributing, Ft. Worth, TX4. Gemeg Oil Co., Houston, TX5. Carse Oil Co.. Orlando. FL6. Dabrusin Motors, Newburgh, NY7 Wholesale Tire Co., Inc., S. Charlestown.

WV8. Automotive Whse. Dist., Clarksburg. WV9. Middle Atlantic Whse. Dist., Butler, PA10. Middle Atlantic Whse. Dist., Scranton, PA11. Taylors. Inc., Lexington, KY12. Valley Auto Supply. Inc.. Edinburg, TX13. Holston Auto Supply, Rogersville, TN14. Cactus Oil Co., San Angelo,. TX15. Ideal Gas Inc., Levelland, TX16. Myles Auto Stores, Cleveland, OH

17. McIntosh Oil Co., Canton. OH18. Pinwheel Oil Co.. Cleveland, Off19. Norwood Motor Parts Co., Bructon, MA20. Young Oil Co., Pompano Beach, FLZi. Oak Auto Supply, Seaford, NY22. Kirby Auto Supply, Stuart, FL23. Sovereign Oil Co., Chicago, IL24. Dade Tire Co., Miami, FL25. Associated Parts Corp., Cambridge. MA26. Consolidated Oil Co., Miami, FL27. Truck Parts Inc., Hamden. CT28. Aquidneck Auto Supply, Newport, RI29. Harry Amalle Dist., Franklin, PA30. Middle Atlantic Whse. Dist., Beaver Falls,

PA31. Tn State Dist., Philadelphia, PA32. Motive Parts Whse., Hartford, CT33. Don Elliot Pet. Dist., Syracuse, NY34. Marsan Ind., Biddeford, ME35. Middle Atlantic Whse. Dist., Rochester,

NY30. Snug Fit Marine, Miami, FL37 Jim Wimett, Rush, NY38. Stereo Pak, Cincinnati. OH39. Eastern Hills Tire Co., Cincinnati, 01140. Brackeen Oil Co., Paris, TX41. Healdton Oil Co., Healdton, OK42. Walter Butler Oil Sales, Odessa, TX43. Royal Supply Co.. Oklahoma-Clty, OK44. Toba Sales Co., Longvlew, TX\45. Smithco Oil Corp., Tulsa, OK46. Caruthers Oil Co., Denton, TX47. O.L. Kimbrough, Longvlew, TX48. J.C. Penny Co., Inc., Hialeah, FL49. A.F. Schmalzried, Dallas. TX50. Industrial Lubricants, San Antonio, IX51. Centex Distributors Waco, TX52. Campbell Oil & Supply, Maple Hgts., Oil53. Mid. Atlantic Dist., Niagara Falls, NY54. Roy D. Frank, Painesville, OH55. Carroll Equipment, Huntington, WV56. Wentz Bros., Anna, OH57. Fort Meyer. Fort Wayne. IN58. General Auto Supply Co., Worcester, MA59. Pacemaster Oil Corp., Plant City, FL60. Ruwet Sibley, Inc., Torrington, CT61. Mid. Atlantic Dist., Providence. RI62. Joseph L. Werner, Baltimore, MD63. Triple A Oil Co., Dallas, TX64. Horn Bros. Oil Co., Greenville, TX.65. Griffin Oil Co., Lubbock, TX66. Budai Oil Company, Ennis, TX67. Sims Super Service, Childress, TX68. Holman Boiler Works. Dallas, TX69. Rogersnap Business Forms, Carrolton, TX70. Davis Motor Craine Service, Dallas, TX71. Allied Sales Co.. Houston, TX72. Duffle Munroe & Sons, Rosenberg. TX73. Harris County Oil Co.. Rosenberg,'iX74. Neches Oil Distributors, Beaumont, IX75. Grozier & Mann Oil Co., Wichita Fall, TX76. V. J. Oil Co., Abilene, TX77 Cleburne Oil Co., Cleburne. TX78. Porter Oil & LPG Co., McAllen. TX79. M & H Oil & Butane Co., San Benito, TX80. Creem Automotive Ser., New London. CT81. Ed's Lawn Service & Supply, Dallas, TX82. John M. Clark Dallas, TX83. Allied Sales Co., Austin. TX84. Automotive Supply Assoc., Concord, NI 185. Radio Oil Co., Worchester. MA86. Baas Auto Supply, Leesburg. FL87. Mid. Atlantic Whse. Dist.. New Haven , ("I88. GoCo Inc., Texas City, TX89. Lincoln Oil Co., Detroit, MI

Illi'l I I I

I It0104


90. Mid. Atlantic DisL Co, Carlisle, PA91. CJG Corp., Valhalla, NY92. Truck Wheel & Tool Inc., Watertown. MA93. Air Speed Oil Co.Amarillo, TX94. Roberts & Sons, Ft. Smith, AR95. Stokes Oil Co., Henderson. TX96. Sizer's Auto Service. Dallas, TX

Exhibit 25Name of Consent Order Firm: Ammoil

U.S.A, Inc., Houston, TX 77092.Type of Operation: Producer of

condensate*Consent Order Case Numbers:

ERA: 740V01315OHA. HEF-0229

Consent Order Period: September 1,1973-April 30, 1980.

Consent Order Fund: $1,600,000.Comments:*Refund claims will be considered

based on the Johnson, Alkek and Adamsstandards.

Exhibit 26Name of Consent Order Firm: Stinnes

Interoil, Inc., New York, NY 10017Type of Operation: Reseller of refined

petroleum products.Consent Order Case Number.

ERA- 240H00519,OHA. HEF-0174

Consent Order Period: January 10,1978-September 30,1979.

Consent Order Fund: $435,435.Alleged Overcharges: Motor Gasoline:

$1,280,974.Gallons Sold:

Conmnt order Annualclespejwzd es~r.-cla esbirc!e

Motor Gasoline.... 314,746,534 182,726,580


1. Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, P.O. Box744, San Antonio, TX 78293

2. Northville Industries Corporation, IHuntington Quadrangle, Suite 4C01.Huntington Station. NY 11746

3. Sun Oil Trading Company, 200 WestLancaster Ave., Wayne, PA 19087

4. Mobil Oil Corporation. P.O. Box goo0,Dallas, TX 75221

5. Amoco Oil Company. 200 East RandolphDrive, Chicago, IL 60601

6. Atlantic Richfield Company, P.O. Box 2819,Dallas, TX 75221

7. Chevron USA. Inc.. P.O. Box 8643. SanFrancisco, CA 94120

8. Exxon Company. USA, P.O. Box 2180,Houston, TX 77001

9. Getty Refining & Marketing, P.O. Box 1650,Tulsa, OK 74102

10. Good Hope Refineries, Inc.. 916 WestAirline Highway, 120 Mallard Drive, St.Rose, LA 70087

11. Gulf States Oil & Ref. Co., 2000 SouthStreet. P.O. Box 53137, Houston, TX 77002

12. United Refining Company. P.O. Box 780,Warren, PA 16365

13. Apex Oil Company, 212 South Central. St.Louis. MO 63105

14. Puritan Oil Company15. Scallop Petroleum16. Bulk Sales Corporation17. Van Gold Corporation18. NE Petroleum Corporation19. ML Air Refinery20. Anschutz

[FR Doc. 84-33415 Filed 12-24-84: :45 am]BIWNG CODE 649-4-01-

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

[PP 1G2570/T476; PH-FRL 2740-8]

Amltraz; Renewal of TemporaryTolerances

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has renewed temporarytolerances for the combined residues ofthe msecticide/miticide amitraz and itsmetabolite in or on certain rawagricultural commodities.DATE: These temporary tolerancesexpire April 25,1985.,FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.By mail: Jay Ellenberger, Product

Manager (PM) 12, RegistrationDivision (TS-767C), Office of PesticidePrograms, Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,D.C. 20460.

Office location and telephone number:Rm. 202, CM#2, 1921 Jefferson DavisHighway, Arlington, VA, (703-557-2386).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPAissued a notice that published in theFederal Register of May 19,1982 (47 FR21613) stating that temporary toleranceshad been extended for the combinedresidues of the insecticide/miticideamitraz PJ-[2,4-dimethylphenyl-.V-[[2,4-dimethylphenyl]iminolmethylj-Ar-methylmethanimidamide and itsmetabolite containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety (calculated asthe parent compound) in or on the rawagricultural commodities fat, meat andmeat by-products of cattle at 0.05 partper million (ppm). These toleranceswere renewed in response to pesticidepetition PP 1G2570, submitted by Nor-Am Chemical Co.. P.O. Box 7495.Wilmington. DE 19803.

The company has requested a 1 yearrenewal of the temporary tolerances topermit the continued marketing of theabove raw agricultural commoditieswhen treated in accordance with theprovisions of experimental use permit45639-EUP-4 which is being renewed

under the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide.and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA], asamended (Pub. L 95-398,92 Stat. 819; 7U.S.C. 136). The scientific data reportedand other relevant material wereevaluated, and it was determined that arenewal of the temporary tolerances willprotect the public health. Therefore, thetemporary tolerances have beenrenewed on the condition that thepesticide be used in accordance with theexperimental use permit and with thefollowing provisions:

1. The total amount of the activeingredient to be used must not exceedthe quantity authorized by theexperimental use permit.

2. Nor-Am Chemical Co. mustimmediately notify the EPA of anyfindings from the experimental use thathave a beanng on safety. The companymust also keep records of production.distribution, and performance. and onrequest make the records available toany authorized officer or employee ofthe EPA or the Food and DrugAdministration.

These tolerances expire April 25,1935.Residues not m excess of this amountremaining m or the above rawagricultural commodities after thisexpiration date will not be consideredactionable if the pesticide is legallyapplied during the term of, and inaccordance with, the provisions of theexperimental use permit and temporarytolerances. These tolerances may berevoked if the expenmental use permitis revoked or if any experience with orscientific data on this pesticide indicatethat such revocation is necessary toprotect the public health.

The Office of Management and Budgethas exempted this notice from therequirements of section 3 of ExecutiveOrder 12291.

Pursuant to the requirements of theRegulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 9&-534, 94 Stat. 1114, 5 U.S.C. 601-6121, theAdministrator has determined thatregulations establishing new tolerancesor raising tolerance levels orestablishing exemptions from tolerancerequirements do not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. A certificationstatement to this effect was published mthe Federal Register of May 4,1981 (46FR 24950).(Src-. 403[j), 3 Stat. 516 (21 U.S.C. 346aj)ll

Dated: Dzcember 12.1934.Robert V. Brown.AchDi7relt r Regzstrtion Dizs.om YQfeof Pe.iczte Fr2rams.IFR Dec. &-33121 Filed 12-24-84: &45 aril611110 COSIZZ -2

50105.

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 I Notices

[OPTS-00060; FRL-2743-2]

Interagency Toxic Substances DataCommittee; Open Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: This norice announces theforthcoming meeting of the InteragencyToxic Substances Data Committee. Themeeting is open to the public.DATE: The meeting will take place from9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday,January 8, 1985. ,

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held inthe: First Floor Conference Room,Council on Environmental Quality, 722Jackson PI., NW., Washington, D.C.20006. Please use the entrance onJackson Place.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Sandra Lee (TS-777), ExecutiveSecretary, Interagency Toxic SubgtancesData Committee, Office of Peaticidesand Toxic Substances, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Rm. E-131, 401 M St.,SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 (202-382-2249).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Theregular meetings of the InteragencyToxic Substances Data Committeeusually are held orp the first Tuesday ofalternate months. The next meeting hasbeen scheduled for March 12,1985.

Dated: December 18,19B4.Sandra Lee,Executive Secretary, Interagency ToxicSubstances Data Committee.

IFR Doc. 84-33465 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-.

[A-10-FRL-2743-1]

Extension of PSD Permit to theWashington Water Power Co.

Notice is hereby given that onDecember 10, 1984, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) extended aPrevention of Significant Deterioration[PSD) permit issued to the WashingtonWater Power Company to construct afour unit, coal-fired power plant nearCreston, Washington. The extensionallows the company an'additionaleighteen months to commenceconstruction. This permit extension hasbeen issued under EPA's Prevention ofSignificant Air Quality Deterioration (40CFR 52.21) regulation, subject to certainconditions specified in the permit.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CleanAir Act, judicial review of the PSDPermit is available only by the filing of apetition for review in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals within 60 days oftoday. Under section 307(b)(2) of theClean Air Act, the requirements whichare the subject of today's notice may notbe challenged later in civil or criminalproceedings brought by EPA to enforcethese requirements.

Copies of the permit are available forpublic inspection upon request at thefollowing location: EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 10, 1200 SixthAvenue, Room lD, M/S 532, Seattle,Washington 98101.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ray Nye, Air Programs Branch, Region10, 1200 Sixth Avenue M/S 532, Seattle,Washington 98101, (206) 442-8574, 339-8574 (FTS).

Dated: December 10, 1984,Gary L. O'Neal,Air Toxics Division.[FR Doc. B4-33466 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

[OPP-100018; PH-FRL 2744-1]

General Accounting Office; Access toDataAGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency{EPA).ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA plans to trdnsferinformation submitted under sections 3,6, and 7 of the Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)to the General Accounting Office (GAO)of the U.S. Congress. Some of theinformation that will be made availablet6 the GAO has been claimed to beconfidential business information (CBI).Information will be transferred to theGAO consistent with requirements of 40CFR 2.209(b). This action will enable theGAO to fulfill its obligations, and thisnotice serves to notify affected persons.DATE: The GAO will be given access tothese documents no sooner than January7, 1985.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:By mail: William C. Grosse, Program

Management and Support Division(TS-757C), Office of PesticidePrograms, Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,D.C. 20460

Office location and telephone number:Rm. 222, CM#2, 1921 Jefferson DavisHighway, Arlington, Virginia (703-557-2613).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheSubcommittee on Toxic Substances andEnvironmental Oversight of the SenateCommittee on Environment and PublicWorks has asked the GAO to review

EPA's processes and procedures forregistration and reregistration ofpesticides, the establishment andenforcement of pesticide residuetolerances in food, and the non-farm useof pesticides. To perform its review, theGAO has requested access toinformation, including CBI, submitted toEPA under FIFRA.

Under 40 CRF 2.209(b), informationthat is considered by the submitter to betrade secret or commercial or financialas described by FIFRA section 10(d)may be disclosed to Congress or theComptroller General when suchdisclosure is necessary for their review.(In this case, the request is from theGAO on behalf of the U.S. Congress.)EPA routinely receives such CBI as partof the data that are submitted bypesticide registrants and others asprovided for in FIFRA sections 3, 6 and7 Congress or the Comptroller Generalare authorized to receive such data uponwritten request to EPA as specified In 40CFR Part 2 as referenced in § 2,209,

FIFRA section 10(f) sets a criminalpenalty for wrongful disclosure ofconfidential information, whether suchdisclosure is made by an officer oremployee of the United States.

The GAO recognizes the sensitivity ofthe confidential business information Itmay review in the course of its study,Prior to access, the GAO personnelperforming this work will be briefed onEPA's security procedures. Theseemployees will then be given access toinformation as requested and will beallowed to attend meetings in whichsuch information is discussed. Inaddition, EPA employees will beauthorized to discuss CBI with thedesignated GAO personnel.

The GAO intends to have access toCBI only on EPA's premises. In addition,it does not intend to include any suchinformation in its final report to theSenate Committee. In order to ensureconfidentiality, the GAO will ask EPA toreview any technical information to beincluded in the final report to verify thatit does not contain CBI.

EPA specifically prohibits disclosureof confidential business information toany third party in any form withoutwritten authorization from EPA, andpersonnel of the GAO will be asked tosign a nondisclosure agreement.

Dated: December 19,1984.Steven Schatzow,Director, Office of Pesticide Programs,[FR Doc. 84--33595 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

50106

Federal Register [ Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1934 1 NotA'es

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

C&P Broadcasting, et aL; Applicationfor Consolidated Hearing

1. The Comnussion has before it~thefollowing mutually exclusiveapplications for a new FM station:

ISAAppcaM cdy and SL"' Fie No. Do&.ct

N o.

A. Peter J. Sauiu and EPH-B2MEOAAO. 84-1263Charles J. Saltzrman d/bta C & P BroadcasttgsBounifrA UT.

B. Buntiful Communca- BP1-SZOSOSAF 84-1264tions of Utah, Inc. Bo,,n-tiful. Ue

C. Bountiful Waas - Corp.: EPH-E-21$17AK- 84-1265BountMj UT.

D. Shrtee Bro Trsc hn r BPH-82t11eAC.._. . 84-120Bountiful, UT.

E Red Dog Brodcast&ag EtP-8117At 84-1267Inc4; Woods Cross. UT.

F. Mounta R, VMed SPH--21117AP.e. P4-12Z1inc. Layton UT.

2. Pursuant to section 309(eJ of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, the above applications havebeen designated for hearing in aconsolidated proceeding upon issueswhose headings are set forth below. Thetext of each of these issues has beenstandardized and is set forth in itsentirety m a sample standardizedHearing Designation Order (HDO]which can be found at 48 FR 22428, May18, 1983. The issueheadings shownbelow correspond to issue headingscontained in the referenced sampleHDO. The letter shown before eachapplicant's name, above, is used belowto signify whether the issue in questionapplies to that particular applicant.

Issue Heading and Applicant(s)1. Air Hazard, B, E F2. 307(b), A. B, C, D, E, F3. Contingent Comparative, A. B. C, D. E, F4. Ultimate, A, B, C, D, E, F

3. If there is any non-standardizedissue(s) in this proceeding, the full textof the issue and the applicant(s) towhich it applies are set forth in anAppendix to this Notice. A copy of thecomplete HDO in this proceeding maybe obtained by written or telephonerequest, from the Mass Media Bureau'sContact Representalve, Room 242, 1919M Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20354.Telephone (202) 632-6334.

W. Jan Gay,.nssistant Chief Audio Serwces Division,Mass Media Bureau.

IFR Doc. 84-33445 Filed 12-20-84: 8:45 aml

BILLING CODE 6712-O1-M

Lawson Broadcasting Inc., et aL,Hearing Designation Order

In the matter of applications of LaI;sonBroadcasting, Inc.. Debtor-m-Possesion.WNAB (AM), Bndgeport, Connecticut, Has:1450 kHz. 250 W. 1 kW--LS, U (MM DcketNo. 84-1282, File No. BR-I,3133UC- and B.Preston Gilmore. Bridgeport ConnecticutReq: 1450 kHz. 250 W. 1 kW-LS, U (1-M1Docket No. 84-1233 File No. BP-rAW313A1) forconstruction permit.

Adopted. November24.1554.Released: December 14,1934.By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

1. The Commission, by the Chief,Mass Media Bureau, acting pursuant todelegated authority, has underconsideration the application of LawsonBroadcasting, Inc., Debtor-In-Possession(Lawson) for renewal of WNAB (AM),Bridgeport, Connecticut, and anapplication for the WNAB facilitles filedby B. Preston Gilmore (Gilmore).

2. Lawson. On May 27,1933, Lawsonfiled a Chapter 11 voluntary debtor'spetition with the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the District ofConnecticut. The petition was submittedby Lawson to permit the reorsanizationof its finances and obligations in orderto create a betterbalance bet-enliabilities and revenue generated. Thus,we are unsure at this time whetherLawson possesses sufficient financialresources to maintain operation ofWNAB. Consequently, an appropriatefinancial issue vill be specificd.'

3. Except as indicated by the issuesspecified below, the applicants arequalified to construct and operate asproposed. Since the proposals aremutually exclusive, however, they mustbe designated for hearing in aconsolidated proceeding on the isuesspecified below.

4. Accordingly, it is ordered, Thatpursuant to section 309[e) of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, the applications aredesignated for hearing in a consolidatedproceeding to be held before anAdministrative Law Judge at a lime andplace to be specified in a subserquentOrder, upon the following issues:

1. To determine whether LawzonBroadcasting Inc., Debtor-In-Possession,has the financial resources to maintainoperation of its station.

2. To determine which of theapplicants would, on a comparativebasis, better serve the public interest.

' In the event that Lawrone attempt to

voluntarily reorganize under Chapterlil fa endthe Bankruptcy Court thcn cotcmT!atcs a sz!e ofLawson's assets. the ppoced b 3.er wc-el4 Lemade a party to this comparative p=c=L.n endevaluated accordingly.

3. To determine, in light of theevidence adduced pursuant to theforegoing issues, which of theapplications should be granted.

5. It is further ordered. That in theevent that the application of B. PrestonGilmore is granted, the constructionpermit shall contain the follovngcondition: Nothing contained hereinshall be construed as a finding by theCommission on the question of markingor lighting of the antenna system shauldfuture conditions require. The licensoeexpressly agrees to install such nm-n=or lighting as the Commission mayhereafter require under the provisions ofsection 303(qJ of the CommunicationsAct of 1934, as amended.

6. It is further ordered. That inaddition to the copy served on the Chief,Hearing Branch. a copy of eachamendment filed in this proceedingsubsequent to the date of adoption ofthis Order shall be served on the Chef,Data Management Staff, Audio ServicesDivision. Mass Media Bureau, Room 351,1919 M Street NV., Vashington, D.C.20534.

7. It is further ordered, That to availthemselves of the opportunity to beheard, the applicants herein shall,pursuant to § 1.221(c) of theCommission's Rules, in person or byattorney, within 20 days of the mailingof this Order, file with the Commissionin triplicate a written appearance statingan intention to appear on the date fixedfor the hearng and to present evidenceon the issues specified in this Order.

8. It is further ordered. That, pursuantto section 311(a](2) of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, and § 73.3594 of theComnusszgn's Rules, the applicantsherein shall give notice of the hearingwithin the time and the mannerprescribed in such rules, and shalladvise the Commission of thepublication of such notice as required by§ 73.359S{g) of the Rules.Federal Communications Commission.

W. Jan Gay,Assistont Chi f, Au&'o Sarvices DlszooMass Meoda Bureau.

IFR Da. C4-33430 Filed 12-24-64:8:45 am]1.1IG COXE r12.1-l

Richford Broadcasting Co. eta;Applications for Consolidated Heari,g

1. The Commissionas before it thefollowing mutually exclusiveapplications for a new FM station:

50107

Federal Register I Vol. 49,7 No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984/ Notices

MMApplicant. city and State File No. Docket

No.

*A. Joan E. Richford d/b/a BPH-830907A. 84-1260Rlchtord BroadcastingCo., Brewer. ME.

B. Stone Commucations. BPH-84010SAA--. 84-1261Inc., Brewer. ME.

C, Kathenne K. Dolby and BPH-840105AU-. 84-1262Eugene Fisk dlbla/Castle Broadcasting.Brewer, ME.

2. Pursuant to section 309(e) of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, the above applications havebeen designated for hearing in aconsolidated proceeding upon issueswhose headings are set forth below. Thetext of each of these issues has beenstandardized and is set forth in itsentirety in a sample standardizedHearing Designation Order (HDO)which can be found at 48 FR 22428, May18,1983. The issue headings shownbelow correspond to issue headingscontained in the referenced sampleHDO. The letter shown before eachapplicant's name, above, is used belowto signify whether the issue in questionapplies to that particular applicant.

Issue Heading and Applicant(s)

1. (See Appendix), B, CA. Air Hazard, C3. Comparative, A, B, C4. Ultimate, A, B, C

3. If there is any non-standardizedis3ue(s) in this proceeding, the full textof the issue and the applicant(s) towhich it applies are set forth in anAppendix to this Notice. A copy of thecomplete HDO in this proceeding maybe obtained, by written or telephonerequest, from the Mass Media Bureau'sContact Representative, Room 242, 1919M Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20554.Telephone (202) 632-6334.W. Jan Gay,Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division,Mass Media Bureau.

Appendix

1. If a final environmental impactstatment is issued with respect to B(Stone) and/or C (Castle), whichconcludes that the proposed facilitiesare likely to have an adverse effect onthe quality of the environment,

(a) To determine whether the proposalis consistent with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, asimplemented by Sections 1.1301-1319 ofthe Commission's Rules; and

(b) Whether, in light of the evidenceadduced pursuant to (a) above, the

applicant is qualified to construct andoperate as proposed.[FR Doc. 84-33448 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLiNG CODE 6712-01-M

Scenic Sounds, Inc., et al., Applicationfor Consolidated Hearing

1. The Commission has before it thefollowing mutually exclusiveapplications for a new FM station:

MMApplicant city and State File No. Docket

No.

A. Scenc Sounds. Inc., BPH-8404231B-.. . 84-1290Wellsville, NY.

B. Betty J. Hogsed. Wells- BPH-840611IT ........ 84-1291,ville. NY.

2. Pursuant to section 309(e) of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, the above applications havebeen designated for hearing in aconsolidated proceeding upon issueswhose headings are set forth below. Thetext of each of these issues has been,standardized and is set forth in itsentirety in a sample standardizedHearing Designation Order (HDO)which can be found at 48 FR 22428, May18,1983. The issue headings shownbelow correspond to issue headingscontained in the referenced sampleHDO. The letter shown before eachapplicant's name, above, is used belowto signify whether the issue in questionapplies to that particular applicant.

Issue Heading and Applicant(s)1. Comparative, A, B2. Ultimate, A, B

3. If there is any non-standardizedissue(s) in this proceeding, the full textof the issue and the applicant(s) towhich it applies are set forth in anAppendix to this Notice. A copy of thecomplete HDO m this proceeding maybe obtained, by written or telephonerequest, from the Mass Media Bureau'sContact Representative, Room 242, 1919M Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20554.Telephone (202) 632-6334.W. ]an Gay,Assistant Chief. Audio Services Division,Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 84-33447 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILNG CODE 6712-01-U

Stearns County Broadcasting Co., Inc.,et al., Applications for ConsolidatedHearing

1. The Commission has before it thefollowing mutually exclusiveapplications for a new FM'station:

MMApprianl city and State File No. Docket

No,

A. Steams County Broad- BPH-8401127AC....... 84-1256casting Co.. Inc., Albany,MN.

B. Richard R. Loverir and BPI-84O5l81N ........ 84-1257Le:gh Sandoz Leverrierdiblal Leverrer Broad-casting Co., Albany, MN.

2. Pursuant to section 309(e) of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, the above applications havebeen designated for hearing in aconsolidated proceeding upon issueswhose headings are set forth below, Thetest of each of these issues has beenstandardized and is set forth in itsentirety in a sample standardizedHearing Designation Order (HDO)which can be found at 48 FR 22428, May18,1983. The issue headings shownbelow correspond to issue headingscontained in the referenced sampleHDO. The letter shown before eachapplicant's name, above, is used belowto signify whether the issue In questionapplies to that particular applicant.Issue Heading and Applicant(s)1. .Air Hazard, A, B2. Comparative, A, B3. Ultimate, A, B

3. If there is any non-standardizedissue(s) in this proceeding, the full textof the issue and the applicant(s) towhichit applies are set forth in anAppendix to this Notice. A copy of thecomplete HDO in this proceeding maybe obtained, by written or telephonerequest, from the Mass Mediq Bureau'sContact Representative, Room 242, 1919M Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20554,Telephone (202) 632-6334.W. Jan Gay,Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division,Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 84-33448 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712-01-M

Tamarack Investment Corp., et al.,Applications for Consolidated Hearing

1. The Commission has before it thefollowing mutually exclusiveapplications for a new FM station:

MMApplicant city and State File No, Docket

No.

A. Tamarack Investment BPH-830901AA..84-1200Corp.. Pahrump. Nevada.

B. Minority Media of Pah- BPH-840105AJ . 84-1209rump, Inc.. Pahrump.Nevada.

2. Pursuant to section 309(e) of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, the above applications have

'50108

FederaP Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 1 Wednesday, December 26, 1984 /' Noticds

been designated for hearing in aconsolidated proceeding upon issueswhose headings are set forth below. Thetext of each of these issues has beenstandardized and is set forth in itsentirety in a sample standardizedHearing Designation Order (HDO)which can be found at 48 FR 22428, May18,1983. The issue headings shownbelow correspond to issue headingscontained in the referenced sampleHDO. The letter shown before eachapplicant's name, above, is used belowto signify whether the issue in questionapplies to that particular applicant.Issue Heading andApplicant(s)1. Comparative. A, B2. Ultimate, A, B

3. If there is any non-standardizedissue(s) in this proceeding, the full textof the issue and the applicant(s) towhich it applies are set forth in anAppendix to this Notice. A copy of thecomplete HDO in this proceeding maybe obtained, by written or telephonerequest, from the Mass Media Bureau'sContact Representative, Room 242, 1919M Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20554.Telephone (202] 632-6334.W. Jan Gay,Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division,-Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 84-33449 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 6712-01-

Astro Broadcasting; System andFantasy Broadcasting HearingDesignation Order

In the matter of: John J. Fuller dib/a AstroBroadcasting System, Hope Valley, RhodeIsland, Req: 1180 kHz, 1 kW, D ZM DocketNo. 84-1284. File No. BP-830817AB; FantasyBroadcasting, Hope Valley, Rhode Island,Req: 1180 kHz, 1 kW (0.5 kW-CH). DA-D MMDocket No. 84-1285, File No. BP-840124AI forConstruction Permit.

Adopted: November 24,1984.Released: December 14.1984.By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau.1. The Commission, by the Chief,

Mass media Bureau, acting pursuant todelegated authority, has underconsideration the mutually exclusiveapplications of John J. Fuller, d/b/aAstro Broadcasting System, and FantasyBroadcasting for a construction permitfor a new AM broadcast station.

2. Both John J. Fuller, d/b/a AstroBroadcasting System and FantasyBroadcasting have requested a waiver of§ 73.37 of the Commission's Rules, topermit a small amount of overlap withthe existing 0.5 mV/nm contour of stationWLIB, New York, New York. Theoverlap involved occurs at a greatdistance from the location of WLIB, and

is caused by the high conductivity oflong salt water paths. In veiw of theunique circumstances involved, we findthat the overlap which would occurwould not prejudice the basic policyconsiderations underlying the provisionsof § 73.37(a) of the Rules. See Larson-Irwin Enterprises (KOAG), 6 F.C.C. 2d613 (1967); see also Collier BroadcastingCo., 25 F.C.C. 2d 867 (1970]. Accordingly,a waiver has been granted to bothapplicants to permit acceptance of theirproposals.

3. John J. Fuller, d/b/a AstroBraodcasting System, owns a 50,interest in an application for a newtelevision station on channel 69 at BlockIsland, Rhode Island. Grant of bothapplications would violate theCommission's multiple ownership rule,§ 73.3555. John J. Fuller has indicatedthat he will divest himself of fisinterest it his application is granted.Accordingly, an appropriate conditionwill be specified.

4. John J. Fuller, d/b/a AstroBroadcasting System, has failed tosubmit Section V-G of the engineeringform (FCC Form 301]; this'applicantmust, therefore, file the required SectionV-G with the presiding AdministrativeLaw Judge within 30 days of the releaseof this Order.

5. Except as indicated by the issuesspecified below, the applicants arequalified to construct and operate asproposed. However, since the proposalsare mutually exclusive, they must bedesignated for hearing in a consolidatedproceeding.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered, thatpursuant to section 309[e) of theCommuications Act of 1934, asamended, the applications aredesignated for hearing in a consolidatedproceeding to be held before anAdministrative Law Judge at a time andplace to be specified m a subsequentOrder, upon the following issues:

1. To determine which of theapplications would, on a comparativebasis, better serve the public interest.

2. To determine in light of theevidence adduced pursuant to theforegoing issues which of theapplications, if any, should be granted.

7 It is further odered, that in the eventthat the application of John J. Fuller, d/b/a Astro Broadcasting System, isgranted, the construction permit shallcontain the following condition:

John J. Fuller will divest himself of his -;interest in the application of John 1. Fuller &Jerrell E. Kautz for a new television stationon channel G9 at Block Island, Rhode Islandprior to the grant of program testauthorization.

8. It is further ordered, that John J.Fuller, d/bla Astro BroadcastingSystem, shall submit.Section V-G of theengineering from (FCC Form 301) to thepresiding Administrative Law Judgewithin 30 days of the release of thisOrder.

9. It is further ordered, that § 73.37 ofthe Commission's Rules IS WAIVED onbehalf of John J. Fuller, d/b/a AstroBroadcasting System. and FantasyBroadcasting.

10. It is further ordered, that inaddition to the copy served on the Chief,Hearing Branch, a copy of eachamendment flied in this proceedingsubsequent to the date of adoption ofthis Order shall be served on the Chief,Data Management Staff, Audio ServicesDivision, Mass Media Bureau, Room 350,1919 M Street, NW., Washington, D.C.20354.

11. It is further ordered, that to availthemselves of the opportunity to beheard, the applicants hereto shall,pursuant to § 1.221(c) of theCommission's Rules, in person or byattorney, within 20 days of the mailingof this Order, file with the Commissionin triplicate a written appearance statingan intention to appear on the date fixedfor the hearing and to present evidenceon the issues specified in this Order.

12. It is further ordered, that theapplicants herein shall, pursuant tosection 311(a)(2) of the CommumcationsAct of 1934, as amended, and § 73.3594of the Commission's Rules, give noticeof the hearing within the time and in themanner prescribed in such Rule, andshall advise the Commission of thepublication of such notice as required by§ 73.3594(g) of the Rules.Federal Communications Commission.W. Jan Gay,Assistant Chief, Audio Services Division,Mos.a MAediaE Bureau.[FR Dec. 84-33452 Filed iz-24-84; &45 am]S!UING CODE 6712-01-li

Clebume Broadcasting Co., andBroadcast Services; HearingDesignation Order

In re applications of: ClebumeBroadcasting Co. Heflir. Alabama, Req: 1029kHz. 0.5 kW. D (?M Docket No. 84--128, FileNo. BP-30714AA); Broadcast Services.Heflin. Alabama, Req; 1020 kHz, 0.5 KW, D(MM Docket No. 84-1287, File No. BP-831130AC, for Construction Permit.

Adopted: November 28,1934.Released: December 14.1934.By the Chief. Mass Media Bureau.

1. The Comnumssion by the Chief, MassMedia Bureau, acting pursuant todelegated authority, has under

50109


, consideration the mutually exclusiveapplications of Cleburne BroadcastingCompany ("Cleburne") and BroadcastServices, and a petition to deny the twoapplications filed by SE/USABroadcasting Company ("SE/USA").

2. The SE/USA petition. SE/USAcontends that its application for an AMradio station at Leeds, Alabama (BP-031130AM), is mutually exclusive withthose of Cleburne and BroadcastServices. SE/USA requests that thosetwo applications be denied or that theybe designated for hearing with itsapplication. However, we havedetermined that the SE/USA proposal isnot mutually exclusive with the others.Accordingly, the SE/USA petition isdenied.

3. Except as indicated by the issuesspecified below, the applicants arequalified to construct and operate as

.proposed. However, since the proposalsare mutually exclusive, they must bedesignated for hearng in a consolidatedproceeding.

4. Accordingly, it is ordered, thatpursuant to section 309(e) of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, the applications aredesignated for hearing in a consolidatedproceeding to be held before anAdministrative Law Judge at a time andplace to be specified in a subsquentOrder, upon the following issues:

1. To determine which of theproposals would, on a comparativebasis, better serve the public interest.

2. To determine in light of theevidence adduced-pursuant to theforegoing issue, which of theapplications should be granted.

5. It is further ordered, that thepetition to deny filed by SE/USABroadcasting Company, is denied.

6. It is further ordered, that in additionto the-copy served on the Chief, HearingBranch, a copy of each amendment filedin this proceeding shall be served on theChief, Data Management Staff, AudioServices Division, Mass Media Bureau,Room 350, 1919 M Street, NW.,Washington, D.C.

7 It is further ordered, that to availthemselves of an opportunity to beheard, the applicants shall, pursuant to§ 1.221(c) of the Commission's Rules, inperson or by attorney, within 20 days ofthe mailing of this Order, file with theCommission, in triplicate, a writtenappearance stating an intention toappear on the date fixed for the hearingand present evidence on the issuesspecified in this Order.

8. It is further ordered, that theapplicants herein shall pursuant tosection 311(a)(2) of the CommunicationsAct of 1934, as amended, and § 73.3594of the Commission's Rules, give notice.

of the hearing within the time andmanner prescribed in such Rule, andshall advise the Commission of thepublication of such notice as required by§ 73.3594(g) of the Rules.

Federal Communications Commission.W. )an Gay,Assistant Chief.Audia Services Division.Mass Media Bureau.[FR Doc. 84-33451 Filed 12-24--84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712-01-M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

AT Financial Corp., et al., ApplicationsTo Engage de Novo In PermissibleNonbanking Aactivities

The c6mpames listed m this noticehave filed an application under§ 225.23(a](1) of the Board's RegulationY (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) for the Board'sapproval under section 4(c)(8) of theBank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.1843(c)(8)) and § 225.21(a) of RegulationY (12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or toengage de novo, either directly orthrough a subsidiary, in a nonbankingactivity that is listed in § 225.25 ofRegulation Y as closely related tobanking and permissible for bankholding companies. Unless otherwise'noted, such activities will be conductedthroughout the United States.

Each application is available forimmediate inspection at the FederalReserve Bank indicated. Once theapplication has been accepted forprocessing, it will also be available forinspection at the offices of the Board ofGovernors. Interested persons mayexpress their views in writing on thequestion whether consummation of theproposal can "reasonably be expectedto produce benefits to the public, suchas greater convenience, increasedcompetition, or gains in efficiency, thatoutweigh possible adverse effects, suchas undue concentration of resources,decreased or unfair competition,conflicts of interests, or unsoundbanking practices." Any request for ahearing on this question must beaccompanied by a statement of thereasons a written presentdtion wouldnot suffice in lieu of a hearing,identifying specifically any questions offact that are in dispute, summarizing theevidence that would be presented at ahearing, and indicating how the partycommenting would be aggrieved byapproval of the proposal.

Unless otherwise noted, commentsregarding the applications must be.received at the Reserve Bank indicated

or the offices of the Board of Governorsnot later than January 16,1985.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland(Lee S. Adams, Vice President) 1455 EastSixth Street, Cleveland, Oluo 44101:

1. AT Financial Corporation,Cleveland. Ohio; to engage directly froma de nova office in Tampa, Florida In theactivities of making, acquiring orservicing of loans or other extensions ofcredit including commercial loanssecured by a borrower's inventory,accounts receivable, making leases ofpersonal property or acting as agent,broker or advisor mn leasing suchproperty, and other extensions of creditsuch as would be made by a commercialfinance company.

2. PNC Financial Corp., Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania; to engage de novo throughits subsidiary, BHC Securities, Inc.,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, inunderwriting and dealing m governmentobligations and money marketinstruments from an office in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta(Robert E. Heck, Vice President) 104Marietta Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia30303:

1. First Atlanta Corporation, Atlanta,Georgia; to engage do nova through Itssubsidiary, First Atlanta MortgageCorporation, Atlanta, Georgia, inmaking or acquiring loans and otherextensions of credit secured by realestate for its own account or for theaccount of others and in servicing loansand other extensions of credit securedby real estate.

Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem. December 19, 1984.James McAfee,Associate Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 84-33398 Filed 12-24-84: 0:45 am]BILLING CODE 6210-01-

Southwest Virginia Bankshares, Inc., otal., Formations of; Acquisitions by; andMergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this noticehave applied for the Board's approvalunder section 3 of the Bank HoldingCompany Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and§ 225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12CFR 225.14) to become a bank holdingcompany or to acquire a bank or bankholding company. The factors that areconsidered in acting on the applicationsare set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Each application is available forimmediate inspection at the FederalReserve Bank indicated. Once theapplication has been accepted forprocessing, it will also be available for

50110

Federal Regster /Vol. 49, No. 249 Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

inspection at the office of the Board ofGovernors. Interested persons mayexpress their views in writing to theReserve Bank or to the offices of theBoard of Governors. Any comment onan application that requests a hearingmust include a statement of why awritten presentation would not suffice inlieu of a hearing, identifying specificallyany questions of fact that are in disputeand summarizing the evidence thatwould be presented at a hearing.

Unless otherwise noted, commentsregarding each of these applicationsmust be received not later than January18, 1985.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond(Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Vice President)701 East Byrd Street, Rich-Mond, Virginia23261:

1. Southwest Virginia Bankshares,Inc., Marion, Virginia; to become a bankholding company by acquiring 100percent of the voting shares of thesuccessor by merger to The Bank ofMarion, Marion, Virginia.

B. Federal Reserve Bahk of Atlanta(Robert E. Heck, Vice President) 104Marietta Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia30303:

1. First National Bancshares, Inc.,Jacksonville, Florida; to become a bankholding company by acquiring 80percent of the voting shares of FirstNational Bank of Jacksonville,Jacksonville, Florida.

2. Southwest Banc Shares, Inc.,Chatom, Alabama; to become a bankholding company by acquiring 100percent of the voting shares of ChatomState Bank, Chatom, Alabama..C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas(Anthony J. Montelaro, Vice President)400 South Akard Street, Dallas, Texas75222:

1. Marble Falls National Bancshares,Inc., Marble Falls, Texas; to become abank holding company by acquiring 100percent of the voting shares of MarbleFalls National Bank, Marble Falls,Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem, December 19, 1984.James McAfee,Associate Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 84-33399 Filed 12-24-84, 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6210-01-M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Granting of Request for E~rlyTermination of the Waiting PeriodUnder the Premerger NotificationRules; G.S.F.C. Inc., et al.

Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15

U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of theHart-Scott-Rodino AntitrustImprovements Act of 1976, requirespersons contemplating certain mergersor acquisitions to give the Federal TradeCommission and the Assistant AttorneyGeneral advance notice and to waitdesignated periods beforeconsummation of such plans. Section7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies,in individual cases, to terminate thiswaiting period prior to its expiration andrequires that notice of this action bepublished in the- Federal Register.

The following transactions were earlytermination of the waiting periodprovided by law and the premergernotification rules. The grants were madeby the Federal Trade Commission andthe Assistant Attorney General for theAntitrust Division of the Department ofJustice. Neither agency intends to takeany action with respect to theseproposed acquisitions during theapplicable waiting period:

Waiting periodTransection terminated

effective

(1) 84-1049-G.S.F.C. Incorporated's, Dec. 5, 1984.(Weston L Johnson, UPE) proposedacquisition of voting securities of Lan-gendort United Bakeries, Incorporated,(American Bakeries, Company, UPE).

(2) 84-1050--G.S.F.C. Incorporated's, Do.(Robert P. Cornelia, UPE) proposedacquisition of voting securities of Lan-gendorf United Bakeries, Incorporated,(American Bakeries, Company, UPE).

(3) 84-1180-Bennett S. LeBow's pro- Do.posed acquisition of assets of theBasic Four Information Systems, (Man-agement Assistance, UPE).

(4) 84-1219--Societe des Ciments Fran- Do.cais' proposed acquisition of voting se-curities of Louisiville Cement Company.

(5) 84-1243-The Equitable Life Assur- Do.ance Society of the United States'proposed acquisition of voting securi-ties of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette,Incorporated.

(6) 84-1244-The Equitable Life Assur- Do.ance Society of the United States pro-posed acquisition of voting securitiesof Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Incor.porated.

(7) 84-1255-The Washington Post Do.Company's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities and assets of Ka-plan's Educational Centers Business,(Stanley H. Kaplan, UPE).

(8) 84-1258-First American Bank arid Do.Trust's proposed acquisition of votingsecurities of Cenville DevelopmentCorporation.

(9) 84-1259--First American Bank and Do.Trust's proposed acquisition of votingsecurities of Cenville DevelopmentCorporation.

(10) 84-1227-MidCon Corporaton's pro- Dec. 6, 1984.posed acquisition of assets of TexomaPipeline, Company, (Houston NaturalGas Corporation, UPE).

(11) 84-1228-Central and South West Do.Corporation's proposed acquisition ofassets of Texoma Pipe Line Company,(Houston Natural Gas Corporation,UPE).

Waiting periodTransaction terminated

effective

(12) 84-1262-Bass Brothers Enter- Do.prises, Incorporated's proposed acqui-sition of assets of Brock Hotel Corpo-ration.

(13) 84-1303-Brock Hotel Corporation's Do.proposed acquisition of assets of BassBrothers Enterprises, Incorporated.

(14) 84-1313-Bass Brothers Enter- Do.prises, Incorporated's proposed acqui-sition of assets of Brock Hotel Corpo-ration.

(15) 84-1176-Toshiba Corporation's Dec. 7, 1984.proposed acquisition of voting securi-ties of New "unamed" Joint Venture.

(16) 84-1179-United Technologies Cor- Do.poration's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities of New "unamed"Joint Venture.

(17) 84-1200-Federal Paper Board Do.Company, Incorporated's proposed sc--quisition of assets of Nabisco Brands,Incorporated.

(18)" 84-1204-Tenneco Incorporated's Do.proposed acquisition of voting secur-ties of Security Life Insurance Compa-ny of Georgia.

(19) 84-1209-Hoover Universal Incor- Do.porated's proposed acquisition ofassets of Tricoast Containerr Corpora-tion. (Tricoast Holding Corporation,UPE).

(20) 84-1237-Provident Mutual Life In- Do.surance Company of Philadelphia'sproposed acquisition of voting securi-ties of Continental American Life Insur-ance Company, (Crown Central Petro-leum Corporation, UPE).

(21) 84-1238-Placer Development Do.Limited's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities o Prairie ProducingCompany.

(22) 84-1239-Placer Development DO.Limited's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities of Prairie ProducingCompany.

(23) 84-1253-Texas Oil & Gas Corpora- Do.lion's proposed acquisition of assets ofOccidental's interest In the LathropGas Field, (Occidental Petroleum Cor-poration, UPE).

(24) 84-1257-Southmark Corporations's Do.proposed acquisition of voting securi-ties of Parker & Parsley PetroleumCompany, (Jo6 M. Parsley, UPE).

(25) 84-1264-Thomas E. Moran's C/o Do.Moran Towing Corporation proposedacquisition of voting securities ofMoran Towing Corporation.

(26) 84-1271-Morton Thiokol, Incorpor- Do.ated's proposed acquisition of votingsecurities of Bee Chemical Companyand Burley Building Corporation (M.A.Self and Lila M. Self, UPE).

(27) 84-1186-California Hotel and Casi- Dec. 10. 1984.no's proposed acquisition of assets ofTrans-Sterling, Inc., (Allan D. Sachs.UPE).

(28) 84-1195-Glenn R. Jones' pro- Do.posed acquisition of assets of CoxCommunications. Inc..

(29) 84-1210-C.A. Vose, Jr., proposed Do.acquisition of voting securities ofFounders Bancorporation, Inc.

(30) 84-1216-Rockefeter Group, Incor- Do.porated's proposed acquisition ofassets of Anacomp Inc.

(31) 84-1248-The Dun & Bradstreet Do.Corporation's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities of Thomas CookTravel Incorporated and assets of Mid-land Bank P.L.C..

(32) 84-1274-Lucky Stores, Incorporat- Do.ed's proposed acquisition of voting se-curities of Minnesota Fabrics, Inc.

(33) 84-1175-Marott Corporation's Dec. 12, 1984.proposed acquisition of voting securi-ties of Gladieux Corporation, (Virgil A.Gladieux, UPE).

50111

, Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

Transaction I tennnated

effective

(34) 84-,1235--oyat Dutch PetroleumCompay's proposed acquition ofassets Of Marathon Oil Company.(United States Steel Corporation, UPE).

(35) 84-1254-Vintage Petroleum. Incor-porated. (Chartes C. Stephenson. Jr.,UPE) propoced acquisition of assets ofPetro-Le:-,s Corporation and Petro-Lev s Producing Company II.

(36) 84-1260-Dr. %Vivifrn 0. Hurley'sproposed acquition of assets ofAnchor Swan Corporation and Amer-ace Corporation. (Bass InvestmentUrnited Partnrthip, UPC).

(37) 84-1265-Metropoilan Ula trour.ance Company's propoid acquisiionof voting cecurities of Charter SecurityUfa Insurance Company (Louisia),(The Charter CoMpany. UPS).

(38) 94-1269-Estsb!sssments DaihatzeFraresel Cie, "Le Uon' S. A.s pro-posed acquisition of voting securitiesof Giant Food Markets, Incorporated,(Thomas LaGuardia. Jr., UPE).

(391 84-1278-VAnton M. B!ount's pro-posed acqussition of voling securitiesof Omark Industries, Incorporated.

(40) 84-1279-Winton M. nount's pro-posed acquisition of voting securitiesof Omark Industnes, Incorporated.

(41) 84-1285-Pame WVebbr Group In-corporated's propoed acqstion ofassets of A.C.F. Petroleum Company.Incorporated. (Cart c. Icahn, UPE).

(42) 84-1280--Hotlon Industaes Incor-porated's proposed acqutsition ofessets of A.C.F. Petroleum Company.Incorporated. (Cad C. Icahn. UPS).

(43) 84-1289-Masco Industneso Inor.porated's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities of Jacobson Manufac-tunng, Incorporated, (Harvey Jacobson.UPE).

(44) 84-1292-Houston Natural Gas Cot-poration's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities of Potro Source Cor-poration, (Ladd E. Chnstensen. UPE).

(45) 84-1229-Martin Manetta Corpora-tion's proposed acqui6ition of votingsecurities ot International Light MetalsCorporation.

(46) 84-1230-Rio Tinto zinc Corpora-tion's Limited's proposed acquisition ofvoting securities of Martin Manatta Alu-

.mnum Incorporated. (Martin trettaCorporation, UPE).

(47) 84-1234-Nippon Kokan KabushiklKaisha's proposed acqusition of votingsecurities of Intrmatiornal Light MetalsCorporation.

(48) 84-1291--Southmark Corporation'sproposed acquisition of a-sst. of cer-tan nursing homes In Louis ana andTexas. (KEPA Investments, Incorporat-ed, UPS).

(49) 84-1294-Lubrzol Corporation'sproposed acquition of voting secud.ties of Agngenetics Corporation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CSandra M. Peay, Legal Tech

Premerger Notification OfficCompetition, Room 301, FedeCommission, Washington, D.(202) 523-3894.

By direction of the Commisso

Emily H. Rock,Secretary.

[FR Doc. 84-33419 Filed 12-24-8&BILLING CODE 67s0-01-M

Do.

Dec. 13. 1984.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 84N-04181

Determination of Regulatory ReviewPeriod for Purposes of PatentExtension; Amrmone Lactate

Do. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

Do. SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) has determinedthe regulatory review period for thehuman drug product aminone lactate

Do alid is hereby publishing a notice of thatdeterumnation as reqired by law. FDAhas made the determination because of

DO. the submission of an application bySterling Drug Inv. to the Conmussioner

Do. of Patents and Trademarks, Departmentof Commerce, for the extension of a

Do. patent which claims that drug.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Philip Spiller, Office of Legislation and

D~O. Information (HFW-14), Food and DrugAdministration, 5600 Fishers Lane,Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-3793.

Do. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The"Drug Price Competition and PatentTerm Restoration Act of 1984" (Pub. L.

DO. 98-417) authorized up to 5 years ofextension of the term of a patent whichclaims any human drug product, medical

Dec. 14.1984. device, or a food or color additive or amethod of using or manufacturing such a

, product, device, or additive so long asDo. theproduct was subject to a Federal

regulatory review period m accordancewith that act before the product, device,or additive was marketed.

DO. Under 35 U.S.C. 156(g), a regulatoryreview period consists of two periods of

Do. time: a period during which the productis being tested, followed by a periodduring which an application or petitionfor marketing approval is pending before

Do. FDA. Although only a portion of aregulatory review period may counttoward the actual amount of extensionthat the Commissioner of Patents and

ONTAC. Trademarks may award [half the testingnician, time must be subtracted as well as anye, Bureau of time that may have occurred before theeral Trade patent was issued), FDA's determinationC. 20580, of the length of a regulatory review

period will include all of the testing andapplication times as specified in 35

ii. U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B], (23(B), and (3)(B).On November 26,1984, FDA received

an application for patent extension fromSterling Drug Inc. involving the human

; 8:45 am] drug product amrinone lactate. FDA hasdetermined that the total length of the

regulatory review period for amrlnonalactate was 2.462 days, or approximately6.7 years. Of this time, 1,459 days, orapproximately 4 years, occurred duringthe testing phase of the regulatoryreview period while 1,003 days, orapproximately 2.7 years, occurreddurng the application phase. Theseperiods of time derive from the followingdates:

1. The date an exemption undersection 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug,and Cosmetic Act became effective:November 4.1977 (Note that under FDAregulations (21 CFR 312.1(b)(4)), anexemption usually does not becomeeffective until 30 days after a notice ofclaimed investigational exemption for anew drug is submitted to FDA.)

2. The date the application wasinitially submitted under section 505(b)of the Federal Food, Drug, and CosmeticAct: November 2,1981.

3. The date the application wasapproved July 31,1984.

FDA was able to verify these datesagainst agency records.

Dated: December 19,1984.Mark Novitch,Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs[FR Doc. 84-33540 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160-01-M

Health Resources and ServicesAdministration

Steering Subcommittee of the NationalCouncil on Health Planning andDevelopment Advisory Council;Meeting

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92-463], announcement Is madeof the following National Advisory bodyscheduled to meet during the month ofJanuary 1985:

Name: Steenng Subcommittee of theNational Council on Health Planning andDevelopment.

Date and Time: January 24,1985: 3:00 p.m.Place: Conference Room B, Parklawn

Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville.Maryland 20857.(Meeting by Conference Call)

Due to the limited nature of themeeting, a conference call will besubstituted for the regular scheduledmeeting. Open for entire meeting.

Purpose: The objectives of theSteering Subcommittee are to (1) assistthe Chairperson in planning the orderand timing of agenda topics for fullCouncil consideration andiaction toassure that the Secretary will receiveadvice and/or recommendations on

I II I50112


each of its three areas of functionalresponsibilities under section 1503(a) inan appropriate time and manner (2)coordinate information about andamong subcommittee activities andplan; and (3) provide preliminary reviewof proposed changes in Counciloperations.

Agenda: (1) Discussion of Agenda forthe Spring plenary session of theCouncil, (21 status reports on the Officeof Health Planning and the Office ofHealth Facilities; and (3) other Councilbusiness.

Anyone reqmring informationregarding the subject Subcommitteeshould contact Mrs. Diane A.McMenamin. Executive Secretary,National Council on Health Planningand Development, Room 11-18.Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane,Rockville. Maryland 20857. Telephone(301) 443-6377

Agenda items are subject to change aspriorities dictate.

Dated: December 19,V84.JackieF.Baum,.Advisory Committee Afanagement Officer,HRSA.[FR Doc. 84-33404 Fled 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLG CODE 415-15-M

Maternal and Child Health ResearchGrants Review Committee; Filing ofAnnual Report.of Federal AdvisoryCommittee

Notice is hereby given that pursuantto section 13 of Pub. L. 92-463, theAnnual Report for the following HealthResources and Service AdministrationFederal Advisory Committee has beenfiled with the Library of Congress:Materal and Child Health Research

Grants Review CommitteeCopies are available to the public for

inspection at the Library of Congress,Newspaper and Current PeriodicalReading Room, Room 1026, ThomasJefferson Building, Second Street andIndependence Avenue, SE, Washington,D.C., or weekdays between 9:00 a.m.and 430 p.m. at the Department ofHealth and Human Services,Department Library, North Building.Room 1436,330 Independence Avenue.SW, Washington. D.C. 20201, Telephone(202) 245-6791. Copies may be obtainedfrom Dr. Gontran Lamberty. ExecutiveSecretary. Maternal and Child HealthResearch Grants Review Committee,Room 6-i3. Parkdawn Building, 5700Fishers Lane. Rockville. Maryland 20857.Telephone (301) 443-2190.

Datech December 19.1934.Jackie F. Baum.Advisoy CommiUce .ano.cien OffZirsHRSA.[FR Dec. 84-33403 Filed 12-21 -84; a:43 amlBILMNG COOE 4150-1-M

National Advisory Council on NurseTraining; Filing of Annual Report ofFederal Advisory Committee

Notice is hereby given that pursuantto section 13 of Pub. L 9.-4[. theAnnual Report for the following HealthResources and Services AdministrationFederal Advisory Committee has beenfiled with the Library of Congress.National Advisory Council on Nurse

TrainingCopies are -available to the public for

inspection at the Library of Congress,Newspaper and Current PeriodicalReading Room, Room 1026, ThomasJefferson Building, Second Street andIndependence Avenue, SE.. Washington,D.C., or weekdays between 9:00 a.m.and 4:30 p.m. at the Department ofHealth and Human Services,Department Library. North Building,Room 1436, 330 Independence Avenue.SW., Washington. D.C. 20201. Telephone(202) 245-6791. Copies may be obtainedfrom Dr. Mary S. Hill. ExecutiveSecretary, National Advisory Council onNurse Training, Bureau of HealthProfessions. Health Resources andServices Administration. Room 5C-04.Parklawn Building. 5800 Fishers Lane.Rockville. Maryland 20857. Telephone(301) 443-6193.

Dated Dccember 19, WAJackie E. Baum.Advisory Cornmitfle :-Z Inxt Ohiar,HRS,.[FR Dc. 84-:3402 Filed 1-2-1 -4: &15 am)EILUNG COZE 41iO-i-M

Public Health Service

Statement of .Organization, Functions,and Delegations of Authority;, Centersfor Disease Control

Part H. Chapter HC (Centers forDisease Control) of the Statement ofOrganization, Functions. andDelegations of Authority of theDepartment of Health and HumanServices (45 FR 67772-6777-6, datedOctober 14,1930. and corrected at 43 FR69296, October 20,1930, acs amendedmost recently at 49 FR 13431. April 4.1984) is amended to reflect thereorganization of the Center forProfessional Development and Training(HCT) resulting from a realignment offunctions.

SEction HC-B Orgamzation andFunction. is hereby amended as follows:

Delete all functional statements afterthe heading Cnter for ProfessionalDevelopment and Tra inw (HCT7 andsubstitute the followanmg

Centerforroessional Dave'a2mantand Tommg (HCT. Provides nationalleadership to increase the effectivenessof public health organizations andimprove lob performance of healthprofessionals by planning, directing. andcoordinating a pzogram to develop thecapacity of public health organizationsand professionals- to achieve objectivesfor disease control and prevention andhealth promotion. In carrying out thfimission, the Center. (1) Assists States.localities, other Federal agencies. and.upon request of the CDC ExecutiveOffice. CDC programs in identifyinneeds for organizational improvementand professional development andtraning; refers them to appropriateresources, or develops, implements. andevaluates organization developmentinterventions and instructional ormformational programs such as short-term training courses, conferences.manuals, and audiovisual packages; (2)provides assistance to States, localities,other Federal agencies, and CDCprogramsi m the establishment.maintenance, and improvement of theirhealth training and technology transferprograms; (3) conducts research anddemonstration activities related to theimprovement of health promotion anddisease prevention traimng, professionaldevelopment, and organizationdevelopment; (4) works collaborativelyrith learning institutions, especiallySrhools of Public Health andDepartments of Preventive andCommunity Medicine, and vithprofessional organizations to developand implement unproved progams fordisease prevention and healthpromotion: (5) provides assistance toother nations in establishing,implementing, and maintaining effectiveprofessional and organizationdevelopment programs: (6) coordinatesCD Cs training activities, manages theAtlanta classroom and conferencefacilities, and provides training supportservices; (7) m carrying out the abovefunctions, collaborates, as appropriate.with other Centers/Institute and Officesof CDC.

Office of the Director (HCTi. (1)Manages, directs, and coordinates theactivities of the Center for ProfessionalDevelopment and Training (CPDTI; (2)provides leadership in the developmentof long-range plans to ensure theaccomplishment of CPDT's mission. setsannual objectives consistent with those

50113

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

plans, and monitors progress towardtheir achievement; (3) providesleadership in establishing a qualityassurance system for CPDT's productsand services and designs and overseesscientifically valid studies to evaluatetheir impact and cost effectiveness; (4)provides leadership in applying currentmanagement techniques to improveorganizational effectiveness andproductivity within CPDT and CDC; (5)coordinates CPDT assistance to States,localities, other Federal agencies, othernations, and CDC programs; (6)coordinates collaborative projects withlearning mi'titutions and other publichealth organizations, especially Schoolsof Public Health, Departments ofPreventive and Community Medicine,and the Association of State and-Territorial Health Officials; (7) providesadministrative and support services toCPDT.

Division of Field Services (HCT5). (1)Serves as CPDT's principal interfacewith States, localities, other Federalagencies, other nations and other healthorganizations to establish and maintainclient relationships; (2) assists clients byroutinely conducting assessments ofneeds for training and professional andorganization development; (3) developsplans and strategies to ensure thatidentified client needs are beingaddresssed; (4) maintains relationshipswith clients to determine the degree ofclient satisfaction with CPDT productsand services and makesrecommendations for neededimprovements; (5) conducts researchactivities to maintain state-of-the-artmethodologies m communications andconducts demonstrations to ensure theapplication of these methodologies; (6)in carrying out the above functions,collaborates, as appropriate, with theOffice of the Director and otherdivisions within CPDT and with otherCenters/Institute and Offices of CDC.

Division of Consultation andTechncal Assistance (HCT6). (1)Assists States, localities, other Federalagencies, other nations, and CDCprograms by: (a) Conducting analyses ofproblems which are complex andrequire detailed, precise identification offactors that impede public health workerperformance and organizationaleffectiveness and recommendssolutions, and (b) designing,implementing, and evaluatingappropriate professional or organizationdevelopment strategies; (2) conductsresearch activities to maintain state-of-the-art in organization developmeutmethodologies and conductsdemonstrations to ensure theapplication of these methodologies to

public health organizations; (3) incarrying out the above functions,collaborates, as appropriate, with theOffice of the Director and otherdivisions within CPDT and with otherCenters/Institute and Offices of CDC.

Division of Instructional Design andDevelopment (HCT7). (1) Assists States,localities, other Federal agencies, othernations, and CDC programs by: (a)Determining the instructional,informational, or organizationdevelopment materials which best meetidentified needs; (b) designing anddeveloping instructional, informational,or organization development materialssuch as training courses, audiovisualsand management guides for diseasecontrol programs; (c) assuring theinstructional effectiveness of CPDT-developed materials through formativeevaluation and revision; (2) conductsresearch activities to maintain state-of-the-art methodologies instructionaldesign and development and conductsdemonstrations to ensure theapplication of these methodologies; (3)in carrying out the above functionscollaborates, as appropriate, with theOffice of the Director and otherdivisions within CPDT and with otherCenters/Institute and Offices of CDC.

Division of Continuing Education andTraining (HCT8). (1) Assists States,localities, other Federal agencies, othernations, and CDC programs to meet thecontinuing education and training needsof health professionals by: (a) Managinga national public health traininginformation and referral service; (b)conducting courses and providing otherinstruction utilizing classroom, seminar,conference, self-study, and othereffective and efficient mechamsms toreach targeted audiences; (c) trainingand supporting preceptors to provideinstruction using CPDT products andservices; (d) managing the CDCclassroom and conference facilities toensure that these environments areoptimal for learning and serve as modelsfor the nation; (2) conducts researchactivities to maintain state-of-the-artmethodologies in the delivery ofcontinmng education and training andconducts demonstrations to ensure theapplication of these methodologies; (3)in carrying out the above functions,collaborates, as appropriate, with theOffice of the Director and otherdivisions within CPDT and with otherCenters/Institute and Offices of CDC.

Dated: December 12,1984.

James F. Dickson,Acting Assistant Secretary for Health.IFR Doc. 84-33464 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160-18-M

Statement of Organization, Functions,and Delegations of Authority; Foodand Drug Administration

Part H, Chapter HF (Food and DrugAdministration) of the Statement ofOrganization, Functions, andDelegations of Authority for theDepartment of Health and HumanServices (35 FR 3685, February 25,1970,as amended most recently in pertinentparts at 45 FR 33729, May 20, 1980; 45 FR57174-75, August 27, 1980; 48 FR 54129-34, November 30, 1983; and 49 FR 10166-85, March 19, 1984) is amended to reflectorganizational changes in the Food andDrug Adrmistration (FDA) and thedeletion from the Federal Register ofcertain FDA organizational functionalstatements.

One change adds an internationalaffairsliaison function and clarifies acommunications function in the Office ofConsumer and Professional Affairs(OCPA), Center for Drugs and Biologics(CDB). This change will more accuratelyreflect CDB external communications.

The second change adds a function tothe Office of Management, CDB, for thecoordination of the receipt anddistribution of initial drug and biologicalproduct applications and other relateddocuments. This change will allowbetter coordination of these documentswith the reviewing componentsthroughout CDB.

FDA is deleting all functionalstatements currently published in theFederal Register for fourth echelonorganizational components. A fourthechelon component is one whose head isthree reporting or organizational levelsfrom the Commissioner of Food andDrugs .who is the first echelon. As aresult of revised Public Health Service(PHS) organizational guidelines, FDA'sOffice level components are defindd asthird echelon (divisional level). Forexample, the Office of Drug Standards Isa third echelon organization because ItsDirector reports to the Director of theCenter for Drugs and Biologics who Inturn reports to the Commissioner. FDAwill continue to publish, as it alwayshas, the functional statements for thirdechelon and above organizationalcomponents that require the approvaleither of the Assistant Secretary forHealth (ASH) or the Secretary of theDepartment of Health and HumanServices.

Section HF-B, Organization andFunctions is amended as follows:

1. Delete subparagraph (n-i-i), Officeof Management (HFN12) and insert newsubparagraph (n--i), Office ofManagement (HFN12).

T 1

50114


(n-i) Office of Management (HFNI2).Monitors the development andoperations of plamung systems forCenter activities and resourceallocations and advises the CenterDirector on. Center administrativepolicies and guidelines and informationsygtems and services.

Directs and counsels Center managersthrough program evaluation andtechnological forecasting.

Plans and directs Center operationsfor financial and personnelmanagement, employee developmentand training, equal employmentopportunity (EEC) activities, and Officeservices.

Directs Center organization,management, and information systems.and provides library services.

Manages studies designed to improveprocesses and resource allocations inthe Center.

Provides direct administratlive supportto all Center.organmzations. Advises theCenter on contract and grant proposals.

Provides coordination for receipt anddistribution of initial drug and biologicalproduct applications and other relateddocuments.

2. Delete subparagraph (n-14ii, Officeof Consumer and Professional Affairs(HFN14) and insert new subparagraph(n-I-il'], Office of Consumer andProfessional Affairs (HFN14).

(n-i-ill] Office of Consumer andProfesswnalAffams (HF14. Directsand implements Center consumer andprofessional informational activities andcoordinates these activities with otheragency components.

Identifies, plans, and developsinformational and educational programsand materials on drugs and biologicalproducts and their use for consumersand health professionals.

Prepares, develops, and coordinatesCenter and agenry responses toinquiries on drugs and biologicalproducts from health professionals.cop sumers, and others, includingrequests under the Freedom ofInformation (FOlJ Act, the Privacy Act,and other statutes.

Serves as Center liaison with theNational Technical Information Service(NTIS) and serves as Center smallbusiness liaison.

Serves as the Center focal point fordeveloping and maintaininginternational communications, policies,and programs.

3. Delete subparagraphs (f-i-i), (f-i-i),(f-Z-i). (f-2-ii), (f-3-i) through (f-3-iv).Office of Regulatory Affairs.

4. Delete subparagraphs (h-S-i)through (h-5-iv), Office of Managementand Operations.

5. Delete subparagraphs (k-1- })through (k-i-iD). (k-2-i) through (k-2-,v).(k-3-i] through (k-3-iv), (K4-i) through (k-4-v), and (k-S-i) through (k-5-v), Centerfor Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

6. Delete subparagraphs (m-l-iA), (in-2-i), (m-2-ii), (m-3-i) through (m-3-v), (m-4-i) through (m-4-iv), (m-5-1), (m-5-li). and(rn-6-) through (m-6-iii), Center forVeterinary Medicine.

7 Delete subparagraphs (n-i-iA)through (n--iE), (n-2-i) through (n-2-vii),(n-3-i) through (n-3-v), (n-4-i) through (n-4-viii), (n-5-i) through (n-S-x), and (n-fr-i)through (n-6-iii), Center for Drugs andBiologics.

8. Delete subparagraphs (o-l-iA)through (o-1-E), (o-2i) through (a-2-v),(o-3-i) through (o-3-vii), (o-4-i] through(o-4-iv), and [o-5-ij through (o-5-vii),Center for Devices and RadiologicalHealth.

9. Delete subparagraphs (q-4-i)through (q-4-iii), National Center forToxicological Research.

Effective Date: December 10, 1924.Dated. Deccmber 10, 19M

James F. Dickson,Acting Assistant Sctary fer Hcatth.[FR Doec. 84-33163 Filed 12-24--C4. U5 aml

ILLING CODE 4163-01-.M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Privacy Act of 1974-Revision ofNotice of System of Records

Pursuant to the provisions of thePrivacy Act of 1974, as amended (5U.S.C. 552a), notice is hereby given that,the Department of the Interior proposesto revise a notice describing a system ofrecords maintained by the Bureau ofReclamation. The notice r. as formerlytitled "Inventory and Contrcl of LandSales Subject to Acreage Lunitation-Interior, Reclamation-31" and is nowretitled as "Acreage Limitation-Interior, Reclamation-31" Except asnoted below, all changcs beingpublished are editorial in nature, andreflect organization and statutorychanges and other minor administativeand technical revisions vh~ch haveoccurred since the publication of thematerial in the Federal Register on July30, 1981 {46 FR 39047). The revisednotice is published in its entirety belowv.

In addition to the technucal andadministrative revisions notcd above.two new compatible routine disclosuresare being added to the notice. A routinedisclosure to a Member of Congress isadded to permit responses to inquiriesmade by individuals through acongressional office. Also added is a

routine disslosure to non-Federalauditors performing financial audits forthe Bureau.

5 U.S.C. 552(e)(11) requires that thepublic be provided a 30-day period inv.hch to comment. Therefore, writtencomments on these proposed changescan be addressed to the DepartmentPrivacy Act Officer, Office of theSecretary (PIR}. U.S. Department of theIntenor. Washmton. D.C. 20249.Comments received on or beforeJanuary 25, 1233, will be consdered. Thanotice shall be effective as proposedwithout further notice at the end of thecomment period, unless comments arereceived which would require a contrarydetermination.

Dated Dccamber 10 I24.Oscar W. Mueller, Jr.,Dircc.- O. Offz'co fIformalnon Resources

P'aieat

lnterlor/WBR-31

SYSTEM NA"ni

Acreage Limitation-Interior.Reclamation-31.

SYSTEM LOCATION'.

Bureau of Reclamation En&gneerm.gand Reseach Center, Regional Offices:.Pacific Nortlhvest. Mid-Pacific. LowerColorado, Upper Colorado, Sauthwest.Upper Missoun. Lower Missouri. Seeappendix for addresses.

CATEGORIES OF V.DVVZ US COVERM EM THEcYSTEM

All Individuals and entities that ownor lease land subject to the acreagelimitation provisions of Reclamationlaw, including individual landholdersrequired to dispose of excess lands andindividuals who are applicants topurchase Excess lands.

CA.TEG O I75S OF RECM= F v THE SYSTME

LegaI descriptions or Assessor ParcelNumbers of indivzdually owned orleased lands which are subject toacreage limiiation lav- including, whereappropriate, deeds, agreements to sell orpurchase. lease/purchase options, andcontracts relative to land ownersiptransfers. In addition, the system maycontain the names of sellers and buyersof excess land and other pertinentdetails of the sales. Information, asrequired. for an eigibility determinationby the Bureau of Reclamation of anindividual's excess/nonexcess statusunder the Reclamation Reform Act.terms of leases, and names of lessorsand lessees. The system will containcitizenship status and home addressesand telephone numbers of landholders.Social Security numbers may also be on

50115


record; disclosure of this information isvoluntary.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THESYSTEM:

Reclamation Act of 1902 as amendedand acts supplemental thereto, 43 U.S.C.371, et seq., especially sections 206, 224,and 228 of the Reclamation Reform Actof 1982, Pub. L. 97-293.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED INTHE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OFUSERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

The primary purpose of the system isto obtain written information fromindividuals and entities on theirlandholdings which are subject toacreage limitation law and a signedstatement that the information providedis accurate and complete. The originalcertification and reporting forms aremaintained in the irrigation districts oforigin. Copies of such forms indicatingmultidistrict landholdings, full-costacreage, and excess lands are providedto the Bureau for administration andrecordkeeping. In addition, data fromthese forms which indicate multidistrictlandholdings is entered into thecomputer system to determinecompliance with Reclamation law. Thedata collected is used only by irrigationdistrict and Reclamation personnel todetermine compliance with Reclamationlaw. Disclosures outside the Departmentof the Interior may be made: (1) To theDepartment of Justice when related tolitigation or anticipated litigation; (2) ofinformation indicating a violation orpotential violation of a statute,regulation, rule, or license to appropriateFederal, State, local or foreign agenciesresponsible for investigating orprosecuting the violation or for enforcingor implementing the statute, rule,regulation, order or license; (3) from therecord of an individual in response to aninquiry from a congressional officemade at the request of that individual;and (4) to non-Federal auditors undercontract with the Departments ofInterior or Energy or water user and.other organizations with which theBureau of Reclamation has writtenagreements permitting access tofinancial records to perform financialaudits.

POUCIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Maintained in file folders and oncomputer.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Manual records are retrieved bywater district and/or landholder name,by land parcel number, and by a sale

number. Automated records areretrieved by district identificationnumber, sale number, landholder name,or social security number, if available,and other data codes identifyingproperty characteristics.,

SAFEGUARDS:

In accordance with requirements of 43CFR 2.51 for computer and manualrecords.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAU

In accordance with approvedretention and disposal schedules.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Water and Land Officers. Bureau ofReclamation Engineering and ResearchCenter, Regional Offices: PacificNorthwest, Mid-Pacific, LowerColorado, Upper Colorado, Southwest,Upper Missouri, Lower Missouri. Seeappendix for addresses.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Written inquiries regarding theexistence of a record(s) should be sentto the System Manager at theappropriate address listed in theappendix. See 43 CFR 2.60,

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:

Same as Notification above. See 43CFR 2.63

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE:

Written petitions for amendmentshould be addressed to the SystemManager at the appropriate office listedin the appendix. See 43 CFR 2.71.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Individuals on whom records aremaintained, official county records, andland appraisers.[FR Doc. 84-33476 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]

-. BILLNG CODE 4310-09-M

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Land Claim; Squaxin Island IndianReservation

Proclaiming Certain Land as Part ofthe Squaxin Island Indian Reservation.This notice ispublished in the exerciseof authority delegated by the Secretaryof the Interior to the AssistantSecretary-Indian Affairs by 209 DM8.1.

On December 7, 1984, pursuant toauthority contained in section 7 of theAct of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25U.S.C. 467), the following described sixparcels of land, located in MasonCounty, Washington, were proclaimedto be made a part of the Squaxin IslandIndian Reservation.

Parcel A. 130-T123-WesternWashington Public Domain, describedas: The Northwest quarter of theSoutheast quarter of the Northeastquarter and the West half of theSouthwest quarter of the Southeastquarter of the NE quarter of Section 20,Township 19 North, Range 3 West,Willamette Meridian, containing 15.00acres, more or less.

Parcel B. 130-T127-WesternWashington Public Domain, describedas: The Northeast quarter of theSoutheast quarter of the Northeastquarter and the Southeast quarter of theSoutheast quarter of the Northeastquarter of Section 20, Township 19North, Range 3 West, WillametteMeridian, containing 20.00 acres, moreor less.

Parcel C. 130-T136--WesternWashington Public Domain, describedas: That part of Lot 2 of Section 14,Township 20 North, Range 2 West,Willamette Meridian. Beginning at theSouthwest corner of the North half ofthe Southwest quarter of said Section14, thence Southeasterly along theWesterly line of said Lot 2, 110 feet;thence Northeasterly 148.50 feet, more orless, to a point on the North line of saidLot 2 which is 220 feet East from thepoint of beginning: thence West alongthe North line of said Lot 2, 220 feet tothe point of beginning, containing .19acre, more or less.

Parcel D. 130-T140--WesternWashington Public Domain, describedas: The East half of the Southwestquarter of the Southeast quarter of theNortheast quarter of Section 20,Township 19 North, Range 3 West,Willamette Meridian, containing 5,00acres, more or less.

Parcel E. 130-T1141-WgsternWashington Public Domain, describedas: The Northeast quarter of theNortheast quarter of Section 20.Township 19 North, Range 3 West,Willamette Meridian, containing 40.00acres, more or less.

Parcel F 130-T1146--Wes ternWashington Public Domain, describedas: That portion of the East half of theSouthwest quarter of the Southwestquarter of the Northeast quarter and ofthe West half of the Southeast quarter ofthe Southwest quarter of the Northeastquarter of Section 20, Township 19North, Range 3 West, WillametteMeridian, lying east of the Old OlympicHighway, except the North 60 feetthereof, containing 7.16 acres, more orless.

I iI

50116


The above parcels are subject to allvalid existing easements, rights-of-wayand other rights of record.John W. Fritz,Acting Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.[FR Doc. 84-33413 Filed 12-24-44; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 4310-02-M

Bureau of Land Management

[W-62345; 5-22823-GP5-021]

Wyoming, Proposed Reinstatement ofTerminated Oil and Gas Lease

Pursuant to the provisions of Pub. L31-245 and Title 43 Code of FederalRegulations, § 3108.2-1(c), and Pub. L97-451, a petition for reinstatement of oiland gas lease W-62345 for lands inCampbell County, Wyoming was timelyfiled and was accompamed by all therequired rentals accruing from May 1,1984, the date of termination.

The lessee has agreed to the leaseterms for rentals and royalties at ratesof $5.00 per acre, and 16%percent,respectively.

The lessee has paid the required$500.00 administrative fee and $106.25 toreimburse the Department for the cost ofthis Federal Register notice.

The lessee has met all therequirements for reinstatement of thelease as set out in section 31 (d) and (e)of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920(30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of LandManagement is proposing to reinstatelease W-62345 effective May 1,1984,subject to the original terms andconditions of the lease and theincreased rental and royalty rates citedabove.Andrew L Tarshis,Chief Leasing Section.[FR Doc. 84-33405 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BiLLING CODE 4310-22-M

[5-22823-GP5-020; W-0310284]

-Wyoming; Proposed Reinstatement ofTerminated Oil and Gas Lease

Pursuant to the provisions of Pub. L-31-245 and Title 43 Code of FederalRegulations, section 3108.2-1(c), andPub. L. 97-451, a petition forreinstatement of oil and gas lease W-0310284 for lands in Converse County,Wyoming was timely filed and wasaccompanied by all the required rentalsaccruing from May 1,1984, the date oftermination.

The lessee has agreed to the newlease terms for rentals and royalties atrates of $5.00 per acre, and 167s percent,respectively.

The lessee has paid the required$500.00 administrative fee and S105.25 toreimburse the Department for the cost ofthis Federal Register notice.

The lessee has met all therequirements for reinstatement of thelease as set out in section 31 (d) and (e)of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920(30 U.S.C. 188). and the Bureau of LandManagement is proposing to reinstatelease W-0310284 effective May 1.1984.subject to the original terms andconditions of the lease and theincreased rental and royalty rates citedabove.Andrew L Tarshis,Chief, Leasing Section.[FR Doe. 84-33416 Filed 12-24-&4; 8:45 am)BILLiNG CODE 4310-22-M

Sale of Public Land In Plute County, UT

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.Interior.ACTION: Notice of realty action (43 CFR2711.1-2).

SUMMARY: The following described landhas been examined and identified assuitable for disposal by sale undersection 203 of the Federal Land Policyand Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat.2750,43 U.S.C. 1713), at no less than theappraised fair market value ($3,125.00)Legal Descrption:T. 30 S.. R. 2 W.. SLM&B

Sec. 28, S SW NWV N'%,V., E'a NWINWMV4 SW , NWV-, NE' NW4 SW 4NW , E14- SEV. NWVVA SWV. NWV, Et5NE SWA SW1' NW%, E,4 SWVNW'4.

Containing 31.25 acres.This land is being offered by direct

sale to the Otter Creek Reservoir Co., ofRichfield, Utah at the appraised fairmarket value.

Sale of the land to the Otter CreekReservoir Company will allow theCompany to exercise greater controlover the Otter Creek Reservior Dam.which is located on the tract of landproposed for sale. Ownership of land.the dam is located on will enable theowner to maintain the dam is a safermore stable condition. This sale is alsoconsistent with the Bureau of LandManagement's planning system.

Detailed information concerning thesale, including the planning documents,envoronmental assessment, and thedecision document is available forreview at the Richfield District Office.

For a period of 45 days from the dateof this Notice, interested parties maysubmit comments to the RichfieldDistrict Manager, Bureau of LandManagement. 150 East 900 North.

Richfield. Utah 84701. Any adversecomments will be evaluated by theDistrict Manager who may vacate ormodify this realty action and issue afinal determination.

In the absence of any action by theDistrict Manager. this realty action villbecome the final determination of theDepartment of the Interior.

Dated: December 17.1934.Donald L. Pendleton,District MJanager.[FR Doe. 84-33418 Filed 12-24-84; &45 am]E.LIMG CODE 4310-C"-U

Availability of a Record of Decision forthe4jtah Combined HydrocarbonLeasing Regional EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS)

AGENCY. Bureau of Land Management(BLM), Interior.ACTION: Notice of availability of arecord of decision for the UtahCombined Hydrocarbon LeasingRegional EIS.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that aRecord of Decision for the UtahCombined Hydrocarbon LeasingRegional EIS is now available for publicinspection. The Record of Decisionidentifies decisions made fromalternative actions considered m theEIS. These decisions focus on changes mBLM's land use planning m Special TarSand Areas (STSAs) and whether or notto offer new leases for competitive sale.ADDRESS:. Copies of the Record ofDecision can be obtained from: PublicRoom, BLM Utah State Office, CFSFinancial Center, 324 South State, Suite

-301, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.FOR FUMTER INFORMATION CONTACT.Ronald B. Bolander, (8M) 524-3133,Bureau of Land Management, CFSFinancial Center. 324 South State. SaltLake City, Utah 84111.

Dated: December14.1934.Roland G. Robison.State Director.[FR Doec. 84-33444 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]CMUGI CODE 43C-CQ-

lINT DEIS-84-671

ML Hope Molybdenum Project ofExxon Minerals Co. In Eureka County,NV; Availability of Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement

AGENCY:. Bureau of Land ManagemenLACTION: Notice of Availability of theDraft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS).

50117


SUMMARY: In accordance with section203 of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976, and incompliance with section 102(2) of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969, the Bureau of Land Managementhas prepared a DEIS for the Mt. HopeMolybdenum Project of Exxon MineralsCompany.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOW. Thedocument analyzes the impacts of aproposed open pit molybdenum mine,with ancillary facilities, 30 miles northof the town of Eureka, Nevada. Theproposed action includes sale of 2,440acres of public land, other future landacquisitions, granting of power, waterline, and highway relocation rights-of-way, and approval of a plan ofoperations. Several.alternatives to theproposed action are also analyzed.

Public hearings are scheduled inNevada at the following locations.Comments regarding the proposedaction and the alternatives will be takenduring the public hearings.Jan. 29,1985--Eureka at the Courthouse,

7:00 p.m.Jan. 30, 1985-Elko at the Stockmen's

Motor Lodge, 7:00 p.m.Jan. 31, 1985--Reno at the Ramada Inn

Convention Center, 6th and LakeStreets, 7:00 p.m.Oral and written comments on the

draft document will be consideredduring preparation of the final EIS. Allcomments must be received by March 8,1985 at the following address.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:H. James Fox, District Manager.Attn: Neil D. Talbot, Shoshone-EurekaArea Manager, P.O. Box 1420, BattleMountain, Nevada 89820, (702) 635-5181.

Copies of the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement are available forreview at the following locations:Bureau of Land Management, Nevada

State Office, 300 Booth Street, Reno,Nevada 89520, (702] 784-5602

Bureau of Land Management, ElkoDistrict Office, 2002 Idaho Street,Elko, Nevada 89801, (702) 738-4071

Bureau of Land Management,Winnemucca District Office, 705 E. 4thStreet, Winnemucca, Nevada 89445,(702) 623-3676

Bureau of Land Management, CarsonCity District Office, 1050 E. WilliamsStreet, Carson City, Nevada 89701,(702) 882-1631

Bureau of Land Management, ElyDistrict Office, Star Route 5, Box 1,Ely, Nevada 89301, (702) 289-4865

Bureau of Land Management, Las VegasDistrict Office, 4765 W. Vegas Drive,Las Vegas, Nevada 89102, (702) 388-6403

Bureau of Land Management, BattleMountain District Office, North 2ndand Scott Streets, Battle Mountain,Nevada 89820, (702) 635-5181Copies are also available for reviews

at the following public libraries:Churchill Public Library, 553 S. Main

Street, Fallon, Nevada 89406Elko County Library, Elko, Nevada

89801Goldfield Public Library, Goldfield,

Nevada 89013Mineral County Library, 1st and D

Streets, Hawthorne, Nevada 89415Nye County Library, Tonopah, Nevada

89049University of Nevada, Las Vegas, James

R. Dickensen Library, 4505 MarylandParkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154

Clark County Library, 1401 E. FlamingoRoad, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109

Eureka County Library, Eureka, Nevada89316

Lander County Library, Battle Mountain,Nevada 89820

Nevada State Library, 401 N. CarsonStreet, Carson City, Nevada 89710

University of Nevada, Reno, Getchell'Library, Reno, Nevada 89507

Washoe County Library, 301 S. CenterStreet, Reno, Nevada 89505

White Pine County Library, CourthousePlaza, Ely, Nevada 89301Dated: December 17,1984.

Edward F. Spang,State Director, Nevada.[FR Doc. 84-33480 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M

Minerals Management Service

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations inthe Outer Continental Shelf; Conoco,Inc.

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service.ACTION: Notice of the receipt of aproposed development operationscoordination document.

SUMMARY: This Notice announces thatConoco Inc., Unit Operator of the GrandIsle Block 43 Field Federal Unit /

Agreement No. 14-08-001-2454,submitted on December 12, 1984, aproposed Development OperationsCoordination Document describing theactivities it proposes to conduct on theGrand Isle Block 43 Field Federal Unit.

The purpose of this Notice is to informthe piblic, pursuant to Section 25 of theOCS Lands Act Amendments of 1978,that the Minerals Management Serviceis considering approval of the plan andthat it is available for public review atthe offices of the Regional Director, Gulfof Mexico OCS Region, Minerals

Management Service, 3301 N. CausewayBlvd., Room 147, Metairie, Louisiana70002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Minerals Management Service, RecordsManagement Section, Room 143, openweekdays 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., 3301 N.Causeway Blvd., Metairie, Louisiana70002, phone (504) 838-0519.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Revisedrules governing practices andprocedures under which the MineralsManagement Service makes informationcontained in the proposed developmentoperations coordination documentavailable to affected States, executivesof affected local governments, and otherinterested parties became effective onDecember 13,1979 (44 FR 53685), Thosepractices and procedures are set out in a-revised § 250.34 of Title 30 of the Codeof Federal Regulations.

Dated: December 18, 1984.John L Rankin,Regional Director, Gulf of Mexico OCSRegion.[FR Doc. 84-33475 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BIMING CODE 4310-MR-M

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations Inthe Outer Continental Shelf; ODECOOil and Gas Co.

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,Interior,

ACTION: Notice of the receipt of aproposed development operationscoordination document.

SUMMARY: This Notice announces thatODECO Oil & Gas Company, UnitOperator of the Ship Shoal Block 113Field Federal Unit Agreement No. 14-08-001-2931, submitted on December 11,1984, a proposed DevelopmentOperations Coordination Documentdescribing the activities it proposes toconduct on the Ship Shoal Block 113Field Federal unit.

The purpose of this Notice is to Informthe public, pursuant to Section 25 of theOCS Land Act Amendments of 1978,that the Minerals Management Serviceis considering approval of the plan andthat it is available for public review atthe offices of the Regional Director, Gulfof Mexico OCS Region, MineralsManagement Service, 3301 N. CausewayBlvd., Metame, Louisiana 70002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Minerals Management Service, RecordsManagement Section, Room 143, openweekdays 9:00 a.m to 3:30 p.m., 3301 N.Causeway Blvd., Room 147, Metairie,Louisiana 70002, phone (504) 838-0519,

I ', m I II

50118


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Revisedrules governing practices andprocedures under which the MineralsManagement Service makes information'contained in the proposed developmentoperations coordiffation documentavailable to affected States, executivesof affected local governments, and otherinterested parties became effective onDecember 13,1979- (44 FR 53685). Thosepractices and procedures are set out in arevised § 250.34 of Title 30 of the Codeof Federal Regulations.

Dated: December 18,1984.John L. Rankin,Regional Director, Gulf of Mftico OCSRegion.[FR Doe. 84-33474 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 4310-MR-M

National Park Service

National Register of Histonc Places;Notification of Pending Nominations

Nominations for the followingproperties being considered for listing inthe National Register were received bythe National Park Service beforeDecember 15,1984. Pursuant to § 60.13of 36 CFR Part 60 written commentsconcerning the significance of theseproperties under the National Registercriteria for evaluation may be forwardedto the National Register, National ParkService, U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, D.C. 20243. Writtencomments should be submitted byJanuary.10, 1985.Carol D. Shull,Chief of Registration, National Register.

ARIZONA

Mancopa CountyTempe, Administration/Science Building

(Tempe MRA), ASU Campus. Bldg. 11Tempe. B. B. MoeurAtivity Building (Tempe

MRA), ASU Campus, Bldg. 37Tempe, Grady Commage Memorial

Auditorium (Tempe MRA), NE Corner ofMill and Apache

Tempe. Industrial Arts Building (TempeMRA), ASU Campus, Bldg. 4

Tempe, Matthews Hall,'ASU Campus, Bldg.172

MARYLAND

Baltimore CountyPikesville vicinity, Wester Ogle. 8948-8950

Reisterstown Rd.

Garrett CountyAccident vicinity, Drone. fames. House.

Accident-Bittinger Rd.

Montgomery CountlyRockville, Dawson Form, 1070 and 1080

Copperstone Ct.

Queen Ann's CountyCentreville. Ozmon, Capt. fohn A1. Store.

Centreville Wharf

MICHIGAN

Gogebic CountyIronwood. Ironwvood Theatre Comple\.

Aurora St.

Oakland CountyMilford. Foote. Dr. Henry X. House. 213 W.

Huron SL

Ottawa CountyHolland, Holland Old City Hall and Fire

Station. 108 E. 8th St.Sanilac CountyLexington. Aoore. Charles H. and Albert F.

Sleeper House. 7277 Simons St.

Wayne County.Detroit, ElI ood Bar. 2100 Woodward

NEBRASKA

Douglas County.Omaha. Bemis Omaha Bag Company

Building. 614-624 S. 11th SL and 1102-1110Jones St.

Omaha. Blaclstone Hotel. 302 S. 36th St.

OHIO

Hamilton CountyCincinnati. Phoenix Building/lCincinnati

Club, 30 Garfield P1. and 812 Race St.

Licking CountyAlexandria vicinity. Shaub. Afartin. Mill

Site/House, 8259 Duncan Plains Rd.

Miarm CountyPiqua, Piqua-Caldvell Historic District. N.

Main. Wayne, Downing, Caldwell Ss.: W.Ash to Camp Sts.

PENNSYLVANIA

Cumberland CountyShippensburg, Cumberland Volley State

Normal School Historic District. Roughlybounded by N. Prince St.. Stewart. OldMain. Gilbert and Henderson Drives

Dauphin CountyHarrisburg, Afount Pleasant Historic District.

Sylvan Terrace to 19th St., Market toBrookwood Sts.

TENNESSEE

Shelby CountyMemphis. Evergreen Historic District.

Roughly bounded by N. Parkway.Kenilworth/McLean. Poplar and Watkins:also area bounded by Poplar. Willett, Courtand Stonewall

TEXAS

Galveston CountyGalveston. Aferimax Building (Central

Business District MRA. 521 22nd St.Kaufman CountyTerrell. First National Banl. Building. 101 E.

Moore

UTAH

Cache CountyClarkson. ClarA ston Tithing Cronazy (Tithing

Offices and Granaries of the AormonChurch TRI. 10212 N. 8700 West

Hyrum. Hyrum Stake Tithing Office (TithingOffices and Granaries of the MormonChurch TRI. 26 W. Main St.

Ler. iston. Lew iston Tithing Office andGranary (Tithing Offices and Granaries ofthe Aformon Church TB), 87 E. Wo South

Paradise. Paradise Tithing Office (TithingOffices and Granaries of the AMormonChurch TRJ. 970 S. 200 West

Richmond. Richmond Tithing Office (TithingOffices and Granaries of the AormonChumCh TR). 31 S. State SL

Smithfield. Smithfield Tithing Office (TithingOffices and Granaries of the MormonChurch TR). 35 W. Center

Emery CountyHuntington. Huntington Titfling Granary

(Tithing Offices and Granaries of theMormon Church TB). 65 W. 300 North

Millard CountyKanosh. Kanosh Tithing Office (Tithing

Offices and Granarres of the MormonChurch TR). Off U.S./ 91 Meadow.AMeadaow," Tithing Granary (Tithing Officesand Granaries of the Aformon Church TB).Off U.S. 91

Salt Lake CountySandy. Sandy Tithing Office (Tithing Offices

and Granaries of the Mormon Church TRI.32 S. 20 East

Sanpete CountyFauview. Fairvie," Tithing Office/Bishop's

StorehouselTithing Offices and Granariesof the Mormon Church 771. 6 W. 100South

Scmier CountyRichfield. Richfield Tithing Office (Tithing

Offices and Granaries of the MormonChurch TB). 190 W. Center

Uintah CountyVernal. Vernal Tithing Office ITithing

Offices and Granaries of the MormonChurch TR). NW Comer of 500 W. and 200South

Utah CountyPleasant Grove. Pleasant Grove Tithing

Office (Tithing Offices and Granaries ofthe Mormon Church TRJ. 7S. 300 East

Pro% o. Lal view Tithing Office (BunnellCrcamerj (Tithing Offices and Granaries

. ofthe Aorman Church TRI. Off UT 114

Washington CountyLeeds. Leeds Tithing Office (Tithing Offices

and Granaries of the Aformon Church TR.SW Comer 100 W. and 100 North

The following property waserroneously listed m the FederalRegister dated Tuesday, December 11.1984 dn pg. 48229 as being in the state ofMontana.

50119

50120 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

MICHIGAN

Wayne County

Detroit, Sweet, Ossian H. House, 2905GarlandCORRECTION: The address of the

following property listed on Tuesday,December 18, 1984 should read asfollows:CALIFORNIA

Los Angeles CountyGlendale, U.S. Post Office (Glendale Main

Post Office/Federal Building) (U.S. PostOffice in California 1900-1941 TR), 313 E.Broadway

[FR Doc. 84-33385 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310-70-M

Upper Delaware National Scenic andRecreational River, Citizens AdvisoryCouncil; Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service. Interior.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the dateof the forthcoming meeting of the UpperDelaware Citizens Advisory Council.Notice of this meeting is required underthe Federal Advisory Committee Act.DATE. January 25,1985, 7:00 p.m.ADDRESS: Town of Tusten,Narrowsburg, New York.FOR" FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:John T. Hutzky, Superintendent, UpperDelaware National Scenic andRecreational River, Drawer C,Narrowsburg, N.Y. 12764-0159, (717)729-7135. ,SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheAdvisory Council was established undersection 704(1) of the National Parks andRecreation Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-625,16 U.S.C. 1274 note, to encouragemaximum public involvement in thedevelopment and implementation of theplans and programs authorized by theAct. The Council is to meet and report tothe Delaware River Basin Commission,the Secretary of the Interior, and theGovernors of New York andPennsylvania in the preparation of amanagement plan and on programswhich relate to land and water use inthe Upper Delaware region. The agendafor the meeting will include itemsregarding continuance of discussion of -requirements for a river managementplan. The meeting will be open to thepublic. Any member of the public may-file with the Council a written statementconcerning agenda items. The statementshould be addressed to the Council c/oUpper Delaware National Scenic andRecreational River, Drawer C,Narrowsburg, N.Y. 12764-0159. Minutesof meeting will be available for

inspection four weeks after the meetingat the permanent headquarters of theUpper Delaware National andRecreational River, River Road, 13/miles north of Narrowsburg, N.Y.,Damascus Township, Pennsylvania.

Dated: December 14, 1984.lames W. Coleman, Jr.,Regional Director, Mid-AtlanticRegion.[FR Doc. 84-33442 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILNG CODE 4310-70-M

Gateway National Recreation Area;Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the dateof the forthcoming meeting of theGateway Advisory Commission. Noticeof this meeting is required under theFederal Advisory Committee Act.DATE: January 8,1985, commencing at 3p.m.ADDRESS: Gateway Hilton, RaymondBoulevard, Newark, New Jersey.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert W. McIntosh, Jr., Superintendent,Gateway National Recreation Act,Headquarters, Building No. 69, FloydBennett Field, Brooklyn, New York-11234, (718) 338-3578.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheAdvisory Commission was establishedby Pub. L. 92-592, to meet and consultwith the Secretary of the Interior ongeneral policies and specific mattersrelating to the development of GatewayNational Recreation Area. The agendafor the meeting will include: (I) Status,Floyd Bennett Field; (2} Status, FountainAvenue Landfill; (3) Report, WinterPrograms; (4)-Park Land Protection Plan;(5) New Business.

The meeting will be open to thepublic. The facility at which the meetingwill be held is considered physicallyaccessible. If interpretive services forthe deaf or hearing impaired will beneeded, they should be requested withinfive working days before the meeting.Facilities and space to accommodatemembers of the public are limited, andpersons will be accommodated on afirst-come, first-served basis.

Any member of the public may filewith the Commission a writtenstatement concerning agenda items tobe discussed. The statement should beaddressed to the Commission, c/oGateway National Recreation Area,Building No. 69, Headquarters, FloydBennett Field, Brooklyn, New York11234. Minutes of the meeting will beavailable for inspection four weeks afterthe meeting at Gateway National

Recreation Area Headquarters Buildingin Brooklyn, New York.

Dated: December 18,1984.Robert IV. McIntosh, Jr.,Superintendent. Gateway NationalRecreation Area.[FR Doc. 84-33512 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 umjBILLING CODE 4310-70-M

Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement

Availability of Annual EvaluationReports on the Administration of StateRegulatory and Abandoned MineLands Programs Under the SurfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act of1977AGENCY: Office of Surface MiningReclamation and Enforcement (OSM),Interior.ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing theavailability of two annual evaluationreports on the administration of Stateregulatory and abandoned mine lands(AML) programs under the SurfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act of1977 (SMCRA). The two reports,covering the States of Alabama andNorth Dakota, were prepared under theprovisions of OSM's oversight policyand have been transmitted to Congress.ADDRESS: See SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION for the addresses wherecopies of the reports may be obtained.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Arthur W Abbs, Chief, Division of StateProgram Assistance, Office of SurfaceMining, 1951 Constitution Avene, NW,Washington, D.C. 20240: Telephone:(202) 343-5351.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copiesof the reports are availqble, free ofcharge, at the respective OSM officeslisted below:

1. Alabama: Birmingham Field Office.Office of Surface Mining, 228 WestValley Avenue, Homewood, Alabama34209.

2. North Dakota: Casper Field Office,Office of Surface Mining. FredenBuilding, 935 Pendell Boulevard, Mills.Wyoming 82644.

BackgroundUnder Section 503 of SMCRA, a State

may elect to assume primaryresponsibility for regulating surface coalmining and reclamation operationswithin its borders by submitting aprogram to the Secretary of the Interiorwhich demonstrates the State'scapability to carry out the provisons ofSMCRA. Once the Secretary approves

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26. 1984 / Notices

the program, the State is grantedprimacy, and the Federal governmentassumes a monitoring and evaluationrole. OSM has developed an evaluationpolicy, in consultation with the State'swhich is implemented primarily throughOSM's Field Offices. Monitoring of theState's administration and enforcementof its regulatory and AML programs isconducted throughout the year. TheField Office Directors compile andanalyze the data gathered during theevaluation period and prepare annualevaluation reports for transmittal toCongress. The schedule for the reportcalls for staggered completion dates.

The first six evaluation reports for thisyear (Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi,Montana, Ohio and West Virginia) werecompleted and sent to CongressSeptember 5, 1984. These final reportswere made publicly available onSeptember 17, 1984 (49 FR 36453). Fouradditional evaluation reports for Alaska,Illinois, Maryland and Virginia werecompleted and sent to CongressSeptember 28,1984 and were madepublicly available on October 16, 13984(49 FR 40453). OSM has now completedtwo additional reports for Alabama andNorth Dakota. These final reports weresent to Congress on November 26,194,and are now publicly available. As theremaining reports are completed, OSMplans to make them available also.

Dated: December 20,1984.John D. Ward,Director. Office of Surface Minrg.[FR Doe. 84-33477 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310-05-M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Proposed Amendment to FinalJudgment on Consent; Puerto RicoAqueduct and Sewage Authority

In accordance with DepartmentalPolicy, 28 CFR 50.7 38 FR 19029, noticeis hereby given that a proposedamendment modifying the finaljudgment in United States v. Puerto RicoAqueduct and Sewage Authoriy. C. A.Nos. 78-0038(TR) and 83-0105[TR) waslodged with the Clerk of the UnitedStates District Court for the District ofPuerto Rico on December 12.1984. Theproposed amended judgment requiresthat 92 sewage treatment facilities besubject to oversight by a Court-appointed "Monitor." that all facilitiesachieved secondary treatment inaccordance with compliance schedule,that PRASA set aside $1.2 million forremedial actions, that PRASA pay a$100,000 penalty for past violations andthat identified employees be liable for

contempt sanctions for future violationsof the judgment.

The Department of Justice will receivefor thirty (30) days from the publicationdate of this office, written commentsrelating to the proposed amendment.Comments should be addressed to theAssistant Attorney General of the Landand Natural Resourse Division,Department of Justice, Washington. D.C.20530, and refer to United States v.Puerto Rico Aqueduct and SewageA uthoftj , 9&-5-1-1-1793.

The amendment can be examined atthe Office of the United States Attorney.101 Federal Building, Carlos ChardonEnvironmental Protection Agency.Office of Regional Counsel, 26 FederalPlaza, New York, New York and at theEnvironmental Enforcement Section,Land and Natural Resources Division,Department of Justice (Room 1515).Ninth and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,Washington, DC 20530. A copy of theamendment can be obtained in personor by mail from the EnvironmentalEnforcement Section at a cost of $29.30(10 cents per page) at the above address.F. Henry Habicbt IT,Assistant Attorney GeneraL L(qnd andNatural Resources Divrz on.[FR Doec. 84-33459 Filed 12-24--_A; 8.45 am]EILUHG CODE 4410-01-U

Proposed Consent Decree In CleanWater Act Enforcement Action; City ofWelch, WV

In accordance with DepartmentalPolicy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, noticeis hereby given that a proposed cons:ntdegree in United States v. City ofWelch. West Virginia, was lodged withthe Clerk of the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of WestVirginia on November 16, 1984. Thedecree requires the City to build asewage treatment plant and to meetsecondary treatment levels by August 1.1987 The city is required to pay a$2,000.00 penalty for past violations andstipulated penalities for any futureviolations of the consent decree.

The Department of Justice will receivefor thirty (30) days from the publicationdate of this notice, written commentsrelating to the decree. Comments shouldbe addressed to the Assistant AttorneyGeneral of the Land and NaturalResources Division. Department ofJustice, Washington. D.C. 20530. andrefer to United States v. City of W1elch.90-5-1-1-813.

The consent decree can be examinedat the office of the United StatesAttorney, P.O. Box 3234. Charleston,West Virginia 25332. at the Region Illoffice of the Environmental Protection

Agency. Office of Regional Counsel 6thand Walnut Streets. Philadelphia.Pennsylvania and at the EnvironmentalEnforcement Section. Land and NaturalResources Division. Department ofJustice (Room 1515). Ninth andPennsylvania Avenue. NW. Washington.D.C. 20330. A copy of the consent decreecan be obtained in person orby mailfrom the Environmental EnforcementSection at a cost of one dollar (I0 centsper page] at the above address.F. Henry Hahiht IT..&si tant Attorrny Genzl-a Lo-d endA'iturol Rcia:rccs Dhlv,.

[FR Dec. C_-334C9 Filed 12-24--64: P-45 am)BILLMH COVE 44i-cr-M

Antitrust Division

National Cooperative Research Act;Implementation

Notice is hereby given that onDecember 11, 1984. J. Paul McGrath.Assistant Attorney General in charge ofthe Antitrust Division. issued astatement regarding the Department'simplementation of the notification andFederal Register notice provisions of theNational Cooperative Research Act of194, Pub. L. 93-462, 93 Stat. 1815 (1984).The Act is designed to promote researchand development, encourage innovation.stimulate trade, and make necessaryand appropriate modifications in theoperation of the antitrust laws.Joseph H. Wlidiar

DircctArof Oratiouo An-itrust Divisia.

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, Derabea v. 1934

The Department of Justice releasedtoday a statement by J. Paul McGrath.Assistant Attorney General in charge ofthe Antitrust Division. regarding theDepartment's implementation of thenotification and Federal Register noticeprovisions of the National CooperativeResearch Act of 19Z4.

Under the Act. parties to jointresearch and development ventures maylimit their possible antitrust damagee' posure to actual, as opposed to treble,damages by filing a notification vith theDepartment of Justice and the FederalTrade Commission.

Assistant Attorney GeneralMcGrathls statement, concurred m bythe FTC, identifies the offices to whichnotifications should be delivered, andadvises parties on hot. to facilitate thepublication by the Department of Justiceof the Federal Register notice requiredby the Act. The complete text ofMcGralh's statement follows:

50121

FederalRegister/ Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Notices

"On October 11, 1984, PresidentReagan signed into law S. 1841, theNational Cooperative Research Act of1984 (Pub. L. 98-462). Cooperativeresearch and development efforts mayimprove productivity, bring betterproducts to consumers sooner and atlower cost, and enable Americanbusiness and industry to keep pace withforeign competitors in a worldincreasingly dependent on technologicalinnovation. By significantly improvingthe legal climate, the NationalCooperative Research Act shouldstimulate innovative research anddevelopment by the private sector. Thelegislation clarifies the application ofthe antitrust rule of reason to joint R&Dventures and establishes specialattorneys' fee rules to antitrust caseschallenging such ventures. It alsoprovides parties to such ventures- withthe opportunity to limit any possiblemonetary relief that might be soughtfrom them in actions brought under theantitrust laws to actual-as opposed totreble-damages.

"The new rule-of-reason andattorneys' fee provisions automaticallycover all joint R&D ventures as definedin the Act. However, the Act's damageprotection depends on the filing of anotification with the antitrustenforcement agencies. In order to obtaindamage protection, any party to a jointresearch and development venture may,not later than 90 days after entering intoa written agreement to form the venture,or not later than 90 days after the dateof enactment of the Act, whichever islater, file simultaneously with theAttorney General and the Federal TradeCommission a written notificatiopdisclosing the identities of the parties tothe venture and its nature andobjectives. The manner and extent ofthis disclosure is left to the parties; theyare to exercise their own discretion indetermining the quantity and form of thematerial required to describe the natureand objectives of their venture. Partiesshould be aware, however, that thedetrebling protection of the Act is basedon the contents of their notification.Such additional notifications as areappropriate to extend the Act'sprotection to new or different activitiesundertaken by a venture also may befiled. In order to maintain the protectionof the Act, a joint R&D venture must filea notification disclosing any change inits membership within 90 days of thechange.

"The responsibilities of the AttorneyGeneral under the Act have beendelegated to the Assistant AttorneyGeneral in charge of the AntitrustDivision. Written notifications filed

pursuant to the Act should be deliveredto each of the following offices:

Evaluation Office, Bureau ofCompetition, Room 392, Federal TradeCommission, Washington, D.C. 20580;and"

Director of Operations, AntitrustDivision, Room 3214, Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C. 20530."The Act further provides that the

Attorney General or the Commissionshall, not later than 30 days afterreceiving notification of a joint researchand development venture, publish in theFederal Register a notice that identifiesthe parties to the venture and describesin general terms its area of plannedactivity. Prior to publication, the noticemust be made available to the parties.Any person who files a notification maywithdraw it before notice is published inthe Federal Register, but notification sowithdrawn will not confer the Act'sprotection on the parties to the jointR&D venture involved. The Departmentof Justice will publish all Federal

lRegister notices under the Act.Submission of the following along with anotification will facilitate most promptpublication of a notice under the Act:

"1. A draft Federal Register notice."2. Evidence that the party filing the

notification has been authorized by eachparty to the joint R&D venture to reviewon its behalf the notice that is to bepublished in the Federal Register, or,alternatively, the names and addressesof other persons to whom the noticeshould be made available prior t6publication.

"3. An extra copy of the notificationmaterials to the Antitrust Division.

"The Federal trade Commissionconcurs in this statement."[FR Doe. 84-33479 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLiNG CODE 4410-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


The Steering Subcommittee of theLabor Advisory Committee for TradeNegotiations and Trade Policy;Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92-463 as amended), notice is herebygiven of a meeting of the SteeringSubcommittee of the Labor AdvisoryCommittee for Trade Negotiations andTrade Policy.Date, time and place: January 8,1984, 9:30

a.m., Rm. S4215 A & B, Frances Perkins,Department of Labor Building, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washlnglon,D.C. 20210

Purpose: To discuss trade negotiations andtrade policy of the United States.

This meeting will be closed under theauthority of section 10(d) of the FederalAdvisory Committee Act. TheCom'mittee will hear and discusssensitive and confidential mattersconcerning U.S. trade negotiations andtrade policy.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Fernand Lavallee, Executive Secretary,Labor Advisory Committee, Phone: (202)523-6565, December 12, 1984.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 121h day ofDecember 1984.Robert W. Searby,Deputy Under Secretary, InternationalAffairs.[FR Doc. 84-33513 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 4510-20-M

Mine Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. M-84-242-C]

Blair Coal Co., Inc., Petition forModification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

Blair Coal Company, Inc., P.O. Box126, Steele, Kentucky 41566 has filed apetition to modify the application of 30CFR 75.1710 (cabs and canopies) to itsNo. H-1 Mine (I.D. No. 15-08458) locatedin Pike County, Kentucky. The petition isfiled under section 101(c) of the FederalMine Safety and Health Act of 1977

A summary of the petitioner'sstatements follows:

1. The petition concerns therequirement that cabs or canopies beinstalled on the mine's electric faceequipment.

2. The mine ranges from 36 to 56inches in height with consistentascending and descending gradescreating dips in the coal bed.

3. Petitioner states that the use ofcanopies could result in a diminution ofsafety for the miners affected becausethe canopies can strike and destroy theroof support system. The canopies alsolimit the equipment operator's visibilityand hamper the operator's seatingposition, forcing the operator to lean outfrom under the canopy, exposing bodyparts to potential injury.

4. For these reasons, petitionerrequests a modification of the standard.Request for Comments

Persons interested in this petition mayfurnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations and

50122

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26, 19S4 / Notices

Variances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, Room 637. 4015 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25,1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: December 17, 1284.

Patrcia 'V. Silvey,Director, Office of Standards, Regulationsand Variances.[FR Doc. 84-33502 Filed 12-24-84: 45 am]5UMNG CODE 4510-43-


Booker Fork Coal Corp.; Petition forModification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

Booker Fork Coal Corporation. Box1w), Dorton. Kentucky 41520 has filed apetition to modify the application of 30CFR 75.1710 (cabs and canopies) to itsNo. 2 Mine (LID. No. 15-13730) located mPike County, Kentucky. The petitition isfiled under section 101(c) of the FederalMine Safety and Health Act of 1977.



2. The mine is in the No. 2 Elkhornseam and ranges from 42 to 50 inches inheight with consistent ascending anddescending grades creating dips in thecoalbed.

3. Petitioner states that the canopiescan strike and dislodge the roof support.The canopies also restrict the equipmentoperator's seatingposition and visibility,increasing the chances of an accident.

4. For these reasons, petitionerrequests a modification of the standard.

Request for CommentsPersons interested in this petition may

furnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration Room 627.4015 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington. Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived q that office on or beforeJanuary 25,1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at theaddress.

Dated: December17.1934.

Patncia W. Silvey,Director. Office of Standards Regulationsand Variances.[FR Doc. 84-33503 Filed 12-24-84; &45 am)BIWNG CODE 4510-43M


C.R. & C. Coal Co.; Petition forModification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

C.R. & C. Coal Company, Box 131. R.D.41. Lydens, Pennsylvania 17048 hasfiled a petition to modify the applicationof 30 CFR 75.301 (air quality, quantity.and velocity) to its No. 6 Vei Slope (LD.No. 36-07289) located in DauphinCounty, Pennsylvania. The petition Isfiled under section 101(c) of the FederalMine Safety and Health Act of 1977.


1. Air sample analysis history revealsthat harmful quantities of methane arenon-existent in the mine.

2. Ignition, explosion and mine firehistory are non-existent for the mine.

3. There is no history of harmfulquantities of carbon dioxide and othernoxious or poisonous gases.

4. Mine dust sampling programs haverevealed extremely low concentrationsof respirable dust.

5. Extremely high velocities in smallcross-sectional areas of airways andmanways required in friable anthraciteveins for control purposes, particularlyin steeply pitching mines, present a verydangerous flying object hazard to theminers.

6. High velocities and large airquantities cause extremelyuncomfortable damp and coldconditions in the already uncomfortable,wet mines.

7 As an alternate method, petitionerproposes that:

a. The mirumum quantity of airreaching each working face be 1,503cubic feet per minute;

b. The minimum quantity of airreaching the last open crosscut in anypair or set of developing entries be 5,000cubic feet per minute; and

c. The minimum quantity of airreaching the intake end of a pillar linebe 5,000 cubic feet per minute. and/orwhatever additional quantity of air thatany be required in any of these areas tomaintain a safe and healthful mineatmosphere.

9. Petitoner states that the alternatemethod proposed will at all timesprovide the same measure of protectionfor the miners affected as that providedby the standard.Request for Comments

Persons interested in this petition mayfurnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances. Mine Safety and HealthAdministration. Room 627. 4015 Wilson

Boulevard. Arlington. Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25,1935. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: Dczembar 17. 1SM.Patriea W. Silvey.Director. Ofice of S!ondard.;, Rzafr'onsand Varanws.[FR f.la. 84-33M4 Fied 12-24-84: 8:45 amlW:ItwO CODE 451-.4-U

[Docket No. M-34-24-M]

International Salt Company-, Petitionfor Modification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

International Salt Company, 3846Retsof Road. Retsof. New York 145-39has filed a petition to modify theapplication of S0 CFR 57.21-20b)(installation of marin fans) to its Sterling"B" Shaft (iD. No. 30-024) located inLivng,3ton County. New Yor Thepetition is filed under section 101(c) ofthe Federal Mine Safety and Health Actof 1977.


1. The petition concerns therequirement that main fans be installedto permit prompt reversal of airflow.

2. Ventilation is by a surface fan atthe collar blowing through flexible venttubing installed in the shaft. The venttubing has been lowered on steel cablesto the plugged area of the shaft atapproximately 593-fcot depth, w challows the entire open portion of theshaft to be purged of contaminants. Thew,'ork stage has started at the surfaceand the shaft is being secured from thecollar downward. There is no access byminers to the lower portion of the shaftwhere the majority of the vent tubing isin place. Access will be provided onlyas the shaft is made safe as the minerswork their way down. For this reason.the vent tubing had to be lowered beforeaccess was provided into the shaft

3. Petitioner states that application ofthe standard would result in adiminution of safety for the minersaffected because flexible tubing isincompatible with ventilation reversal.The tubing will collapse and the systemwill fail if the fan is reversed.

4. Petitioner states that rigid tubingmust be used if the fan is to be reversedand that the hazards associated withsuspending a heavy rigid tubing withinthe shaft are not justified.

5. Petitioner further states that theexmsting ventilation system uses twofans in parallel, either one ofwhich will

50123

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, Decembei" 26, 1984 / Nbtices

operate if the other fails. Immediateback-up is available with a dieselgenerator set. A back-up exhausting fanis mounted at the collar with a seconddiesel generator set as a back-up powersupply to this fan.

6. For these reasons, petitionercontends that the blowing system is usewith lightweight flexible tubing,designed to control all contaminantsthroughout the shaft area, with back-upfans and power onsite, is the best andsafest system of ventilation, andrequests a modification of the standard.


furnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, Room 627, 4015 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25, 1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: December 17,1984.Patricia W. Silvey,Director, Office of Standards, Regulationsand Variances.[FR Doc. 84-33505 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]DILLING CODE 4510-43-M


Maynard Branch Mining Co., Inc.;Petition for Modification of Applicationof Mandatory Safety Standard

Maynard Branch Mining Co., Inc.,Route 1, box 121 Elkhorn City, Kentucky41522 has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.1710 (cabls andcanopies) to its Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-10673) located in Pike County, Kentucky.The petition is filed under section 101(c)of the Federal Mine Safety and HealthAct of 1977



2. The mine is in the Elkhorn seamand ranges in height from 42 to 48inches, with consistent ascending anddescending grades creating dips in thecoalbed.

3. Petitioner states that the canopiescan strike and destroy roof support,resulting in a diminution of safety. Inaddition, the canopies limit theequipment operator's seating positionand visibility, increasing the chances ofan accident.



furnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministraion, Room 627, 4015 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25, 1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: December 17,1984.Patricia W. Silvery,Director, Office of Standards, Regulationsand Variances.(FR Dec. 84-33506 Filed 12-24--84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4510-43-M


Rio Algom Mining Corp., Petition forModification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

Rio Algom Mining Corporation, La SalRoute, Moab, Utah 84532 has filed a,petition to modify the application of 30CFR 57.21-46 (crosscut intervals) to itsLisbon Mine (I.D. No. 42-00677) locatedin San Juan County, Utah. The petition isfiled under section 101(c) of the FederalMine Safety and Health Act of 1977


1. The petition concerns therequirement that crosscuts be made atintervals not in excess of 100 feetbetween entries and between rooms.

2. As an alternate method, petitionerseeks a modification of the standard toallow, mining a maximum distance of 500feet prior to making a connectionbetween entries and rooms. Thisadditional interval distance will improvemine ventilation, and permit extractionof ore blocks otherwise preseutlycurtailed by limited ventilation controls.

3. Petitioner states that the proposedalternate method will provide the samedegree of safety for the miners affectedas that afforded by the standard.


furnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, Room 627,4015 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25, 1985. Copies of the petition

are available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: December 17,1984.Patrcia W. Silvey,Director, Office of Standards, Regulationsand Variances.[FR Doc. 84-33507 Filed 12-24-84; 8'45 am]BILLING CODE 4510-43-M


Scotts Branch Mining Co., Petition forModification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

Scotts Branch Mining Company, 1100Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.326 (aircoursesand belt haulage entries) to its ScottsBranch Mine (I.D. No. 15-08079) locatedin Pike County, Kentucky. The petition Isfiled under section 101(c) of the FederalMine Safety and Health Act of 1977


1. The petition concerns therequirement that entries used as Intakeand return aircourses be separated frombelt haulage entries and that belthaulage air not be used to ventilateactive working places.

2. As an alternate method, petitionerproposes to use belt haulage air toventilate active working places. Insupport of this request, petitionerproposes to install and maintain acaibon monoxide monitoring systemwith specific conditions in the conveyorbelt entry.


Requests for Comments

Persons interested in this petition mayfurnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, Room 627, 4015 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25, 1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: December 17.1984.

Patncia IV. Silvey,Director, Office of Standards, Regulationsand Variances.[FR Dec. 84-33508 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 4510-43-M

50124



Scotts Branch Mining Co., Petition forModification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

Scotts Branch Mining Company, 1100'Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114has filed a petition to modify theapplication of 30 CFR 75.1103 (automaticfire warning devices) to its ScottsBranch Mine (I.D. No. 15-08079) locatedin Pike County, Kentucky. The petition isfiled under section 101(c) of the FederalMine Safety and Health Act of 1977


1. The petition concerns therequirement that devices be installed onall belts which will give a warningautomatically when a fire occurs on ornear such belt.

2. As an alternate method, petitionerproposes to install and maintain acarbon monoxide monitoring systemwith specific conditions in the conveyorbelt entry.

3. Petitioner states that the proposedalternate method will provide the samedegree of safety for the miners affectedas that afforded by the standard.Request for Comments

Persons interested in this petition mayfurnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, Room 627,4015 WilsonBoulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Allcomments mustbe postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25, 1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: December 17, 1984.Patricia IV. Silvey,Director, Office of Standards. Regulationsand Variances.[FR Doc. 84-33509 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 4510-43-il


Signal Mountain Cement Co., Petitionfor Modification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

Signal Mountain Cement Company1300 American National Bank Building,Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 has fileda petition to modify the application of 30CFR 56.16-14(b) (cranes) to its CementPlant (I.D. No. 40-00838) located inHamilton County, Tennessee. Thepetition is filed under section 101(c) ofthe Federal Mine Safety and Health Actof 1977


1. The petition concerns therequirement that operator-carryingoverhead cranes be providbd withautomatic switches to halt uptravel ofthe blocks before they strike the hoist.

2. Petitioner seeks a modification ofthe standard because the craneway is acovered building that stores the rawmaterials. The overhead crane feeds theraw materials into the productionprocess. All areas under the overheadcrane are clear of personnel and noworkers are present under the craneswhile in operation. Therefore, noexposure exists if the crane cablebreaks. Only when the cable breaks andthe system is inoperable do workers gointo the storage area to repair the cranebucket.



furnish written Comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards, Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration. Room 627,4015 WilsonBoulevard. Arlington. Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25,1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated: December 17,1934.Patnca IV. Silvey,Director. Office of Standards. Rcjulationsand Variances.[FR Dor. 84-33510 Filed 12-24-4: 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 4sD-43-i

[Docket No. M-84-26-MJ

White River Shale Oil Corp., Petitionfor Modification of Application ofMandatory Safety Standard

White River Shale Oil Corporation.P.O. Box 790040, Vernal, Utah 84079 hasfiled a petition to modify the applicationof 30 CFR 57.21-46 (crosscut intervals) toits White River Shale Project (I.D. No.42-01793) located in Uintah County.Utah. The petition is fifed under section101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety andHealth Act of 1977


1. The petition concerns therequirements that crosscuts be made atintervals not in excess of 100 feetbetween entries and between rooms.

2. As an alternate method for thepurpose of establishing a test area toprovide data for mine design. petitioner

proposes to excavate a single entry forapproximately 620 feet with ventilationsupplied by an auxiliary fan andventilation tubing. The face area will beventilated by approximately 31,000 cfmof air taken directly from a fresh airsplit. At completion, there will be aconnection made to another driftallowing flow-thru ventilation andeliminating the need for the auxiliaryfan and ventilation tubing. All personswill be removed from the mine duringblasting and work not permitted toresume until sampling indicatesacceptable methane concentrations.


Request for Comments

Persons interested in this petition mayfurnish written comments. Thesecomments must be filed with the Officeof Standards. Regulations andVariances, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration. Room 627,4015 WilsonBoulevard. Arlington. Virginia 22203. Allcomments must be postmarked orreceived in that office on or beforeJanuary 25.1985. Copies of the petitionare available for inspection at thataddress.

Dated December 17.1934.

Patricia W. Silvey,

Director Office of Standard Resulationsand Vartance.

JFR Dac. 4-33511 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]8heiLU1 CODE 4510-43-U

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THEARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Institute of Museum Services;Information Collection RequirementsSubmitted to OMB

The Institute of Museum Services(IMS) has submitted the followingcollection requirement to OMB forreview apd clearance under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Copies of this submission areavailable at IMS from Kristine K.Ramaekers, (202) 786-0539. Sendcomments to Joe Lackey. Office ofManagement and Budget. Room 3203NEOB, Washington. D.C. 20503.Title: 1985 Conservation Project Support

Grant Application and InformationForm No.. ]MS 104Action: RevisionRespondents: Non-Profit Institutions

50125


Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 600Respondents; 9,000 flours

Susan E. Phillips,Director, Institute of Museum Services.JFR Doec. 84-33443 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BtLLING CODE 7036-01-M

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATIONSAFETY BOARD

Availability of Recommendation

Responses

Responses from

Highway-Federal HighwayAdministration: Nov. 9: H-84-40: Isdeveloping two supplements to theBridge Inspector's Training Manual. Thefirst, "Inspection of Fracture CriticalBridge Members," and a companiontraining course will be made availableto all States to enhance'their inspectionskills and to emphasize the special carewhich must be taken to inspect andensure the safety of bridges withfracture critical details. The secondmanual and a companion training coursewill cover "Inspection of Long SpanCulverts," which will address theinspection and evaluation of a particularstructure type for which no guidance hasbeen issued to date. H.-84-41: Willupdate 23 CFR 650.303 in 1985. H-84-42:A checklist for bridge inspectors wasdeveloped in conjunction with theBridge Inspector's Training Manual andhas been made available to allinterested States since 1971. H-84-43: Isreviewing the National BridgeInspection Standards, andrecommendations for improvingeffectiveness will be given in 1985. H-84-44: A videotape describing in detailthe best methods for inspecting pin andlink hanger connections has beendistributed to all States through FHWAfield offices and is available to allinterested parties through the FHWA'sNational Highway Institute. H-84-45The new manual "Inspection of FractureCritical Bridge Members" will prescribeobjective dimensional standards for thealignment of bridge spans to facilitatedetection of misalignment caused bydeterioration of pin and hangerassemblies. H-84-46: The new manual

,"Inspection of Fracture Critical BridgeMembers" will accommodate therecommendation to identify bridges thathave a pin and hanger assembly designusing bearing stresses above thoseallowed by the 1983 InterimSpecification-Bridges, 1983 of theAmerican Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials, anddesignate them for frequent inspection.H-84-47: The National Bridge Inspection

Standards require the inspections andratings of bridges for planning large-scale replacement or rehabilitationfunding in sufficient depth and detail toaddress all elements critical to bridgesafety. H-84-48: Issued through its fieldorganization instructions thatinspectability and accessibility beconsidered in bridge design. H-84-49:Discussions are underway withresearchers to evaluate the feasibility ofstudying the Mianus River Bridge andother representative bridges having askewed and nonskewed suspended spandesign with pin and hanger assembliesto determine whether there is asignificant difference between the twodesigns in terms of the movement ofhangers on pins due to either dead orlive loading and whether suchmovement is acceptable. H--84-50: Senta July 16,1984, memorandum to regionaladministrators implementing aprocedure concerning Statedevelopment of individualizedinspection procedures for bridges thathave critical elements whose failure willalmost certainly result in a catastrophic,

'failure of the bxidge. H-84-51: The newmanual "Inspection of Fracture CriticalBridge Members" will prescribe criteriafor in-depth inspections of pin andhanger assemblies based on objectivemeasures of the risk of hiddendeterioration. H-64-52: To the degreecurrently possible, the new manual"Inspection-of Fracture Critical BridgeMembers" will prescribe an objectivestandard for repair or replacement ofpin and hanger assemblies according tomeasured conditions of misalignment,distortion, or changes in the position ofelements of the assembly. H-84-53: TheBridge Inspector's Training Manual hasbeen punched for assembly in a three-hole ring binder since it was first issuedin 1970 to permit additions orcorrections by the Federal HighwayAdministration, States, or individualinspectors. H-84-54: A review of thetraining of bridge inspectors is currentlyincluded in FHWA reviews of Statebridge inspection programs.

State of Washington Traffic SafetyCommission: Dec. 4: H-84-19 through -21: Has drafted an act relating tosobriety checkpoints for presentationduring the 1985 legislation session.

Marine-U.S. Coast Guard: Nov. 28:M-84-17: The installation of a means ofautomatically recording engine ordersduring maneuvering and a means ofautomatically recording the vessel'sheadings would not prevent accidents,but would only be used in thepostaccident analysis. M-84-18: Furtherguidance will be prepared anddistributed on the subject of U.S. CoastGuard vessels using commercial tugs for

assistance in berthing retaining theservices of a qualified docking pilot. Al-84-19: Rather than establishing a formalprogram to cover a few particular cases,commanding officers will be advised tocontact local tug companies foracquiring information on use of tugswhen they are required. This will beemphasized in a change to Coast GuardRegulations.

Railroad-The Alton & SouthernRailway Company: Dec. 13: R-84-20Has installed some chrome-vanadiumalloy, high strength vacuum-treated rail.Rail in main track is not cut with atorch.

Missouri-Kansas-Texas ReflroadCompany: Dec. 11: R-84-20: Has formany years prohibited torch cutting ofrails to be installed in track. Reissued Itsinstructions making specific reference toalloy steel rails.

Intermodal-U.S. Coast Guard: Nov.27" 1-84-5: Participates in the AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials F23Protective Clothing Committee and willbe a member of the National FireProtection Association's analogouscommittee when established, Is takingand active role in multi-agencycoordination with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, and the NationalInstitute of Occupational Safety andHealth to develop uniform encapsulatedsuit specifications and procedures,Intends to use its own specifications,which are in the process of beingfinalized, as the basis for jointgovernment specifications to fulfill eachorganization's hazardous chemicalpersonnelkprotection needs.

Note.-Single copies of these responseletters are available on written request to;Public Inquiries Section, NationalTransportation Safety Board, Washington,D.C. 20594. Please include respondent's name.date of letter, and recommendation numbers)in your request. The photocopies will bebilled at a cost of 14 cents per page (51minimum charge).

Dated: December 21.1984.H. Ray Smith, Jr.,Federal RegisteriLaison Officer,IFR Doc. 84-33400 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 7533-01-M

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

Documents Containing Reporting orRecordkeeplng Requirements; Officeof Management and Budget Review

AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

5012I50126.


ACTION: Notice of the Office ofManagement and Budget review ofinformation collection.

SUMMARY. The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission has recently submitted tothe Office of Management and Budget(OMB) for review the following proposalfor the collection of information underthe provisions of the PaperworkReduction Act(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35].

1. Type of submission, new, revisionor extension: Extension.

2. The title of the informationcollection: NMSS Caseload PlanningSurvey.

3. The form number if applicable: Notapplicable.

4. How often the collection isrequired: Once annually.

5. Who will be required or asked toreport: Current NRC licensees andpotential applicants under 10 CFR Parts40, 70, 71, and 72 engaged in providingnuclear fuel and associated services tothe nuclear power industry.

6. An estimate of the number ofresponses: 70.

7. An estimate of the total number ofhours needed to complete therequirement or request: 4 hours perrespondent, for a total of 280 hours.

8. An indication of whether section3504 (h), Pub. L 96-511 applies: Notapplicable.

9. Abstract: The information collectedserves as the basis for agency planningprojections used in budget formulationand staffing plans for licensing of alldomestic activities regulated by theagency except reactors.

Copies of the submittal may beinspected or obtained for a fee from theNRC Public Document Room, 1717 HStreet, NW., Washington, DC 20555.

Comments and questions should bedirected to the OMB reviewer, JeffersonB. Hill, (202] 395-7340.

The NRC Clearance Officer is R.Stephen Scott, (301) 492-8585.

Dated at Betesda, Maryland, this 20th dayof December1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Pgtncia G. Norry,Director. Office of Administration.[FR Doc. 84-33515 Filed 12-24--84; 8:45 am)BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

[Docket'No. 50-3201

General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp.(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit2); Exemption

IGPU Nuclear Corporation,

Metropolitan Edison Company, JerseyCentral Power and Light Company andPennsylvania Electric Company

(collectively, the licensee) are theholders of Facility Operating LicenseNo. DPR-73, which had authorizedoperation of the Three Mile IslandNuclear Station. Unit 2 (TM-2) at powerlevels up to 2772 megawatts thermal.The facility, which is located inLondonderry Township. DauphinCounty, Pennsylvania, is a pressurizedwater reactor previously used for thecommercial generation of electricity.

By Order for Modification of License,dated July 20, 1979, the licensee'sauthority to operate the facility wassuspended and the licensee's authoritywas limited to maintenance of thefacility in the present shutdown coolingmode (44 FR 45271). By futher Order ofthe Director, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation, dated February 11, 1980, anew set of formal license requirementswas imposed to reflect the post-accidentcondition of the facility and to assurethe continued maintenance of thecurrent safe, stable, long-term coolingcondition of the facility (45 FR 11292].This license provides, among otherthings, that it is subject to all rules,regulations and Orders of theCommission now or hereafter in effect.

HIn a letter dated April 18, 184. the

licensee requested an exemption fromthe requirements of 10 CFR Part 50relative to Seismic MonitoringInstrumentation. 10 CFR 50.36(c)[3)requires surveillance requirements" * * to assure that the necessaryquality of systems and components ismaintained, that facility operation willbe within the safety limits, and that thelimiting conditions of operation will bemet." 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A,Section VI(a)(3) states that:

Suitable instrumentation shall be providedso that the seismic response of nuclear powerplant features important to safety can bedetermined promptly to permit comparison ofsuch response with that used as the des',Inbasis. Such a comparison is needed to decidewhether the plant can be operated safely andto permit such timely action as may beappropriate.

These criteria do not address the need forinstrumentation that would automaticallyshut down a nuclear power plant when anearthquake occurs which exceeds apredeterm ined intensity. * ' *

Presently. Section 4.3.3.3.1 of the Thu-2 PTS requires that Transaxial Time-History Accelographs be operable forthe Reactor Building Ring Girder and theReactor Building Mat; that Triaxial PeakAccelographs be operable for theReactor Service Structure, "B" CoreFlood Tank Piping and 2-1E Switchgear.that Triaxial Seismic Switches beoperable for the Reactor Building Base

and that Traxial Response-SpectrumRecorders be operable for the ReactorBuilding Mat.Ill

The TMI-2 core is cooled via loss ofheat to the reactor buildingenvironment. This is a passive modethat does not require any mechanicalequipment to be operating to maintainan ability to cool the core. As stated in10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, SectionVI(a)[3), one of the reasons for seismicinstrumentation is to decide whether ornot the plant can be operated safely. Inthe July 20.1979 Order for Modificationof License, the authority to operate thefacility was suspended and thelicensee's authority was limited to themaintenance of the facility in thepresent shutdown cooling mode.Therefore this basis for Section VI(a)[3)does not apply to TMI-2. In reference tothe seismic mstrumentation providinginformation for timely actions by plantpersonnel and the NRC, it is the staff'sopunon that if a seismic event were tooccur at TMI. the status of the corewould not be affected because of thepassive cooling mode and therefore noimmediate actions would have to betaken to maintain the health and safetyof the public. It is also the staffs opinionthat when considering the abovediscussion. maintenance andsurveillance requirements for seismicinstrumentation is also not justified andis an unnecessary burden on thelicensee.

Because of the suspension of the"licensee's authority to operate thefacility in other than the presentrecovery mode as defined in theproposed techxucal specifications,certain of the regulations, which areintended to apply to normal operatingplants, are simply inappropriate and.more significantly, are unnecessary toprotect the public health and safety.Given the unique status of the plant interms of primary system temperatureand pressure, available fission productinventory, the ability to cool the reactorwithout forced circulation (loss-to-ambient], and the low decay heat rate.maintenance of the facility with theexemptions granted hereby will providean adequate leyel of safety.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that. pursuant to 10 CFR50.12. an exemption is authorized by lawand will not endanger life or property orthe common defense and security and isotherwise in the public interest. Basedon the discussions above, the "Commission hereby grants an exemption

50127


to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c](3)and 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A,Section VIa)(3) relative.to seismicinstrumentation.

It is further determined that theexemption does not authorize a changein effluent types or total amounts nor anincrease in power level and will notresult in any significant environmentalimpact. In light of this determination andas reflected in the EnvironmentalAssessment and Notice of Finding of NoSignificant Environmental Impactprepared pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21 and51.30 through 51.32, issued concurrentlyherewith, it was concluded that theinstant action is insignificant from thestandpoint of environmental impact andan environmental impact statementneed not be prepared.

Effective Date: December 19, 1984.Dated at Bethesda, Maryland.Issuance Date: December 19, 1984.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Harold R. Denton,Director, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 84-33522 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

[Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-3161

Indiana and Michigan Electric Co.(Donald C. Cook, Nuclear Station, Units1 and 2); Exemption

The Indiana and Michigan ElectricCompany (the licensee) is the holder ofFacility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-58and DPR-74 which authorize theoperation of the Donald C. Cook NuclearStation, Units Nos. 1 and 2 (thefacilities), at reactor power levels not inexcess of 3250 and 3411 megawattsthermal (rated power), respectively. Thefacilities are Westinghouse designedpressurized water reactors located atthe licensee's site in Berrien County,Michigan.

.The license is subject to all rules,regulations and orders of the NuclearRegulatory Commission (theCommission) now or hereafter in effect.

1110 CFR Part 50.55a requires that piping

and components of boiling andpressurized water reactor plants beexamined and pressure tested to therequirements of Section XI of the ASMECode and that the examinations andtests be completed during each of four(4) ten-year intervals. These ten-yearintervals are calculated from the startdate of commercial operation of thefacility.

10 CFR Part 50.55a(g)(4) requires thatlicensees update their inservice

inspection (ISI) and pump and valveinservice (IST) programs to a neweredition of Section XI of the Code eachten years. Since the regulations requirethese updates based on the 10-yearanniversary of facility commercialoperation, multi-units sites often findthat each unit has an ISI and ISTprogram structured for a slightlydifferent editions of the Cbde.

By letter dated March 15 andsubsequently modified by letter datedMay 11, 1984, the licensee requested anexemption to the requirements to 10 CFRPart 50.55afg)(4) which would allow theuse of common start date for ISI and ISTfor both units.

According to the regulations, thesecond ten-year interval for the ISI andIST program should begin on August 23,1985 and July 1, 1988 for D. C. CookUnits I and 2, respectively. The licenseehas requested a common start date ofJuly 1, 1986. The Commission's staff hasreviewed this request and hasdetermined that a common ISI and ISTstart date for two units has inherentadministrative, technical, and costsaving advantages, both to the licenseeand to the Commission. The staff hasconcluded that:

1. The same Code edition andaddenda, by regulation, can be used asthe basis for the ISI and IST program forboth uniits;

2. Since the units are similar in design,only one ISI and IST program wouldhave to be written and submitted by the.licensee;

3. The Commission's staff would haveto review and approve only onesubmittal instead of two;

4. The Commission's staff would haveto inspect for compliance against onlyone program instead of two; and

5. The change of the ISI and IST startdate to July 1, 1986, will not affect thecompletion schedule of examinationsand pressure tests for the Units.However, some tests on Unit 2 will beconducted to the first ten year intervalcriteria; relief granting these changes arethe subject of separate Commissionaction.

The selected start date of July 1986 isbasically two years prior to that whichwould normally be required by theregulations forD. C. Cook Unit 2 andone year later than required.for Unit 1.Future program updates for Unit I willconstitute update to a newer Codesooner than would normally be required.For Unit 2 the ISI and IST program willbe in accordance with a slightly olderedition of the Code than would havebeen required by the regulations, but theCommission's staff concludes that theuse of a single ISI and IST program forboth D. C. Cook Units is more beneficial

in terms of net overall plant safety andboth the older and newer editions of theCode provide acceptable standards forthe ISI and IST program.

Therefore, the staff concludes that theexemption request should be granted. If-a common start date were notestablished, the ISI and IST programs atD. C. Cook would be accomplished, forsome period of time, to two differentASME Codes. Although administrativelypossible, this situation could contributeto increased personnel errors in theperformance of inspection and testingrequirements to two different versionsof the Code. This can create asubstantial and additionaladministrative wor~load for what canbe described as only nominal technicaldifferences in the inspection and testingrequirements.

IIIAccordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR50.12(a), the exemption requested by thelicensee's letter of May 11, 1984 isauthorized by law, and will notendanger life or properety or thecommon defense and security, and isotherwise in the public interest. TheCommission hereby grants to thelicensee an exemption from therequirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4),

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51132, theCommission has determined that theissuance of the exemption will have nosignificant impact on the environment(49 FR 47666).

This Exemption is effective uponissuance.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th dayof November 1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Frank J. Miraglia,Acting Director, Division of Licensing, Officeof Nuclear Regulation.[FR Doc. 84-33523 Filed 12-24-84, 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

[Docket No. 50-3881

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.,Susquehanna Steam Electric StationUnit 2; Exemption

IThe Pennsylvania Power and Light

Co. (PP&L/the licensee) is the holder ofFacility License No. NPF-22 whichauthorizes operation of SusquehannaSteam Electric Station Unit 2 (SSES-2)at power levels not in excess of 3293megawatts thermal. The facility is aBoiling Water Reactor located at thelicensee's site in Luzerne County,Pennsylvania. The license provides,

50128


among other things, that it is subject toall rules, regulations, and Orders of theCommission now or hereafter in effect.

IIInerting the containment for the

SSES-2 plant is required by 10 CFR 50.44(revised). In 10 CFR 50.44, "Standardsfor combustible gas control system inlight-water-cooled power reactors,"§ 50.44[c)(3)(i) states ihat, "EffectiveMay 4, 1982 or 6 months after initialcriticality, whichever is later, an inertedatmosphere shall be provided for eachboiling light-water nuclear powerreactor with a Mark I or Mark II typeconftammenL"

Sinse SSES-2 achieved its initialcriticality on May 7,1984, the plant isrequired to be merted by November 8,1984, per the 10 CFR 50. A requirementset forth above. On October 27,1984SSES-2 was shut-down for a pre-commercial outage scheduled to lastthru the end of December 1984. Prior tostart-up presently scheduled for January1985, the licensee needs an exemptionso it may continue operating the plantwith-a non-merted containment duringthe balance of the initial startup testprogram.

The exemption from the regulation isrequired in order to complete thebalance of the power ascension testprogram (PATPJ in accordance with thelicensee's test plan. The licensee's testplan is based on maintaining thecontainment m a non-merted conditionuntil after completing the 100% ratedthermal trip test. a condition whichnormally would be expected to occurwithin about 120 effective full powerdays of core burn-up. No changes arebeing made in the maximum full powerdays of core bum-up normally expected-before inerting is required- In fact toassure this, the maximum expectedvalue of-120 effective full power days ismade part of the proposed.action. Thelicensee's PATP schedule has not beenmaintained as originally planned. Thishas resulted in a simple stretch out ofthe time required to complete all postcriticality PATP tests.

It is advantageous to operate thereactor without nerting during thePATP, as an uninerted containmentwould permit unscheduled inspectionsor identification of possible problemsimportant to safety during this period.The anticipated high frequency ofcontainment entries during the PATPperiod and the required demerting andre-inerting time (about 24 hours) wouldtend to discourage early and frequentcontainment entries for identifying andcorrecting any potential safety problemsbefore they become serious safetyproblems.

IIIThe NRC staff has evaluated the

licensee's current schedule forcompleting the preoperational testprogram and believes that to nowrequire inerting before the PATP testshave been completed could result in lessassurance of safety, because of theadded time and/or decreased ability todirectly examine and evaluatecomponents and systems insidecontainment while the PATP tests areunder way. Completing the PATP testswith an unnerted containment thenwould reduce the likelihood ofdevelopment of an event requiringprotective safety actions bqth during theperiod of exemption and later. Becauseof the low level of fission productinventory during the PATP period, (lessthan 42 effective full power days IFPD)at present increasing to the maiimunm ofonly 120 FPD) and the short durationanticipated for the exemption (about 2-3weeks of remaining PATP testing afterstart-up), there is an extremely lowlikelihood that the inerting systemwould be required.

Based on the information provided bythe licensee and the staffs assurancethat the remainder of the PATP testswill be performed in essentially thesame manner as originally planned withrespect to the magnitude and duration ofpower levels for each remaining PATPtest, the NRC staff concludes that therewill be no ncrease m the rislo ofoperation through completion of thePATP tests with the proposed limitedexemption regarding initial inertin- overthe risks that were contemplated for theduration of the PATP tests at the timethe plant was licensed. Therefore, sincethere is no perceived increased risk bythe mere fact of extending the timeallowed for completion of the PATPtests under uninerted conditions, theNRC staff finds that operation would beas safe under the conditions proposedby the exemption as it would have beenhad the tests been completed in theshorter calendar time of six months afterinitial criticality.

The inerting r2qwrement resultedfrom a staff judgement that the safetybenefits attributable to having an

anerted containment during normaloperations outweighed the associateddisadvantages. This judgement does notprevail during the PATP because of theneed for frequent containment entriesfor inspection and surveillancepurposes. The staff finds that anexemption from 10 CFR Z0.44. paragraph(c)(3)(i) is acceptable.

Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that. pursuant to 10 CFR30.12 the exemption is authorized bylaw, will not endanger life or property orthe common defense and security and isotherwise in the public interest-Therefore, the Commission herebygrants the exemption as follows:

An e.:,.nption is g anted from therequir mcns of 10 CFR 59.44 parag"aph(tl 3Ifil until either the required 10n pemrcntrated thermal power trip startup tests havehoen completed or the reactor has opara:dfor 1Z efRcati,.e full powe-ar days. hiaeris earlier.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, theCommission has determined that theissuance of the exemption will have nosignificant impact on the environment(49 FR 48925).

A copy of the Commission's SafetyEvaluation dated Dec. 19. 1834 related tothis action is available for publicinspection at the Commission's PublicDocument Room, 1717 H Street, NW",%Washington, D.C. and at the OsterhoutFree Library, Reference DepartmenL 71South Franklin Street. Wilkes-Barre,Pennsylvania 18701.

This Exemption is effective uponissuance.Datd at B ~the.da, Maryland this 191h day

ofDecemTxzr 1934.For the Nuclaarlegulatory Commissiorm

Darrell G. Elsenhut.Dir, cton. DPiswn of iafw -.RRL[FR Dec. F-4-33524 Filed 12-24--4; 845 am]eMJUM coos rs::-.i-,

[Docket flo. 50-354]

Public Service Electric and Gas Co.;Availability of the Final EnvironmentalStatement for Hope Creek GeneratingStation

Notice is hereby given that the FinalEnvironmental Statement (NUREG-1074) related to the operation of theHope Creek Generating Station hasbeen prepared by the Commisino'sOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulatioa.The Hope Creek Generating Station islocated on the Delaware River Estuaryin Lower Alloways Creek Ton hip.Salem County. New Jersey.

Copies of NUREG-1074 are availablefor inspection by the public m theCommission's Public Document Room at1717 H Street NW.. Washington. D.C.20355. and at the Pennsville PublicLibrary, lea South Broadway,Pennsville, New Jersey 03070. Thedocument is also being made availableat the State Clearinghouse. Departmentof En, ironmental Protection. Planning

5091u.


Group/Attn: Larry Schmidt, Office of theCommissioner, CN-402, Trenton, &I08625, The Notice of Availability of theDraft Environmental Statement for, theHope Creek Generating Station andrequest fpr comments were published inthe Federal Register on July 5, 1984 (49FR 27646). The comments received fromFederal, State and local agencies andfrom interested members of the publichave been included in the appendices tothe Final Environmental Statement.

Copies of the Final EnvironmentalStatement (NUREG-1074) may bepurchased at current rates from theNational Technical Information Service,Department of Commerce, 5285 PortRoyal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161,and from the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Sales Office, Washington,D.C. 20555.

Dated at Bethesda. Maryland this 19th dayof December 1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.A. Schwencer,Chief Licensing Branch No. 2, Division ofLicensing.IFR Doc. 84-33525 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590-O1-M

[Docket No. 50-293]

Boston Edison Co., (Pilgrim NuclearPower Station); Exemption

IThe Boston Edison Company (BECO/

the licensee) is the holder of FacilityOperating License No. DPR-35 whichauthorizes operation of the PilgrimNuclear Power Station. This licenseprovides, among other things, that it issubject to all rules, regulations andOrders of the Commission now orhereafter in effect.

The facility comprises one boilingwater reactor at the licensee's sitelocated at Plymouth County,Massachusetts.

IIOn November 19, 1980, the

Commission published a revised section10 CFR 50.48 and a new Appendix R to10 CFR Part 50 regarding fire protectionfeatures of nuclear power plants (45 FR76602). The revised § 50.48 andAppendix R became effective onFebruary 17, 1981. Section III ofAppendix R contains fifteensubsections, lettered A through 0, eachof which specifies requirements for aparticular aspect of the fire protectionfeatures at a nuclear power plant. Oneof these fifteen subsections, III.G., is thesubject of the licensee's exemptionrequest.

Subsection III.G.2 of Appendix Rrequires that one train of cables andequipment necessary to achieve andmaintain safe shutdown shall bemaintained free of fire damage byspecific use of fire barriers, separationor enclosures. If these conditions are notmet, Section III.G.3 requires analternative shutdown capabilityindependent of the fire area of concern.

IIIBy letter dated May 17, 1983, the

licensee requested the followingexemptions from the requirements ofSections III.G.2 and III.G.3 of AppendixR.

1. Exemptions for Fire Zones 1.9 and1.10 on the 23-foot elevation and FireZones 1.11 and 1.12 on the 51-footelevation of the reactor building wererequested to the extent Section II1.G.2requires a total area coverage automaticfire suppression system and 20 feet ofseparation free of interveningcombustibles between redundant trainsof safe shutdown equipment andcabling. Exemptions for the same firezones were also requested from therequirement in Section III.G.3 to havefixed fire suppression systems in areaswith alternative shutdown capability.

Fire Zones 1.9 and 1.11 contain thetrain "A" shutdown components andFire Zones 1.10 and.1.12 contain thetrain "B" shutdown components. Thehorizontal separation between theseredundant trains is greater than 20 feet;however, several of the separation areashave intervening low combustibleloading (cable insulation]. The licenseeproposes to install automatic watercurtains where physical barriers do notexist between the fire zones on eachelevation. All of these zones have smokedetectors which alarm in the controlroom and redundant cables have beeninstalled outside the fire zones toprovide alternative shutdown capability.

Bases on our review of the existingfire protection features and the proposedmodifications, we find that there isreasonable assurance that one divisionof shutdown equipment would remainfree of fire damage to achieve andmaintain safe shutdown.

2. An exemption for Fire Zone 1.30A(the torus compartment) was requestedfrom the Section III.G.2 requirement toinstall fire direction and automatic firesuppression systems. The licenseejustifies the exemption on the followingbases: (1) The in-situ fuel loading is verylow; (2) the area has limited accessduring normal operation; (3) theredundant trains of shutdown equipmentare horizontally separated by 30 feetfree intervening combustibles; and (4)

one train of redundant cables isenclosed in a one-hour fire rated barrier,

Considering the bases stated above,we concluded that fires involvingcombustibles in the torus compartmentwould be so limited in size and durationthat the proposed one-hour fire ratedbarrier would provide adequateprotection for one train of safeshutdown cables. Furthermore, becauseof the tours configuration, full area firedetection and automatic suppressionwould not provide a significant increasein fire safety.

3. An exemption was requested forFire Zone 3.5 (the Vital M.G, set room)from Section III.G.3 to the extent itrequires a fixed fire suppression systemin an area for which alternate shutdowncapability is provided. This fire zone Isseparated from other areas by three-hour rated fire barriers and itscombustible loading is moderate. A firedetection system and manualsuppression equipment are available Inthe area. We find that there isreasonable assurance that fire in thisarea would be promptly detected andextinguished. Thus, the installation of afixed fire suppression system would notsignificantly increase the level of fireprotection in this area.

As a result of our review, weconcluded that the existing fireprotection, together with the proposedmodifications, in Fire Zones 1.9, 1.10,1.11,.1.12, 1.30A and 3.5 provides a levelof fire protection equivalent tocompliance with the technicalrequirements of Sections llIG.2 andIII.G.3. Therefore, the requestedexemptions should be granted.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that, pursuant to 10 CFR50.12(a), the requested exemptions areauthorized bu law and will not endangerlife or property or the common defenseand security and are otherwise in thepublic interest. Therefore, theCommission hereby grants the followingexemptions from the requirements ofSections IIL.G of Appendix R to 10 CFRPart 50:

1. Fire Zones 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, and 1.12 tothe extent they require total areacoverage automatic fire suppressionsystems and 20 feet of separation free ofintervening combustibles betweenredundant trains of safe shutdownequipment and cabling.

2. Fire Zone 1.30A to the extent itrequires the installation of fire detectionand automatic fire suppression systems.

3. Fire Zones 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, and3.5 to the extent they require fixed fire

I I50130

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26. 1984 / Notices

suppression systems in areas withalternative shutdown capability.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, theCommission has determined that thegranting of these exemptions will haveno significant impact on theenvironment (49 FR 47342).

A copy of the Safety Evaluation datedDecember 18,1984, related to this actionis available for public inspection at theComnussion's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.and at the local public document roomlocated at the Plymouth Public Library,North.Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts.A copy may be obtained upon requestaddressed to the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Comnussion, Washington.D.C. 20555, Attention: Director, Divisionof Licensing.

This Exemption is effective uponissuance.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th dayof December, 1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Darrell G. Eisenhut,Director, Division of LicensIng, Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 84-33517 Filed 12-24-84; &45 am]BILLNG CODE 75.0-01-M

[Docket No. 50-245]

Connecticut Light and Power Co., etal. Availability of an EnvironmentalAssessment Relating to the Full-TermOperating License Review

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's(NRC) Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation (staff) has issued anEnvironmental Assessment related tothe application for Full-Term OperatingLicense (FTOL] filed by the NortheastNuclear Energy Company for itsMillstone Nuclear Power Station, UnitNo. 1 located in the town of Waterford.Connecticut. on Millstone Point.

In preparation for the conversion ofProvisional Operating License (POL) No.DPR-21 for the Millstone Nuclear PowerStation. Unit No. 1, to an FTOL. the NRCstaff performed an assessment of theExisting Final Environmental Statement(FES) dated June 1973.

The NRC staff has evaluated theenvironmental effects of the continuedoperation of the Millstone-1 facility andreexamined the impacts initiallypresented in the 1973 FES. Based on thisevalution, the NRC staff has determinedthat: (1] There are no new impacts thatdiffer significantly from those evaluatedin the FES, there are no substantialchanges in the proposed actionsrelevant to environmental concerns andthere are no significant newcircumstances of information relevant to

environmental concerns bearing on theproposed action or its impact and. thus,issuance of a supplement to the FES isnot required under the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA); and(2) the conclusion on page iv., paragraph7b of the FES. as applied to Millstone-I,is still valid, with the exception that theTechnical Specifications called for arenow included in Appendix I to 10 CFRPart 50 changes currently being finalizedand the State Pollution DischargeElimination System Program.

The Environmental Assessment isbeing made available at the NRC PublicDocument Room, 1717 H Street, NW,Washington, D.C. 20555. and at theLocal Public Document Room,Waterford Public Library. 49 Rope FerryRoad, Waterford, Connecticut 06385, forinspection and copying.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 1 dayof December 1934.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Denns M. Crutchfield,Assistant Director forSofetyAssesment,Division of Licensing.[FR Doc. 84-33518 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am)BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

[Docket No. 50-3891

Florida Power & Light Co., et aL;Consideration of Issuance ofAmendment to Facility OperatingLicense and Opportunity for PriorHearing

The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (the Commission) isconsidering issuance of an amendmentto Facility Operating license No. NPF-16, issued to Florida Power and LightCompany, et al. (the licensee), foroperation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.2 located in St. Lucie County. Florida.

The amendment would revise theprovisions m the TechnicalSpecifications relating to an increase inthe presently rated core power level of2560 MWt to 2700 MWt. in accordancewith the licensee's application foramendment dated November 21, 19&4.The increase in power will change thecore physics margins. For the ex-coreLinear Heat Rate Limiting Conditions forOperation and Limiting Safety SystemSetpoint the margin loss mechanismsare increased peaking and increasedpower output. These losses are partlyoffset by gains due to other factors. Forthe Departure from Nucleate BoilingLimiting Conditions for Operation andLimiting Safety System Selpoint, themargin loss mechanisms are increasedpeaking, increased power output, andreduced Reactor Coolant SystemTechnical Specification flow. These

losses are primarily offset by gains dueto other factors.

A minor margin loss mechanism isincreased Reactor Coolant System inlettemperature. Minor margin gainmechanisms are improved RequiredOverpower Margin results,improvements in the axial powerdistributions, and use of a statisticallybased thermal-hydraulic model.

Consequences of accidents will beslightly increased as a result of theincrease m the power leveL However, itshould be noted that the accidentsanalyzed during the operating licensereview considered operation at powerlevels in excess of 2700 MNt.-Likewise,a slight change in environmental impactcan be expected, but again. the FinalEnvironmental Statement for theoperatfng license was based onoperation of a power level of 2700 MW.L

Prior to issuance of the proposedlicense amendment, the Commissionwill have made findings required by theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended(the Act) and the Commission'sregulations.

By January 25,1935. the licensee mayfile a request for a hearing with respectto issuance of the amendment to thesubject facility operating license andany person whose interest may beaffected by this proceeding and whowishes to participate as a party in theproceeding must file a written petitionfor leave to intervene. Request for ahearing and petitions for leave tointervene shall be filed in accordancewith the Commission's "Rules ofPractice for Domestic LicensingProceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If arequest for a hearing or petition forleave to intervene is filed by the abovedate, the Commission or an AtomicSafety and Licensing Board, designatedby the Commission or by the Chairmanof the Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard Panel. vill rule on the requestand/or petition and the Secretary or thedesignated Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard will issue a notice of hearing oran appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, apetition for leave to intervene shall setforth with particularity the interest ofthe petitioner m the proceeding, andhow that interest may be affected by theresults of the proceeding. The petitionshould specifically explain the reasonswhy intervention should be permittedwith particular reference to thefollowing factors: (1) The nature of thepetitioner s night under the Act to bemade a party to the proceeding: (2) thenature and extent of the petitioner sproperty, financial, or other interest mthe proceeding and (3) the possible

50131


effect of any order which may beentered in the proceeding on thepetitioner's interest. The petition shouldalso identify the specific aspect(s) of thesubject matter of the proceeding as towhich petitioner wishes to intervene.Any person who has filed a petition forleave to intervene or who has beenadmitted as a party may amend thepetition without requesting leave of theBoard up to fifteen (15] days prior to thefirst prehearing conference scheduled inthe proceeding, but such an amendedpetition must satisfy the specificityrequirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior tothe first prehearing conferencescheduled in the proceeding, a petitionershall file a supplement to the petition tointervene which must include a list ofthe contentions which are sought to belitigated in the matter, and the bases foreach contention set forth withreasonable specificity. Contentions shallbe limited to matters within the scope ofthe amendment under consideration. Apetitioner who fails to file such asupplement which satisfies theserequirements with respect to at least onecontention will not be permitted toparticipate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene becomeparties to the proceeding, subject to anylimitations in the order granting leave tointervene, and have the opportunity toparticipate fully in the conduct of thehearing, including the opportunity topresent evidence and cross-examinewitnesses.

A request for-a hearing or a petitionfor leave to intervene must be filed withthe Secretary of the Commission, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:Docketing and Service Branch, or maybe delivered to the Commission's PublicDocument Room, 1717 H Street, NW,Washington, D.C., by the above date.Where petitions are filed during the lastten (10) days of the notice period, it isrequested that the petitioner orrepresentative for the petitionerpromptly so inform the Commission by atoll-free telephone call to WesternUnion at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri(800) 342-6700). The Western Unionoperator should be given DatagramIdentification Number 3737 and thefollowing message addressed to JamesR, Miller: (petitioner's name andtelephone number), (date petition wasmailed), (plant name], and (publication,date and page number of the FederalRegister notice). A copy of the petitionshould also be sent to the ExecutiveLegal Director, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, D.C. 20555,and to Harold F Reis, Esquire, Newman

and Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, NW,Washington, D.C. 20036, attorney for thelicensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leaveto intervene, amended petitions,supplemental petitions and/or requestsfor hearing will not be entertainedabsent a determination by theCommission, the presiding officer or theAtomic Safety and Licensing Boarddesignated to rule on the petition and/orrequest, that the petitioner has made asubstantial showing of good cause forthe granting of a late petition and/orrequest. The determination will bebased upon a balancing of the factorsspecified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v and2.714(d).

For further details with respect to thisaction, see the application foramendment dated November 21, 1984,which is available for public inspectionat the Commission's Public DocumentRoom, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington,D.C., and at the Indian River JuniorCollege Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue,Fort Pierce, Florida 33450.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th dayof December 1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.James R. Miller,Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #, Divisionof Licensing.[FR Doc. 84-33519 Filed 12-24-84 8.45 amlBIWNG CODE 7590-01-M

[Docket No. 50-3201

General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp.(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit2); Amendment of Order

LGPU Nuclear Corporation,

Metropolitan Edison Company, JerseyCentral Power and Light Company andPennsylvania Electric Company(collectively, the licensee) are theholders of Facility Operating LicenseNo. PPR-73, which had authorizedoperation of the Three Mile IslandNuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2) at powerlevels up to 2772 megawatts thermal.The facilty, which is located inLondonderry Township, DauphinCounty, Pennsylvania, is a pressurizedwater reactor previously used for thecommercial generation of electricity.

II

By Order for Modification of License,dated July 20, 1979, the licensee'sauthority to operate the facility wassuspended and the licensee's authoritywas limited to maintenance of thefacility in the present shutdown coolingmode (44 FR 45271). By further Order of

the Director, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation, dated February 11, 1980, anew set of formal license requirementswas imposed to reflect the post-accidentcondition of the facility and to assurethe continued mkintenance of thecurrent safe, stable, long-term coolingcondition of the facility (45 FR 11292).

Although these requirements wereimposed on the licensee by an Order ofthe Director of Nuclear ReactorRegulation, dated February 11, 1980. theTMI-2 license has not been formallyamended. The requirements arereflected in the proposed RecoveryMode Technical Specifications (PTS)presently pending before the AtomicSafety and Licensing Board. Therevisions that are the subject of thisorder do not give the licenseeauthorizations that may be needed toundertake specific cleanup activities,These activities will require separateconsideration by the staff per section6.8.2 of the PTS, individual staff safetyevaluations and/or licensing actions asappropriate. Hereafter in thisAmendment of Order, the requirementsin question are identified by theapplicable Proposed TechnicalSpecification.

III

By letters dated January 12, 1983,September 12,1983, and September 30,1983, CPU Nuclear Corporation(GPUNC) proposed changes to theProposed Technial Specifications (PTS)for Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) toreflect current plant conditions.

The TMI-2 Technical Specificationswere revised in t~ieir entirety with theissuance of the February 11, 1980 Order.The general purpose of that order was toproperly reflect technical specificationrequirements for the facility's postaccident mode of operation. FromFebruary 1980 to present, manymodifications of that order have beenissued in addition to several LicenseAmendments and changes to theRecovery Operations Plan. Even thougheach of these changes was justified andconcurred with by the staff, there hasnot been a complete review and revisionof the Proposed Technical Specificationssince the February 11, 1980 Order. Thisreview is necessary because of thedegree of technical knowledge obtainedsince the original Order and theresultant altered approaches totechnical problems. The necessarycourse of action for the NRC at TMI-2 tomaximize our ability to protect thehealth and safety of the public is nowbetter defined and therefore ProposedTechnical Specification requirementscan now be deleted, added or modified

50132


for consistency and to more correctlyreflect what should be fequired by theNRC at TMI-2.

The staff has reviewed the licensee'sproposed changes which can be groupedinto the following categories: (1)Editorial Changes that correct spelling,grammar, page numbers, and theassociated indexes. These changes donot affect the technical content nor theintent of the section; (2] Modifications tothe existing Limiting Conditions forOperation and Safety Limits that weremade to more correctly state whatsystems or equipment are necessarybased on the present status of TWI-2; (3)New Limiting Conditions for Operationthat were added to also more correctlyreflect what systems or equipment arenecessary based on the present status ofTMI-2; (4) Design Features of Section 5.0that were modified or deleted to moreaccurately state design limits that canbe verified; (5] Bases that were revisedbecause of changes in technicalapproaches resultingfrom data that hasbeen obtained and analyzed; and (6)Tables listing specific pieces ofequipment that were moved from theLimiting Conditions for Operationsections to the applicable section of theRecovery Operations Plan. This type ofchange does not lessen the regulatoryrequirement but more appropriatelyplaces the description of the piece ofequipment along with its correspondingtesting requirement.

An Exemption from 10 CFR 50.55awith respect to Code Safety ReliefValves, and an Exemption from theseismic monitoring requirements of 10CFR 50.36 and 10 CFR 100, Appendix A,Paragraph VI(a)(3) are required toaccompany this Amendment of Orderbecause of some of the deletions andalterations to the PTS that were grantedherein.

Changes to associated surveillancerequirements of the RecoveryOperations Plan that correspond tomodifications to the Limiting Conditionsof Operation have also been madeaccordingly.

The staff's safety assessment of thismatter as discussed above is set forth inthe concurrently issued SafetyEvaluation. Since the February 11, 1980'Order imposing the Proposed TechnicalSpecifications is currently pendingbefore the Atomic Safety and LicensingBoard, the staff will be advising theLicensing Board of this Amendment ofOrder through a Notice of Issuance ofAmendment of Order and a Motion toConform Proposed TechnicalSpecifications in Accordance herewith.

It is further determined that themodification does not authorize achange in effluent types or total

amounts nor an increase in power leveland will not result in any significantenvironmental impact. In light of thisdetermination and as reflected in theEnvironmental Assessment and Noticeof Finding of No SignificantEnvironmental Impact preparedpursuant to 10 CFR 51.2 and 51.30through 51.32 issued concurrentlyherewith, it was concluded that theaction is insignificant from thestandpoint of environmental impact andthat an environmental impact statementneed not be prepared.

IVAccordingly, pursuant to the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, theDirector's Order of February 11, 1980, ishereby revised to incorporate thedeletions, additions, and modificationsset foith in Enclosure 3 hereto. ThisAmendment of Order shall be effectiveon January 7,1985.

For further details with respect to thisaction, see (1) Letter to B. J. Snyder,USNRC, from R. C. Arnold, GPUNC,Technical Specification Change RequestNo. 39, dated January 12,1983, (2) Letterto B. J. Snyder, USNRC, from R. C.Arnold, GPUNC, Technical SpecificationChange Request No. 41, datedSeptember 12,1983, (3] Letter to B. 1.Snyder, USNRC, from R. C. Arnold,GPUNC, Technical Specification ChangeRequest No. 43, dated September 30,1983, (4) Letter to L. H. Barrett, USNnRC,from B. K. Kanga, GPUNC, RecoveryOperations Plan Change Request No. 19,dated January 12, 1983, (5] Letter to L H.Barrett, USNRC, from B. K. Kanga,GPUNC, Recovery Operations PlanChange Request No. 20, datedSeptember 12,1983, (6] Letter to Li H.Barrett, USNRC, from B. K. Kanga,GPUNC, Recovery Operations PlanChange Request No. 22, datedSeptember 30,1983, (7] Letter to B. J.Snyder, USNRC, from E. E. KintnerGPUNC, Seismic Monitoring ExemptionRequest, dated April 18,1984, (8) Letterto B. J. Snyder, USNRC, from E. E.Kintner, GPUNC, Exemption Requestfrom 10 CFR 50.55a with respect to CodeSafety Valves, dated April 18,1984, and(9) the Director's Order of February 11,1980.

All of the above documents areavailable for inspection at theCommission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.and at the Commission's Local PublicDocument Room at the State Library ofPennsylvania, Government PublicationsSection, Education Building,Commonwealth and Walnut Streets,Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.

Effective Date: January 7.1935.

D3ted at lr-pthesda, Maryland.Issuance Date: December 19. 1984.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commissiaa

Harold R. Denton.Director. Office of NuclearReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 84-3350 Filed 12-Z4,-84; &45 am]etLLNG CODE 753,-,01-M

[Docket No. 50-320]

General Public Utilities NuclearCorporation; (Three Mile IslandNuclear Station, Unit 2); Exemption

I

GPU Nuclear Corporation,Metropolitan Edison Company, JerseyCentral Power and Light Company andPennsylvania Eelctnc Company(collectively, the licensee are theholders of Facility Operating LicenseNo. DPR-73, which had authorizedoperation of the Three Mile IslandNuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2] at powerlevels up to 2772 megawatts thermal.The facility, which is located mLondonderry Township. DauphinCounty, Permsylvania, is a pressurizedwater reactor previously used for thecommercial generation of electricity.

By Order for Modification of License,dated July 20,1979, the licensee'sauthority to operate the facility wassuspended and the licensee's authoritywas limited to maintenance of thefacility in the present shutdown coolingmode (44 FR. 45271). By further Order ofthe Director, Office of Nuclear ReactorR"'ualtion, dated February 11, 1980, anew set of formal license requirementswas unposed to reflect the post-accidentcondition of the facility and to assurethe continued maintenance of thecurrent safe, stable, long-term coolingcondition of the facility (45 FR. 11292].This license provides, among otherthings, that it is subject to all rules,regulations and Orders of theCommission now or hereafter in effect.

II

On April 18,1984. General PublicUtilities Nuclear Corporation (GPUNC]requested an Exemption from therequirements of 10 CFR 50.55a withrespect to Code Safety Valves for TMI-2. This provision of the Commission'sregulations currently requires thatcomponents which are part of thereactor coolant pressure boundary meetthe requirements for Class I componentsin Section III of the ASME Boiler andPressure Vessel Code.

As stated in Table 5.2-1 of the TI'.U-2Final Safety Analysis Report (FSARJ,the TMI-2 Code Safety Valves

50133


(pressurizer) meet the requirements ofASME Section III, Article 9, Summer1969 Addendum. N-910.1 of Article 9states that, "Each vessel within thescope of the Code shall be protectedwhile in service from consequencesarising from the application of steadystate or transient conditions of pressureand (coincident) temperature which arein excess of the design conditions. 'N-910.4, N-910.5, N-910.6, N-910.7, andN-91- state various design andlocation requirements for the reliefvalves. As stated in the FSAR, the TMI-2 reactor coolant system has a designpressure of 2500 psig with thepressurizer Code Safety Valves relievingat approximately 2450 psig with a690,000 pounds per hour capacity.

III

In the current system configuration,with the reactor vessel head removed tofacilitate defueling, the code safetyvalves are not useable and are notrequired in order to relieve systempressure. It is also the staff's opinionthat the normal maintenance performedand presently needed on these valves(bench testing, blowdown, sealinspection, etc.) would be anunnecessary maintenance burden andresult in an unjustified raidiologicaldose to the plant workers. As discussedin the concurrently issued safetyevaluation, the reactor coolant systemwill remain open to the reactor buildingatmosphere throughout the recoveryperiod. The system's configurationinherently provides overpressureprotection because of the lack of aclosed system that is necesary for asignificant pressure buildup. The onlythermodynamic event that can occur inthe RCS that would have potentialnegative consequence is a systemheatup. Because of the open vessel, evena heatup would have no pressureconsequences unless the containmentatmosphere pressure increased. Becauseof the volume of the containment(approximately 2 x 106 cu. ft.) and theamount of decay heat present(approximately 15 Kw), any significantcontainment pressure buildup wouldoccur over a period of days, if notweeks. Should a currently unforeseenevent occur that could potentially causepressure to increase or which wouldrequire that a pressurized system bereestablished, the staff and the licenseewould have sufficient response time todecide a course of action whether it beplacing the head back on the vessel,installing a pressure relief component, orleaving the system as is. Therefore, it isthe staff's opinion that a pressure relief

device for the RCS need not be in placeat this time. If a decision is made in thefuture to repressurize the RCS, amaximum pressure rating andappropriate overpressure protectionmust be specified in a safety evaluationapproved by the staff, and in proceduresapproved pursuant to Section 6.8.2 of thePTS.

Because of the suspension of thelicensee's authority to operate thefacility in other than the presentrecovery mode as defined in theproposed technical specifications,certain of the regulations, which areintended to apply to normal operatingplants, are simply inappropriate and,more significantly, are unnecessary toprotect the public health and safety.Given the unique status of the plant interms of primary system temperatureand pressure, available fission productinventory, the ability to cool the reactorwithout forced circulation (loss-to-ambient), and the low decay heat rate,maintenance of the facility with theexemptions granted hereby will providean adequate level of safety.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that, pursuant to 10 CFR50.12, an exemption is authorized by lawand will not endanger life or property orthe common defense and security and isotherwise in the public interest. TheCommission hereby grants an exemptionto the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,Appendix A, Criterion 2, 50, and 51.

It is further determined that theexemption does not authorize a changein effluent types or total amounts nor anincrease in power level and will notresult in any significant environmentalimpact. In light'of this determination andas reflected in the EnvironmentalAssessment and Notice of Finding of NoSignificant Environmental Impactprepared pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21 and51.30 through 51.32, issued concurrentlyherewith, it was concluded that theinstant action is insignificant from thestandpoint of environmental impact andan environmental impact statementneed not be prepared.

Effective Date: December 19, 1984.Dated at Bethesda, Maryland.Issuance Date: December 19.1984.

For the Nuclear Regualtory Commission.Harold R. Denton,Director, Office of NVuclearReactorRegulation.[FR Doc. 84-33521 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 759a-01-U

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANDBUDGET

Audit Requirements for State andLocal Governments

This notice offers interested partles anopportunity to comment on a proposedCircular, "Audit requirements for Stateand local governments."

The Circular is the product of aninteragency team made up ofrepresentatives of Assistant Secretariesfor Management and InspectorsGeneral. Its purpose is to implement theSingle Audit Act of 1984, Pub. L. 90-502,The Circular establishes auditrequirements for State and localgovernments that receive Federal aid,and defines Federal responsibilities for-implementing and monitoring theserequirements.

At the present time requirements forState and local audits are included inAttachment P to Circular A-102,"Uniform requirements for grants toState and local governments." Thisproposed Circular would supersedethose requirements. However, theprovisions of Attachment P remain Ineffect until the new Circular Is Issued.

The proposed Circular is shown belowin its entirety. Comments should be.submitted in duplicate to the FinancialManagement Division, Office ofManagement and Budget, Washington,D.C. 20503. All comments should bereceived within 60 days of the date ofthis publication. Contact person: PalmerA. Marcantonio, 202-395-3993.Candice C. Bryant,Deputy Associate Director forAdmmnstration.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THEPRESIDENT

Office of Management and BudgetCIRCULAR NO. A-

1984

To the Heads of Executive Departments andEstablishments.

Subject: Audit Requirements for State andLocal Governments.

1. Purpose. This Circular is Issuedpursuant to the Single Audit Act of 1984,Public Law, 98-502. It establishes auditrequirements for State and localgovernments that receive Federal aid,and defines Federal responsibilities forimplementing and monitoring thoserequirements.

2. Supersesson. The Circularsupersedes Attachment P, "AuditRequirements," dated October 22, 1979,to OMB Circular A-102, "Uniformrequirements for grants to State andlocal governments."

50134


3. Background. The Single Audit Actbuilds upon earlier efforts to improveaudits of Federal aid programs. The Actrequires State or local governments thatreceive more than $100,000 a year inFederal funds to have be an audit madefor that year. Section 7504 of the Actrequires the Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget to issueguidelines to implement the Act. Itspecifies that the guidelines include-procedures for the assignment ofcognizant Federal agencies, criteria fordetermining the appropriate charges toFederal programs for the cost of audits,and procedures to assure that smallbusiness concerns and businessconcerns owned and controlled bysocially and economicallydisadvantaged individuals have theopportunity to participate in contractsawarded to fulfill the single auditrequirements.

4. Policy. The Single Audit Actrequires the following:

a. A State or local government shallhave an audit made in accordance withthis Circular for any of its fiscal yearswhich began-after December 31, 1984, inwhich it receives more than $100,000 inFederal financial assistance.

b. A State or local government shallhave an audit made in accordance withthis Circular, or in accordance with lawsand regulations governing the programsit participates in, for any fiscal year inwhich it receives between $25,000 and$100,000 in Federal financial assistance.

c. Each State or local government thatreceives a total amount of Federalfinancial assistance which is less than$25,000 for any fiscal year shall beexempt from compliance with the Act orother Federal audit requirements.However, these State and localgovernments should have an audit madein accordance with State or localregulations.

d. Nothing in this paragraph exemptsState or local governments frommaintaining records of Federal financialassistance or from providing access tosuch records to a Federal agency or theComptroller General, as provided for inFederal law or in Circular A-102,"Uniform requirements for grants toState or local governments."

5. Definitions. For the purposes of thisCircular the following definitions fromthe Single Audit Act apply:

a "Cognizant agency" means theFederal agency assisged by the Officeof Management and Budget to carry outthe responsibilities described inparagraph 12 of this Circular.

b. "Federal financial assistance"means assistance provided by a Federalagency in the form of grants, contracts,cooperative agreements, loans, loan

guarantees, property, interest subsidies,insurance, or direct appropriations, butdoes not include direct Federal cashassistance to individuals. It includesawards received directly from Federalagencies, or indirectly through otherunits of State and local governments.

c. "Federal agency" has the samemeaning as the term 'agency' in section551(1) of Tite 5, United States Code.

d. "Generally accepted accountingprinciples" has the meaning specified inthe generally accepted governmentauditing standards.

e. "Generally accepted governmentauditing standards" means theStandards ForAudit of GovernmentalOrganizations, Programs, Activities, andFunctions, issued by the ComptrollerGeneral on February 27,1981.

f. "Independent auditor" means:(1) An external State or local

government auditor who meets theindependence standards specified ingenerally accepted government auditingstandards; or

(2) A public accountant who meetssuch independence standards.

g. "Internal controls" means the planof organization and methods andprocedures adopted by management toensure that

(1) Resource use is consistent vithlaws, regulations, and policies;

(2) Resources are safeguarded arainstwaste, loss, and misuse; and

(3) Reliable data are obtained,maintained and fairly disclosed inreports.

h. "Indian tribe" means any Indiantribe, band, nations, or other organizedgroup or community, including anyAlaskan Native village or regional orvillage corporations (as defined in, orestablished under, the Alasl:an Nativeclaims Settlement Act) that isrecognized by the United States aseligible for the special programs andservices provided by the United Statesto Indians because of their status asIndians.."Local government" means any unit

of local government within a State,including a county, a borough,municipality, city, town, township,parish, local public authority, specialdistrict, school district, intrastatedistrict, council of governments. and anyother instrumentality of localgovernment.

j. "Major Federal assistanceprogram", as defined by Pub. L 93-502,is presented in Attachment A to thisCircular.

k. "Public accountants" means thoseindividuals who meet the qualificationstandards included in generallyaccepted government auditing standards

for personnel performing governmentaudits.

1. "State" means any State of theUnited States, the District of Columbia,the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, theVirgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,the Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands. and the Trust territoryof the Pacific Islands, anyinstrumentality thereof, and any multi-State regional, or interstate entity thathas governmental functions and anyIndian tribe.

m. "Subrecipient" means any personor government department, agency, orestablishment that receives Federalfinancial assistance to carry out aprogram through a State or localgovernment, but does not include anindividual that is a beneficiary of such aprogram.

G. Scope of audit. The Single AuditAct provides that:

a. Each audit shall cover the entireoperations of a State or localgovernment or, at the option of thatgovernment, it may cover departments,agencies or estalishments that received,expended, or otherwise administeredFederal financial assistance durng theyear. However if a State or local

government receives over $25,000 inGeneral Revenue Sharing funds in afiscal year, it shall have an audit of theentire organization. A series of audits ofindividual departments, agencies, andestablishments for the same fiscal yearmay be considered a single audit.

b. The audit may exclude publicho3pitals and public colleges anduniversities.

c. The audit shall determine andreport in accordance with paragraph 14of the Circular on whether.

(1) The financial statements of theorganization present fairly its financialposition and the results of its financialoprations in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles and theorganization has complied with lawsand regulations that may have ameterial effect on the financialstatements;

(2) The organization has internalaccounting and a administrative controlsystems to provide reasonableassurance that it is managing Federalfinancial assistance programs incompliance with applicable laws andregulations; and

(3) The organization has compliedwith laws and regulations that may havea material effect upon each majorFederal assistance program.

d. The audit should be done inaccordance with generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards coveringfinancial and compliance audits.

50135


7 Frequency of audit. Audits shall bemade annually unless the State or localgovernment has by January 1, 1987, aconstitutional or statutory requirementfor less frequent audits. For thosegovernments, the cognizant agency shallpermit biennial audits, if the governmentso requests. It shall also honor requestsfor biennial audits by governments thathave an administrative policy calling foraudits less frequent than annual, butonly for fiscal years beginning beforeJanuary 1, 1987 The audit report shouldbe forwarded to the FederalGovernment within a year after the endof the audit period.

8. Compliance testing. The SingleAudit Act requires the auditor toevaluate systems established to ensurecompliance with laws and regulationsapplicable to Federal assistanceprograms the unit of government carriedout. It also requires the auditor todetermine whether the government,department or agency has complied withlaws and regulations that have amaterial effect upon each major Federalassistance program.

a. In order to determine which majorprograms are to be tested forcompliance, State and localgovernments shall identify in theiraccounts all Federal funds received andexpended and the programs underwhich they were received. This shallinclude funds received directly fromFederal agencies and through otherState and local governments.

b. The evaluation must include theselection and testing of a representativenumber of charges from each majorFederal assistance program. Theselection and testing of transactionsshall be based on the independentauditor's professional judgmentconsidering such factors as the amountof expenditures for the program and theindividual awards; the newness of theprogram or changes in its conditions;prior experience -with the programparticularly as revealed in audits andother evaluations {e.g., inspections,program reviews); the extent to whichthe program is carried out throughsubrecipients; the extent to which theprogram contracts for goods or services;the level to which the program isalready subject to program reviews orother forms of independent oversight;the adequacy of the controls forensuring compliance; the expectationadherence or lack of adherence to theapplicable laws and regulations; and thepotential impact of adverse findings.

c. Transactions selected fromnonmajor Federal assistance programsin connection with examinations of.financial statements and internalcontrols shall be tested for compliance

with Federal laws and regulations thatapply to such transactions.

d. In making these tests the auditorshall determine whether.

The amounts claimed on Federalfinancial reports and claims for 'advances and reimbursements were forallowable services and thus its claimsfor Federal assistance were proper andsupported by the books and recordsfrom which basic financial statementshave been prepared;

The recipients of services or benefitswere eligible to receive them;

Matching requirements, levels ofeffort, and earmarking limitations werefulfilled;

Other special requirements were met;and

Amounts claimed, or used formatching, were determined inaccordance with OMB Circular A-87,"Cost principles for State and localgovernments," and attachment F ofCircular A-102, "Uniform requirementsfor grants to State and localgovernments."

e. The auditor may ascertain theprincipal compliance requirements ofthe largest Federal aid programs byreferring to the Compliance Supplementfor Single Audits of State and LocalGovernments, published by OMB andavailable from the Government PrintingOffice. For those programs not coveredin the compliance supplement, thealiditor may ascertain compliancerequirements by researching thestatutes, regulations, and agreementsgoverning individual programs.

9. Other testing. The recipient'sindependent auditor is responsible for.

a. Reviewing the recipient's system formonitoring subrecipients and obtainingand acting on subrecipient audit reports.

b. Testing to determine whether thesesystems are functioning in accordancewith prescribed procedures.

c. Commenting on the recipient'smonitoring procedures, if warranted bythe circumstances.

d. Considering whether subrecipientaudits require adjustment of therecipient's financial statements, footnotedisclosure, or modification of the -auditor's report.

10. Subrecipients. Each State or localgovernment that receives Federalfinancial assistance and provides$25,000 or more of it in a-fiscal year to asubrecipient shall:

a. Ensure that the subrecipient hasmet the audit requirements of thisCircular or Circular A-110, "Uniformrequirements for grants to universities,hospitals, and other nonprofitorganizations";

b. Determine whether the subrecipientspent Federal assistance funds in

accordance with applicable laws andregulations. This may be accomplishedby reviewing an audit pof thesubrecipient made in accordance withthis Circular, Circular A-110, or throughother means (e.g., program reviews) ifthe-subrecpient has not had such anaudit;

c. Ensure that appropriate correctiveaction is taken within six months afterissuance of the audit report in instancesof material noncompliance with lawsand regulations:

d. Require each subrecipient to permitindependent auditors to have acces0 tothe records and financial statements asnecessary to comply with this Circular.

11. Relation to other auditrequirements. The Single Audit Actprovides that an audit made inaccordance with this Circular shall be inlieu of any audit required underindividual Federal assistance programs.A single audit should provide Federalagencies with information andassurances they need to carry out theirresponsibilities, and they shall rely uponand use that information, Any Federalaudits shall be planned and made insuch a way as to avoid duplication ofeffort. This applies to State or localgovernments that make audits inaccordance with this Circular eventhough not required to do so.

a. A Fedbiral agency shall make anyadditional audits that are necessary tocarry out its responsibilities underFederal law or regulation. Theprovisions of this Circular do notauthorize any State or local government(or subrecipient thereof) to constrain, inany manner, such agency from carryingout such additional audits.

b. The provisions of this Circular donot limit the authority of Federalagencies to make, or contract for auditsand evaluations of Federal financialassistance programs, nor do they limitt~e authority of any Federal agencyInspector General or other Federal auditofficial.

c. A Federal agency that makes orcontracts for audits in addition to theaudits made by recipients pursuant tothis Circular shall, consistent with otherapplicable laws and regulations, arrangefor funding the cost of such additionalaudits..Such additional audits includeeconomy and efficiency audits, programresults audits, and program evaluations.

12. Cognizant agency responsibilities.The Single Audit Act provides forcognizant Federal agencies to overseethe implementation of this Circular.

a. The Office of Management andBudget will assign cognizant agenciesfor State and larger local governments.Other Federal agencies may participate

I I [ I I I50136


with an assigned cognizant agency, inorder to fulfill the cognizantresponsibilities. Smaller governmentsnot assigned a cogmzant agency shouldcontact the Federal agency that providesthem the most funds to-work out acognizant agency agreement.

b. A cognizant agency shall have thefollowing responsibilities.

(1) Ensure that audits are made in atimely manner and in accordance withthe requirements of this Circular.

(2) Provide the liaison between theFederal audit organizations and therecipient entities and independentauditors.

(3) Provide technical advice to Stateand lodal governments and independentauditors.

(4) Obtain or make quality controlreviews of individual audits made bynon-Federal audit organizations, andprovide, when appropriate the results toother interested organizations.

(5) Inform other affected Federalorganizations of any reported illegalacts or irregularities. The Federalorganizations, m turn, shall informappropriate Federal law enforcementofficials. State or local government lawenforcement and prosecutionauthorities, if not advised by therecipient, may also be informed of anyviolation of law within their ]urisdictionby the cognizant agency.

[6) Advise the recipient of audits thathave been found not to have met therequirements set forth in this Circular. Insuch instances, the recipient will workwith the auditor to take correctiveaction. If corrective action is not taken,the cognizant agency shall notify therecipient and Federal awarding agenciesof the facts and make recommendations,if appropriate. Major madequacies orrepetitive substandard performance ofindependent auditors shall be referredto appropriate professional bodies fordisciplinary action.

(7) Coordinate, to the extentpracticable, audits made by or forFederal agencies that are in addition tothe audits made pursuant to thisCircular, and ensure that the additionalaudits build upon such audits.

(8) Oversee the resolution of auditfindings that affect the programs of morethan one agency.

c. Additional information concerningthe roles of the cognizant agencies canbe found in cognizant agency guidelines,published by the Joint FinancialManagement Improvement Program.

13. Illegal acts or irregularities. If theauditor becomes aware of illegal acts orother irregularities, prompt notice shallbe given to recipient management'officials above the level of involvement.(See also paragraph 14ta]3 below for the

auditor's reporting responsibilities.) Therecipient, in turn, shall promptly notifythe cognizant agency of the illegal actsor irregularities and of proposed andactual actions, if any. Illegal acts andirregularities include such matters asconflicts of interest, falsification ofrecords or reports, andmisappropriations of funds or otherassets.

14. Audit Reports. Audit reports mustbe prepared at the completion of theaudit and shall include the followimn

a. The audit report shall state that theaudit was made in accordance with theprovisions of this Circular. The reportshall be made up of:

(1) An auditor's report on financialstatements and on a schedule of Federalassistance; the financial statements anda schedule of Federal assistanceshoring the total expenditures for eachFederal assistance program as identifiedin the Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance.

(2) An internal control report on thestudy and evaluation of accounting andadministrative control systems. Thereport must identify the entity'ssignificant internal accounting controls,the controls that were evaluated, thecontrols that were not evaluated, andthe material weaknesses identified as aresult of the evaluation.

(3] A compliance report contamingA statement of positive assurance

with respect to those items tested forcompliance (including compliance withlaw and regulations pertaining tofinancial reports and claims foradvances and reimbursements);

Negative assurance on those items nottested;

All instances of noncompliance andinstances or indications of illegal actoand irregularities found in connectionwith the audit.

An identification of the total amountsquestioned, if any, as a result ofnoncompliance, fraud, abuse, or illegalacts or irregularities for each Federalassistance program (without regard towhether a condition giving rise to thequestioned cost has been corrected, orwhether the recipient entity does ordoes not agree with the finding orqueslioned costs).

b. The three parts of the audit reportmay be bound into a single report. orsimultaneously presented as separatedocuments.

c. In addition to the audit report, therecipient shall provide comments on thefindings and recommendations in thereport, including a plan for correctiveactions taken or planned and commentson the status of corrective action taLenon prior findings. If corrective action isnot necessary, a statement describing

the reason it is not should accompanythe audit report.

d. The reports shall be made availableby the State or local government forpublic inspection.

e. In accordance with generallyaccepted government audit standards,reports shall be submitted to theorganization audited and to thoserequiring or arranging for the audit. Inaddition, the standards provide forcopies of the reports to be sent to otherofficials who may be responsible fortaking action and to others authorized toreceive such reports.

E Recipients of more than MUO0.MO0 inFederal funds shall, in addition to copiesprovided to appropriate Federal, State.or local program officials, transmit theaudit report(s) withm 20 days after itsissuance to a central cleannghouse to bedesignated by the Office of Managementand Bud-at. The clearinghouse willassure that the reports meet therequirements of this Circular and thatreports with fimdings and/or questionedcost are distributed to appropriateofficials of the departments andagencies providing Federal assistance.Federal departments and agenciesdesinr copies of all audit reports maywork out separate arrangements vith..the clearinghouse. Audit reports that donot contain findings andrecommendations will be kept on file atthe clearicghouse and provided toappropriate Federal officials uponrequest.

g. Recipients of less than SI0053shall Ikcep audit reports on file andavailable for reivew upon request byFederal agencies.

15. Audit Resolution. As provided inparagraph 12, the cognizant agency shallbe responsible for overseeing theresolution of audit findings that affectthe programs of more than one Federalagency. Resolution of findings thatrelate solely to the programs of a singleFederal agency vill be the responsibilityof the recipient and that agency.Alternate arrangements may be madeon a case-by-case basis by agreementbetween the agencies concerned.

Resolution shall be made within sixmonths after receipt of the report by thedepartments and agencies that providedFederal assistance funds to State andlocal governments. Corrective actionshould proceed as rapidly as possible.

16. Audit worpapers and reports.Wor1papers and reports shall beretained for a mimmum of three yearsfrom the date of the audit report. unlessthe audit is notified in writing by thecognizant agency to extend the retentionperiod. Audit workpapers shall be madeavailable upon request to the cognizant

50137


agency or its designee or the GeneralAccounting Office, at the completion ofthe audit.

17, Audit Costs. The cost of auditsmade in accordance with the provisionsof this Circular are allowable charges toFederal assistance programs.

a. The charges may be considered adirect cost or an allocated indirect cost,determined in accordance with theprovisions of Circular A-87, "Costprinciples for State and localgovernments." Generally, the percentageof costs charges to Federal assistanceprograms for a single audit shall notexceed the percentage that Federalfunds represent of total expenditures ofthe recipient during the fiscal year. Theceiling may be exceeded, however, ifappropriate documentationdemonstrates higher actual cost.

b. No cost may be charged to Federalassistance programs for financial auditsor financial and compliance auditsrequired ,by the Single Audit Act that arenot made in accordance with theCircular.

18. Small and Minority Audit Firms.Small audit firms and audit firms ownedand controlled by socially andeconomically disadvantaged individualsshall have the maximum practicableopportunity to participate in theperformance of contracts awarded tofulfill the audit requirements of thisCircular. Recipients of Federalassistance shall take the following stepsto further this goal:

a. Assure that small audit firms andaudit firms owned and controlled bysocially and economicallydisadvantaged individuals are used tothe fullest extent practicable.

b. Make information on forthcomingopportunities available and arrangetimeframes for the audit so as toencourage and facilitate participation bysmall audit firms and audit firms ownedand controlled by socially andeconomically disadvantagedindividuals.

c. Consider in the contract processwhether firms competing for largeraudits intend to subcontract with smallaudit firms and audit firms owned and,controlled by socially and economicallydisadvantaged individuals.

d, Encourage contracting with smallaudit firms or audit firms owned andcontrolled by socially and economicallydisadvantaged individuals which havetraditionally audited governmentprograms and, in such cases where thisis not possible, assure that these firmsare given consideration for auditsubcontracting opportunities.

e. Encourage contracting withconsortiums of small audit firms asdescribed in paragraph (a) above when

a contract is too large for an individualsmall audit firm or audit firm owned andcontrolled by socially and economicallydisadvantaged individuals.

f. Use the services and assistance, asappropriate, of such organizations as theSmall Business Administration in thesolicitation and utilization of small auditfirms or audit firms owned andcontrolled by socially and economicallydisadvantaged individuals.

19. Reporting. Each Federal agencywill report to the Disrector of OMB on orbefore March 1, 1987, and annuallythereafter on the effectiveness of Stateand local governments carrying out theprovisions of this Circular. The reportmust identify each State or localgovernment or Indian tribe that, in theopinion of the agency, is failing tocomply with the Circular.

20. Regulations. Each Federal agencyshall promulgate a common regulation toimplement the requirements of thisCircular.

21. Effective date. This Circular iseffective on publication.

22. Inquiries. All questions orinquiries should be addressed to PalmerA. Marcantonio; Financial ManagementDivision, Office of Management andBudget, telephone number 2021395-3993.

23. Sunset review date. This Circularshall have an independent policy reviewto ascertain its effectiveness three yearsfrom the date of issuance.David A. Stockman,Director.

Attachment A-Defiition of MajorProgram as provided m Pub. L. 98-502

Major Federal assistance programmeans any program for which totalexpenditures of Federal financialassistance by the State or localgovernment during the applicable yearexceeded-

(A) $20,000,000 in the case of a Stateor local government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$7,000,000,000;

(B) $19,000,000 in the case of a State orlocal government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$6,000,000,000 but are less than or equalto $7,000,000,000;

(C) $16,000,000 in the case of a Stateor local government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$5,000,000,000 but are less than or equalto $6,000,000,000;

(D) $13,000,000 in the case of a Stateor local government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$4,000,000,000 but are less than or equalto $5,000,000,000;

(E) $10,000,000 in the case of a State orlocal government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed

$3,000,000,000 but are less than or equalto $4,000,000,000;

(F) $7,000,000 in the case of a State orlocal government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$2,000,000.000 but are less than or equalto $3,000,000,000;

(G) $4,000,000 n the case of a State orlocal government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$1,000,000,000 but are less than or equalto $2,000,000,000;

(H) $3,000,000 in the case of a State orlocal government for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$1,000,000,000;

(I) the larger of (i) $300,000 or (ii) 3percent of such total expenditures for allprograms, in the case of a State or localgovernment for which such totalexpenditures for all programs exceed$1o0,ooo but are less than or equal to$100,000,000;[FR Dec. 84-33499 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3110-01-M

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTYCORPORATION

Withdrawal of Requests forDetermination of Substantial Damageor No Substantial Damage WithRespect to Cessation of Contributionsby Arrow Transportation Co., Inc., toRoad Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund

AGENCY: Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporation.ACTION: Notice of withdrawal ofrequests.

SUMMARY: This notice advises interestedpersons of the withdrawal of requestsfor a determination of substantialdamage or no substantial damage undersection 4203(d) of the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act of 1974,as amended ("ERISA"), Section 4203(d)provides a special withdrawal rule forcessations of contributions involvingplans and employers in the truckingindustry (as defined in that section), OnMay 36, 1984, the Pension BenefitGuaranty Corporation published (at 40FR 22583) a notice of the pendency of arequest from Road Carriers Local 707Pension Fund for a determination ofsubstantial damage under section4203(d)(4) of ERISA. and a request fromArrow Transportation Co., Inc., for adetermination of no substantial damage.under section 4203(d)(5) of ERISA, withrespect to the cessation of contributionsunder the Fund by Arrow, Both the Fundand Arrow have withdrawn theirrequests. The effect of this notice is to

50138


advise interested persons that theserequests have been withdrawn.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Deborah Murphy. Attorney, CorporatePolicy and Regulations Department(611], Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporation, 2020 K Street, NW.,Washington, D.C. 20006; 202-254-4860(202-254-8010 for TTY and TDD). Theseare not toll-free numbers.

Issued at Washington, D.C., this 19th day ofDecember 1984.David M. Walker,Acting Executive Director, Pension BenefitGuaranty Corporation.[FR Doc. 84-33461 Filed 12-24-84:8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7708-01-M

Pendency of Request for ExemptionFrom Bond/Escrow RequirementRelating to Sale of Assets by anEmployer That Contributes to aMultiemployer Plan; the Great Atlantic& Pacific Tea Company, Inc., andKohl's Food Stores, Inc. (Case No.120-563)AGENCY: Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporation.ACTION: Notice of pendency of request.

SUMMARY: This notice advises interestedpersons that the Pension BenefitGuaranty Corporation has received arequest from The Great Atlantic &Pacific Tea Company, Inc., and Kohl'sFood Stores. Inc., for an exemption fromthe bond/escrow requirement of section4204(a)(1)(B) of the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act of 1974.Section 4204[a)(1) provides that the saleof assets by an employer thatcontributes to a multiemployer pensionplan will not result in a complete orpartial withdrawal from the plan ifcertain conditions are met. One of theseconditions is that the purchaser post abond or deposit money in escrow forfive plan years beginning after the sale.ERISA authorizes the PBGC to grantexemptions from this requirement aftergiving interested persons an opportunityto comment on the exemption request.The effect of this notice is to adviseinterested persons of this exemptionrequest and to solicit their views on it.DATES: Commenters must submitcomments on or before February 11,1985.

ADDRESSES: Commenters shouldaddress all written comments to:Director, Corporate Policy andRegulations Department (611), PensionBenefit Guaranty Corporation, 2020 KStreet, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.The exemption request and thecomments received will be available for

public inspection at the PBGCCommunications and Public AffairsDepartment, Suite 7100, at the aboveaddress, between the hours of 9:00 a.m.and 4:00 p.m.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Deborah Murphy, attorney, CorporatePolicy and Regulations Department(611), Pension benefit guarantyCorporation, 2020 K Street, NW.,Washington, DC 20006; 202-254-4pGo(202-254-8010 for TTY and TDD). Theseare not toll-free numbers.SUPPJEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundSection 4204(a)(1) of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974("ERISA") provides that a bona fidearm's-length saleof assets to anunrelated party by an employer thatcontributes to a multiemployer pensionplan will not result in a withdrawal ifthree conditions are met. Theseconditions, listed in section4204(a)(1](A)-(C), are that-

(A] The purchaser has an obligation tocontribute to the plan for substantiallythe same number of contribution baseunits for which the seller was obligatedto contribute;

(B) the purchaser obtains a bond orplaces an amount in escrow, for a periodof five plan years after the sale, in anamount equal to the greater of theseller's average required annualcontribution to the plan for the threeplan years before the year of sale or theseller's required annual contribution forthe plan year before the year of sale;and

(CJThe contract of sale provides thatif the purchaser withdraws from theplan within the first five plan yearsbeginning after the sale and fails to payits liability to the plan, the seller will besecondarily liable for the liability it (theseller) would have had but for section4204.

The bond or escrow described abovewill be paid to the plan if the purchaserwithdraws from the plan or fails tomake any required contributions to theplan within the first five plan 3 earsbeginning after the sale.

Section 4204(c) of ERISA authorizesthe Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporation ("PBGC") to grantexemptions from the purchaser's bond/escrow requirement of section4204(a](1)(B) and the contract-provisionrequirement of section 42(4(a](1)(C). Thelegislative history of section 4204indicates a Congressional intent that thesales rules be administered in a mannerthat assures protection of plans w-ith theleast practicable intrusion into normalbusiness transactions. The granting of

an exemption from the requirements ofsection 4204(a)(1) (B) or (C) is not afinding by the PBGC that the transactionsatisfies the other requirements ofsection 4204(a)(1).

Under § 2643.3(a) of the PBGC'sregulation on procedures for variancefor sales of assets (29 CFR Part 2643),the PBGC , ill approve an exemptionrequest if it determines that approval ofthe exemption-

(1) Will more effectively or equitablycarry out the purposes of Title IV ofERISA and

(2) Will not significantly increase therisk of financial loss to the plan.Section 4204(c) of ERISA and § 2543.3[b)of the regulation require the PBGC topublish a notice of the pendency of arequest for an exemption in the FederalRegister, and to provide interestedparties with an opportunity to commenton the proppsed exemption.

The Request

The PBGC has received a request fromThe Great Atlantic & Pacific TeaCompany. Inc. ("A & P"), and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kohl's Food Stores,Inc. ("Kohl's"). to waive the bond/escrow requirement of section4204(a)(1)IB) of ERISA. (The requestantedates the amendments to 29 CFRPart 2643 that were published in theFederal Register on May 31,1984 (49 FR22035).) The applicants represent. amon;other things, as follows:

1. Effective October 1.1983. Kohl'spurchased from Brown & WilliamsonTobacco Corporation ("B & 1%"j certainof the property, assets and business of B& B's Kohl Food Store Division. As partof the transaction, Kohl's acquired thestock of several wholly-ownedsubsidiaries ["Subs") of B &W thatfunctioned as part of the food storebusiness.

2. Before the sale of assets, B & Wand/or one or more of the Subs had anobligation, pursuant to collectivebargaining agreements with four unions.to contribute to four pension plans, vjz.:

tlr. n 11 IZn

U1Fc-.1 eCamv:Jurz . A5L-C:.-CLC

e-i 214

cr;0c"-rzi 7.1 LccaiLmZ al~ A:£c-xLe

PL1-rfe Area R=--i Fc:jictks ft c F,:edrFc,-d CL-eks F-d)5'

Urt:d Fc'-d ard4Cr~r~

cr--- Me=i andi Ared fn-&zty Pe-ea Feaz

cc:"e S*r. e==~znj~~z Arc=P--

S-Fun mtj. S :

50139


Union Plan

Carpenters Distnct Council ot Building Trades *United Pen-Milwaukee, Waukesha. sion Trust Fund ("BuildingWashington and Ozaukee Trades Fund").Counties

A & P and/or Kohl's agreed to assume B& W's and the Subs' obligation tocontribute to the plans in accordancewith the related collective bargainingagreements.

3. Assuming that the entiretransaction, including the transfer of theSubs, constituted a sale of assets undersection 4204 of ERISA, the total bond/escrow amount required of A & P and/orKohl's under section 4204(a)(1)(B) is$3,185,819, and the estimated totalamount of the withdrawal liability thatB & W and/or the Subs would otherwiseincur as a result of the sale if section4204 did not apply to the sale is$15,819,180, broken down as follows:

Plan Bond WithdrawalIiabiily

Food Clerks Fund ........... $1,421.102 S6.832,196UFCW Plan .............. 990.451 5.019,605Central States Fund ................. 762,757 3,967.379Building Trades Fund....... ... 8,509 None

A & P contributed to the Central StatesFund (but not to the other three plans)before the transaction. A & P's estimatedpotential pre-transaction withdrawalliability to the Central States Fund is$6,319,590.

(4) A & P and its consolidatedsubsidiaries had net tangible assets of$180,397,000 as of the end of their fiscalyear ending in February 1983 and anaverage net loss of $37,824,000 for thethree fiscal years ending in February1983. (They had net income of$31,211,000 for the single year ending inFebruary 1983.)

(5) The applicants have sent a copy ofthis request (excluding a copy of the sale-contract and attachments thereto) to the.four pension plans and the collectivebargaining representatives of the formeremployees of Kohl's by certified mail,return receipt requested.

Comments

The PBGC invites all interestedpersons to submit written comments onthe pehding exemption request to theabove address by February 11, 1985. ThePBGC will make all comments a part ofthe record. Comments received, as wellas the application for exemption, will beavailable for public inspection at theaddress set forth above.

Issued at Washington, D.C., on this 19thday of December 1984.David M. Walker,Acting Executive Director, Pension BenefitGuaranty Corporation.[FR Doc: 84-33462 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILUING CODE 7708-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice CM-8/791]

Integrated Services Digital Network(ISDN) Joint Working Party of the U.S.Organization for the InternationalTelegraph and Telephone ConsultativeCommittee (CCITT); Meeting

The Department of State announcesthat the ISDN Joint Working Party of theU.S. Organization for the InternationalTelegraph and Telephone ConsultativeCommittee will meet January 7,1985 inRoom 1205, Department of State, 2201 CStreet, NW., Washington, D.C. Themeeting will begin at 9:30 a.m.

The agenda for the meeting is asfollows:

1. Report on CCITT Study Group XI/6meeting;

2. Consideration of contributions forthe Study Group XVIII Group of ExpertsMeeting on ISDN;

3. Other business.Members of the general public may

attend the meeting and join in thediscussion, subject to the instructions ofthe Chairman. Admittance of publicmembers will be limited to the seatingavailable. In that regard, entrance to theDepartment of State building iscontrolled and entry will be facilitated ifarrangements are made in advance ofthe meeting. It is therefore suggestedthat prior to the meeting, persons whoplan to attend, so advise the office ofMr. Earl Barbely, State Department,Washington, D:C., telephone (202) 632-3405. All attendees must use the C Streetentrance to the building.

Dated: December 4,1984.Earl S. Barbely,Chairman U.S. CCIT'Notional Committee.[FR Doc. 84-33429 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILNG CODE 4710-07-M

[Public Notice CM-8/794]

Shipping Coordinating Committee;Subcommittee on Safety of Life at SeaWorking Group on RadioCommunications; Meeting

The Working Group on RadioCommunications of the Subcommitteeon Safety of Life at Sea will conduct anopen meeting at 0930 on January 10,1985, in room 9230 of the Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,Washington, D.C.

The purpose of the meeting is toprepare position documents for theTwenty-ninth Session of theSubcommittee on RadioCommunications of the InternationalMaritime Organization to be held inLondon during April 1985. In particularthe working group will discuss thefollowing topics:,Maritime Distress SystemDigital Selective CallingSatellite Emergency Position Indicating

Radio BeaconsPreparations for the International

Telecommunication Union (ITU)World Administrative RadioConference (WARC) for MobileTelecommunications

Preparations for International RadioConsultative Committee (CCIR) StudyGroup 8

Members of the public may attend up tothe seating capacity of the room.

For further information contact Mr.Richard Swanson, U.S. Coast GuardHeadquarters (G-TPP-3/63), 2100 2ndStreet, SW., Washington, DC. 20593,Telephone: (202) 420-1231.

Dated: Decemiber 14,1984.Samuel V. Smith,Executive Secretory, Shipping CoordinatlnCommittee.[FR Doc. 84-33433 Filed 12-24-84; :45 am]BILUiNG COO 4710-0"-M

[Public Notice CM-8/7931

Shipping Coordinating CommitteeSubcommittee on UNCTAD; Meeting

The Subcommittee on the UnitedNations Conference on Trade andDevelopment of the ShippingCoordinating Committee (SHC) will holdan open meeting at 10:00 a.m on January17, 1985, in Room 1207 of the Departmentof State, 2201 C Street, NW.,Washington, D.C.

The purpose of the meeting is todiscuss United States preparations forthe United Nations Conference onConditions for Registration of Shipsfrom January 28 to February 15,1985. Inparticular, the Subcommittee willdiscuss the development of U.S.positions regarding proposals ofConference President, Lamine Fadika,designed to find common ground amongConference participants, expeciallyconcerning the issues of ownership,management, and manning.

Members of the public may attend upto the seating capacity of the room.Entrance to the Department of Statebuilding is controlled and entry will bo

50140


facilitated if arrangements are made inadvance of the meeting. For furtherinformation, contact Mr. Ronald M.Roberts, Office of Maritime and LandTransport, Room 5826, Department ofState, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington,D.C. 20520. Telephone (202) 632-0703.

Dated: December 5.1984.Samuel V. Smith,Executive Secretary. Shipping CoordinatingCommittee.IFR Doc. 84-33431 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am]BILLNG CODE 4710"o7-M


Study Group 5 of the U.S. Organizationfor the International RadioConsultative Committee (CCIR);Meeting

The Department of State announcesthat Study Group 5 of the U.S.Organization for the International RadioConsultative Committee (CCIR) willmeet on January 8,1985 in Room 3012,Radio Building, Department ofCommerce, 325 S. Broadway, Boulder,Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9:30a.m.

Study Group 5 deals with propagationof radio waves (including radio noise) atthe surface of the earth, through the non-ionized regions of the earth'satmosphere, and in space where theeffect of ionization is negligible. Thepurpose of the meeting will be to reviewthe work program in prepara-tion for theinternational meeting of Study Group 5in September-October 1985.

Members of the general public mayattend the meeting and join in thediscussions subject to be instructions ofthe Chairman. Admittance of publicmembers will be limited to the seatingavailable. Requests for furtherinformation should be directed to Mr.Richard Shrum, State Department,Washington, D.C. 20520; telephone (202)632-2592.

Dated: December 4,1984.Earl S. Barbely,Director. Office of InternationalCommunications Policy.[FR Doc. 84-33430 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am)BILLING CODE 4710-07-M


Study Group 7 of the U.S. Organizationfor the International Radio-Consultative Committee (CCIR);Meeting

The Department of State announcesthat Study Group 7 of the U.S.Organization for the International Radio

Consultative Committee (CCIR) willmeet on January 17,1915 at the U.S.Naval Observatory. in the ConferenceRoom in Building No. 1.34th andMassachusetts Avenue, NW.,Washington, D.C. The meeting willbegin at 9:30 a.m.

Study Group 7 deals with time-signalservices by means ofradiocommumcations. The purpose ofthe meeting is to review preparations forthe international meeting of StudyGroup 7 in October 1985.

Members of the general public mayattend the meeting and join in thediscussions subject to the instructions ofthe Chairman. Requests for furtherinformation should be directed to Mr.Richard Shrum, State Department,Washington, D.C. 20520 (telephone (202)632-2592).

Dated: December 4. 1984.Earl S. Barbely,Director. Office of InternationalCommumcations Policy.[FR Doc. 84-33428 Filed 12-24-PA; 8.45 am1BILLING COCE 4710-07-ia

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


[DepL Circ.: Public Debt-flo; 40-841

Treasury Notes of December 31, 1988;Series Q-1988

1. Invitation for Tenders1.1. The Secretary of the Treasury.

under the authority of Chapter 31 of -

Title 31, United States Code, invitestenders for approximately S6,200,000,000of United States securities, designatedTreasury Notes of December 31, 1938,Series Q-1988 (CUSIP No. 912827 RS 3).The securities will be sold at auction,with bidding on the basis of yield.Payment will be required at the priceequivalent of the bid yield of eachaccepted tender. The interest rate on thesecurities and the price equivalent ofeach accepted bid will be determined inthe manner described below. Additionalamounts of these securities may beissued to Government accounts andFederal Reserve Banks for their ownaccount in exchange for maturingTreasury securities. Additional amountsof the new securities may also be issuedat the average price to Federal ReserveBanks, as agents for foreign andinternational monetary authorities.

2. Description of Securities2.1. The securities will be dated

December 31, 1984. and will bearinterest from that date, payable on asemiannual basis on June 30.1985, and

each subsequent 6 months on December31 and June 30 until the principalbecomes payable. They will matureDecember 31, 1988. and will not besubject to call for redemption prior tomaturity. In the event an interestpayment date or the maturity date is aSturday, Sunday, or other nonbusinessday, the interest or principal is payableon the next-succeeding business day.

2.2. The securities are subject to alltaxes imposed under the InternalRevenue Code of 1954. The securitiesare exempt from all taxation now orhereafter imposed on the obligation orinterest thereof by any State, anypossession of the United States, or anylocal taxing authority, except asprovided in 31 U.S.C. 3124.

2.3. The securities will be acceptableto secure deposits of public monies.They will not be acceptable in paymentof taxes.

2.4. Securities registered as toprincipal and interest will be issued indenominations of 51,000, $5,000, $10,000,SO.000, and S1,00.000. Book-entrysecurities will be available to eligiblebidders in multiples of those amounts.Interchanges of securities of differentdenominations and of registered andbook-entry securities, and the transfer ofregistered securities will be permitted.Bearer securities will not be available,and the interchange of registered orboo%-entry securities for bearersecurities will not be permitted.

2.5. The Department of the Treasury sgeneral regulations governing UnitedStates securities apply to the securitiesoffered in this circular. These generalregulations include those currently ineffect, as well as those that may beissued at a later data.

3. Sale Procedures3.1. Tenders will be received at

Federal Reserve Banks and Branchesand at the Bureau of the Public Debt,Washington. D.C. 20239, prior to 1:0p.m., Eastern Standard time,Wednesday, December 26,1934.Noncompetitive tenders as definedbelow will be considered timely if post-marked no later than Tuesday,December 26,1984. and received no laterthan Mondayi December 31,1934.

3.2. The face amount of securities bidfor must be stated on each tender. Theminimum bid is Sl.000. and larger bidsmust be in multiples of that amount.Competitive tenders must also show theyield desired, expressed in terms of anannual yield with two decimals, e.g.,7.107. Common fractions may not beused. Noncompetitive tenders mustshow the term "noncompetitive" on thetender form in lieu of a specified yield.

II

50141

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 19B4 / Notices

3.3. A single bidder, as defined inTreasury's single bidder guidelines, shallnot submit noncompetitive tenderstotaling more than $1,000,000. Anoncompetitive bidder may not haveentered into an agreement, nor make anagreement to purchase or sell orotherwise dispose of anynoncompetitive awards of this issuebeing auctioned prior to the designatedclosing time for receipt of tenders.

3.4. Commercial banks, which for thispurpose are defined as banks acceptingdemand.deposits, and primary dealers,which for this purpose are defined asdealers who make primary markets inGovernment securities and report dailyto the Federal Reserve Bank of NewYork their positions in and borrowingson such securities, may submit tendersfor account of customers if the names ofthe customers and the amount for eachcustomer are furnished. Others arepermitted to submit tenders only fortheir own account.

3.5. Tenders will be received withoutdeposit for their own account fromcommercial banks and other bankinginstitutions; primary dealers, as definedabove; Federally-insured savings andloan associations; States, and theirpolitical subdivisions orinstrumentalities; public pension andretirement and oter public funds;international organizations in which theUnited States holds membership; foreigncentral banks and foreign states; FederalReserve Banks; and Governmentaccounts. Tenders from others must beaccompanied by full payment for theamount of securities applied for (in theform of cash, maturing Treasurysecurities, or readily collectible checks),or by a payment guarantee of 5 percentof the face amount applied for, from acommercial bank or a primary dealer.

3.6. Immediately after the closinghour, tenders will be opened, followedby a public announcement of the amountand yield range of accepted bids.Subject to the reservations expressed insection 4, noncompetitive tenders willbe accepted in full, and then competitivetenders will be accepted, starting withthose at the lowest yields, throughsuccessively higher yields to the extentrequired to attain the amount offered.Tenders at the highest accepted yieldwill be prorated if necessary. After thedetermination is made as to whichtenders are accepted, an interest ratewill be established, on the basis of a 'Iof one percent increment, which resultsin an equivalent average accepted priceclose to 100.000 and a lowest acceptedprice above the original issue discountlimit of 99.000. That rate of interest willbe paid on all of the securities. Based on

such interest rate, the price on eachcompetitive tender allotted will bedetermined and each successfulcompetitive bidder will be required topay the price equivalent to the yield bid.Those submitting noncompetitivetenders will pay the price equivalent tothe weighted average yield of acceptedcompetitive tenders. Price calculations

-will be carried to three decimal placeson the basis of price per hundred, e.g.,99.923, and the determinations of theSecretary of the Treasury shall be final.If the amount of noncompetitive tendersreceived would absorb all or most of theoffering, competitive tenders will beaccepted in an amount sufficient toprovide -a fair determination of the yield.Tenders received from Governmentaccounts and Federal Reserve Bankswill be accepted at the price equivalentto the weighted average yield ofaccepted competitive tenders.

3.7 Competitive bidders will beadvised of the acceptance or rejection oftheir tenders. Those submittingnoncompetitive tenders will be notifiedonly if the tender is not accepted in full,or when the price is over par.

4. Reservations4.1. The Secretary of the Treasury

expressly reserves the right to accept orreject any or all tenders in whole or inpart, to allot more or less than theamount of securities specified in Section1, and to make different percentageallotments to various classes ofapplicants when the Secretary considersit in the public-interest. The Secretary'saction under this Section is final.

5. Payment and Delivery5.1. Settlement for allotted securities

must be made at the Federal ReserveBank or Branch or at the Bureau of thePublic Debt, wherever the tender wassubmitted. Settlement on securitiesallotted to institutional investors and toothers whose tenders are accompaniedby a payment guarantee as provided insection 3.5. must be made or completedon or before Monday, December 31,1984. Payment in full must accompanytenders submitted by all other investors.Payment must be in cash; in other fundsimmediately available to the Treasury;in Treasury bills, notes, or bonds (withall coupons detached) maturing on orbefore the settlement date but which arenot overdue as defined in the generalregulations governing United Statessecurities: or by check drawn to theorder of the institution to which thetender was submitted, which must bereceived from institutional investors nolater than Thursday. December 27,1984.In addition, Treasury Tax and LoanNote Option Depositaries may make

payment for allotted securities for theirown accounts and for account ofcustomers by credit to their TreasuryTax and Loan Note Accounts on orbefore Monday, December 31, 1984.When payment has been submitted withthe tender and the purchase price ofallotted securities is over par, settlementfor the premium must be completedtimely, as specified above. Whenpayment has been submitted with thetender and the purchase price is underpar, the discount will be remitted to thebidder. Payment will not be consideredcomplete where registered securities aiorequested if the appropriate identifyingnumber as required on tax returns andother documents submitted to theInternal Revenue Service (anindividual's social security number or anemployer identification number) is notfurnished. When payment is made Insecurities, a cash adjustment will bemade to or required of the bidder forany difference between the face amountof securities presented and the amountpayable on the securities allotted.

5.2. In every case where full paymenthas not been completed on time, anamount of up to 5 percent of the faceamount of securities allotted, shall, atthe discretion of the Secretary of theTreasury, be forfeited to the UnitedStates,

5.3. Registered securities tendered Inpayment for allotted securities are notrequired to be assigned if the newsecurities are to be registered in thesame names and forms as appear in theregistrations or assignments of thesecurities surrendered. When the newsecurities are to be registered in nameaand forms different from those in theinscriptions or assignments of thesecurities presented. the assignmentshould be to "The Secretary of theTreasury for (securities offered by thiscircular) in the name of (name andtaxpayer identifying number)." Specificinstructions for the issuance aiddelivery of the new securities, signed bythe owner or authorized representative,must accompany the securitiespresented. Securities tendered inpayment should be surrendered to theFederal Reserve Bank or Branch or tothe Bureau of the Public Debt,Washington, D.C. 20239, The securitiesmust be delivered at the expense andrisk of the holder.

5.4. Delivery of securities in registeredform will be made after the requestedform of registration has been validated,the registered interest account has beenestablished, and the securities havebeen inscribed.

50142


6. General Provisions6.1. As fiscal agents of the United

States, Federal Reserve Banks areauthorized and requested to receivetenders, to make allotments as directedby the Secretary of the Treasury, toissue such notices as may be necessary,and to receive payment for and makedelivery of securities on full-paidallotments.

6.2. The Secretary of the Treasurymay at any time issue supplemental oramendatory rules and regulationsgoverning the offering. Publicannouncement of such changes will bepromptly provided.Carole Jones Dineen,FiscalAssistantSecretary.[FR Doc. 84-33458 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 481-40-"

Public Information CollectionRequirements Submitted to 0MB forReview

The Department of Treasury hassubmitted the following publicinformation collection requirement(s] toOMB (listed by submitting bureau(s)),for review and clearance under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.L 96-511. Copies of these submissionsmay be obtained by calling the TreasuryBureau Clearance Officer listed undereach bureau. Comnents regarding theseinformation collections should beaddressed to the OMB reviewer listed atthe end of each bureau's listing and tothe Treasury Department CearanceOfficer, Room 7221, 1201 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20220.

Internal Revenue Service

0MB Number:. 1545-0705Form Number: IRS Form 6868Type of Review: RevisionTitle: Qualified Appraisers ApplicationOMB Number NewForm Number: IRS Form 8210Type of Review NewTitle: Self-Assessed Penalties ReturnOMB Number: NewForm Number: Informal Supplier StudyType of Review: NewTitle: Replication and Extension of the

Measurement of Selected IncomeFlows m Informal MarketsClearance Officer. Garrick Shear.

(202) 566-6254, Room 5571,1111Constitution Avenue, NW.. Washington.D.C. 20224.

OMB Reviewer Norman Frumkin.(202" 395-6380, Office of Managementand Budget, Room 3208, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Washington, D.C. 20303.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearmsOMB Number: 1512-0171Form Number ATF F 3373 (5330.3)Type of Review ExtensionTitle: Inventory-Export Warehouse

PropneterClearance Officer. Howard Hood,

(202) 566-7077, Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms, Room 2=28,Federal Building, 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20226.

OMB Reviewer Milo Sunderhauf,(202) 395--6880, Office of Managementand Budget, Room 3208, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Washington, D.C. 20303.

Bureau of the Public Debt0,M1B Number 1535-0059Form Number PD 1832T3ype of Review,': ExtensionTitle: Special Form of Detached

Assignment for United StatesTreasury Registered Securities

0,11B Number. 1535-0040Form Number: PD 2458-1Type of Revze;w ExtensionTitle: Certificate of Entitlement for

United States Registered Securitiesand Checks Not Exceeding 500.00After Administration of a DeceasedOwner s Estate

0MB Number. 1535-0034Form Number: PD 3475Type of Review. xtensionTitle: Special form for Assignment of

Federal housing Insurance FundDebentures

0MB Number. 1535-0052Form Number: PD 1011Type of Review: ExtensionTitle: Resolution Authorizing (1)

Disposition of Securities Held byOrganization and (Z) Exeuction andDilvery of Bonds of IndemnityClearance Officer. Paula Spedden,

(202) 634-5295, Bureau of the PublicDebt, Room 420, Vanguard Building,1111 20th Street. N,.V, Washington, D.C.20226.

OMB Reviewer. Norman Frumkin,(202) 395-6380, Office of Managementand Budget, Room 3208, New ExecutiveOffice Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.Jamea V. Nasche, Jr.,

ep irtmentl Reports, Management Office.LFR Da2c. 84-33516 Filed 12-24-84; &45 am]121=13 C012E 43IC-25-A

50143

WednesdayDecember 26, 1984

-E3W

Part II

EnvironmentalProtection Agency40 CFR Part 61Natiorial Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants Review andProposed Revision of the Standards forMercury From Mercury-Cell Chlor-AlkaliPlants, Sludge Incineration and DryingPlants and Mercury Ore ProcessingFacilities; Review and Proposed Rule


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL-2676-6]

National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants Review andProposed Revision of the Standardsfor Mercury From Mercury-Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, Sludge Incineration andDrying Plants, and Mercury OreProcessing Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Review and proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The current mercury nationalemission standards for hazardous airpollutants (NESHAP) Implement section112 of the Clean Air Act and are basedon the Administrator's earlierdetermination that mercury is ahazardous air pollutant. Thisdetermination was based on the findingthat previously unregulated mercuryemissions might cause or contribute toan increase in serious irreversible, orincapacitating reversible, illness. Theintent of the standards is to protect thepublic health with an ample margin ofsafety.

A review of the mercury NESHAP (40CFR 61.5, Subpart E) has beencompleted to determine if changes to theexisting standards are needed or if anyadditional source categories should beincluded. The NESHAP limit mercuryemissions from mercury-cell chlor-alkaliplants, sludge drying and incinerationplants, and mercury ore processingfacilities. This notice summarizesinformation gathered during the review,proposes the addition of monitoring andreporting requirements to the standardfor mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants, andproposes to allow the owner or operatorof any affected facility 15 days to verifythe validity of source test data prior toreporting the results to theAdministrator.

A public hearing will be held, ifrequested, to provide interested personsan opportunity for oral presentation ofdata, views, or arguments concerningthe proposed revisions to the standard.DATES: Comments. Comments must bereceived on or before March 13,1985.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts theEPA requesting to speak at a publichearing by January 16,1985, a publichearing will be held on February 13,1985 beginning at 10:00 a.m. Personsinterested in attending the hearingshould call Mrs. Shelby Journigan at(919] 541-5578 to verify that a hearingwill occur.

Request To Speak at Hearing. Personswishing to present oral testimony mustcontact the EPA by January 16, 1985.ADDRESSES: Comments. Commentsshould be submitted (in duplicate ifpossible) to: Central Docket Section(LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-82-41, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,D.C. 20460

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts theEPA requesting to speak at a publichearing, it will be held at theEnvironmental Research CenterAuditorium, corner of Highway 54 andAlexander Drive, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina. Persons wishing topresent oral testimony should notifiMrs. Shelby Journigan, EmissionStandards and Engineering Division(MD-13), U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina 27711, telephone number (919)541-5578.

Review Documents. The documentsummarizing enussions informationgathered during the review of thestandards may be obtained from the,EPA Library vMD-35), Research'TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711, telephonenumber (919) 541-2777 Please refer to"Review of National EmissionStandards for Mercury." EPA-450/3-84-014.

The document summarizing currentinformation on the potential healtheffects associated with mercuryexposures may also be obtained fromthe EPA Library. Refer to "MercuryHealth Effects Update," EPA-600/8-84-019F.

Docket. Docket No. A-82-41,containing supporting information-usedin developing the proposed standards, isavailable for public inspection andcopying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday, at EPA'sCentral Docket Section, West TowerLobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 MStreet, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Areasonable free may be charged forcopying.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.On policy issues contact: Ms. DianneByrne or Mr. Gil Wood, StandardsDevelopment Branch, EmissionStandards and Engineering Division(MD-13), U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina 27711, telephone number (919)541-5578.

On technical issues contact: Dr. JamesCrowder, Industrial Studies Branch,Emission Standards and EngineeringDivision (MD-13), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711, telephonenumber (919) 541-5601.


Background

On March 31, 1971 (36 FR 5931), theEPA listed mercury as a hazardous airpollutant under section 112 of the CleanAir Act. The NESHAP for mercury wereproposed on December 7,1971 (36 FR23239). Comments received during twopublic hearings and a public commentperiod were considered, and theNESHAP were promulgated on April 6,1973 (38 FR 8826). Initially, the standardsincluded emission limits for only twosources, mercury-cell chlor-alkali plantsand mercury ore processing facilities.These were the only sources that theEPA reasonably expected to have the airemission potential to adversely affecthuman health. Mercury emissions werelimited to 2,300 grams per 24-hour periodfor each source. As a result of a May 7,1973, petition to the EPA by theEnvironmental Defense Fund, the EPAagreed to investigate the need toregulate mercury emissions from sludgedrying and incineration facilities, Theinvestigation showed that mercury couldbe emitted in such a way as to endangerhuman health from several facilities Ifthey were to carry out plans tosignificantly expand their capacity.Thus, the inclusion of these sources inthe NESHAP was proposed on October25,1974 (39 FR 38004), and promulgatedon October 14,1975 (40 FR 48302).Emission limits for sludge drying andincineration plants were set at 3,200grams per 24-hour period.

A revised authority citation to theamended Clean Air Act was publishedon March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8799). Minorrevisions to Reference Test Methods 101and 102, "Determination of Particulateand Gaseous Mercury Emissions fromChlor-Alkali Plants-Air Streams" and"Determination of Particulate andGaseous Mercury Emission from Chlor-Alkali Plants-Hydrogen Streams,"respectively, to allow the use ofalternative sampling and analysisequipment were proposed on October15, 1980 (45 FR 68514), and promulgatedon June 8,1982 (47 FR 24704). Theaddition of Reference Test Method101A, "Determination of Particulate andGaseous Mercury Emissions fromSewage Sludge Incinerators" wasproposed and promulgated on the samedates as the revised Reference TestMethods 101 and 102.

The emission standards for mercurywere developed with the intention ofregulating those sources that have thepotential to emit mercury in a mannerthat could cause the mercury ambientconcentration, averaged over 30 days, to'exceed 1.0 microgram per cubic meter

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

(gJm}). This concentration is a guidelinedeveloped by the EPA at the time of theinitial proposed rulemaking to protecthunian health with an ample margin ofsafety from the adverse health effects ofinhal6d mercury, taking intoconsideration the expected levels ofingested mercury. A detailed discussionof the development of the 1.0 gjmguideline is presented in the healtheffects document referred to earlierunder Review Documents. Inhalation-and ingestion and mercury compoundscause central nervous system and renaldamage. The effects depend on the doseand include tremors and gingivitis aswell as a form of poisonIng involving anumber of nonspecific neurological andphysiological symptoms, e.&, memoryloss, delusions, and hallucinations. AnEPA review of the mercury healtheffects studies indicates that there is no

- evidence that current standards are notamply protective of human health fromthe inhalation of mercury vapor or fromother airborne mercury exposures, andrevision of the current 1.0 g/mSguideline, based on available data, isnot warranted. In making thisdetermination, the EPA would like tonote that the 1.0 ugjm guideline wasbased on the public health effects ofinhaled mercury, taking intoconsideration dietary contributions tototal body burden of mercury. It did notaccount for any indirect exposures tomercury. The final health effects reviewdocument, however, states that thedeposition of airborne mercuryemissions can lead to increasedconcentrations of mercury in the ediblefish of local lakes and rivers. It alsostates that recent studies suggest thatmercury levels in more remote lakes canbe affected as well through the long-distance transport and deposition ofmercury on water and land, as therunoff from land transfers mercury towater.

EPA believes that the 1.0 ugim?guideline, which takes into accountaverage ingestion levels of mercury, isamply protective because ofconservative asstumptions made in thedevelopment of the guideline. However,because the effects of indirect exposureshave not been definitively quantified,EPA requests comments on this issue.Should new information becomeavailable to allow for quantification ofthese effects, the Agency will reevaluatethe adequacy of the mercury standards.The final health effects review isincluded in the docket as item 1-A-13.

The findings of the review of thenational emission standards for mercuryare presented in the following sectionsof this notice. The first section discusses

the compliance and enforcementexperiences of the regulated sourcecategories and assesses the need torevise the NESHAP for these sources.The second section discusses theemission potential of unregulatedsources of mercury emissions and theneed to regulate these sources.

Findings

Unregulated (via NESHAP) SourceCategories

The mercury emissions potential orcoal-fired power plants and nonferroussmelters was investigated by the EPAunder the original rulemaking. Thesesources were not included in the originalstandard because it was found thatmercury emissions from these sources,even assuming restrictive dispersionconditions and uncontrolled emissions,were not expected to cause the ambientconcentration guideline to be exceeded.A recent study of mercury eussionsfrom power plants supports thisconclusion.

Battery manufacturing, secondarymercury recovery using retort furnancesor vacuum distillation, geothermalpower plants, peat-to-methanol plants,mercury vapor lamp manufacturing,industrial instrument manufacturing,paint manufacturing, manufacture ofmercurials, laboratory use of mercury,use of amalgams in dentistry, and solidwaste incenerators also emit mercury tothe-air. Based on published informationabout the use of mercury by thesesources and the probable magnitude oftheir air emissions, only batterymanufacturing and secondary mercuryrecovery were considered as candidatesfor inclusion in the standard. Detailsregarding these sources are provided inthe review document

Battery Manufacturng. Mercury inthe form of zinc [Zn) amalgam, mercuricoxide (HO), mercuric chloride (HCI.),or mercurous chloride (H_ Cl) is acomponent of most primary batteriesand some storage batter ies. Because ofthe amount of mercury involved,mercuric oxide battery (commonlycalled mercury battery) and alkaline-manganese battery manufacturingwould have the greatest potential formercury emissions. Thus, these hosources were analyzed first to determineif the ambient mercury concentrationguideline would be exceeded.

Five mercuric oxide batterymanufacturing plants are currently inoperation. Estimated daily mercuryemissions provided by industry rangefrom about 5 to 454 grams (g) (0.01 to 1pound lib/d) for these plants. Short-term ambient mercury vapor levels(averaged over 6 to 9 hours) greater than

1 pg/m3 have been measured in thevicinity of emission sources and atpoints on the perimeter of the planthaving the hi.hest mercury emissionlevel. Atmospheric dispersion modeling,assuming maximum productioncapacity, was performed for this facilityto provide an indication of the expectedambient mercury concentrations over a30-day averaging period. The results ofthe dispersion modeling indicated amaximum 30-day average mercuryconcentration of 0.16ag/m 3, a level -

significantly lower than the 1 pig/m3 (3,-

day average) used as a health effectsguideline. As would be expected, themodeling results are different from theshort-term measurements primarilybecause the 3o-day averaging timeincludes meteorolojcal conditionsrepresentative of the entire averagingperiod and is, therefore, less likely toreflect only the effects of specific short-term meteorological conditions. As such,the modeling results are judged to bemore representative of the 30-dayaverage ambient levels than are theshort-term monitoring results.

A large alkaline-maganese batterymanufacturing plant may use about 910kilograms per day (kgfd) (2,000 Ib/d) ofmercury for zinc amalgamation. Mercuryemission estimates ranging from <100gld (<0.2 lb/d) to about 800 g/d (1.8 Ib/d) were reported by industry for theseven plant in the U.S. Atmosphericdispersion modeling, assumingmaximum production capacity, wasperformed for the facility with thehighest mercury emission level. Themodeling results indicated a maximum30-day average mercury concentrationof 0.17 jzgm3 a level significantly lowerthan the 1AIm 3 (30-day average) set asa health effects guideline.

Thus, extending the standard toinclude battery manufacturing is notwarranted at this time becausedispersion modeling data indicate thatthe level of mercury emitted would notcause the ambient concentrationguideline to be exceeded.

SecondaryR ecovezy Mercury isrecovered from such sources asbatteries, thermometers, and sludges byvacuum distillation or by condensingvaporized mercury in retorts. Of these.retorts have the potential for highermercury emissions. Mercury is emittedfrom the vapor stream remaiing aftercondensation and from the retortchamber during loading and unloadingoperations.

Two companies and one batterymanufacturer operate mercury recoveryretorts processing between 64.000 and159,000 kg/3T (140,000 and 350,000 lblyr)of scrap. Several chlor-alkali companies

50147


operate small Mnercury recovery retortson-site. Mercury emission estimatesfrom two facilities and test data from athird indicate that daily emissions rangefrom <1 to 840 g (0.002 to 1.85 lb). (Thehighest emission level was from thefacility with test data.) The highestemission level (840 g/d) is similar to thehighest level measured for alkaline-manganese battery manufacturingplants (800 g/d). As with batterymanufacturing, the 30-day averageambient concentration would not beexpected to exceed the health effectsguideline.

Thus, extending the standard toinclude secondary recovery facilities isnot warranted at this time because thedata indicate that the level of mercuryemitted would not cause the ambientconcentration guideline to be exceeded.Regulated Source Categories

Mercury Ore Processing. The 24mercury ore processing facilities inoperation when the standard waspromulgated have closed, primarilybecause of the decliner in mercury pricesfrom 1969 to 1978. While prices haveincreased since 1978, they are stillbelow those reached in 1969.

One facility that uses high grade oreand improved ore processing technologywas constructed in 1975 and is capableof producing over 690 megagrams peryear (Mg/yr)) 1.5 million pounds peryear [lb/yr]) of mercury. The newfacility has demonstrated compliancewith the standard by using controltechnology (a venturi and impingertower, and a wet scrubber) designed toremove sulfur dioxide and particulates.An emission level of 816 grams per day(g/d) (1.8 pounds per day [Ib/d]), lessthan one-half the limit of the standard,was measured by Reference Method 101in 1981 when the facility was operatingat the maximum capacity allowed underits permit.

No new or reopened facilties areexpected unless mercury prices increasesignificantly. No enforcement problemswith the standard were n6ted by eitherEPA region or State personnel.

Sludge Drying and Incineration.Approximately 9 sludge dryers at 5plants and 280 sludge incinerators at 170plants process wastewater treatmentplant sludges and are subject to thestandard. There have been 38incineration plants constructed since thestandard was proposed. Half'of thesehave a dry solids burning capacitygreater than 45 Mg/d (50 tons/d). Only16 percent of those plants constructedprior to 1974 were this large. Allfacilities have demonstrated compliancewith the standard; the highest mercuryemission level for the existing plants is

less than one-half the NESHAP emissionlimit. No enforcement problems with thestandard have been encountered or areexpected because the mercury contentof sludge is generally to low to cause theemission limit to be exceeded in thesizes of incinerators in use today.

The EPA projected in 1974, however,that mercury could be emitted in such away as to endanger human health fromseveral facilities if they significantlyexpanded their capacity. Theseexpansions have not occurred, but thepossiblity for future expansions orconstruction of new large facilitiesexists m heavily populated areas suchas the New York-New Jerseymetropolitan area. Theoretically, if all ofthe municipal sludges from this areawere to be incinerated in a smallnumber of incinerators, there could befacilities sufficiently large to haveuncontrolled mercury emissions inexcess of the standard. An EPA sludgetask force is studying the environmentalconsequences of several hypotheticalsituations m which all electricalgenerating plants in the area would becoal-fired and all municipal sludgeswould be either incinerated in severallarge facilities, buried in sanitarylandfills, or disposed in the ocean. Thefindings of the task force will providepreliminary indications of the mostenvironmentally acceptable disposalmethod considering the combinedimpacts on air, land, and water. Ifwarranted, the mercury NESHAPemission limit for sewage sludgeincinerators would be studied todetermine the reasonableness ofalternative controls.

Mercury-Cell Chlor-Alkali Process.The total U.S. installed chlorine capacityusing mercury-cell technology droppedfrom 25 percent in 1973 to 19 percent in1982. Twenty-four chlor-alkali plantsusing the mercury-cell process arecurrently subject to the nationalemission standard. No new mercury-cellchlor-alkali plants have been built sincepromulgation of the standard, and it isprobable that no new chlor-alkali plantsof this type will be constructed in theU.S. in the future. This trend is due tothe availability of alternativetechnologies, such as the membrane celland diaphragm cell technology, that donot use mercury and that consume lessenergy. Growth is expected in thenumber of facilities using thesealternative technologies.

According to enforcement agenciesand the industry, all mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants are presently in compliancewith the standard. To demonstratecompliance with the cell roomprovisions of the standard, all facilitieshave elected to follow prescribed

housekeeping practices instead oftesting cell room emissions,

Combined mercury emissions from thehydrogen and end-box ventilationstreams and the cell room are limited to2,300 g/d (5.0 lb/d) by the nationalemission standard. Emissions from thecell room are assumed to be 1,300 g/d(2.8 lb/d) when housekeeping practicesare followed, Thus, combined emissionsfrom the hydrogen and end-boxventilation streams must be maintainedat no more than 1,000 g/d (2.2 lb/d)when compliance is demonstrated byfollowing approved housekeepingpractices (e.g., maintaining floors Ingood condition and promptly cleaningmercury spills).

Control systems used for the hydrogengas and end-box ventilation systemsinclude: Coolers, wet scrubbers, carbonadsorbers and molecular sieves.Compliance tests conducted since 1973show mercury emission measurementson the hydrogen stream ranging from Ito 891 g/d (0.002 to 2.0 lb/d). Emissiondata near the low end of this range weregenerally measured on hydrogenstreams controlled by molecular sieve ofcarbon absorption control systems,Other control systems include coolersand chemical absorption systems.Mercury emission data for the end-boxventilation stream ranged from 1 to 428g/d (0.002 to 0.94 lb/d.

State and EPA regional personnelcontacted in this study stated thatmonitoring and reporting requirements,which are not now included in theNESHAP, would aid enforcementsignificantly. The most recentcompliance tests indicate that allfacilities were in compliance with thestandard at the time of the test:however, several facilities controlemissions to just below the emissionlimits to minimize compliance costs.Because continued attainment of thestandards is dependent on proper'operation and maintenance of thecontrol and process equipment, themonitoring of control systemperformance and conditions contributingto mercury emissions is important toensure that the emission limits are notbeing exceeded. The Chlorine Institute,a trade associaton representing themercury-cell chlor-alkali industry, hasconcurred with the adoption of suitable,simple, and effective mechanisms toassure compliance with the hydrogenand end-box emission limits and cellroom housekeeping rules. These includecombinations of monitoring of specificparameters, recording, and reporting.

Ideally, monitoring requirementswould require the continuous andprecise measurements of the amount of

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 1 Wednesday. December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

mercury being emitted. However, in thecase of mercury emissions from themercury-cell chlor-alkai industry, asingle test by Reference Method 101 or102 costs approximately $12,000, andcontinuous mercury emission monitorsare not adequately demonstrated.Parameters that could be monitored toindicate the performange of variouscontrol devices include the temperatureof gas streams for cooling systems; theliquid flow rate, pH, concentration ofavailable chlorine and inlet gastemperature for chemical absorptionsystems; the liquid flow rate and exitgas temperature for water scrubbers; theregeneration temperature of molecularsieves; and the inlet temperature ofcarbon absorbers. The exitgastemperature for uncontrolled systemswould indicate the maximum amount ofmercury in the stream.

Alternative Monitoring RequirementsThat Were Considered

Five alternatives for monitoringrequirements for the hydrogen and end-box ventilation streams of mercury-cellchlor-alkali plants were considered.These were: (1) Continuous instrumentmonitoring of mercury emissions; (2) noroutine monitoring, but periodicemission tests by the EPA reference testmethods; (3) continous, or hourly,monitoring of control device and/orprocess parameters followed byreporting of periods when theparameters fall outside ranges specifiedin the NESHAP; (4) hourly monitoring ofcontrol device and/or processparameters, followed by a simplifiedsampling procedure (i.e., non-referencemethod) when the monitored parametersfall outside limits established on a plant-by-plant basis; and (5] periodicmonitoring of emissions by a simplifiedsampling procedure.

The first alternative was judged to beinsufficiently demonstrated and toocostly, and the second alternative wasjudged to be too monitoring of controldevice and/or process parametersfollowed by reporting of periods whenparameters fall outside a specified range(the third alternative.) They stated thatparameters such as temperature couldexceed the ranges suggested by theAgency at some facilities, while thosefacilities' emissions could be well belowthe limit of the standard, negating theneed for reports. At a meeting withmembers of the Chlorine Institute onFebruary 28, 1984 (Docket A-82-41, ItemII-E-153], some representativesproposed that the periodic monitoring ofcontrol device and/or processparameters, which is already done tovarying degrees by all plants, becoupled with a simplied sampling

procedure to determine mercuryemissions when the level of themonitored parameter falls outside anestablished limit. They recommendedthat these limits be establishedseparately for each plant and used todevelop a plant-specific complianceassurance plan. Industry representativesfurther proposed, as another alternative,that simplified sampling be done on aquarterly basis (the fifth alternative)instead of routine monitoring ofparameters.

The EPA investigated the ChlorineInstitute members' suggestion ofconducting a simplified samplingprocedure (i.e., non-reference method)as an alternative to monitorng controldevice or process parameters or as ameans of indicating whether excessemissions may have occurred duringperiods when monitored parametershave fallen outside established limits.The Agency is not aware of anysimplified sampling method that hasbeen sufficiently demonstrated toaccurately represent the mercuryconcentration in the stack. Thereference test methods include; and anyacceptable alternative method wouldalso have to include, rigorousprocedures for ensuring that thesampling train is properly prepared priorto sampling and that the collectedmercury vapors accurately represent themercury concentration in the stack. Inaddition, sampling periods shorter thanthe nummuin periods required for eachof the three reference method runs (2hours each) may not collect an amountof mercury sufficient for accurateanalysis. Thus, the Agency knows of nodemonstrated emission monitoringmethod applicable to all affectedfacilities that can be proposed as anoptional method. Consequently, thefourth and fifth monitoring alternativeswere rejected. However, as analternative to hourly parametermonitoring, the EPA will consider forapproval, on a case-by-case basis,alternative demonstrated emissionmonitoring methods that wdild providefor complete collection and accurateanalysis of mercury. Use of such anemission monitoring method would berequired on a routine basis. Thefrequency of use would be partiallydetermined by the accuracy of themethod and the complexity of thecollection procedures.

In considering the third monitoringalternative, the Agency agreed with theChlorine Institute members' statementthat certain process or control deviceparameters, such as temperature, couldbe exceeded on some occasions withoutaffecting the compliance status of the

facility. This is most likely to happen incases where the established limit of theparameter to be monitored (temperature,for example) is equivalent to the levelmeasured during a performance testwhich demonstrated compliance andwhich was conducted under optimaloperating conditions. For example, if theperformance test were conducted in thewinter at a facility where water atambient temperature is used to cool exitgas streams, the temperature recordedduring the test could be relatively low. Ifan equivalent temperature served as thelimit not to be exceeded and thetemperature of the facility's coolingwater were 30* to 50°F higher during thesummer, the facility could be required toreport the temperature exceedance, butthe enussions could be below theenussion limit. The Agency also agreedthat the upper limit of the parametercould be different for each plant.

Proposed Revisions

To incorporate the industry'ssuggestion of tailoring the monitoringrequirements to reflect plant-by-plantdifferences, and to provide parameterlimits that would be a better indicator ofoperation and maintenance and ofpotential excess enussions, the Agencyis proposing that the owner/operator ofeach affected facility be allowed toestablish the maximum parameter limits(or. in the case of chencal absorptionsystems, the minimum liquid flow rateand available chlorine) based on thelevels that would be expected to occurwhen the facility was operating underthe upper, or worst-case, range ofconditions that are reasonably expectedto occur, given proper operation andmaintenance of the facility.Consequently, these limits would beestablished during a performance testthat demonstrated compliance and thatwas conducted when the facility wasoperating at the upper range ofoperating conditions that couldreasonably be expected to occur.Because the limits would reflect theupper range of operating conditions.failure to maintain the parameterswithin the limits would be a betterindication of improper operation andmaintenance, and the potential forexcess enussions, than would failure tomaintain the parameters within limitsestablished under optimal operatingconditions.

For the reasons just described, thisproposal would require the owner oroperator of each mercury-cell chlor-alkali plant to conduct an initialperformance test of the hydrogen andend-box ventilation streams byReference Method 101 or 102. The tests

50149

50150 Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

may be performed under the upper rangeof operating conditions (other thanconditions of malfunctions) that.canreasonably be expected to occur on aroutine basis.

While the reference method test isbeing conducted, the owner or operatorof each mercury-cell chlor-alkali plantwould be required to monitor andrecord, at least once every 15 minutes,the following process and/or controldevice parameters for each stream,depending on the control system used:The temperature of gas discharged tothe atmosphere from uncontrolledstreams; the outlet temperature of thegas stream from the final (i.e., thefarthest downstream) cooling systemwhere no control devices other thancoolers and demisters are used; theoutlet temperature of the gas streamfrom the final cooling system where thecooling system is followed by a mercuryremoval device such as a molecularsieve or carbon adsorber;- concentrationof available chlorine, pH, liquid flowrate and inlet gas temperature forchlorinated brine scrubbers andhypochlorite scrubbers; the liquid flowrate and exit gas temperature for waterscrubbers; the regeneration temperaturefor molecular sieves; and the inlettemperature for carbon adsorptionsystems. The recorded values of thesemonitored parameters would beaveraged over the performance testperiod (a inummum of 6 hours) toestablish the plant-specific limits.

Subsequent to this performance test.the owner or operator each mercury-cellchlor-alkali plant would be required tomonitor and record, hourly, the sameprocess and/or control deviceparameters that were monitored duringthe test. The hourly monitoringfrequency is based on the Agency'sbelief that control system failures couldresult in excedances of the emissionlimits if they are not noted and repairedwithin several hours. Information-received from industry (Docket item II-E-154) indicates that, in some cases, thetime required to repair or replaceportions of the hydrogen stream controlsystem, such as a chiller or upstreamcompressor, could typically be 2-3hours. The limits of the standards couldbe exceeded within this time period,depending on such factors as plantcapacity (tons per day of chlorineproduction), cooler temperature, andend-box emissions levels. Monitoringparameter less frequently than hourlywould be expected to increase the riskof excess emissions occurring beforecontrol systems are repaired. Manyplant owners or operators continuouslymonitor process or control device

parameters; others monitor on either anhourly or bihourly basis. The Agencyinvites comments on theappropriateness of hourly monitoringand requests that such comments beaccompanied by data supporting anyalternate interval that is suggested.

if the hourly value of a monitoredparameter of either the hydrogen or end-box ventilation stream exceeds (or, inthe case of chemical absorption systemswhere liquid flow rate and availablechlorine are monitored, falls below) fora period of 24 consecutive hours, thevalue of that same parameterestablished during the performance test,the owner/operator would be requiredto report within 10 days the failure tomaintain parameters within theestablished limits. The 24-hour period isbelieved to be sufficient time for anowner/operator to repair mostconditions expected to cause theparameters to fall outside the limits.

Semu-annual reports documenting allhourly instances in which monitoredparameters fall outside the establishedlimits shall also be submitted to theAdministrator. These reports would befor the purpose of notifying enforcementagencies that monitored parametershave fallen outside the limits and,therefore, that there has been a potentialfor excess emissions to occur.Enforcement agencies, after reviewingthe reports and evaluating the nature ofthe :failure to remain within the limits,mayrequire a performance test todetermine if the facility is exceeding thestandards.

Each owner or operator of a chlor-alkali plant that uses housekeepingpractices to comply with the standardfor cell room ventilation systems wouldbe required to maintain daily records ofall leaks or spills of mercury m the cellroom. The records shall indicate thelocation of the leak or spill, the time anddate it was detected, immediate stepstaken to nummize mercury emissions(i.e., containing a leak under water], theultimate corrective action, and the timeand date of the ultimate correctiveaction. These leaks and spills are notexpected to occur frequently at well-operated and -maintained plants.

Because the documentation ofmercury leaks and spills will beavailable to enforcement personnel, theowner or operator of each mercury-cellchlor-alkali plant will be encouraged toconduct proper operation andmaintenance. Requiring reports ofmercury leaks and spills is not beingproposed because it would notencourage proper operation andmaintenance beyond the programdescribed above. Excess emission

reports are not being required forhousekeeping practices because thepractices are not structured in a waythat excesses-can be defined. Althoughleaks of hydrogen gas can containrelatively high concentrations ofmercury, it is standard operatingpractice to promptly repair these leaksbecause of the explosive nature ofhydrogen. The EPA believes thatbecause these leaks wouldl be promptlyrepaired, the reporting of hydrogen leaksis not necessary and is, therefore, notbeing proposed. Reporting leaks andspills of brne, wash-water, or caustic Isnot being proposed because these mediawould not be expected to containsignificant quantities of mercury.

The results of all monitoring andrecordkeeping for mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants would be retained at thesource and made available.forinspection by the Administrator for aminimum of 2 years.

The addition of monitoring,recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements for mercury-cell chlor-alkali industry will benefit theenvironment through encouraging plantsto adopt best operating practices foroperating and maintaining processequipment and control devices. Therewould be no energy impacts as a resultof this addition. There will be anaverage yearly cost to each chlor-alkallplant during the first three -years theproposed revisions are in effect ofapproxiately $9,000 associated withthe monitoring, recordkeeping, andreporting requirements and the initialperformance test. This cost is judged tobe reagonable in light of the resultingmore efficient use of enforcementresources.

This proposal would also allow theowner or operator of an affected chlor-alkali plant, mercury ore processingfacility, or sludge incinerator and dryingplant 15 days to verify the validity ofsource test data prior to reporting theseresults to the Administrator. Currently,owners or operators of affected facilitiesare required to submit these data beforethe close of business of the next dayafter the data are available. Theproposed change would provide theowner or operator a reasonable amountof time to determine the validity of thedata. Extending the time limit for thesubmission of test data should have noenvironment, economic, or energyimpacts.

Owners and operators of facilitiescovered by these standards should notethat nonfederally permitted releases ofhazardous substances might be coveredby requirements developed under theComprehensive Environmental

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 "/ Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of 1980 (See 48 FR 23552, May 25,1983).Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeepmg'Requirements

The EPA believes that the proposedreporting and recordkeepmgrequirements for the chlor-alkaliindustry are necessary to assist theAgency in enforcing the standard afterthe initial compliance determination.

The information collection -requirements associated with the rulewhich tis notice proposes to amend (40CFR 61.55) have been-cleared previouslyby 0MB under control number 2000-0243. The changes to the informationrequirements proposed in this noticehave been submitted previously by OMBunder control number 2000-0243. Thechanges to the information requirementsproposed in this notice have beensubmitted to OMB for review under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C.3501 et seq. Comments on theseinformation collection requirementsshould be submitted to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs ofOMB-marked Attention: Desk Officerfor EPA. The final rule package willrespond to any OMB or publiccomments on the information collectionrequirements.

The average annual burden onmercury-cell chlor-alkali plants tocomply with the reporting andrecordkeeping requirements of theproposed standards over the first 3years after the effective date isestimated to be about 9,200 person-hours, based on 24 respondents.Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(RFA) requires that differential impactsof Federal regulations upon smallentities be identified and analyzed. TheRFA states that an analysis is requiredif a substantial number of small entitieswill experience significant impacts. Bothmeasures, substantial numbers of smallentities and significant impacts, must bemet to require an analysis. If eithermeasure is not met, then n'o analysis isrequired. Twenty percent or more of thesmall businesses in an affected industryis considered a substantial number. TheEPA definition of significant impactsinvolves three tests, as follows: One,costs of production rise 5 percent ormore, assuming costs are not passed onto consumers; or two, annualizedinvestment costs are not passed on toconsumers; or two, annualizedinvestment costs for pollution controlare greater than 20 percent of totalcapital spending; or three, costs as apercent of sales for small entities are 10

percent greater than costs as a percentof sales for large entities.

The additional monitoring,recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements being proposed wouldaffect only mercury-cell chlor-alkaliplants. The small BusinessAdministration (SBA) definition of asmall business for Standard'IndustrialClassification (SIC) Code 2812, Chlor-Alkali Production, is 1,000 employees.The 24 chlor-alkali plants using themercury-cell process are owned by 10compames. All 10 have more than 1.000employees. Therefore, none of the 10companies meets the SBA definition of asmall business, and thus no regulatoryflexibility analysis is required.Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held. ifrequested, to discuss the proposedrevisions to the standard for mercury-cell chlor-alkal plants, sludgeincineration and drying plants, andmercury ore processing in accordancewith sections 112(b)(B) and 307(d)(5) ofthe Clean Air Act. If a hearing isrequested, persons wishing to make oralpresentations on the proposed revisionsto the standards should contact the EPAat the address given in the ADDRESSESsection of tus preamble. Oralpresentations will be limited to 15minutes each. Any member of the publicmay file a written statement before,during, or within 30 days after thehearing. Written statements should beaddressed to the Central Docket Sectionaddress given in the ADDRESSES sectionof this preamble and should refer todocket number A-82-41.

A verbatim transcript of any hearingand written statements will be availablefor public inspection and copying duringnormal working hours at EPA!s CentralDocket Section in Washington, D.C. (seeADDRESSES section of this preamble).

DocketThe docket is an orgamzed and

complete file of all the informationsubmitted to, or otherwise consideredby, the EPA in the development of flusproposed rulemaking. The principalpurposes of the docket are: (1) To allowinterested parties to readily Identify andlocate documents so that they caneffectively participate in the rulemakingprocess.-and (2) to serve as the record incase of judicial review.Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of theAct, publication of this proposal waspreceded by consultation withappropriate advisory committees,independent experts, and Federaldepartments and agencies. The

Administrator will welcome commentson all aspects of the proposedamendments.

This regulation vill be reviewed 5years from the date of promulgation.This review will include an assessmentof such factors as the need forintegration with other programs.enforceability, improvements inemission control technology and healthdata, and reporting requirements.

Under Executive Order 12291, the EPAmust judge whether a regulation is"major" and therefore subject to therequirement of a regulatory impactanalysis. This regulation is not majokbecause it will not have an annual effecton the economy of $100 million or more,result in a major increase in costs orpaces, or have significant adverseeffects on competition, employment.investment productivity, or innovations.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.&05(b). I hereby certify that this rule, ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities because nosmall entities areaffected.


Air pollution control, Asbestos,Beryllium. Hazardous materials,Mercury, Vinyl chloride.

Dated December 19.1934.William D. Ruckelshaus,Admastrator.

PART 61-[AMENDED]

It is proposed to revise 40 CFR 61.53-61.55 to read as follows:

§ 61.53 [Amended]1. In § 61.53. paragraphs (a)(4], (b)(4),

and (d)(5) are oil revised to read exactlyas follows:

All samples shall be analyzed andmercury eissions shall be determinedwithin 30 days after the stack test. Eachdetermination shall be reported to theAdministrator by a registered letterdispatched within 15 calendar daysfollowing the date such determination iscompleted.

2. In § 61.53, paragraph (c)(4) isrevised to read as follows:

An owner or operator may carry outapproved design, maintenance, andhousekeeping practices. A list ofapproved practices is provided inAppendix A of "Review of NationalEmission Standards for Mercury," EPA-450/3-84-4.

3. In § 61.54. paragraph (Q) is revised toread as follows:

All sludge samples shall be analyzedfor mercury content within 30 days after

IIIII I

50151

50152 Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules

the sludge sample is collected. Eachdetermination shall be reported to theAdministrator by a registered letterdispatched witin 15 calendar daysfollowing the date such determination iscompleted.

4. In § 61.55. the title and paragraph(a) are revised to read as follows:

§ 61.55 Monitoring of emissions andoperations.

(a) Wastewater treatment plantsludge incineration and drying plants.All the sources for which mercuryemissions exceed 1,600 g per 24-hourperiod, demonstrated either by stacksampling according to § 61.53 or sludgesampling according to § 61.54, shallmonitor mercury emissions at intervalsof at least one per year by use ofMethod 105 of Appendix B or theprocedures specified in § 61.53(d) 12)and 14). The results of monitoring shallbe reported and retained according to§ 61.53(d) (5) and (6) or § 61.54 (f) and(g).

5. In § 61.55, paragraphs (b) and (c)are added to read as follows:

(b]'Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants-hydrogen and end-box ventilation gasstreams.

(1) The owner or operator'of anaffected facility shall, within 1 year ofthe date of promulgation of theseamendments, perform a mercuryemission test on the hydrogen stream byReference Method 102 and on the end-box stream by Reference Method 101.

(2) During tests specified in paragraph(b)(1) of this section, the following

control devicdparameters shall bemonitored, by devices certified by themanufacturer to be accurate within 10percent, and manually or automaticallyrecorded at least once every 15 minutes:

(i) The exit gas temperature fromuncontrolled streams;

(ii) The outlet temperature of the gasstream for the final (i.e., the farthestdownstream) cooling system where nocontrol devices other than coolers anddemisters are used;

(iii) The outlet temperature of the gasstream from the final cooling systemwhere the cooling system is followed bya molecular sieve or carbon adsorber;

(iv] Concentration of availablechlorine, pH, liquid flow rate, and inletgas temperature of chlorinated brinescubbers and hypochlorite scrubbers;

(v] The liquid flow rate and exit gastemperature for water scrubbers;

(vi) The regeneration temperature ofmolecular sieves; and

(vii] The.inlet gas temperature ofcarbon adsorption systems.

(viii] The recorded parameters shallbe averaged over the test period (aminimum of B hours) to provide anaverage number.

(3) Subsequent to the monitoring andrecording specified in paragraph (b)(2)of this section, the owner or operator ofan affected facility shall monitor, bydevices certified by the manufacturer tobe accurate within 10 percent, andmanually or automatically record atleast once per hour the same parametersspecifiedin.paragraph 1b](2] of thissection.

(4) When the hourly value of amonitored parameter exceeds, or, in thecase of liquid flow rate and availablechl9rine, falls below, the value of thatsame parameter determined inparagraph (b](2) of this section for 24consecutive hours, the Administrator Isto be notified within the next 10 days,

(5] Semiannual reports shall besubmitted to the Administratorindicating (i) the time and date on whichthe hourly-value of each monitoredcontrol device or process parameter felloutside the value of that sameparameter determined under§ 61.55(b)(2]; and (ii) the correctiveaction taken, and the time and date ofthe corrective action.

fc) Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants-cell room ventilation system.

(1] Stationary sources using mercurychlor-alkali cells determining cell roomemissions in accordance with§ 6.53(c)(4] shall maintain daily recordsof any leaks or spills of mercury. Therecords shall indicate the location, time,and date the leaks or spills occurred,immediate step taken to minmzemercury emissions, steps taken tocorrect the problems, and the time anddate corrective steps were taken.

(2) The results of monitoring shall berecorded, retained at the source, andmade aviflable for inspection by theAdministrator for a mimmum of 2 years.(Approved by theOffice of Management andBudget under Control Number 2000-0243)

IFR Doc. 84-33468 Filed 12-24-84: 8:45 am]BILLING CODE SO--50.

Reader Aids Federal Register

Vol 49. No. 249

Wedneday. DecEmber ZO, 1034

INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ORDERSSubscriptions (public]

Problems with subscriptionsSubscriptions (Federal agencies)Single copies, back copies of FRMagnetic tapes of FR. CFR volumesPublic laws (Slip laws)PUBLICATIONS AND SERVICESDaily Federal Register -General information, index, and finding aidsPublic inspection deskCorrectionsDocument drafting infdrmationLegal staffMachine readable documents, specificationsCode of Federal RegulationsGeneral ufformation, index, and finding aidsPrinting schedules and pricing informationLawsIndexesLaw numbers and dates

Presidential DocumentsExecutive orders and proclamationsPublic Papers of the PresidentWeekly -Compilation of Presidential DocumentsUnited States Government ManualOther ServicesLibraryPrivacy Act CompilationTDD for the deaf

CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING DECEMBER

202-783-3238275-3054523-5240783-3238275-2867

At tho end of each month. the OfEce o! the Fedaral Regsterpub!ishes scparat:ly a Li;t of CFR Ssctrzns Affected (LSA), w :chlists parts and sectons affected by dc i mens pu.bshed snce.the re- ,..on date of e3ch tLt.

I CFR

523-5227 3CFR

523-5215 Admlnstratlve Ordes523-5237 Memorandurns:523-5237 December 10, 1994. 48283

523-4534 Executive Ode:523-3408 11157 (Amended byEO 12494) .- --. 43175

12493.._.. ...... 47819

523-5227 12494 - - 48175523-3419 Proclamations

5285............. .. 474735286-. --47597

523-5282 5287 .4921523-5282 =0523-5266 _.

4 CFR

523-5230523-5230523-5230523-5230

523-4986523-4534523-5229

FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, DECEMBER

47189-47380 ..._____...._347381-47472..........447473-47586 ................... 54758-788.........647819-4802.........._748027-48174 .......48175-48260 ....................... 1148261-48528 .... ......... 148529-48666 ............. 1348667-48904 ...................... 1448905-49052 ................... 1749053-49278 .......49279-49416 .................. 1949417-49580 ...................... 2049581-49836.____...2149337-50016.-....-2450017-50152-_..-..... 26

21 _ . _ 49417

5 CFR532.-- - 4?34189D- --489035

Proposed RuLes:___.48193

7 CFR1 --59317

2...--4S63953, 4&954. 8€&189 . ........ 48876

272---......48677495S9

301 - .4861,49279330 .... .... 48591

402......_ __ .49279413. ........._47589, 49239420.......47821. 49353,49585421-..... 47821. 49053 49E25424 ............... 49063, 49585425...... 47821. 49067.49289

431 .......... 47821

432- -47821. 49073, 49595

4347....._495S5

445....... . .494306.................. 49-942

810-- 49423-4928

907....-47475, 48265, 49378910__--- _...48E"2, 49 ,Z,79E6 _........... _47189

971 .. 4852998 ..... .......49079

931 471901939 _... 495371944 _495871965 49587Proposed Rides:Ch. IX...... 4727151... 4819459 . . .47402416. 49297428 48729433 - 48733434 47612435 - 49035447 . 47617448 48733810 ..... 49474920. 49302968 ------- 47495939 -48194. 49304.493341C0. 49093112 .- 47495119E 47496

8 CFR103 . . 49431212 -48530}

238 4S027239 50018

9 CFR

72____...49310301 . 47475,49514318 47322319 47822325 5, 491431 - 47475, 49514Pre: "ad Ru!es:92 47402

113 49478

10 CFR

1 478232 ,478233) , 4782340 478235 .4782355 .. .472370 4782373 ..... 47823110 47191, 493414Z. 47479960.......-... .47714Proposed Ruqes5.ri.. -48200.49640, 5005473- 4820)

11 CFR

Propozed Ru!e=P - 49306

3 49306114- 48201

ii Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 '/ Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Reader Aids

12 CFR201 ..................................... 47825265 ..................................... 49281304 ..................................... 48906346 ..................................... 49614506a ................................... 48177523 ..................................... 47825541 ..................................... 47825545 ..................................... 47825549 ..................................... 47825561 ..................................... 47825563 ........................ 47825,50019563b ................................... 49080564 ..................................... 50019584 ..................................... 47825614 ..................................... 48909795 ..................................... 48910Proposed Rules:Ch. VII ................................ 49432205 ..................................... 47405226 ..................................... 47406332 ........................ 48552,49309500 ..................................... 47410561 ........................ 47499, 47852563 ........... 47499, 47852, 48743563b ...................... 47271, 47410570 ..................................... 47852571 ........................ 47852,47866584 ........................ 47852,48564612 ..................................... 48051

13 CFR101 ..................................... 47381121 ..................................... 50027123 ........................ 50008,50013Proposed Rules:107 .................................... 48201121 ........................ 47412,47414122 ..................................... 49106

14 CFR1 ......................................... 4759411 ....................................... 4926027 ...................................... 4759429 ....................................... 4759439 ............ 47381,47382,48027,

48029,48531,48911,48913,49282,49432-49434

71 ............ 48532,48912, 48914,49089,49283,49435,49842

73 ....................................... 4943675 ....................................... 4928391 ............. 47594,48030,4908995 ....................................... 4720497 ......................... 48033,49436103 ..................................... 49089105 ..................................... 49089150 ..................................... 49260211 ..................................... 50027241 ..................................... 48265271 ..................................... 49842298 ..................................... 48266375 ..................................... 48915380 ..................................... 49438399 ..................................... 49440Proposed Rules:Ch. I ...................... 48759, 4957925 ....................................... 4735827 ...................................... 4985229 ....................................... 4985233 ....................................... 4876039 ............. 48761,48566,4948071 ............ 47415,48053,48054,

5005448201,48568,48941,49481

49852

73 .......................... 48569,5005475 ....................................... 4762191 ....................................... 49643221 ..................................... 49111375 .................................... 48569

15 CFRProposed Rules:30 ....................................... 48055941 ..................................... 47415

16 CFR13 ............ 48178,48180,48266,

48269305 ..................................... 474791610 ................................... 48683Proposed Rules424 ..................................... 48059

17 CFR210 ..................................... 47594229 ..................................... 47594231 ..................................... 47594241 ..................................... 47594270 ........................ 47208, 49441274 ..................................... 47208Proposed Rules:1 ......................................... 48570143 ..................................... 48060240 ..................................... 47274249 ..................................... 48318

18 CFR11 ....................................... 49284154 ..................................... 49284271 ........... 47826, 49447, 49623282 ..................................... 480351302 ................................... 47383389 ..................................... 49284Proposed Rules:271 ........... 48571, 48572, 48942

19 CFR4 ........... 480356 ......................................... 4803510 ............. 47986, 47995, 49575101 ..................................... 49090

.Proposed Rules:10 ....................................... 48003151 ..................................... 49853

20 CFR404 ........................ 48036,48181410 ..................................... 48036416 ..................................... 48036422 ..................................... 48036632 ..................................... 47384Proposed Rules:655 ..................................... 48061

21 CFR5 ......................................... 4818381 .......................... 47228, 47229175 ..................................... 47480177 ..................................... 49448178 ..................................... 49284182 ..................................... 48533184 ............... 47384,48533193 ........................ 47481, 48270436 ........... 47483, 47826, 48183442 .......... 47483, 47826, 48183,

49285444 ..................................... 49287.452 .......... 47828,49090,49449

510 .......... 47387,47829,48535,49288,50028

520 ........... 47830,49090,49449522 ........................ 47829,48038540 ..................................... 48271546 ..................................... 47486555 ........................ 48184,49847558 .......... 47387,48039,48271,

49288,49449561 ........................ 47481,49288803 ..................................... 482721020 ................................... 47387Proposed Rules:58 ....................................... 47504166 ..................................... 47418182 ........................ 47505,48202184 ........... 47505,48202,48321450 ..................................... 47505558 ..................................... 49645610 ..................................... 47622630 ..................................... 47622

22 CFR120 ........................ 47682,48536121 ........................ 47682,48536122 ..................................... 47682123 ..................................... 47682124 ........................ 47682,48536125 ..................................... 47682126 ..................................... 47682127 ..................................... 47682128 ........... 47682129 ..................................... 47682130 ........................ 47682,48536501 ..................................... 48273514 ..................................... 48039

24 CFR100 ..................................... 49289234 ..................................... 47388511 ..................................... 49289Proposed Rules:813 ..................................... 48006880 ................. 48006881 ..................................... 48006882 ..................................... 48006913 ..................................... 48006960 ..................................... 48006

26 CFR

1 ................ 48273-48283, 494506a ....................................... 48292,301 ..................................... 48536Proposed Rules:1............... 47870, 48321-48323,

49112,48573,4931035a ..................................... 4787041 .......................... 47274, 4787148 .......................... 47274, 47871301 ........................ 48573, 49112

27 CFR9 ......................................... 47831

28 CFR

548 ..................................... 48900

29 CFR1610 ................................... 480391952 ................................... 489152610 ................................... 490912619 ................................... 486912621 ................................... 498472622 ................................... 49091

30 CFR915 ..................................... 47834

Proposed Rules:Ch. II ..................... 47624, 49112Ch. VII ................................ 4911355 ....................................... 4920256 ....................................... 4920257 ....................................... 49202250 ..................................... 48762251 ..................................... 47871872 ..................................... 50054920 ..................................... 47419935 ..................................... 48324948 ..................................... 48943

31 CFR129 ........................ 48184, 48918210 ..................................... 48918Proposed Rules:391 ..................................... 48945

32 CFR142 ..................................... 49450250 ..................................... 48040706 ........... 47602, 48539, 49625

33 CFR100 ......... 47230, 48046110 ........................ 47602, 48539117 .......... 47231, 48540, 48923,

49452207 ..................................... 49452Proposed Rules:100 ..................................... 48574117 ........... 47872, 49482, 50055

49854-49856166 ..................................... 48946167 ............................... 48946

34 CFR300 ..................................... 48520614 ..................................... 50028Proposed Rules:668 ..................................... 48494

35 CFR121 ..................................... 48924

36 CFR251 ..................................... 48541Proposed Rules:7 ......................................... 49647261 ................................ 47505293 ..................................... 47505294 ..................................... 47505

37 CFR1 ......................................... 48416301 ..................................... 49092304 ..................................... 47487

38 CFR17 ....................................... 5002921 ....................................... 48692Proposed Rules:21 ....................................... 49858

39 CFR10 ....................................... 47309111 .......... 47231, 47232, 47389,

48541Proposed Rules:10 ...................................... 47275111 ........................ 49483, 49859

40 CFRCh. V ................................. 49750

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 20, 1984 / Reader Aids iii

52 ........... 47488, 47490, 47836,48152,48185,48542,49454-

4946160 ............. 48692, 49290, 4996461 .......................... 48692, 4929065 ........................ 49462, 4946381 ........ ........................... 4946486 ............ 48128, 48474, 49830.

49832180 .......... 47491, 47493,48298,

48299,49092,49290-49292,49626

233 ................................. 49553260. ................................. 47390262 ..... ............. 49568270 ........... ............. ..... 47390271 ...... 47391, 48300,48694

49092463 ................................. 49026600 ............................... 48128Proposed Rules:51 ...... 48018, 48948, 4948452. ......... 48018, 48202,48575,

48762.48948,49113.49114,49310,49484

61 ................................. 5014665 .................................... 47507147 ................................... 48948154 ......................... 47508180......... 47420, 47508,47509232 ...... 48064233 ................................... 48064261 .......... 47510,49556, 49562Z

49784600 .......... 48023717 .................................... 49865721 ..................... 47874, 49868763 ................................. 49311

41 CFR

Ch. 101 ............................. 48544101-25 ............................... 48546101-41 ............................... 48547Proposed Rules:16-4 ................................... 48193

42 CFR

Proposed Rules:52a .................................... 49115

43 CFRProposed Rules:Ch. II ..................... 47624, 491123160 ................................ 485764700 ................................... 492525400 ................................... 47511

44 CFR64 ....................................... 4892567 ...................................... 47240Proposed Rules:61 ........... 4865262 ...................................... 4865267 ...................................... 49485

45 CFRS6 ...................................... 47603233 ................................... 48547617 .................................... 49627801 ..................................... 47392Proposed Rules:1340 .................................. 48160

46 CFR340 .............. A9630500 .................................... 47393

501 ..................................... 47393502 ............ 47393503 .................................... 47393504 .................................... 47393505 ..................................... 47393572 ........... 48550, 48927580 ..................................... 48927585 ..................................... 48927Proposed Rules:45 .......... 48762169 ......................... 49974170 ...................................49974171 ................................... 49974173 ..................... 49974572 . . ..... 48764

47 CFRCh. I ................................... 500300. ....................................... 476041 ........................................ 494652 ........... 4869415 ....................... 48305,4869421 ...................................... 4869422 ........... 48694, 48928, 48935,

4946623 ....................................... 4869461 .......................... 47265, 4946568 ............ .. 4871473 ............ 47395, 47604-47608.

47837,48046,48186,48305,48935,49848,50045

74 .......... 47837, 48305,4869476 .......................... 48313, 4963578 ....................... 5004581 ........................ 48694, 4893583 .......................... 48187, 4869487 ....................................... 4869490 ............ 48694, 48935, 4963795 ...................................... 4869497 ......................... 48551, 4869499 ...................................... 48694Proposed Rules:Ch.1 .......... .. 48694, 472752. ...................... 50056, 500591....................... .......... 487652. ............. ... 47625, 4762818 ...................................... 4762822. ..................................... 4987445 ....................................... 4876563 ......................... 48765, 4894967 ...................................... 4832573 .......................... 47638, 5005976 ....................... 48765, 4894981 ..................................... 4764183 ............. 47516, 47625,4764190 .......................... 48950, 50059572 .................................... 48765

48 CFRCh. 5 .................................. 48726750 ........ 49472752 .................................... 49472Proposed Rules:Ch. 5 ................................ 4751618 ................................. 49481501 .................................. 475161502 .................................. 475161503 ................................... 475161505 ................................... 475161506 ................................... 475161513 ................................... 475161514 ............. 475161515 ................................... 475161517 ................................. 475161527 .................................. 475161533 ................................... 47516

156 ......................1552. .................1827 ...................1852 ..................

.4751647516.49375,49375

49 CFR225-- - ....... 48938395 ................... 47494571 ..............47326575 ...........................-....492331002 ................ .. 483141057 .............. 47269, 478591182-. ... .............. -48314

1183 .......

Proposed Rules:Ch. ,....--....48774215 ...........

-9 --------... .. - 49313

531 ...........48064

571 ........47276, 478S0, 48576,491171039........................ .. 49314

1057 ......1063 ...........-...... 47277, 491171181 .......... 482

50 CFR

17 .................. 47397. 4963932 .................. 50049

258.................... 47611

611 .....645 ......................5004965? ........ 49093, 49473,49633655 .... .............. .. 47269672-................. 48049, 43316675......----. -4S316Proposed Ru'cs:Ch. II ......................... 4742117 ...............23 ........ .... ............. .. ... -48775

80 .. .................... 47420217. ................--- 48777

22.................... 48777652. ....... 47278, 47422, 50080

LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS

Note: The Prez!dentcomp!cted his cons deration ofacts and lo:nt rezo!utionspassed during the secondsess.on of the 93th Congresson November 8, 1984.Last list Novcmber 16, 1934.The list wlIl be resumed whenbills are enacted into pub!.claw during the first sesswon ofthe 99th Congress wvhichconvenes on January 3, 1935.

Federal Register: 49 Fed. Reg. 50017 (Dec. 26, 1984).

Documents

Transcript of Federal Register: 49 Fed. Reg. 50017 (Dec. 26, 1984).